CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIES

FROM AN INDIAN

PERSPECTIVE

Sunand Sumithra

Theological Book TrustBangalore

Christian Theologies from an Indian Perspective

© Theological Book Trust 1990

ISBN : 81-7475-038-X

First published 1990 by Theological Book Trust

Revised edition 1995 by Theological Book Trust

Third edition 2002 by Theological Book Trust

All Rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any

form, except for the purposes of brief review in periodicals, without

prior permission of Theological Book Trust, P.O. Box 9529,

Bangalore 560095, India.

Printed at : The J & P Print & Allied Industries, Bangalore.

To the memory of my parents

i

iii

CONTENTS

Foreword v

Author’s Preface vii

SECTION 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Why Theology from an Indian Perspective? 3

The contexts in which Indian theologies sprouted 7

The socio-political context 8

The religio-cultural context 14

The sources of theological traditions in India 22

Pramanas: Sources of religious authority in India 31

SECTION 2 Indian Contributions to Christian Theology

Chapter 2 Raja Rammohan Roy 41

Keshub Chunder Sen 46

Pratap Chandra Mozoomdar 57

Chapter 3 Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya 63

Nehemiah Goreh 76

Lal Behari Dey 81

Chapter 4 Dhanjibhai Fakirbhai 85

Surjit Singh 88

David G. Moses 90

Chapter 5 Sadhu Sunder Singh 96

A.J. Appasamy 104

Chapter 6 Vengal Chakkarai 115

P. Chenchiah 121

P.D. Devanandan 142

ii

Chapter 7 K.M. Banerjea 151

Swami Abhishiktananda 154

Klaus Klostermaier 159

S.K. George 165

Chapter 8 M.M. Thomas 169

Raymondo Panikkar 181

S.J. Samartha 187

Chapter 9 Russell Chandran 199

Vinay Kumar Samuel 206

Vishal Mangalwadi 209

Paulos Mar Gregorios 211

Saphir Athyal 212

Chapter 10 Mahatma Gandhi 215

Swami Vivekananda 223

Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan 230

SECTION 3 What is Indian Christian Theology?

Chapter 11 The Three Confrontations 239

Indian christian theological expressions 243

Some guidelines for contextualising in 250

Hindu cultures

Guidelines for Indian evangelical theology 257

Beyond contextualising 265

Appendix 271

Suggested Bibliography 273

Subject Index 281

Person Index 287

FOREWORD

The need for attractive, readable yet scholarly Christianbooks was a felt need among Indian Christians for a longtime, as is evidenced by numerous national level confer-ences and their findings on Christian literature during thelast half a century. Among the valid reasons for slowprogress in meeting the need lack of expertise, cooperationand financial limitations were the major ones. Though manyChristian communities, particularly Christian social activ-ists produced sizable fruits in the area, conservative hadlagged behind. Now Theological Book Trust seems to be theappropriate agency under which such theological creativitycan be and is undertaken. The organisation did sense theneed much earlier, but printing of books at a price anaverage Christian reader can afford materialized just a fewyears ago. Encouraged in its early efforts, now TBT haslaunched a mammoth project of bringing out several seriesof Christian books, both for the seminary students as wellas for the people in the pew:

Text Book Series: M.Div. level course-, text-, work- andsource- books on theological and biblical subjects, pastoraliaetc., meant primarily for theological students;

Research and Reference Series: such as library andconcordance helps, theological dictionaries, commentar-ies, compendia, etc.;

Theological Issues Series: dealing with religious topicssuch as pluralism, inter-religious dialogue, syncretism,and ideological issues, revolutions and signs of the times;and

Devotional Series: Dealing with practical personal helpfor all ages in Christian growing.

In Thinking Be Adults (1Co.14:20) -- is the motto ofTheological Books Trust. The only determining criterion forthese series is that they all gladly confess their allegiance to

viv

the Bible as the final authority for all theologizing. Withinthat guideline there is a bold freedom for innovative theo-logical creativity in all the works.

We heartily commend the present volume, ChristianTheologies from an Indian Perspective by Sunand Sumithrato theological students in particular and the Christianpublic in general. It is the second in our Text Book Series.Though written primarily for the M.Div. level students, thebook is planned for a greater circle of readership beyond theborders of the seminary. The author is well qualified to writethis book with his experience of teaching the course onIndian Christian Theology at B.D. level in the Union BiblicalSeminary, Pune for more than a decade. End notes areadded for ready reference. Extensive indexes include theNames of Person and Subjects. A glossary of foreign anddifficult terms is another felt need for seminarians and hasalso been added.

We are grateful to Sevasadan printers for their very goodand prompt service.

General Editors

viivi

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

This book is written with the express purpose of benefit-ing primarily the Indian theological student—either in semi-nary or outside it—as a text book. Hence some assumptionsare made in presenting this work, such as that the readerhas certain basic theological knowledge and skills. This alsoexplains why certain concepts and terms are elucidated andothers not, which may not be useful to a professor intheology. For the benefit of the non-Indian reader a glossaryof terms is provided.

The overall aim of the course on Indian Christiantheology is to make the student aware of the Indian attemptsto understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, so that (s)he mayrelevantly interpret the whole gospel in her/his own con-text. With this in mind, it is hoped that at the end of thiscourse the student will be able to achieve the followingobjectives:

1. to discern the Indian religious, cultural, philosophicaland socio-political interaction on the interpretation and theuniversality of the gospel of Jesus Christ;

2. to describe both the nature and development of IndianChristian theology, the divergent Indian thought patternsand the consequent types of Indian Christian theology;

3. to develop a critical openness to indigenous theologi-cal expressions;

4. to acquire skills in creating relevant and meaningfulinterpretation of the gospel in a given context.

Though I have used several already existing anthologieson Indian Christian theology (see bibliography), of necessityI have drawn heavily from Robin Boyd’s definitive work, AnIntroduction to Indian Christian Theology (1975). Yet notonly is his analysis supplemented by going back to the

originals in most cases, but a lot more material is added,which is not found in Boyd or elsewhere.

For economy and readability footnotes have been largelyavoided, but wherever needed references and notes areprovided. I hope that the book would meet a crucial need notonly for text book in our theological training institutions,but also for indigenous scholarly works for the thoughtfulIndians. I heartily welcome your criticism on this presentvolume, in order that the husk may be thrown away andgrain preserved.

This revised edition has some important corrections andadditions. One important correction is the change in thetitle. We cannot talk anymore of one, single theology ofIndian Christians but of a host of theologies. As there is nosingle Indian culture or forms of religion so there can be nosingle theology applicable to the whole of India. Eachattempt to interpret the Christian message has its validityand usefulness in its locality. Apart from this change notesand references are supplied wherever necessary and adetailed index is included. I must say thanks to the friendswho worked on the second edition of this book, especially,Mr. Augustine Bhasker and Mr. Philip Peacock.

Sunand Sumithra

October 1995

viii

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

3

1

WHY THEOLOGY FROM AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Some rash critics — such creatures, we regret to say, doexist — have insisted that Indian Christians have producednot even a decent heresy, let alone theology! Like those whomocked the prophet Elisha and were eaten up by bears,probably these carpers also have received just recompensefor their rashness. But they demonstrate one fact, though(beside their jaundiced eye): that they either equate theol-ogy with Tillich’s system, Barth’s Dogmatics or Aquinas’Summa, or they do not understand at all what theology is,considering how they divide theology and heresy.

The fact is, in the Indian scene there is now not only anabundance of heresies, but of theologies as well, evensystems. Every time the message about Jesus Christ en-counters the Indian people in their own contexts, thereIndian theology is being created. This is doing theology inIndian context. Doing theology is inevitable — it is risky nodoubt, with the possibility of the product becoming a heresyalways at hand — but it is inevitable. For, from God’srevelation (the Bible) to its receivers (the Church), theologiz-ing is a necessary step. The current situation in India is sovastly different than that of the apostles, in ever so manyways. Every time a new aspect of the gospel shows itsrelevance to a particular Indian context, there Indian theol-ogy is born. Since this is happening all the time, it is not anoverstatement to say that now Indian theology has not onlyarrived, but is advancing full steam!

Or to go one step further: theologizing in India (that is,doing theology in the Indian context, or verbalizing themessage of the whole gospel in such a way that it is

meaningful and relevant to the Indian ears) is a matter ofcommunication. If, for example, a boy’s experience of hisfather is only that of a drunkard, who comes home to beathis wife and children, and does not have any thought for theeducation or the future of his children, then to tell to thisboy that God is a ‘father’, would not be communicating thetruth about the God of the Bible, as Jesus revealed Him. Ifin a tribe a lamb has the basest significance, to speak aboutJesus as the “Lamb of God” would hardly express what Johnthe Baptist wanted to convey about Jesus when he identi-fied him as such. In these examples (which, incidentally, aretrue stories), it is necessary that the hearers’ images of thefather or the lamb be first understood, and if possiblecorrected, and then the truth of the Gospel be communi-cated to them in these redefined categories.

A Hindu may understand by Brahman the highestreality which is necessarily impersonal, and by Ishwara hemay understand a personal deity who is necessarily lowerthan Brahman, of second rate reality (belonging to Maya).So to use these terms either for God the Father or for Christwithout previously ‘baptizing’ them carefully with Christiancontent would not be communicating the truth of theGospel to the Hindus.

No doubt it is theoretically possible to introduce theGospel message in new terms and concepts: but, such aprocess of creating new terms and expressions takes excru-ciatingly long time and hard work; besides, the ‘foreignness’of the Gospel remains, since the gospel is foreign both to thehearer and to the new media created, and so cannot produceany fruit without grafting. And finally, such new expres-sions have often meant deformation, at least partial, of thegospel message.

As such, in order to produce fruit, theologizing in Indiancontext (which is another way of saying ‘contextualizing thegospel in India’) is necessary. It is necessary that we makeuse of the thought patterns (or pre-understanding) of thehearer as much as possible so that the message of JesusChrist will be as meaningful as possible to the hearer,

evoking a meaningful response. For we as human beingsgrasp the new concepts only in terms of the old, theunknown in terms of the known concepts.

Effective communication of the Gospel to the non-Christianman of faith depends on the effective use made of thereligious vocabulary with which he is familiar, and of thecultural pattern of life in which he finds self-expression andcommunity being.1

Since each hearer approaches the Gospel with his/herown ‘pre-understanding’, to a certain extent different peoplemay understand the Gospel differently. In Indianising Chris-tian theology this pre-understanding is taken into consid-eration.

You remember the case of King Saul in the Old Testa-ment: God instructed him to utterly destroy the Amalekites,including their cattle and property. But Saul tried to do‘better’ than that! He not only killed the animals, he killedthe best of them for the sake of God: he sacrificed them toGod in worship! But the point is, when God asks us to dosomething, he expects that we do no less than what hewants, nor more! Both extremes belong to the realm ofdisobedience. If a tired father asks his son to bring him aglass of water, the son may do better by bringing orangejuice or wine, but he is not obeying his father! Similarly, ifwe are serious to bring the message of the Gospel to Indianbrothers and sisters, we must be absolutely careful not tobring neither more nor less than the Gospel. It is in‘contextualizing’ that it is possible to remain faithful to thecontext of the Gospel. This is our third rationale for IndianChristian theology, namely, to show the relevance of theChristian message to Indians, by making the content of theChristian message meaningful to them in their own thoughtforms, yet at the same time remaining faithful to the contentof the message. In short, contextualization means: faithfulto the text and relevant to the context.

The phrase ‘relevant to the context’ has another implica-tion. It implies that since there are ever so many contexts(Indian, Chinese, African, European...), each context may

4 5

have its own expression of the Gospel message — onecontext cannot impose its form as valid for another context.This is the burden of de-Westernizing theology in India.Even among the Indians, all do not have exactly the samepre-understanding and so it may be necessary that theGospel should be communicated to each person/homoge-neous group meaningful to that person/group, just as forexample, Jesus communicated to the Samaritan woman(John 4). It also implies that the form of theology of one ageneed not be binding for another — tradition need not befollowed blindly. Thus this principle of relevance helps oneto be constantly in touch with the living realities of one’stime and its issues. Otherwise we may be giving answers toquestions which the Indians have never asked!

Some limitations of this principle of relevance also needto be noted. It was already mentioned above that the dangerof producing a lopsided Gospel is always present. But agreater limitation perhaps is that once the Gospel is shownto be relevant to a particular context (say, Hindus) mostly itwill be irrelevant to any other context (say Muslims). In fact,a major reason why not many Muslims have positivelyresponded to the message of Christ in India is precisely this:it is alleged that the gospel has been ‘hinduized’. Or viceversa in Muslim lands. It is well nigh impossible to find acommon factor in all human beings to produce an expres-sion of the Gospel relevant to all of them. Did not Paul saythat he became a Jew to the Jews and a gentile to thegentiles? This is our rationale too.

There is a fourth rationale: Bishop Westcott once saidthat a commentary on the gospel of John which does fulljustice to the rich content of the book can only be written byan Indian. By this he meant that the spirituality of India wasnearer to that of the Gospel, hence it is Indians who graspthe fuller meaning of John’s Gospel than others. Therefore,it is not an exaggeration to say that a theology in Indiancontext can re-discover those aspects of the Gospel mes-sage which have been either under-emphasized or arecompletely left out in other attempts. As such,

contextualization helps Christians all over the world to-wards a fuller understanding of Jesus Christ — to helprecover the universality of the Gospel, or what Paul called“the whole counsel of God” (Ac.20:27).

