The God They Cannot Contain..!
Why Robert Clements' powerful message is particularly relevant to Christians in India today
There are moments when an article appears at precisely the right time.
Robert Clements' latest “Bob's Banter” column, titled “The God They Cannot Contain..!”, is one such article. Published on August 29, 2026, it asks a simple but profound question:
Why should anybody be frightened of Christians?
Clements points out that Christians constitute only a small percentage of India's population and do not possess the political or numerical strength to dominate elections. Yet, he says, perhaps those who fear Christians are not really frightened of the Christians themselves.
They are frightened of an uncontainable Christ. (Bobs Banter)
That thought provides the central theme of Clements' reflection—and it deserves particular attention at a time when Christians in several parts of India are facing increasing allegations of harassment, disruption of worship, criminal complaints and attacks on churches and prayer gatherings.
Why are Christians being treated as a threat?
Christianity does not command armies.
Christians do not have a political majority.
Most Christian institutions are engaged in education, healthcare, social service, care for the elderly, assistance to the poor and other works of charity.
So why should a small religious minority cause such anxiety?
That is the question at the heart of Robert Clements' article.
The answer he suggests is deeply spiritual: the real concern is not the strength of Christians but the enduring power of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel has survived emperors, dictators, persecution and attempts to silence it. Christ was crucified, His tomb was sealed and guards were placed around it.
And yet the stone was rolled away.
A disturbing reality that cannot be ignored
While Clements' message is primarily spiritual, it is difficult to read his article without considering the present circumstances facing Christians in different parts of India.
Reports from Christian organisations and other observers have documented hundreds of incidents involving violence, intimidation, disruption of worship, arrests, threats and discrimination against Christians.
The Evangelical Fellowship of India's Religious Liberty Commission reported 747 incidents affecting Christian communities across India during 2025, based on reports that it says were corroborated through multiple independent sources. (EFI Online)
Another EFIRLC report covering January–July 2025 documented 334 incidents across 22 states and Union Territories, including threats and harassment, alleged false accusations and arrests, physical violence and disruption of worship services. (EFI Online)
These figures should not simply be dismissed as political propaganda. Nor should every individual allegation automatically be accepted as proven. Each case deserves proper investigation and due process.
But the pattern itself deserves attention.
When prayer gatherings become “conversion” cases
One of the recurring concerns raised by Christians is the manner in which accusations of forced or fraudulent conversion can arise around ordinary Christian activities.
A prayer meeting is interrupted.
A group of people arrives alleging that conversions are taking place.
The police are called.
Christians are questioned or detained.
An FIR may follow under an anti-conversion law.
And sometimes the accused then have to spend years proving that what they were doing was simply praying, worshipping or engaging in legitimate Christian activity.
This is precisely where a serious constitutional question arises.
Protection against forced, fraudulent or coercive conversion is legitimate. But protection against unlawful conversion cannot become a mechanism for restricting a person's freedom of conscience or peaceful religious activity.
The Supreme Court has made this distinction particularly significant. In a 2025 judgment concerning the Uttar Pradesh conversion law, the Court held that allowing unrelated third parties to initiate criminal proceedings could intrude upon the constitutionally protected freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion and the liberty to embrace or renounce a faith of one's choice. The Court specifically warned against opening the door to frivolous or motivated litigation and misuse of criminal process. (Indian Kanoon)
That observation deserves to be remembered whenever allegations of conversion are used to target Christians.
The Maharashtra and Goa developments
The issue has become particularly relevant with recent developments in Maharashtra and Goa.
Maharashtra has moved ahead with its new freedom-of-religion legislation. The manner in which such laws are implemented matters enormously because even a law ostensibly intended to prevent coercion or fraud can have serious consequences if its provisions are interpreted or enforced excessively.
Indeed, there has already been an embarrassing example of the danger of premature enforcement: Pune police invoked the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 against individuals before the law had officially come into force, with senior officers subsequently acknowledging the error. (The Times of India)
The episode should make everyone—Christians, Hindus and members of every other faith—pause and ask whether laws dealing with something as intimate as religious conscience are being implemented with sufficient caution.
And then came Goa
Goa provides an especially interesting contrast.
The Goa Cabinet approved an anti-conversion Bill in August 2026. Yet, when the Bill was about to be introduced in the Assembly, it faced opposition even from legislators belonging to the ruling BJP. The government subsequently decided not to introduce it during the current session. (The Indian Express)
BJP MLA Michael Lobo reportedly questioned the haste with which the legislation had been approved and called for greater examination and consultation. (The Goan)
This is significant.
The debate over anti-conversion legislation is therefore not simply Christians versus BJP.
Even within the ruling political establishment, questions are being raised about whether such laws are necessary, whether adequate evidence supports them and whether they could have unintended consequences for Goa's social and religious harmony.
When mobs become the investigators, judges and enforcers
Perhaps even more disturbing than legislation itself is what happens when private groups begin behaving as though they have the authority to determine who may worship and where.
