Why so much more Anglicanism in Africa than India?

The British held India for a far longer time than they held much of Africa, so how come it was the latter than converted to the Church of England in much larger numbers?
 
At a guess I would say because India has a long history with several competing religions including Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Islam. These religions have all competed with each other, as well as Christianity/Anglicanism. My guess is that the various African native religions aren't as well developed theologically, nor have they had the exposure India has had with several competing religions.
 
The British held India for a far longer time than they held much of Africa, so how come it was the latter than converted to the Church of England in much larger numbers?

The British were there for trade, and for a while the local states could have overwhelmed them. Factoring this in, and the idea of making money, they wanted a minimal level of violence and rule through puppets. Trying to convert enmasse, whether by the sword or not, would have brought about this violence and the end of trade monopolies. Dominance over India took some time too, spanning out over centuries, using both soft and hard power.
 
The primary interest of the British Empire and the East India Company before that, was economic and political and religious interest was secondary. Though the British favored missionary activities as long as that did not affect their economic or political interests, they were not allowed to cross certain limits as to cause law and order problems. It must not be forgotten that the immediate cause of the Indian mutiny was religious in nature, namely the use of fat, said to be taken from cows and pigs, in cartridges. Unlike in Africa, the existing religions in India were more organised and influential. The British were careful not to upset the delicate communal balance in ways detrimental to their interests. Hence the field was not as favorable in India as much as in Africa for missionary activities.
 
Their are three reasons;

1.
Excluding Islam and Christianity in Ehtiopia, Africa did not have large organized religions but rather unorganized (if soemtimes widespread) folk beliefs and partially organized religions, thus allowing large, organized religions to replace them outright or become the core of syncretic beliefs.

2.
In some cases the peasant majority adopted Christianity because it offered the idea of liberation and was a different religion from that of the traditional ruling class.

3.
The European powers actively spread the religion and suppressed traditional beliefs.


Now, in India another thing to remember to is that Christinaity had already been present in India for nearly 2,000 years (with it having been firmly established for about 1,100 years when the Brits arrived) and thus their was no reason for discontented Hindus or Buddhists to think the CoE was some new religion that would make everything Rainbows and Unicorns if they converted.
 
Now, in India another thing to remember to is that Christinaity had already been present in India for nearly 2,000 years (with it having been firmly established for about 1,100 years when the Brits arrived) and thus their was no reason for discontented Hindus or Buddhists to think the CoE was some new religion that would make everything Rainbows and Unicorns if they converted.

Forgot about that.

And rainbows and butterflies :p:p:p
 
I think that the Anglicans are a minority even among the Christians in India. The majority of the Christians belong to the Catholic and the Orthodox groups, I believe. In Kerala, where one fifth of the population are Christians, the major group is Catholic. There is also a sizable number of the Orthodox also, split into the Orthodox and the Jacobite factions. There are also Syrian Catholics and Latin Catholics among the Catholics. The Anglicans are a very small minority group, I think.
 
What I don't get is why the Roman Catholics are so much more prominent in India then Protestants are. I suppose the French/Portuguese put more effort into it even though they weren't there so long?
 
What I don't get is why the Roman Catholics are so much more prominent in India then Protestants are. I suppose the French/Portuguese put more effort into it even though they weren't there so long?

Because Christianity has been in India almost as long as it's existed and Protestantism was a late development that was a primarily a Northern European affair.
 
Because India already had Hinduism and Islam.

Note where christianity gained big inroads.. in the animist parts of the continent. Parts that had already converted to islam didnt go christian.

Once a population belongs to a 'higher' religion, it is a huge, huge effort to convert them.. unless there is massive societal breakdown, and the old religion loses credibility. It is far easier to convert animists or 'pagans'.

If one choses to use less loaded words like organized vs unorganized religion, rather than higher and lower, the point still stands.
 
Top