For example, Jesus’ deity has been a crucial issue in theWest for generations, owing to their Aristotelian logic (finitecannot comprehend the infinite). But in India, where almostevery other citizen claims to be some kind of a divineincarnation and where exist three hundred and thirtymillion gods in the pantheon, the doctrine of Jesus’ deityhardly needs to be proved! This is one reason why in Indiantheological thinking, especially in recent times, the human-ity of Jesus gets greater treatment. Similarly, the new trendof reading the Scriptures with the eye of the third world (thepoor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dalits...), has ledto revolutionary reinterpretations of certain passages ofthe Bible. This kind of reinterpretation may not always bevalid; but the point is that contextualization has given thenecessary corrective to the earlier one-sided interpreta-tions. Hence we can heartily agree with the affirmation thatIndian Christian theology is not the already formulatedChristian theology put into Indian terms but rather it is thecontribution from India in the very formulation of thehuman expression of the revelation of God in Jesus. UntilIndia’s contribution is received “revealed truth” has notbecome “the revealed truth” in its possible expressivefullness.

THE CONTEXTS IN WHICH INDIANTHEOLOGIES SPROUTED

We have seen already in the last section that a livingtheology is faithful to the biblical text and relevant to thereceiver’s context. Both are necessary. Mere faithfulness tothe Scriptures may be orthodox but fruitless; and exclusiveemphasis on relevance to a given context might be beneficialbut could be heretical too. Therefore it is necessary that weknow both the Scriptures and the contexts well, in order todo theology. In this section we summarize only the second

6 7

part, namely, the contexts. The study of these contexts willhelp us see why and what kind of theology could have comeout of them.

There are two important contexts to which every churchmust respond to — happily the Indian Church also hasresponded to these — the socio-political and religio-cul-tural contexts. A study of these contexts in approximatelylast two hundred years would be quite adequate to under-stand the present contexts.

The Socio-political contextClearly, the dominant feature of this period is Western

colonialism — of the French, British, Portuguese — pre-dominantly of the British. It is of utmost significance thatChristian missions and foreign imperialism came togetherand appeared to support and benefit mutually, though theywere often in sharp disagreement with each other. The mainresult for India of such an alliance was that, to a normaleducated Hindu, Christian faith became a foreign faith, thefaith of the oppressors. So, more often than not, the majorityof Hindus looked down upon it as the religion of Mlechhas(the pagan). Even today this antipathy is no less towardsnon-Hindu religions — only, it is now more thoroughlybased and more militantly organized.

Nationalism is the inevitable fruit of imperialism. SoonIndians began to desire self-rule rather than foreign rule,and the Indian Mutiny of 1857 became the starting spark.And exactly as colonialism provoked Indian political self-consciousness, Christian missions evoked the Hindu reli-gious self-consciousness. That is why people like Chenchiahcould say that Christianity has in itself the rare gift ofcreating its own opposition! And when we consider thatduring this time — and to a lesser extent, even now — therewas an amorphous unity between religion, philosophy,politics, culture and economics of which religion was thenerve centre, we can realize how a disturbance at this centrecould be very far reaching in its consequences for the Indiansociety. But the point we want to make now is that, it is

through political nationalism that disturbances in otheraspects of Indian society were catalyzed.

Early Indian nationalism was anything but fascism. Itwas positive in the sense that it concentrated only on thefreedom and development of India. It was therefore far froma fanatic my-country-right-or-wrong kind of spirit. No doubt,there were also some negative zeal, in the sense that ‘self-rule, even if it be worst, is the best rule!’ This was the periodof national political organizations, activity and corporatethinking. Under the wise leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, ittook the form of Indian National Congress (founded in1885), and was kept free from all communalistic overtones.As such secularism became the ideology of the Congressparty of the time. In 1942, the Indian National Congresspassed its historic Quit-India Resolution and set the stagefor independence struggle — of peaceful non-cooperationmovements, of civil disobedience, of passive opposition, ofs a t y a g r a h a s .

All this was buttressed by Gandhi’s ingenious resourcesof Swadeshiwad (the doctrine of patriotic self-rule), ofrejecting everything foreign in preference to indigenousproducts — from salt to clothes. The Dandi March and itssequel became nationwide symbols of the things to come.His methods of Ahimsa (non-violence) and Satyagraha(pursuit after truth, literally) mostly drawn from Christianresources (in fact, primarily from Jesus’ Sermon on theMount!), were opposed to the use of any kind of physicalforce. ‘Blunt-the-blade-by-the-blood’ strategy was morallybound to win: for, was it not the strategy of the Cross!

Partly in reaction, but partly also as tactics, communalparties began to attract public attention. The Muslim League(founded 1905) came into being with the express blessingsof the British, to care for the allegedly neglected minorityMuslim community. Later this move culminated in thePartition. This was the master plan of the British, using theancient but corrupt principle of divide et impera (divide andrule). What an example of a ‘Christian’ nation confessing thename of that Lord who came to unite! In any case, the birth

8 9

of the Muslim League catalyzed many Hindu communalgroups to sprout — such as Hindu Mahasabha, RashtriyaSwayam Sevak Sangh, Rashtriya Jan Sangh and the like. Itwas Hindu Maha Sabha which later master-minded theassassination of ‘the father of the nation’, Mohan DasKaramchand Gandhi, in defense of Hindu communal rights.As such, this pre-independence era including several yearsafter the independence is characteristically a period ofHindu-Muslim communal rivalry — future historians willadd: unnecessarily. It was a British creation.

Not every one accepted Gandhi’s policy to oust theBritish. Subhash Chandra Bose separated himself from theCongress because he was convinced that only the use ofarmed force can bring for India the necessary liberation fromthe British yoke. But as the subsequent history shows, heand his ‘Indian National Army’ were both short-sighted andshort-lived, and so came to be known as reactionaries — anindirect tribute to the foresight of the Congress leaders,Gandhi and Nehru.

On the economic front, Nehru’s vision of industrializa-tion won the day. During the world wars, India suppliedmore to war arsenal than any other British colony (oneestimate has it at the level of ten billion sterling pounds, andthat the amount is still due to India). This supply obviouslynecessitated the building of rails and roads, factories,national communication systems and the like. In the face ofthis strong evidence, Gandhi’s revivalist ideas, such ascottage industries, Gram Panchayat (which, only recently,is struggling to stand) and the like could not win support,and so modernization of Indian economy has come to stay,in the form of Five Year Plans, Mixed Economy. It issignificant that only in the 1989 elections these ideas begangaining nationwide support.

The post-independence India is very different from thepre-independence one, as far as the leaders are concerned.Earlier, in the heat of independence struggle the big prob-lems nagging the nation were forgotten. But once self-rulewas realized, the leaders at once awoke to the well-nigh

insurmountable obstacles towards a free sovereign nation.The greatness of these freedom fighters is that overnightthey were converted into nation-builders.

In the wake of Pakistan, national unity was of firstimportance. As the Partition resulted in hundreds of thou-sands of Hindus and Muslims being massacred, Nehru andhis cabinet had to reject an overtly Hindu government. Indiawas forced to become a secular democracy. Other forces ofdivision, such as casteism, linguism and regionalism weretaken care of by constitutional measures. Discrimination ofany sort was unconstitutional. This is at last partly thebackground for article 25 in our Constitution, which pre-serves the right of every Indian citizen to practice andpropagate any religion he chooses. Gandhi’s Harijan move-ment, aiming at the upliftment of the low caste and espe-cially the untouchables, was fruitful to begin with, buttoday the demon of caste has returned with sevenfold force.

One very significant benefit freedom brought was theemancipation of Indian woman. Traditionally, according toManusmriti’s injunction, an Indian woman is always sub-jugated to men — as a child under father’s custody, inmarriage under husband’s, in old age under son’s and indeath under Yama, the god of death. She could not beliberated except by legal measures, such as the abolition ofsati, compulsory female education, raising of marriage age,anti-divorce acts and social equality of sexes and, mostrecently, laws concerning sexual harassment on women. Allthese have made the modern Indian woman a person asnever before in Indian History.

Another giant obstacle was the bonded labour and itsallied zamindari system of agriculture, in which the smallfarmers were exploited by the richer landlords and becamedebt-slaves to the latter. Social justice to the farmers wasattempted by a number of land reform acts and legislationsby the new government. In response to these legal reforms(which necessarily would result in forcible redistribution ofland) Vinobha Bhave organised the Bhoodan movement fora peaceful, moral redistribution of land.

1 0 1 1

Industrialization brought along with it the age of giantirrigation projects, such as Bhakra Nangal, Hirakud,Nagarjunasagar etc., which also tackled the problem ofunemployment to some extent. But it also true that some-times these irrigation projects are overdone, to the detri-ment of local cultures and peoples. The planned economy ofthe Five Year Plans put India on the map of developingcountries. As one survey initiated by the late Prime MinisterIndira Gandhi shows, India is a now a creditor country tomany nations, to the tune of twenty five billion US dollars.India is also fast becoming self-sufficient in technology. Theharnessing of natural resources like oil, coal, steel andminerals, gigantic strides in exports, greater internationaltrade — all these are gradually making the nation a super-power. Quite recently the floating of the Indian Rupee ininternational trade is hailed as a major breakthrough forattracting foreign investments.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE CONTEXT ON CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The changing socio-economic situation in India had itseffect on Indian Christian thinking. As we saw, colonialismand freedom are the dominant features of the early years.Patriotism is thus characteristic of this pro-independenceperiod. To the Christians of this generation, theindigenisation of the Church in terms of its theology,worship and the like was inevitable. The theme of liberationalso obviously played a major role in their thinking. For,from nationalism to indigenisation of Christianity, frompolitical freedom to religious freedom is but a short step.

Unity is another major motive of this time, because of thecommunal disturbances in the post-independence months.Church unity was a barrier against any type of denomina-tionalism or casteism. Secularization of the gospel wasparallel to the secularization of Indian politics. But as castehas re-emerged as an unbeaten force in the ChristianChurch, the question of human dignity and equality irre-spective of one’s caste has become a burning issue. SoChristians have often resorted to the biblical doctrine ofcreation, of man in the image of God for their support.

Brotherhood and fellowship were thus emphasized far moreas the result of the Gospel than shanti or the peace one getsas an individual.

In general, Indian theologians have tended to place moreemphasis on the experience of Christ and his power at thecost of purity of the dogmas. For the same reason, especiallyin more recent times, questions of social ethics have caughtthe attention of several Christian and Hindu thinkers.‘Ethics before dogmatics’ is generally true of this period.

As against the traditional Hindu lack of participation inhistorical process, this period of activity was full of histori-cal dynamism. Several top Hindu leaders attempted to re-interpret maya as a second order reality thus giving fullsignificance to one’s actions in history/society. This stresson history underlined the significance of the human personmaking anthropology another dominant theme. Justice tofarmers, untouchables, women and other oppressed classesmade social justice the hot theme of the newer theologians.

Corporate thinking is another aspect of the time. Todevelop not just individualistic ideas but corporate Christianthinking in the church was the burden consciously carried bymany Christian leaders. Democratization of church polity,church union negotiations, the active participation of thelaity could all be traced back to the organizational awakeningof the Indian society during the time.

The idea of progress was another element of this period.Strangely, modernization and industrialization ushered inthe idea of progress in all national level government policies.Strangely, because the two World Wars had just proved thebankruptcy of any faith in scientific, technological progress!So the attitude of ‘back to the golden age of Ramraj’ wasridiculed as anti-progress. Yet it is strange that hardly anyIndian Christian theologian has taken up the question ofeschatology seriously.

Two cautions need to be mentioned at this juncture.First, the above pairing of one element from the context witha corresponding element in Indian Christian theology is not

1 2 1 3

always so neat. Several other factors have contributed to theemphasis on certain themes in theology besides thesementioned above. But at least it shows a general pattern asto how Indian Christian theology came to be selective in itssubject matter.

Secondly, we must bear in mind that, though the con-texts have their decisive role in shaping one’s theology, theyare not determinative. That is to say, the context does notdetermine the content of theology. Though the questionsare asked by the contexts, all the answers must be foundoutside it — in the supreme authority for any Christiantheology, namely, the Bible. But we shall come to thesemethodological questions again at the end of the book.

The Religio-cultural Contexts

THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

It took several centuries in the Western world to preparefor revolutions of global significance. The industrial revolu-tion, social revolution, political revolutions, educationalrevolution and other revolutions took place over a fewhundreds of years. But in Asia and particularly in India,corresponding revolutions broke out, though on a lesserscale, within just a few decades! Dr. Takenaka of Japanbeautifully calls this phenomenon the telescoping of revo-lution in Asia. In Asia, all these revolutions are taking placesimultaneously, and so their consequences in Asia are farmore complex and disturbing than in the West. In India, theland of religions, another revolution steals the main stage:the religious revolution. In this section we shall study thisas the second context of Indian theologization.

REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN HINDUISM

Though religious pluralism is a stubborn fact in India,as we have already noted, by far Hinduism is the mostdominant religion. More in the past than in today’s competi-tive conversions, Hinduism had the greatest number ofadherents. What was the condition of Hinduism in the lasttwo centuries? What revolution did it undergo?

We need to realize at the outset that Hinduism is noreligion. It is an ocean of different — and conflicting —philosophies and logics, religions and cultures, social andethical systems. Modern writers prefer the term Hinduity orHindudom (parallel to Christianity and Christendom!) thusdepicting it as a way of life. It has no founder — a matter ofpride for our Hindu brethren — as its roots reach back to thedark ancient past. Hence it is called the sanathana dharma— the religion from time immemorial, the eternal religion.

In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of beliefand worship without necessitating the selection or elimina-tion of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine inevery manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinallytolerant, leaving others — including both Hindus and non-Hindus — whatever creed and worship practices suit thembest. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion withoutceasing to be a Hindu, and the Hindu is disposed to thinksynthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strangegods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather thanobjectionable, he tends to believe that the highest powerscomplement each other for the well being of the world andmankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finallyirreconcilable. The core religion does not even depend onthe existence or non-existence of God or on whether thereis one God or many. Since religious truth is said to tran-scend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmaticterms. Hinduism is, then, both a civilization and conglom-erate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder nor acentral authority, hierarchy, or organization.

Before the period of our consideration (that is, before the18th century), the various schools of Hinduism had alreadyfallen in the rut of their own traditions. There were severalschools of Vedantic philosophies like Dvaita, Advaita andVishishtadvaita, along with their logics. Manu’s Code was inforce, particularly his varnashrama Dharma (duties of aHindu according to his caste and stage in life). The rebel-lious movements of Buddhism, and Jainism had alreadybecome separate religions themselves. Through the centu-

1 4 1 5

ries several aspect of Hinduism had become cold traditions,more a burden than a support for the common man. But aswe saw already, the spark of reformation in Hinduism waskindled by the arrival of Christian missions. When werealize that neither the arrival of Arabian Muslims in the11th century nor of Moghuls later that such an oppositionwas noticed, we see the significance of the truth thatwherever the Christian gospel went, it disturbed. Thusduring the 19th and 20th centuries Hinduism entered itsrenaissance period — because of the gospel.

RENAISSANCE AND RESURGENCE

This reformation took essentially two forms. On the onehand, there were leaders who looked at Hinduism from anew set of values acquired from resources other thanHindu. They began to transform Hinduism from withintowards this new set of values. The other became defensivein the face of encroaching religions and ideas. So they beganto preserve the original Hindu systems as they were. Theformer could be called the renaissance and the latter theresurgence of Hinduism. The former were progressive, whilethe latter were revivalist. Self-development motivated theprogressive, while self-preservation was the aim of therevivalist.

Raja Rammohan Roy is called the father of the IndianRenaissance. We shall study his thought in detail later. Hiscriticism of Hinduism was obviously based on Christianvalues, and centred more on moral aspects. Abolition ofSati, upliftment of womenfolk, emphasis on monotheism —all these were more or less new to Hinduism. He resorted tothe upanishads, instead of Vedas. Though RamakrishnaParamahamsa his guru had done the opposite: he encour-aged the popular type of Hindu thought — polytheism,ecstatic experiences (by the possession of gods) and idola-try.

Dayananda Saraswati discovered the back-to-the-Vedasprinciple. He rejected idolatry and other corrupt elementsas post-Vedic corruption and founded Arya Samaj.

Under the influence of both the Christian Gospel andBritish liberal politics, Gopala Krishna Gokhale gave apolitical face-lift to Hinduism in his Servants of IndiaSociety.

As the arch-disciple of Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekanandamade Vedanta (Advaita) his basis, and sought to projectHinduism as a universal religion. Thus far, Hinduism hadbeen the religion only of Indians. As the result of theRamakrishna Mission Hinduism became, contrary to itsown nature, a missionary, militant religion. Even nowalmost every aspect of this Mission (headquarters in BelurMath) is a counterpart of Christian missions, both incontent and form. Philanthropic efforts, corporate disci-pline, religious teaching and training of missionaries — allare copied from Christianity.

Gandhi turned, like Roy, to the moral regeneration ofHinduism, but made Bhagvadgita for the first time his basis,rather than the Vedas or Upanishads or other popularsources.

Following Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan emphasized thereligious resurgence of Hinduism, and saw in Hinduism theultimate, perfect religion. Yet, in the face of the pressingneed of the time, namely, the nationwide phenomenon ofliberation struggle, he was compelled to reinterpret someaspects of Hinduism to move Hindus to participate in thesehistorical struggles.

So scholars speak of two types of neo-Hinduism emerg-ing out of this period: one in the line of Roy and Gandhiaiming at the moral regeneration and the other in the line ofVivekananda and Radhakrishnan aiming at the religious.

Beside these main changes there are no doubt scores ofothers, all of which are discussed in detail in another M.Div.course, “Modern Religious and Secular Movements”, so wewill not deal with them here. We only note here this: therecent decades are exploding with new types of gurus,mathas, movements, swamis and what not. The picturenow is thoroughly confusing. Several of these are spreading

1 6 1 7

fast in the spiritually empty West. Many of them are advo-cating syncretistic solutions. If we remember that syncre-tism and not mission belongs to the essence of Hinduism,we could say that actually these latter are genuinely Hindu!Bahai and Rajneesh teachings are good examples of this.

Some others have taken up social responsibility seri-ously, such as J.P. Narayan’s Sarvodaya, Vinobha Bhave’sBhoodan, Ranthodji’s medical missions and scores of oth-ers. Still other efforts deal with ancient values like the anti-cow slaughter movements, gurukul ashram, rishis andmaharishis taking the vow of silence and meditation, andmany following different types of yoga or tantric practices.

As never before the power and organization of fourHindu “Popes”, of the four Shankaracharyas — is increasingsteadily on a national scale, even in political and businesscircles! It is truly a rich kaleidoscope.

By way of summary we can say the following :

1) Unlike the Hinduism of last several millennia, Hindu-ism in the last two centuries underwent revolutionarychanges with far-reaching consequences. The ChristianGospel has been the main catalyst.

2) These changes were both radical and apologetical innature. New elements were also added, such as the dimen-sion of mission.

3) Syncretism was another aspect of this period.

4) A new emphasis on the ‘horizontal’, on man/societygained ground, at the cost of the earlier ‘vertical’ approachto god/religion/priests. Hinduism of this period is henceslowly but definitely experiencing secularization! If we re-member that in one way or the other renunciation of thisworld is the heart of Hindu salvation (Moksha, liberationfrom this life-death circle), then this focus on the mundaneis an earth-shaking change for Hinduism.

What is the relevance of all these changes to Christiantheology? We could say several things. Firstly, in the lightof these revolutions in Hinduism, there is a constant effort

made by Indian Christians either to reinterpret Hinduism tobecome a fitting container for the message of the gospel, orto reinterpret Christianity to make it more palatable toHindus.

Secondly, since primarily it is the Christian gospelwhich sparked off this change, there are numerous at-tempts by Indian Christians to see the effect of Christ inHinduism in particular, and religions in general. This is whywe have themes like the Unknown or Undiscovered orAcknowledged or Unbound Christ of Hinduism running likea refrain in modern Indian Christian theology.

Thirdly, the question of syncretism has become a livesubject for almost all Indian thinkers. As such, inter-religious dialogue is becoming India’s contribution to worldchristendom, and not spirituality itself, as is often judged!

Fourthly, for the same reason, the question of philoso-phy or sociology of religion along with the allied question ofsecularization has become an issue of repeated discus-sions. Without mentioning details (which will emerge in thecourse of this book), we merely note that a lot of theology isbeing done in these corporate discussions on the questionof religious pluralism.

Finally, in the light of the Hindu sociology of castes thedoctrine of the Church also has become a burning issue forall of us Christians — Protestant, Orthodox or RomanCatholic. The amount of literature produced on Indianecclesiology is quite substantial in recent years.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS OF INDIA

Beside Hinduism there are other religions in India —Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikkhism and tribal religions.Very strangely, there is minimal attempt made by IndianChristians to develop theologies relevant to these religiouscontexts. Many factors explain this lack.

Firstly, since Hinduism is the most populous religion, itwas studied more than any other religions. The study ofIslam was confined primarily to the Muslim countries and

1 8 1 9

the study of Buddhism to countries in the Far East, whilethey seemed too small in comparison with Hinduism todraw enough attention. Secondly, as the gospel was trans-lated more and more into Hindu thought patterns, it wasmisunderstood to be a syncretistic product by people ofother faiths and so they shunned it.

Thirdly, as early missionaries concentrated, except in afew cases, on evangelizing Hindus, those who wrote theolo-gies later also came out of Hindu background and so couldnot relate the Gospel to other religions. It is a vicious circleindeed. And Hinduism being a non-missionary religion,response from Hindus was greater than that from others.Even the so-called people-movements took place mainlyamong the Hindu Castes and the casteless.

There are also some in-built oppositions to Christianityin other religions, such as the Jihad (religious war) of Islam,atheism of Buddhism, extreme asceticism (World renuncia-tion) of Jainism, militarism of Sikkhism, etc. so that Hindu-ism was comparatively most responsive.

Finally, compared to Hinduism these religions are new,and so are considered foreign (Sikkhism being a syncretisticreligion has already taken into itself some Christian andMuslim elements consciously); hence they had to hold totheir own for survival. In any case it must be admitted thatindigenisation of the Christian message in India has meantlargely Hinduisation, and there is a lot to be done as far asother religions are concerned. We shall briefly survey thecondition of these religions.

Change in Islam

The dictum that “Reformed Islam is no Islam” wasnegated by the new developments in the Indian Muslimcommunity during these last two centuries. In Islam alsoone can discern both renaissance and resurgence move-ments. Leaders like Mohammed Iqbal and Syed AhmedKhan were consciously under the influence of Christianvalues of Western education, and so tried to bring Islam up-to-date, at par with Christian values, through the abolish-

ing of ancient and irrelevant customs. Interpretation oftradition in the light of modernity was their goal. SyedAhmed Khan went so far as to found a Western type ofeducation system for Muslims at Aligarh. Even now AligarhMuslim University is the main Indian centre for trainingMuslim leaders of every sort.

After the emergence of Pakistan, an average Indian Mus-lim considers himself an alien in a Hindu society, and hasdeveloped a minority complex. This has resulted in someresurgence movements. Haj (pilgrimage to Mecca) has in-creased. A sense of solidarity with Arab countries is stronger.The rich petro-dollar countries are regularly pouring vastamount of money into India toward Islamization. TheAhmadiyya movement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is a militantlymissionary Muslim sect. It is true that Indian Muslim com-munity is not yet Dar-ul-Islam (house of Islam) but is still dar-ul-Harh (House of war), but things are moving rapidly towardsthat goal. At the same time, the Christian attitude to Muslimsin India is changing, as evidenced by a more sympatheticstudy of Islam by the Henry Martin Institute, the emergenceof missions to the Muslims such as the Fellowship of Neigh-bours in India and other indigenous efforts.

Change in other religions

Among the other religions, changes in Buddhism aremore conspicuous. The neo-Buddhism of Ambedkar andthe recent conversion of several hundreds of thousands ofHarijans to this movement has made it a force to reckonwith, but the issues in these conversions are not reallyreligious but rather humanitarian and economical. Therecent extremist events among the Punjab Sikhs in claiminga separate autonomy for the Khalsa have brought Sikhs intoconflicts with the secularist central government as well asto a fanatic militancy. Jains and Parsis, as the Jews of India,control the riches of the land as no other community in spiteof their size. Perhaps for this reason their need of Christianfaith and hence their response to Christ have been verymeagre. On the other hand, the unprecedented response ofthe tribals in the middle belt of the land as well as among the

2 0 2 1

northeast and northwestern regions has been recorded asthe greatest recent growth of the Church in India.

In conclusion we can say that only with the birth ofindigenous missions and of non-denominational move-ments is there a Christian interest among groups other thanHindus. The field is vast and almost entirely new, waiting forpioneers. Let us pray to the Lord of the harvest to sendlabourers into His field.

THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGICALTRADITIONS IN INDIA

Beyond doubt the question of authority (to be discussedin the next chapter) is the first question in any theologicalundertaking. We Indian Christians should be thankful thatour own traditional thought-patterns also lead us to theScriptures, as we have seen above, to be the supremeauthority, whatever secondary authorities people may re-sort to. Once this is settled, the next question would be:what kind of theology is being done in India? By whom,where, when and in what situations? What is their validityand fruitfulness?

The answer to these questions is not as unambiguous asone wishes. Having come out from under the foreign yokepolitically, we are still accused that our theology is not yetgenuinely indigenous! Therefore, it will be most relevant tostudy these various streams of creativity, mainly under twoquestions:

1) Who is engaged in doing theology?

2) In what contexts is it being done?

After these inquiries, we will study also a third area,necessarily with a sense of shame. Now, don’t rush to thisthird area! Unless you become aware of the first two areasI am afraid the third may not be meaningful to you!