Christian communities have reported incidents in which prayer gatherings were disrupted, pastors were assaulted, churches were vandalised and Christians were accused of conversion without due process.
Recent reporting from West Bengal, for example, described attacks on Christian prayer gatherings and churches, including an incident in which a mob entered a house during Sunday prayer and another in which an under-construction church was vandalised. (The Indian Express)
Such incidents raise a fundamental question:
Who gave a mob the authority to decide what constitutes legitimate religious activity?
If someone genuinely believes that a crime has been committed, the proper course is to approach the police and allow the law to take its course.
It is not the role of a mob to enter a church.
It is not the role of vigilantes to interrogate worshippers.
It is not the role of political activists to decide who may preach the Gospel.
And it certainly cannot be acceptable for anyone to vandalise a church, attack a Christian family or threaten worshippers simply because they disagree with Christianity.
The most dangerous thing is impunity
Perhaps the greatest danger is not merely the attack itself.
It is the perception that nothing will happen to those who commit it.
When attackers believe that their political connections, ideological affiliations or proximity to those in power will protect them from consequences, the rule of law itself is weakened.
This concern has appeared repeatedly in reports documenting attacks on Christians. One 2025 report, for example, described incidents in which Christian victims were arrested or charged while alleged attackers escaped corresponding action. (EFI Online)
Such allegations must be investigated individually and impartially.
But if the state wishes to maintain the confidence of minorities, the law must be seen to protect the victim as vigorously as it protects the accused.
A Christian should be able to attend Sunday worship without fear.
A pastor should be able to conduct a prayer meeting without expecting a mob to arrive.
A priest or nun should be able to serve the poor without being branded a criminal.
A Christian family should be able to pray inside its own home without fearing that someone will burst in and accuse them of conversion.
That is not a special privilege for Christians.
That is the minimum expectation of constitutional religious freedom.
And this is where Robert Clements' message becomes powerful
Robert Clements does not call Christians to hatred.
He does not ask Christians to retaliate.
He does not tell Christians to take up arms.
His message is exactly the opposite.
Do not be afraid.
He reminds Christians that Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him. At the same time, Christ commanded His disciples to proclaim the Gospel.
That is the balance Christians need today:
Respect the law—but do not abandon the Gospel.
Reject coercion—but do not be frightened into silence.
Oppose injustice—but do so peacefully.
Forgive those who attack you—but do not surrender the truth.
Serve the poor, educate children, care for the sick and reach out to the abandoned—but do not be ashamed of the name of Jesus.
That is the Christian response.
They could not contain Him then. They cannot contain Him now. Jesus Christ is Almighty God.
Herod tried to destroy Jesus when He was an infant.
Religious authorities tried to silence Him.
Pilate handed Him over to be crucified.
The Roman Empire nailed Him to a cross.
His tomb was sealed.
And yet Lord Jesus rose again.
The early Christians were persecuted.
The apostles were imprisoned.
Peter and John were ordered to stop speaking about Jesus.
Their answer remains relevant:
“We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
The Christian Church has survived every empire that attempted to destroy it.
Kings have disappeared.
Dictators have disappeared.
Empires have collapsed.
Regimes have changed.
But Christ Jesus remains.
And this is precisely why the title of Robert Clements' article is so profound:
The God They Cannot Contain..!
No law can erase Jesus from the hearts of those who love Him.
No mob can destroy the Gospel by vandalising a church.
No false accusation can make Christ disappear.
No government can imprison God.
And no political ideology can ultimately contain the message of the Gospel.
The Christian response, therefore, must not be fear.
It must be faith.
It must be courage.
It must be peaceful witness.
And above all, it must be Christ-like love.
For when Christians continue to forgive their persecutors, serve their neighbours, educate children, care for the sick, feed the hungry and reach out to the abandoned—even when they are hated for doing so—the question will inevitably arise:
“Why do they continue to do this?”
And the answer will be one name:
Jesus.
The name above every name.
The name no law can erase.
The God nobody has ever been able to contain.
Read Robert Clements' original article
The complete original “The God They Cannot Contain..!” is available on Robert Clements' own Bob's Banter website. (Bobs Banter)
Read the original article — Bob's Banter
You can also view the original publication:
The Goan — Robert Clements' column
About Robert Clements:
Robert Clements is a newspaper columnist and author whose Bob's Banter column has appeared in numerous newspapers and magazines in India and abroad. His own website describes his column as having appeared in more than 60 newspapers and magazines, including the Khaleej Times in Dubai, the Morning Star in London and newspapers across India. (Bobs Banter)
Editor's Note: This post is an independent commentary on the issues raised by Robert Clements' article. The complete original article is not reproduced here. Readers are encouraged to visit the author's original publication through the link above. References to reported incidents and court proceedings should be understood in their documented context; individual allegations should not be treated as established facts unless proved through due process.