The Churches and their TraditionsThis is what Boyd calls the sources of theological tradi-

tion, and he mentions three of them.

(i) The first of course is the Syrian tradition, because thisis the oldest, claimed to date back as early as 52 A.D., to thelanding of the Apostle Thomas in Malabar (Kerala). Duringits nearly two thousand years of history, it included anumber of traditions, not just one — Nestorian, Syrian,Jacobite etc. But not until the influence of Western theologydid any substantial writing emerge from this tradition.There were two reasons given for this lack of creativity.Firstly, the Syrian Churches, living in the midst of an alienHindu environment for centuries, became introspective;and they also fitted into the caste-system as a special caste.A concern for evangelism or apologetics was missing. Sec-ondly, the church language was Syriac which the people didnot understand. Even the translation of the Bible intoMalayalam was done only recently. So the Syrian theologyremained completely Syrian. This meant of course therejection of the Chalcedonian formula (The christologicalformula adopted by the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Councilin 451 AD, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man inone person) and a support for monophysitism (the doctrineof one nature in Christ, not two).

(ii) The second tradition is the Roman Catholic one. Thisdates back to the sixteenth century, when Francis Xaviercame to Goa in 1652 A.D. In this case Christian missionsdefinitely allied with imperialism. Boyd comments, “ThePadroado had laid down the Christianising of India as oneof the aims of the imperial expansion, and so a link was earlyformed between evangelism and imperialism . . .”2

When Robert de Nobili (1577-1656) came to Madurai in1606 it was this Europeanised Christianity, which wasdeeply detested by the respectable Hindus which met him.At once he decided to change all this. So, in order to win thehigh-caste Hindus he became one like them, took to sanyasaand studied Sanskrit and Vedas, used Aquinas and Aristo-tle, Sanskrit in the place of Latin. But unfortunately withoutmuch success. He wrote in purely Indian forms of literature,Puranas, slokas, commentaries and refutations, both inTamil and Sanskrit. In spite of all this, it is only fair to say

2 2 2 3

that he simply reproduced the theology of the Council ofTrent. Several of the later Roman Catholic traditions builtupon de Nobili (later on in this course there is a chapter onde Nobili and other names mentioned here). Subsequently,it is in this line that greater theological creativity is to beseen, to this day.

(iii) The third tradition is the Protestant one, the last ofthe three to arrive in India. The East India Company wasestablished as early as 1608 in Surat, and chaplains cameto minister to the company’s employees. But they weresolely confined to the foreigners. When missionaries camein the 18th century (Ziegenbalg in 1706 and William Careyin 1793), there was a kind of tension between these chap-lains and the missionaries, as the former were servingexclusively the British, while the missionaries primarily thenative Indians. Naturally some relevant and creative workwas done by the latter, and in a rich variety as well. Carey’stranslation of the Bible into thirty four Indian languagesopened up a floodgate which was to be decisive for IndianChristian thinking in ever so many ways. This was followedby the printing press, which became instrumental in dis-seminating Christian literature.

There were also other trends. Alexander Duff main-tained that the British education and culture must beconsidered as preparatio evangelica (preparation for theGospel), that therefore it was of utmost importance thatthese be given to the Indians with urgency. But there werealso those like J.N. Farquhar who considered Hinduism asa preparatio evangelica, and Christianity as the fulfillmentor crown of Hinduism, and so demanded a thorough studyof the same. Thus the product of this period in Protestantcircles seems to be an innovative, mixed variety than asingle tradition.

On the whole we could therefore say that theologicalcreativity in India began as early as in the first century,though a genuinely indigenous product did not gain mo-mentum till the Christian missionary movement, when theBible was available in vernacular languages.

In recent times the Church’s corporate creativity is seenin a new dimension, namely that of Church Union negotia-tions. The constitutions of these unions, and the literaturein connection with the negotiations and their consumma-tion offer a large bulk of theological material, which are yetto be analyzed and used fruitfully for the benefit of IndianChristian communities.

IndividualsThough in the church traditions also it was individuals

who thought and wrote, here we are talking about thoseindividuals who were not strictly bound by particular churchconfessions, and so were freer in their opinions. As suchcreativity is greatest here — in fact, the bulk of theologicalwritings we study in this course is written largely by suchindividual thinkers. At the same time they were not isolatedislands but had a good deal of interaction, following andfruitfulness, so one can study them profitably.

We can truly say that it is here that real theological rawmaterial was being processed. There were first of all thosewho belonged to the fold of the Hindu religion, after hearingthe gospel grappled with the person and teachings of JesusChrist, either in defense of their age-old beliefs or in refuta-tion of certain Christian teachings (e.g. Ram Mohan Roy,Radhakrishnan, Mahatma Gandhi). Then there were otherswho belonged to the ‘mainline’ (that is, standing in the lineof established churches) Christians who defended Chris-tian faith against any Hindu attacks. (e.g. Nehemiah Goreh,Paul David Devanandan). These were perhaps more diligentto preserve the tradition of the fathers than to give newdirections in theological activity. Thirdly, there are thosewho, while still remaining in the Church’s fold, yet, becausethey did not approve of certain aspects of the church’sdoctrine or practice, raised a prophetic voice against suchdeficiencies. Thus they had a reformatory effect on Christi-anity as a whole in India, (e.g. Manilal Parekh, Subbarao,Chenchiah). Finally, some of them went right out of theChurch traditions and became the pioneers of new direc-tions. Many attempted to reconcile Hindu and Christian

2 4 2 5

messages and roughly chalked out the path for a movementfrom the former to the latter (e.g. R. Panikkar, M.M. Thomas,Samartha). Even a good sample of their creativity is notreadily available. Books like Boyd’s or Samartha’s or Baago’sare at best selections according to the author’s self-chosencriteria. A definitive historical theology in India, that is, ahistory of the development of Indian theological thought isyet to be written.

Conference and Para-church OrganizationsThis is basically a twentieth century phenomenon, for

twentieth century is the century of organisations. No doubtthe early Ecumenical Councils are the forerunners, but inIndia, because of communal disharmony even in Christiancommunities, there was a conscious effort made to developa ‘corporate Christian thinking’. Another major reason forsuch efforts is involvement in the life of society, and thedemonstration of the credibility of the gospel. One can findthe roots of such approach in the watershed World Mission-ary Conference at Edinburgh, 1910. As a consequence ofthis meeting, several international co-operations sprouted,The International Missionary Council, The Faith and OrderMovement, The Life and Work Movement, World Council ofChurches and the like. On the Evangelical side there werethe World Evangelical Fellowship (1951), the Berlin Con-gress on Evangelism (1966), the Wheaton meeting of IFMAand EFMA (1967), the Lausanne Congress on World Evan-gelisation (1974 & 1989), and a host of their consultationsand conferences.

At a regional level, in India also all such internationalefforts had their counterparts. The findings and reports ofthese meetings are vast and rich in theological content.Christian Participation in Nation-building and Debate inMission are two outstanding examples of such efforts —each of these books is the outcome of numerous nationallevel Indian theological consultations.

The efforts of the National Christian Council of India (nowNational Council of Churches of India) and its numerous

national level meetings, Evangelical Fellowship of India andits numerous conferences, Federation of Evangelical Churchesof India are other important examples. In higher theologicaleducation, researchers are resorting more and more to thefindings of these corporate bodies and less to ecclesiastical orindividual works. Association of Evangelical Theological Edu-cation in India (AETEI) is emerging as a credible national bodyhandling theological education issues.

One note should not be out of place here. Almost certainlyyou would have participated in at least one such conferencein India or even at international level abroad. In such meet-ings one has the feeling that these meetings bring mixedblessings. Though on the one hand they do blunt one’s sharpedges and fanatic tendencies and thus correct our lopsided-ness, on the other hand they seem to be effectively silencingthe prophetic voice. For example, if two thousand threehundred world level leaders of the evangelical faith decidedsuch and such an action as mandatory for the church at theLausanne Congress on World Evangelisation, it is very, veryhard for a ‘prophet’ to have the courage to speak up againstany deficient or even wrong or unbiblical tendencies of suchworld bodies. Thus, these corporate decisions are to someextent influenced by group dynamics and so must be takenwith a pinch of salt. For the same reason, the EcumenicalCouncils of the first five centuries are not infallible, but stillstand under the judgment of the final pramana (that is,authority, see next section), the Bible.

On a different level, many non- and inter-denomina-tional organizations like the missionary associations, socialaction institutes, philanthropic or relief efforts, also havetheir own theological emphases. But their theological out-put is far less than that of the conferences.

IN WHICH CONTEXT IS THEOLOGICALACTIVITY CARRIED OUT?

There is no doubt a slight overlap between this sectionand the previous one, but yet, this section must be sepa-rately dealt with, because there are two contexts to which

2 6 2 7

Indian theology has been addressing itself and will beaddressing in the future as well.

The first is the context of religious pluralism. Perhapsmore in India than anywhere else in the world, a solution tothe question of the relationship between Christianity andother religions becomes an acute need. This is why a lot ofmaterial has come from Indian writers on the issues likeinter-religious dialogue, discovering Christ in other reli-gions, cultural synthesis, syncretism etc. Even at the worldlevel Indian theologians, like Stanley Joseph Samartha takethe helm in the theology of inter-religious dialogue. This isalso the area rich with Christian apologetics and that alsoof a very high quality and, as we noted in the first lesson,prone also to the danger of becoming heretical!

The second context is that of socio-political revolutions.Nation building efforts preceded by the independence strug-gle, is perhaps the most influential secular context (next onlyto religious pluralism) which has shaped the recent IndianChristian theologies. A theology of nationalism (in the senseof nation-building), of liberation and social justice are the keymotifs of this context. The whole question of the secularinterpretation of the Christian message, and the developmentof relevant Christian ideologies will occupy several years ordecades of future Christian thinkers in India.

In both these contextual theologies there is hardly anyconsensus which can be labeled as the Indian position. Thespectrum varies from extreme conservatism to extremeliberalism, and as such is still in a volatile state. The onegreat distinctive advantage of these contextual theologies isthat there is an in-depth struggle with the contexts and somost relevant and meaningful theologies are produced insuch struggles. You know of course that the outcome of theChristian approach to these two contexts determines thecredibility of the Indian church in the years to come.

THEOLOGICAL CREATIVITY IN THE AREA OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

Though there is a significant amount of theologicalactivity in the area of theological education (that is, by the

theological seminaries, professors, their publications etc.)compared to the other areas described above theologizationis least here! If we consider the expertise, the resources, thetools of research available and influential position sucheducational institutions hold in India, it should have showedmuch more creativity than is now the case. This puts thoseof us in the enterprise of theological education to shame, aswe said above.

One reason is that unlike those “lay theologians” whowere in direct contact with life situations, the academicnature of these theologies betrays their lack of contact withIndian realities. Theological writings thus became “profes-sional”, originating from the scholar’s pen and settlingdown in another scholar’s notebook! Also, most of theseteachers are from ‘Western Christianity’ background, whichfact may explain the inertia of the status quo in the businessof doing theology. Only a few of the theological teachers havesubstantial pastoral or missionary experience.

For a long time now, the whole theological education hasbeen hijacked for the sole purpose of producing candidatesfor ordination. Further, to a large extent seminaries stillfollow basically a Western pattern in these institutions intheir education, spirituality, life-style etc. The SeramporeSenate (which coordinates theological educations for Prot-estant and Orthodox Churches in the Indian subcontinent)and similar bodies still base themselves largely upon West-ern textbooks, periodicals, methods of education etc. In thelast few years some indigenous efforts are discernible, forexample in the Indian Theological Library Series or theCISRS series. Most recently, it is encouraging to see thatTheological Book Trust (TBT) has undertaken an extensivetheological text-books programme, written and publishedby indigenous experts. Yet, generally speaking,indigenisation in India has indeed sprouted, but it is yet tobe watered and cultivated to bear its due fruit.

Several national level consultations have been held inIndia on the subject of theological education. These confer-ences struggle to evolve an indigenous theological educa-

2 8 2 9

tion for India which is at the same time Christian, relevantand fruitful. The reports of many such conferences, such asthose of Charles Ranson, M.H. Harrison, and the Board ofTheological Education of N.C.C. recommend that in thefuture Christian theological education must share “in In-dia’s search for new meaning, New Humanity”, “to be open-minded, in encounter with renascent religions”, to “minis-ter to men who face new and unprecedented decisions intheir political, economic, intellectual, religious and culturallife”. What do you think?

Let us conclude, with the following evaluatory com-ments:

1) Of the five aspects of theological creativity we havebeen considering (ecclesiastical, individual, consultational,contextual and academic), each has some weaknesses also:the ecclesiastical and conference theologies tend to be tootraditional and static; individual theologies tend to belopsided, truncated, or partial. Academic, institutional the-ologies are guilty of irrelevance and impracticability. Thusit is in the case of the theologies produced in raw strugglewith the context of the secular and religious world that thehope is best and strongest for a really authentic and fruitfulIndian Christian theology, though right now such effortsseem very radical.

2) Men (not principles) are still God’s methods, andprophets (not councils) are still the conscience of theChurch. So in our land more than anything else the voice ofthe one who could say, “Thus says the Lord” must beencouraged and heard. Each of us are called upon totheologize, in however small measure in contexts God hasplaced us. May God make you a prophet — one who comesfrom the holy presence of God and says like the prophetIsaiah of old, “Thus saith the Lord!”

3) The theological seminaries and colleges must beencouraged to relate their programmes more relevantly andrealistically to the Church’s life as well as society’s needs.For, theology is after all a function of the Church as a whole.

Seminaries must serve the Churches, not vice versa. Thismeans that concrete approaches like appointing teachers inour theological institutions on the basis of their fruitfulnessand commitment to the churches by way of pastoral expe-rience, churches’ input in developing the theological train-ing programmes and curricula are among some of theimplementations which are needed if seminary theologicalcreativity is to become relevant and fruitful.

PRAMANAS: SOURCES OF RELIGIOUSAUTHORITY IN INDIA

What is Authority?Suppose you had a dispute with one of your colleagues,

for example about the meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.To prove you are right, you quote from this textbook. Wouldyour adversary be convinced? Not at all! Because, as far as(s)he is concerned, this book will be a weak support. Notbecause it is wrong (I hope not), but because its credibilityis not yet universally recognized. No doubt your quoting thebook will be far more convincing than quoting, say the PrimeMinister, for the simple reason that theology is our field ofspecialization, and so rightly or wrongly we the authors aresupposed to be experts in the field — while the PrimeMinister, in spite of his high power, is just a layman in thisarea. But what happens if you quote, say, Martin Luther?that would be more convincing, since Luther is more or lessuniversally accepted — but only among the Protestants.Thus in order to establish your point, you will have to takesupport from some authority which is acceptable both toyou and to your colleagues — the nature of the authority youtake for support depends upon who your questioner/col-league is — the more universally accepted ‘authority’ youquote, the more convincing your position becomes.

As can easily be seen, this question of authority comesup not just in the matter of disputes, but at the deepest levelof our beliefs: On what basis (authority) do I believe any-thing?

3 0 3 1

The question, which authority is the basis for yourtheological truths thus becomes a crucial — and so the first- question in any study of theology. The shape of thesuperstructure in any building is to a decisive extentdependent upon the foundation it has. Similarly, what youbelieve is decisively dependent upon why you believe, theauthority for your belief. This is the reason why most of thesystematic treatises on theology start with the question ofauthority, and the doctrine of the scripture as the supremeauthority in matters of faith and conduct.

Authority in the Christian ChurchIn the history of the Christian Church throughout the

ages, the question of authority for one’s beliefs came up atseveral points. In the second century, Tertullian and Iraneus,for example, discussed the question of authority of theBishops, Church and the Scriptures. But the importance ofthe issue was not fully realized till the time of ProtestantReformation in the sixteenth century.

One of the most crucial subjects of dispute betweenLuther (for that matter, all Reformers of the time) and theRoman Catholic church was precisely this question ofauthority. In the dispute, unfortunately, the Roman Catho-lics crystallized their doctrine of authority in unmistakableterms in the Council of Trent (in session IV, on 8th April,1546) in the following words:

The foundation of all saving truth and moral discipline . . .is contained in the written books and in the unwrittentradition, which later have come down to us at the dictationof the Holy Spirit by unbroken secession from the mouth ofChrist himself or his apostles; hence we receive and venerateboth Scripture and Tradition with equal piety and reverence.3

The last phrase, ‘with equal piety and reverence’ wastheir way of saying ‘with equal authority’. In Vatican II thisequality of tradition’s authority with that of the Scriptureswas crystallized into the infallibility of the Pope, leading tothe supremacy of the Tradition in the Roman CatholicChurch.

Against this, the Protestants developed what is knownas the ‘material principle’ of Reformation, namely, the SolaScriptura — that only Scriptures are the supreme authorityfor faith and conduct (the complementary ‘formal’ principlewas faith). Both Protestants and Orthodox rejected thepapal claims, while the Orthodox gave a greater weight tothe authority of Tradition (Ecumenical Councils) than theProtestants.

Authority in Indian PhilosophyIt is fruitful to see that in India the question of authority

has occupied a central point in all the systems of IndianPhilosophy from their beginning. In fact, one of the crucialdifferences between these systems is the nature of authorityof religious knowledge each uses. It must also be noted thatin earlier times in India, as elsewhere, there was no differ-entiation made between philosophy, theology, religion, cul-ture, etc., and so what was authoritative in one area wasvalid also for the others.

Hence, in developing a relevant theology for India andespecially for the Hindus, it is imperative that Christianviews of why we believe must first be established andcommunicated to them. In the following sections, we willfirst deal briefly with the Hindu understanding of authority,then describe summarily (details in the following units)some Christian attempts to ‘Indianize’ the Christianapproach.

Pramanas in Hindu traditionThe term for authority in Hindu philosophy is Pramana,

way of valid knowledge (from Prama, right knowledge,knowledge which cannot be falsified). Each school of Hinduthought accepted a set of pramanas as the true foundationfor right knowledge. Knowledge gained in ways other thanthese was not true knowledge — it was either inadequate,transitory, and belonged to the category of falsehood, doubt,illusion, dream, etc., but not true knowledge.

3 2 3 3

The number of pramanas differs from school to school.To start with, some accepted only two, namely, pratyaksha(perception which comes through sense experience) andanumana (inference, logic, also called yukti) Only the athe-istic schools, namely Charavaka, Jaina and Bauddhaschools, limited the number of authorities to these two,since they did not want to come under the authority of theVedas. The rest of the schools, namely Nyaya, Vaisheshika,Samkhya, Yoga, Mimansa and Vedanta schools, accepted athird pramana — Sabda (the word of testimony, eitherhuman or divine). It was the chief contribution of theseschools to develop Sabda as the supreme authority, bylimiting it to mean the Vedas, which were assumed to be thesuperhuman, eternal and creative Word of God. As such,Vedas were accepted as the true and infallible pramana. Soof all the literature passed on from time immemorial, theVedas were carefully distinguished as sruti (that which isheard — the voice of the rishis/gods) and smriti (that whichis remembered, by the scholars, community — that is, thetradition). For the theistic schools, it became mandatory tofind some kind of support ultimately in the Vedas.

To these main three pramanas, others had been addedat various stages of development of different schools ofthought. The two most common additions are: upamana(analogy/comparison) and arthapratti (implication otherthan logical). The lesser known additions were: Tarka(rationalization), Anupalabdhi (non-apprehension),Sambhava (inclusion) and Aitihya (tradition).

As the English translations of these terms show, theexact meaning and differentiation of these Hindu pramanasis quite an involved affair. Sometimes some of the latterpramanas are included in the major ones. But one cancertainly conclude that in general the main authorities forentire Hindu thought were three, Sruti, Anumana, andpratyaksha. Since the last one deals with primary experi-ence, it became equivalent to anubhava (direct experienceor intutional experience), though often it meant intuitionalexperience.

The Pramanas and Christian FaithWhat can we say about the use of these pramanas in

indianising Christian faith?

First, it is important to note that these three correspondwell with Christian understanding of authority, and what ismore important, both Christian and Hindu systems ulti-mately resort to ‘revelation’ as the final authority, therebyimplying the rottenness of human reason or experience. Isit accidental? Or is this a preparatio evangelica?

Secondly, as Robin Boyd points out, the meaning of srutias revelation is much nearer to the Hebrew concept of theword of God than Latin revelation (re-velare, to take awaythe veil), derived from its Greek parent word, apokalypto(the same meaning, to take away the veil). Both the Greekand Latin concepts of revelation appeal to the eye, to vision.But the Hebrew dabar (word, speak) and sruti are closer toone another since both resort to the ear, the hearing. Godcreated the world with His word. When Yahweh gave thedecalogue at Mount Sinai, the Israelites only heard Hisvoice, but saw no form. And Jesus is called logos, the Word.Thus it is in the concept of sruti that one can far moreeffectively recover the Hebrew concept of God as the one whospeaks.

Thirdly, the meaning of the Hindu pramanas is notexactly the same as their Christian equivalents. Reason orlogic in Hindu thought has more than one form, beyond thedeductive and inductive logics. Hindu thought also in-cludes a new type of logic, which Boyd aptly calls the logicof “reconciling the opposites”. This kind of logic comes veryhandy when we consider some doctrines which seem tohave in-built ‘contradictions’, such as: the Bible as the Wordof God and word of man at the same time, Jesus as fully Godand fully man, etc. Experience also means more in Hindusystems. It is not just sense-experience alone, but includesalso intuition and even mystical experience. Thus it is verynecessary that before using the Hindu pramanas as valid forChristian theology, we adequately baptize or define them.

3 4 3 5

Finally, there are some authorities in Christian thoughtwhich have no essential place in the Hindu system ofauthorities. Tradition, which plays a key role in the RomanCatholic theology (as corporate reasoning), History (ascorporate experience) and conscience are not really consid-ered in Hindu schools.

Christian pramanasIt was Bishop A.J. Appasamy (whose thought we will

study later) who first called attention to the primary task oftheology: to establish its pramanas, as Hindu thought does.Hindu thought usually develops in three steps: 1) What dothe Vedas say on the point at issue? 2) Can it be logicallydemonstrated? 3) Does it tally with human experience?

It is most heartening to see that the Indian Christiantheologians, all but three, give to the Bible the first place asauthority. One exception is Chenchiah. He gives first placeto anubhava (experience). Though Sadhu Sunder Singhgives great importance of his mystical experiences — “arevelation which I have received in ecstasy is worth more tome than all the traditional Church teaching” — it is safe tosay that he still places all his experiences under the author-ity of the Bible, though above the Church tradition. The onlyother exceptions are Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya andRaymondo Panikkar, both of whom give first place to theteaching of the Church. But both of them are RomanCatholics, so their approach is quite understandable!

One could now say that honouring the Bible as theforemost authority is quite Indian! This is also the emphasisof the Reformers and a host of theologians even before them.So Boyd is very right in strongly underlining that “thesupreme pramana, must be the Scriptures, and that nophilosophical or ecclesiastical tradition must be allowed tochallenge this authority.”4

If this is valid, then it is high time that Indian theologiansconcentrated on producing substantial exegetical works.Sad to say, lack of such a serious study of the Bible isperhaps the most serious weakness of Indian Christian

theology today. Would you like to take up this as a challengeand ministry, as the Lord guides you?

Experience comes second both for Hindus and most ofChristians. Vivekananda became a disciple of RamakrishnaParamahamsa after the latter answered affirmative to hisquestion, “Have you seen God?” If only we Christians couldconcentrate on witnessing to our experience (for no one canever question one’s experience!) like the blind man in John9, “One thing I know: once I was blind, but now I see”, I haveno doubt that the fruitfulness of the Gospel would bemultiplied. Here we are not talking so much about theHindu experience of mystical union with the All or Brah-man, but rather the experience of the power of the HolySpirit in the character and conduct of the Christian discipleor community. Needless to add, whatever experience wemay have they all must be evaluated in the light of oursupreme pramana, the Bible, for the simple reason, ourexperiences can be subjective or illusory — one may notargue about it, only accept or reject it; yet, their validity isnot self-evident.

Bishop A.J. Appasamy places — notice he is a bishop! —the Church tradition (aitihya) as the second pramana alongwith experience. The work of the Holy Spirit during the lasttwo thousand years of Church history cannot be easily putaside (my own view is that the sanctifying work of the Spiritin the believer’s life now, direct and personal, is perhaps amore reliable guide than the general guidance in Churchhistory, being impersonal, past and divergent). One neednot be dogmatic here, once the Scriptures are given the firstposition; and I would put tradition in the third place.

It is in the fourth pramana, namely, anumana or reasonthat there is a rich variety of Indian Christian theologies. Inthe west, different systems came into being following differ-ent philosophical/logical systems, such as Platonism,Aristotelianism, Positivism, Idealism, Existentialism, etc.So also in India: following the six darsanas (philosophicalschools, mentioned above) a variety of Christian theologiesare possible, at least in principle.

3 6 3 7

Thus far, among these schools Vedanta has been usedextensively. Brahmabandhab’s use of Sankara’s advaitaand Appasamy’s use of Ramanuja’s vishishtadvaita are theoutstanding examples. Besides Vedanta, other systemsalso are used — e.g. Chenchiah’s use of Aurobindo’s Crea-tive Evolution; Nehemiah Goreh uses, in the Thomisticfashion, the Hindu logic to refute his adversaries.

The fifth pramana, (which Boyd considers as a type oflogic) is upamana or analogy. Just as Jesus used parablesand Thomas Aquinas used his ‘analogy’ most effectively, soin India Sadhu Sunder Singh has used this method ofupamana fruitfully in all his writings and messages. Oncethe Bible is accepted as the final authority, then the resortto upamana can be perhaps more fruitful than otherpramanas.

What can be said in conclusion? At least this: Theprimary task of theology is to establish the nature ofauthority on which one’s faith/theology is based. As wehave seen, this is the first question both in Christian andHindu systems. Also there is a good deal of similaritybetween the sets of authorities, so that adaptability be-comes easier. Once the Scripture is accepted as the ultimateauthority (as in Hindu systems), then other Pramanas,Experience, Reason, Church’s teaching, Analogy becomesupportive authorities.

NOTES

1. P.D.Devanandan, Preparation for Dialogue, CISRS, Bangalore: 1964,p. 191.

2. R.H.S Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, CLS,Madras: 1969, p. 11.

3. Karl Rahner (ed.), Sacramentum Mundi, Vol. 6, Scripture andTradition, p. 54.

4. Boyd, op. cit., p. 228.

3 8

SECTION 2

INDIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TOCHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

2

In the following chapters we shall examine the way inwhich Christ has been interpreted in approximately the lasttwo and half centuries by Indian thinkers who were in theforefront in the cultural, social, political and religiouschanges taking place in India. We focus on three or fourleading thinkers, both on their life and their interpretationof Christ. For the sake of uniformity the method we follow ineach case is the same: we give an outline of the backgroundof their life and teaching and the main points of theirinterpretation followed by an evaluation.

One word of caution here. It does not mean that thosewhom we consider here are the only ones to have respondedto the Christian Gospel, nor that they have responded most.It only means that for scientific analysis their writings arepreserved and are available. It is possible that later someother writings/theologians be discovered for an objectivestudy.

RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY (1774 - 1833)

We have already seen that the new self-understanding ofHinduism in the last two centuries was primarily on ac-count of its encounter with Christian faith. There is nodoubt that such new self-understanding is really new,because it differs considerably from that of classical Hindu-ism. It is both a reaction to the Western (then basicallyChristian) influences, as well as their product. This isevidenced by the new sense of Hindu missions.

As religion, culture, politics, society and philosophywere all one bundle, this face-lift of neo-Hinduism affectedall these areas. But it is legitimate to say that the primaryreinterpretations took place in the social-ethical sphere.There was an increasing aversion to idolatry, polytheism,casteism, joint-family, disregard of woman on the one hand.

4 1

At the same time there was an addition of new ethical andphilanthropic elements, on the other.

Rammohun Roy (1772-1833) is hailed as the ‘morningstar of Indian renaissance’, ‘the Prophet of Indian National-ism’, ‘the father of modern India’. He is also the first Indianleader to take Christian faith seriously, and also has re-sponded to it extensively. He was born in a Brahmin familyof Bengal. As such, he was very sensitive in spiritual/religious matters, and left home at the age of fifteen insearch of truth. In his search in other cultures he masteredseveral languages — Bengali, Sanskrit, English as well asArabic and Persian. The latter particularly impressed uponhis growing mind the truth of monotheism as well as therejection of idolatry. The watershed in his life was hiswitnessing to the agony of his brother’s wife, being burntalive in sati. He vowed at that moment to devout all his lifeto the abolition of this evil practice. For this he took hisstrength from the teachings of Jesus Christ and theUpanishads. Boyd rightly comments: It was Christian eth-ics rather than Christian dogma which attracted RamMohun Roy, and he saw no reason why a compromiseshould not be possible between his own Hindu monismbased on the Upanishads, and the morality of the Sermonon the Mount.1

In fact he founded a new religious society based on sucha compromise, the Atmiya Sabha (the spiritual congrega-tion) in 1815, which after a few years, and with the influenceof Dwaraknath Tagore and Prosonno Kumar became BrahmaSabha (the Congregation of the Brahman). Later it wascalled Brahmo Samaj (the society of Brahmos) in 1830. Inthis society, worship was to the one God, with rituals andtheologies taken from both Hindu and Christian scriptures.The Society was also concerned with social reform, andpublished literature for the purpose.

Later in his life Roy visited England to fight before theBritish Government the cause of a local maharajah (fromwhom he received the title Raja), but died in Bristol due toillness in 1833. Only recently he has been re-discovered as

the ‘Father of Indian Renaissance’, and his writings havebeen published just in 1948.

Roy’s writings include: The Precepts of Jesus (the fulltitle runs: “The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace andHappiness, extracted from the books of the New Testament,ascribed to the four evangelists” with translations intoSanskrit and Bengalese), Appeals to the Christian Public inDefense of the Precepts of Jesus by a Friend of Truth (18pages), followed by a second (112 pages) and final (200pages) appeal.

Roy’s Interpretation of ChristIt is clear from the titles of Roy’s writings that he was not

so much interested in the person of Jesus as in Histeachings, the precepts. This is a typical Hindu approach, intwo aspects: (1) they place the principles above the person,and (2) they are interested more in Jesus than in Christian-ity as a religion. Roy did so separate Jesus’ teachings as theessence of Christianity:

These precepts separated from the mysterious dogmas andhistorical records, appear . . . to contain not only the essenceof all that is necessary to instruct mankind . . . but also thebest and the only means of obtaining forgiveness of sins, thefavour of God and strength to overcome our passions and tokeep his commandments.2

It seems that for the same reason he rejects the glorifiedview of John’s portrayal of Christ but prefers the morerealistic picture of the synoptic gospels. And, if we remem-ber his Unitarian position, it becomes apparent that hereRoy is rejecting the deity of Christ and accepting an ArianChristology, that Jesus was no more than a created being,and not the creator. For Roy, the primary argument was thatJesus Christ betrays his “natural inferiority of the Son to theFather”,3 because

(1) The Son is dependent on the Father and is his subject;

(2) The Son has submitted his will to the Father, andthus is in moral union with the Father and not in identity ofbeing;

4 2 4 3

(3) He is the mediator and the messiah as the first-bornof all creatures.

So Roy writes,

I regret only that the followers of Jesus in general, shouldhave paid much greater attention to inquiries after hisnature than to the observance of his commandments, whenwe are well aware that no human acquirements can everdiscover the nature even of the most common and visiblethings and moreover that such inquiries are not enjoined bythe divine revelation.4

Thus the main contention between Roy and theSerampore missionaries and particularly Marshman, con-cerns the nature of Christ. Roy does not deal with themonistic concept (the Father and the Son are one and thesame) nor with the Nicene formula of one essence in threepersons, but affirms the moral unity. But he does revereJesus as the unfallen Adam. Though he affirms the virginbirth and the miracles and even bodily resurrection, yet hisemphasis is on none of these, but only on the teachings ofJesus. For this reason, he does not also see the savingsignificance of Christ’s life, namely, of the cross and resur-rection. For, he affirms, there is no biblical evidence for sucha doctrine of the cross as the all-sufficient means for oursalvation, but repentance instead is the only means. Hefinds divine injustice if God inflicts suffering on an innocentperson on behalf of others. It is obvious that this kind ofChristology negates also the doctrine of the Trinity. TheHoly Spirit is not so much a person as ‘it’ is an influence, orpower, of God — it is not self-existent, as it proceeds fromthe Father as does also from the son. This means that onlyGod (Brahma) is to be worshipped, not the creatures, and forRoy the Son and the Holy Spirit belong to this lesser realm.To worship the Son and the Holy Spirit would be equal toprimitive Hindu worship!

Apparently Roy was not interested in other aspects ofChristian faith, such as the Church, which his followerKeshub Chunder Sen took most seriously. So it is concern-ing the truth contained in the sayings of Jesus that Royfinds the uniqueness of Christ. Here he was so convinced of

Jesus’ example, that there is a story of one Mathura NathBose coming to Christ and baptism through the reading ofRoy’s Precepts!

EvaluationWhat can we say in evaluation of Roy’s theology? First,

he was a watershed in Indian interpretation of Jesus Christin several ways. He was the first to separate Christ andChristianity, and to reject the latter in preference of theformer; the first to criticize the Hindu socio-religious sys-tem, and that too on the basis of the truths found in theBible; the first to emphasize the ethical components ofHinduism; and also the first to start a syncretistic move-ment, the Brahmo Samaj.

Secondly, it is typical of Hindu interpretations of JesusChrist to minimize the significance of Jesus’ life — hispassion, death and resurrection — over against his teach-ing. The reason is that in the historical understanding ofreality, where everything returns again and again to theorigin in a cycle, it is impossible to give permanent value toa person, who is a historical reality, only for a brief space oftime. The understanding of this world as the realm of Maya,as illusion, is the root cause behind this devaluation of theconcrete in preference to the abstract. Hence, Roy and manythinkers after him do not see that Jesus’ calling to peoplewas to himself — and that in Jesus the Kingdom of God hascome to man in a decisive form. But Jesus clearly claimedto be the object of human faith — “Believe in me”, “Followme”, are refrains in the New Testament.

Thirdly, it is plain that Roy’s hesitation to ascribe toJesus the divine nature stems from his allegiance to Uni-tarianism. Like the Unitarians, he also overlooks Jesus’claims to deity such as his acceptance of worship, power toforgive sins, power over the material world as its creator-Lord, pre-existence, etc. But in the New Testament there isa clear teaching about the person of the Holy Spirit — notonly in grammar, but also in revealing his personality in thecapacity to have relationship with man, to be grieved,

4 4 4 5

and to lead, comfort and accompany believers in theirstruggles.

Finally, the rejection of the orthodox doctrine of atone-ment — on the cross Jesus paid the penalty for the sins ofmankind in their place — takes away the very essence ofChristian faith. This is possible when one holds that man iscapable of doing what God demands of him, thus denyingthe fallenness of human nature. Only those who deny thefallenness of man will dilute or throw away the biblical truththat God is holy and righteous, while man sinful. Indeedwhat Roy says is a mixture of ancient Arianism andPelagianism. We could also add here that Roy’s rationalismis a stubborn stumbling block to the spiritual truths whichcan be assimilated only by faith and consequent confirma-tion in obedience (for a different evaluation of Roy’s think-ing, see M.M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of theIndian Renaissance, pp. 29-36).

KESHUB CHUNDER SEN (1838 - 1884)

Raja Rammohan Roy did start off some of the typicalapproaches to Christian faith. But he was not a typicalHindu seeker, for ethical and social questions cannot beasked in Hinduism per se but rather primarily religious andphilosophical questions. Also, Roy’s thinking was more inthe rationalistic line of the Western thinkers than genuinelyIndian. The next leader of the Brahmo Samaj, DebendranathTagore (1870-1905), went consciously and deliberatelyback into the Hindu tradition, and so had hardly anythingworthwhile to say concerning Jesus or Christianity. Thus,the next important Indian interpretation of Christ is hissuccessor, Keshub Chunder Sen. As Boyd observes, Sen isthe “pattern Hindu seeker”, yet, “one who has found thepearl of great price but is reluctant to sell all that he has inorder to buy it”, namely, the pearl of Jesus Christ.5 This lackof full commitment to Christ is rather the rule than theexception in Indian Christianity, is it not? Imagine thedisaster such a lack would bring about in a marriage! Wouldto God that we had more committed disciples of Christ than

all these scholars and theologians, leaders and evangelistsput together!

K.C. Sen and the Brahmo SamajKeshub Chunder Sen was born (19th November 1838) in

Colutolah in Calcutta, as the second son in a Vaidya castefamily, to Piari Mohun Sen and Sarada Devi. Losing hisfather at the age of ten, Keshub came under the vaishnavaiteinfluence of his mother. It was during his teen-age that hebecame dissatisfied with Hinduism, a strong impulse topray became the driving force of his life. At this time hebegan to study the Bible, came into contact with missionar-ies and philosophies. His marriage to a nine year old villagegirl was traumatic for him and he decided for ascetic life. Hejoined Brahmo Samaj in 1857 signing the membershipcovenant. This seems to have given him a new identity hewas longing for. It was under the tutelage of the Brahmoleader Debendranath Tagore that Keshub bloomed in hisbrahmo convictions. Debendranath says about Keshub,“whatever he thought in his mind he had the power toexpress in his speech. Whatever he said, he had the powerto do. Whatever he did he had the power of making othermen do.”

Such an eulogy by the leader of the Brahmo Samaj wonfor Keshub the self confidence as well as respect fromothers. Sen brought a revolution in the Brahmo Samaj.Originally only Brahmins were to have leadership, and sothe ordaining of Sen as the first non-Brahmin Acharya(Priest) of the Samaj was not accepted by all the Brahmos.Throughout his life he was a sincere seeker, highly re-search-minded, pious. At 17 years of age he joined theSamaj and was soon recognized for his gift of oratory. In1860 Sen formed a Sangha Sabha where spiritual devotionsas well as intellectual debates on the contemporary issuesin religion and society were the primary agenda. From 1861Sen worked whole time for the Samaj. He advocated aban-doning the sacred thread. He introduced Christian philan-thropy into the Samaj and founded the Calcutta College, in1861, the first college founded by an Indian. His young wife

4 6 4 7

participated in the ordination service of her husband whichbecame a catalyst for women’s liberation at the time.

But on the issues of widow remarriage and inter-castemarriage Sen and Debendranath Tagore separated, and Senfounded the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1886 (Debendranath’sBrahmo Samaj died shortly after this). Sen made bhakti thewatchword of this new movement which shows the stronginfluence of Vaishnavist roots all his life. Unlike Roy’sSamaj, Sen’s Samaj included the Christian elements into itssessions in a fuller way: the use of Scriptures, meeting onSundays, earnest prayers to Brahma, the starting of Brahmomissions, to cite a few examples. He also developed Brahmoliturgies and annual festivals were introduced. While theformer Brahmos accepted divine revelation only in natureand intuition, Sen added that God can be known also inhistory — a step nearer to incarnation than Roy’s rigidposition. Soon he became a Brahmo missionary, a verysuccessful one too. He undertook a watershed lecture tourof England in 1870, which seems to have confirmed hisdisillusionments about Christianity. On his return Keshubbegan announcing his vision of a new dispensation, de-manding all accept him as its initiator. At this time he gotacquainted also with Dayananda Saraswati andRamakrishna Paramahamsa; due to the fanatical tenden-cies of the former Keshub could not develop a genuinefriendship with him, as he did with Ramakrishna, whom heactually introduced to the world.

However, his autocratic control of the Samaj, his doc-trine of Adesh (see below) and his attitude towards theemancipation of women brought about opposition from theSamajists. His weak health during the last years of his lifewas a great handicap for his activities and leadership, andhe died, rather a disappointed soul in April 1884.

In his later life, Sen developed an extreme egocentricattitude which stifled his otherwise great spiritual sensitiv-ity. He began the doctrine of adesha (message, revelation),that in his time God was exclusively speaking and revealedHimself through Sen as the human instrument. He de-

manded Vairagya and expected total allegiance from hisfollowers as devotees. He met Ramakrishna and under hisinfluence started to emphasize the motherhood of God.Later in 1861 he inaugurated the Church of Nababidhan(the church of the New Dispensation) with great pomp andshow. For the purpose he presented himself with twelvedisciples and four scriptures (Christian, Hindu, Buddhistand Muslim) to drive home the fact that like Jesus in histime, he (Sen) was the latest revelation of God, supersedingall the earlier ones. He called this band the “apostolicdurbar”. He also introduced sacrifices, baptism and Eucha-rist, mystic dances and even magic.

Paradoxically, it is also during this later period that hisattraction to Christ increased — even some of his closestfriends have written that Sen died a Christian — a debatableopinion indeed. He died in 1884. He was a charismaticpersonality with great gifts and sincerity, and has given manyseed thoughts for Indian Christian theology. Yet neither inthought nor life nor in ministry was he systematic.

Most of Sen’s theological writings are to be found in hisannual lectures to the Brahmos, which he prepared withmeticulous research, especially those given between 1863and 1866 are rich in content. These have been published intwo sets: Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India (2 vol-umes); The New Dispensation (2 volumes). Besides theseseveral scores of authors have written about him and histheology: C.F. Andrews, M.C. Parekh, V.S. Azariah, S.N.Banerjea, H.C. Banerjee, G.C. Banerji, Meredith Borthwick,Motilal Das, K.S. Ghose, B. Mozoomdar, P.C. Mozoomdar, F.Max Muller, B.V, Ray, G.G. Roy, P.K. Sen, T.E. Slater,Marquess Zetland and many others. The main writings ofSen include (in English) The Book of Pilgrimages,Brahmagitopanishat, The Brahmo Samaj, Divine Worship,Jeevan Veda (autobiography); he has also written scores ofarticles in English, and books in Bengali.

K.C. Sen’s TheologyThe main elements of Sen’s theology could be summa-

rized under three heads: God, Christ and the Church.

4 8 4 9

DOCTRINE OF GOD

Being a Brahmo, Sen was naturally concerned with thedoctrines of the Trinity to start with. It is to Sen that IndianChristians owe their use of the term, Saccidananda (Sat + cit+ ananda = truth + intelligence + bliss) for the Trinity. Boydsuggests that this term is more adequate than the NiceneFormula of one substance and three persons, which is stillin Greek philosophical categories. It is to be noticed thatmore than Roy, Sen accepted this doctrine. In one of hisannual lectures he writes,

In this plane figure of three lines you have the solution to avast problem; The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost; theCreator, the Exemplar, the Sanctifier; I am, I love, I save; thestill God, the journeying God, the returning God; Force,Wisdom, Holiness; the True, the Good, the Beautiful; Sat,Cit, Ananda; Truth, Intelligence, Joy.

Obviously, here Sen is reconciling the Christian Trinitywith Hindu Saccidananda and Greek philosophical virtues.In this attempt, there is a streak of modalism (of Godrevealing himself in three modes or times) and thus dilutingthe distinction of the three persons in the Godhead. Inanother lecture, he describes the three persons as theAbove, the Below, and the Within. No doubt these descrip-tions are helpful — perhaps more helpful than the ontologi-cal language of the Greeks. The crux of the matter inChristian dogma is the precise meaning of the terms “per-son” and “substance” or “essence” — lacking this, anyadequate clarification of the Nicene formula of one sub-stance in three persons is fruitless.

DOCTRINE OF CHRIST

Like most of the Indian thinkers Sen, too, is attractedtowards Christ and Christology more than anything else.Sen was the first to discover that the Christ of the Bible isan Asiatic Christ, and thus as being nearer to Indianthought than is acknowledged.

For Sen, Christ and his religion are “altogether anoriental affair”. He writes in a moving passage,

Behold, he cometh to us in his loose flowing garment, hisdress and features altogether oriental, a perfect Asiatic ineverything. Watch his movements and you will find genuineorientalism in all his habits and manners, in his uprising anddownsitting, his going forth and his coming in, his preachingand ministry, his very language, style and tone. Indeed whilereading the Gospel, we cannot but feel that we are quite athome when we are with Jesus, and that he is altogether oneof us. Surely Jesus is our Jesus.

It is this understanding of Christ that helped Sen toreplace the Greek logos concept of the gospel of John withthe Hindu/Indian concept of Cit, the word of creation. Theeternally asleep logos or cit is not just at the beginning ofcreation but also at the consummation of it at the end. Thuscit is the culmination of humanity, of the process of history— the whole creative evolution.

In all this Christology, Sen understands Christ’s unitywith the Father neither as metaphysical nor as ontologicalbut as mystical communion.

Unlike many Indians, Sen dwells more upon the human-ity of Jesus than his deity! Sen was not tired of describingChrist as the son of a humble carpenter, who grew like anyother normal man; yet he was more than a man, because hewas “a divine man”, a term which has been repeatedly usedin India and elsewhere for Christ since then. In fact this termis Sen’s favourite description of Jesus Christ. This divine-ness of Christ consists in the fact that he was so filled withGod that he destroyed self. Bonhoeffer’s phrase for Christ,“the Man for Others” would have aptly suited Sen’s conceptof Christ’s divinity. In one of his lectures he clarifies hiskenosis theory as follows:

When I come to analyse this doctrine I find it nothing but thephilosophical principle underlying the popular doctrine ofself-abnegation . . . Christ ignored and denied his selfaltogether . . . he destroyed self. And as self ebbed away,heaven came pouring into his soul. For . . . nature abhors avacuum, and hence as soon as the soul is emptied of self,Divinity fills the void.6

Sen finds this kenosis of Jesus in his utterances such as“I and my Father are one”, “I can of my own self do nothing”,

5 0 5 1

and “I am in my Father and my Father is in me”. The first ofthese quotations has become the most quoted saying ofJesus in India concerning his own person. Jesus mani-fested his divinity in his utter self-surrender and depend-ence upon the Father. Thus for Sen “Jesus is identical withself-sacrifice”. It is on this basis that Sen makes forgivenessand self-sacrifice the two foundations of Christian living.

But what does Sen think of Christ’s atoning work? Of theCross and Resurrection? He regards the cross as nothingmore than an example of the self-sacrifice. He writes, “I havealways regarded the Cross as a beautiful symbol of self-sacrifice unto the glory of God.”7 It is through the moralinfluence of his death on the cross as the supreme exampleof self-denial that Christ turns men from sin to God. Eachone can be saved by imitating this example of self-giving.Thus, “Go thou, and do likewise” is the way of appropriatingChrist’s salvation and no other way is there for Sen. ThroughChrist, “as through a brother’s example, fallen humanityrises sanctified and regenerated.”8 As journeying god, hebecomes human, in order that we may become divine. Assuch Sen’s concept of salvation is more of divinisation thanhumanization. But in all this, Sen is not thinking so muchof individual salvation but rather of the cosmic salvation ofall mankind. Hence there is little emphasis on repentanceand faith as means of appropriating the salvation. In fact, heseems to have conceived of this salvation as an automaticprocess or result of Christ’s coming, which process he callschristification. There is a danger here, of the possibility thatthis Christification could mean, in Sen’s thinking, theHindu realization of Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman).

It is possible, as Boyd gives credit to Sen, that during thelatter period of his life Sen came closer to the orthodoxconcept of atonement, namely that of the efficacy of Christ’sdeath for the remission of our sins. Even the language ofsubstitution is used:

Christ substituted himself for the world . . . Believe in thissubstitution and we are all one in Christ . . . Behold, I amreconciled to all through the blood of him crucified.9

Yet, in all this there is hardly any understanding of theCross being the penalty for the sins of mankind. As such,the dominant ideas of Sen seems to be that Christ is amediator in what he is than what he does, more due to hisnature than due to his work.

Before leaving Sen’s Christology, one more elementshould be noted. He sees Christ wherever he sees some-thing good and noble — be it religion, philosophy or ideol-ogy. As such, for him Christ is present in all systems — theconcept of hidden Christ which the later thinkers so glut-tonously accepted! Sen writes, “Christ is already present inyou . . . He is in you, even when you are unconscious of hispresence.”10

Like those who advocate a cosmic Christ, Sen alsoresorts to passages like John, 1:9: “He is the light thatlighteth every man coming into the world”, Acts, 17:27,28:“He is not far from any of us. In him we live and move andhave our being”, and 14:17: “God has not left any of uswithout a testimony concerning himself.” This kind ofChristology led Sen to a syncretistic religion very near tothat of M.M. Thomas’ Christ-centred syncretism, but whichhe called the Church of the New Dispensation.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

Sen saw himself as divinely appointed and commis-sioned to be “the leader of the New Dispensation” in whichall religions are harmonized and in which all men aresummoned to enter as their spiritual home. He claimedspecial divine inspiration (Adesha), equal to that of Mosesand Jesus.

In fact, Sen claimed that Moses’ was the first dispensa-tion, Jesus’ and Paul’s the second, and his the third and thefinal one, which necessarily supersedes all previous dispen-sations and revelations. This was definitely a deliberateattempt on Sen’s part to integrate the Western and Easternreligions into one heritage. He used the symbols of thecross, the Hindu trishul (three-pronged spear) and theIslamic half-moon and star as the emblem of his new

5 2 5 3

indigenous Church. As we saw earlier in the life sketch, healso used the scriptures from these religions on par with theBible. The goal of this move was the unification of allmankind in himself!

This new church was more intimately related to the HolySpirit than was previously the case. But in claiming hisinspiration as final and superseding all others, Sen is in factmonopolizing the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not theHoly Spirit controlling Sen! You see, between heresy andorthodoxy there is but a thin line of demarcation, which anyof us can cross! Look at what Sen could say under such amisunderstanding of God’s revelation:

Keshub Chunder Sen, a servant of God, called to be anapostle of the Church of the New Dispensation, which is inthe Holy city of Calcutta, the metropolis of Aryavarta, to allthe great nations in the world and to the followers of Moses,of Jesus, of Buddha, of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of Mahmet,of Nanak and to the various branches of the Hindu Church,to the saints and sages, the bishops and the elders, theministers and the missionaries of all these religious bodies:

Grace be unto you and peace everlasting . . .

And later on the message claims an exclusive revelationto Keshub Sen, and ends with the plea:

Let Asia, Europe, Africa and America with divine instru-ments praise the New Dispensation, and sing the Fatherhoodof God and the brotherhood of man.

In spite of the opposition from the contemporary bishops— Anglican and Roman Catholic — Sen continued to standby his claims, and towards the end of his life there was anelement even of irrationality in his thought. Needless to say,this new dispensation church died shortly after its found-er’s death — the usual story of all human enterprises! ButGod’s work will continue, not only in spite of man’s obedi-ence, but because of his disobedience!

EvaluationIn evaluating Sen’s seminal thoughts, we could say

many things both in favour and disfavour of him.

On the positive side: Undoubtedly the credit of usingindigenous thought forms, categories and terms for Chris-tian message goes to Sen. Saccidananda, Christianmahavakya, Asiatic Christ are the obvious examples. Morethan this, he also gave seeds for posterity to Indianise theChristian faith: the concept of divine-human, hidden Christ,Christ-centred integration, kenosis as self-emptying, theemphasis on the Holy Spirit, Christification, are some of theseeds which have yielded harvest with the later Indianinterpreters of Christ.

Secondly, while Roy refused to go beyond looking atChrist other than the principle he presents (namely, that ofself-giving love), Sen goes one step further and accepts thesignificance of Christ’s person, not just his teaching. In factit was the power of Christ’s person and not his wisdomwhich most fascinated Sen.

Thirdly, it was a great stroke of genius to see the placeof church in the Christian scheme of things, and Sen makesit essential to his own theology. At the same time, he triedto keep his New Dispensation Church away from the west-ern institutionalism and dogmaticism, hence his looseorganisation. It was a mixture of both Jesus’ apostles andthe Indian gurukul (teacher and disciples living together)system. Compared to the Brahmos, it was surely a stepnearer to the Christian church.

Fourthly, Sen was again the first to emphasize the roleof the Holy Spirit in Christian doctrines. No doubt there isa tendency to lean heavily upon personal mystical aspects,but as a creative thinker he was not free from faults.

And finally, he was also the first to lay emphasis uponthe experience of spiritual realities, unlike Raja RammohanRoy. Not just ethical life, but more than that spiritualexperiences made his teachings appealing. For the samereason, against the brahmo philosophy Sen accepted his-tory as a mode of God’s revelation.

On the negative side: the first thing to notice is of coursehis doctrine of adesha, as a unique God’s revelation, higher

5 4 5 5

even than Jesus Christ. The disregard for tradition is amajor sign of heresy. Even we, every time we attempt to startsome Christian ministry from the scratch, without buildingupon the insights of our forerunners, fall into a similar trap!Before God, a recognition not of self-righteousness but ofself-unrighteousness counts.

Secondly, though Sen accepted the significance of Christ,he did not commit himself to Christ — the basic trouble withall self-confident prophets. For a long time he seemed to bein double-mind as to this demand of Christ, but the laterdevelopments of syncretistic Church and personal Adeshabetray the fact that finally Sen was no Christian disciple.This also leads him to an handling of the Word of Godselectively to suit his convenience — another modern dan-ger! Sen’s calling his approach “Christian eclecticism” doesnot alter the judgment.

Thirdly, Sen could not penetrate beyond his idea ofChrist as the supreme example of self-giving love to thebiblical idea of Christ’s death as God’s provision for the sinsof all mankind. The dilution of the substitutionary under-standing of the Cross is the beginning of all liberalism andcan be a disastrous by-product of attempts of a positiveapproach to other religions.

Fourthly, the idea of a hidden Christ suggested by Senis vigorously taken up by many recent thinkers in Indiasuch as M.M. Thomas, Raymondo Panikkar, and StanleySamartha (see later) and also by Westerners like KarlRahner and Paul Tillich. It must be admitted that to concen-trate the whole human-divine enterprise on one man Jesusis an offense to man as man, but the biblical fact cannot bemeddled with. “No one comes to the Father but by me” is theonly bedrock on which any relationship of the Christianfaith with other religions and philosophies and ideologiescan be built. We dare not speak more than, or less than, theJesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen, confessed as Lordand Saviour. Any vague principles of Christhood or self-giving love will inevitably lead to anti-Christian messages.

For other evaluations one can find many books, but ahandy one is that by M.M. Thomas, The AcknowledgedChrist of the Indian Renaissance, pp. 67-83.

PRATAP CHANDRA MOZOOMDAR (1840 - 1905)

There is not much too exiting about the life-backgroundof Mozoomdar (1840-1905): He was attracted to the BrahmoSamaj because of the charismatic personality of its Guru,K.C. Sen, and through his inspiration became the mostimportant Brahmo missionary. After the death of the founderof the New Dispensation Church, the Apostolic Durbarrefused to have any leader other than Sen himself, or to electMozoomdar in Sen’s place. But the bulk of the Brahmomembership however, and Mozoomdar himself, felt other-wise, and so Mozoomdar became the last leader of thecontroversial Brahmo Samaj.

Mozoomdar was barely able to hold together the crum-bling structure, only his loyalty to Sen enabled him to carryon as the leader. He wrote several books: The Life andTeachings of Keshub Chunder Sen, The Oriental Christ,Heart beats, The Spirit of God, and Lectures in America andothers Papers. The first two stand as the best known.

Mozoomdar’s TheologyThe primary concern of Mozoomdar was to make the

Christian Gospel relevant to the “spiritual instincts andnational sympathies of Hindus”. Thus, addressing himselfprimarily to Hindu spirituality, Mozoomdar frames hiswhole theology in terms of the Spirit. And as the Brahmosrejected pantheism, he explains his system as pan-en-theism, Spirit in all things — in nature, human life, history.He says,

The divine Spirit permeates every pore of matter and ofhumanity, and yet is absolutely different from both . . . Thereis no beauty, no wisdom, no faithfulness, no purity, no pietyand no self-sacrifice that is not inspired by him. Thegoodness of all the good is a ray of reflection from him, thegreatness of all the great points to his throne on high.11

5 6 5 7

Elsewhere Mozoomdar says: “the universal background. . . the universal heart of things, . . . is surcharged with theSpirit and presence of God.”12

Hindu pantheism is expressed in the two mahavakyas,Aham Brahmasmi and Tat tvam Asi. These statementsidentify everything with God and thus destroy thepersonhood of both God and man. By contrast, Mozoomdarasserts that his pan-en-theism safeguards personhood inboth.

He finds that even Christ can best be explained in termsof the Spirit. Being omnipresent, the divine Spirit manifestshimself more in some and less in other human beings, butin Christ the Spirit reveals himself to the greatest degree.The graduation of the Spirit’s presence from the lowest tothe highest is as follows: nature-life-man-saints-Son ofGod. Hence, the incarnation of Christ is the most importantrevelation of the Spirit, as it reveals most of the Spirit.

DOCTRINE OF THE SPIRIT

What is Mozoomdar’s understanding of this divine Spirit?For him it is the “evolving principle” in the creative process,source and substance of all things — definitely a Hinduconcept! And so he finds a parallelism between Hindu andChristian revelations. In the places of Vedas, Christianityhas the Old Testament; in the place of Upanishads, it hasthe Pauline epistles; and in the place of puranas, it has theGospel. The doctrine of creation is characteristic of the first,the doctrine of man is characteristic of the third. Of the threedivine forces, existence, intelligence and joy (love), he findsthat it is joy which is really characteristic of the Spirit. Onlyin the Spirit is there any possibility of the unity of allmankind. It is the binding factor in the cosmic unity, beingactive in the creative and recreative processes of this world.

And naturally Mozoomdar equates this understand ofthe Spirit with the biblical concept of the Holy Spirit. Forhim, the questions of Trinity, Christ and salvation all couldbe effectively resolved by this doctrine of the Spirit.Mozoomdar clarifies that the Holy Spirit is a person who can

have relationships with man, namely relationships of obe-dience, responsibility. While the Father is far above, and theSon far away, it is the Spirit who is within us. He lamentsthat in Christian theology the Holy Spirit is given only athird place and in the Apostle’s creed nothing more than amere mention! He is neither adored, loved nor worshippedthough occasionally some may address him in their prayers.Yet He is the essence of the Christian Gospel; Christ’s lifeand mission are the work of the Holy Spirit.

How is the Spirit related to Jesus Christ? Mozoomdarconceives the incarnation of Jesus Christ as Spirit madeflesh. Jesus realised the Spirit of God in himself, and so theuniqueness of Christ lies in his being:

(1) the most complete and universal incarnation of theSpirit,

(2) the perfect example of God-man relationship, and

(3) the indispensable revelation of God.

And all the ‘works’ of Christ — birth, life, miracles,teaching, death, resurrection, second coming — all theseare the spiritual missions of the divine man Jesus. The goalof his mission is to establish a kingdom, a society of theSpirit. Even the cross is understood by Mozoomdar differ-ently: It is God’s overruling of the tragedies of life. As suchthere seems to be little significance of the Cross of Christ asthe objective, saving, efficacious event.

What is the role of the Spirit in a disciple’s life? Mozoomdarsays while the moral laws demand from us the good wecannot do, the morality of the Spirit is that he offers us theability to do that good. The Christian virtues like love, faithand holiness can be achieved only in the Spirit. This is awelcome reminder indeed.

How is the Spirit related to the Church? He sees thatthere is such a great perversion in the Church, the leastclaiming the highest revelation, while their life betrays alack of the Spirit. For this error we need to teach that theSpirit exhorts. He speaks of several tests, “The impulse of

5 8 5 9

the heart and the conscience, the unanimity of the Churchand the voice of the dead recorded in the Scriptures”13 seemto occupy in his mind as the supreme tests. To these he alsoadds others: “the moral fruits of the Spirit, the power oftransmitting the Spirit to others”, and “the unity of thecommunity.”

Finally, how does Mozoomdar conceive of other religionsin his pneumatological framework? He holds that in reality,it is Christ who is the basis for reconciling religions one toanother, but all religions are not equal. For no religion hasthe monopoly of the Spirit, though each religion is theoffspring of the Spirit. According to the nature of the peopleand their spiritual needs, the Spirit developed variousreligions. Thus, there is a progression in the gradation of allthe religions; in the future, there will be one universalreligion which will make all other religions obsolete, andthis universal religion is Brahmo Samaj! Thus, in BrahmoSamaj, all religions have already been realized, becausethough Brahmos reject pantheism, they affirm pan-en-theism of the Spirit.

EvaluationWe need not dwell long on Mozoomdar by way of evalu-

ation. His theology is clearly a theology of the Spirit. Hisemphasis on the third person of the Trinity, though mostwelcome, has certain disadvantages in the way Mozoomdarpresents his understanding. On the one hand, there seemsto be a quantitative understanding of the Spirit (somereligions manifesting more and others less of the Spirit). Onthe other hand the ever-emphasis on the Spirit cannot butend in “pneumomonism” — one God understood only interms of the Spirit, instead of in triune terms of Father, Sonand Holy Spirit. But other aspects, such as the power of theSpirit in the disciples’ day-to-day life, the tests of the Spiritin the Church, the demand for the moral fruits of the Spirit— all these are valuable thoughts indeed.

Beyond this, a couple of comments should suffice. Forexample, his understanding of the Cross as God’s way of

taking away all suffering is far short of the biblical concept.There he affirms that the reality of God is not exhausted byChrist. This explicitly violates the doctrine of trinity and thecentrality of Christ. Mozoomdar so develops hispneumatology as if salvation is possible both throughChrist as well as through the independent work of the Spirit.

NOTES

1. Robin Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, ISPCK, NewDelhi, 1989, pp. 19-20.

2. M.M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance,CLS, Madras, 1970, p. 10.

3. Ibid., p. 18.

4. Ibid., p. 15.

5. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, p. 27.

6. Kesub Chunder Sen, “India Asks ‘Who is Christ’”, Lectures in India,vol.1, 1879, p. 369.

7. K.C. Sen, Lectures in India, vol.1, London, 1909, p. 7.

8. K.C. Sen, Lectures in India, vol.2, p. 27.

9. Ibid., pp. 91-94.

10. “India Asks Who is Christ”, p. 217.

11. P.C. Mozoomdar, The Oriental Christ, Boston, 1883, pp. 41f.

12. Mozoomdar, The Spirit of God, Boston, 1894, p. 9.

13. Ibid., p. 69f.

6 0 6 1

3

BRAHMABANDHAV UPADHYAYA (1861 - 1907)

His background and approachMany anthologies of Indian Christian Theology omit

Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya. The reasons for some consider-ing him a Christian and others not, as we shall see later, canbe found in his own autobiography — though it is not for usto judge whether one is a Christian or not. But for usBrahmabandhav is one of the most important figures inIndian Christian Theology. He has written profusely on al-most every aspect of the Christian message. He lived in a timewhen theological turmoil in Hinduism was perhaps at itsgreatest. This was the time of the ABC movements in Hindu-ism — Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, and Christo Samaj. Inthis section we shall study this atmosphere briefly.

THE THEOLOGICAL ATMOSPHERE

Awakened by the Christian message itself the AryaSamaj of Dayanand Saraswati was an extreme form ofresurgence. Brahmo Samaj of K.C. Sen was a milder form ofthe same, while the Christo Samaj of Kalicharan Banerjeewas even more positive in its attitude towards Christianity.But all these were the products of the time. Following thenational patriotic spirit of the times, these were differentefforts of indigenisation of the Christian message and thechurch. Yet, these Samajes had little or no impact on thevast Hindu population but were confined in influence to aselected few. It was rather the non-intellectual message ofShri Ramakrishna (see the section on Vivekananda) whichreally appealed to the multitude and thus was a greaterchallenge to Christianity. In no small measure does thesuccess of Ramakrishna owe to his indigenous lifestyle,language and method of teaching, devoid of all philosophi-cal jargon. Perhaps a case can be made also for the super-

6 36 2

natural element in Ramakrishna’s life, such as his occulticvisions and trances. The crown of Ramakrishna’s success isevident in an intellectual of no lesser caliber thanVivekananda becoming his disciple, and that blindly, as wehave seen. Does it not say something about the limitationsof intellectual form of the Christian message?

Brahmabandhav was aware of all these movements. Infact he was a classmate and even a bosom friend ofVivekananda. He met of course K.C. Sen, whom he held tobe very Christ-centered and Christian and he had alsocontacts with Kalicharan Banerjee, the nationalist who wasthe founder of Christo Samaj. With VivekanandaBrahmabandhav was also very much attracted towardsRamakrishna, as both of them were attracted also towardsK.C. Sen’s Christ-centredness. But later, while Vivekanandafollowed Ramakrishna, Brahmabandhav followed K.C. Sen.

There were also two other scents in the atmosphere atthe time. One was the intoxicating nationalism. Leaving hisfamily Bramabandhab came to live with his uncle in Cal-cutta — where creativity was at its highest — he could notbut integrate the nationalistic spirit with his cultural reli-gious enthusiasm. The other scent is that of Vivekananda’soffensive in seeing the Christian message through Hindueyes. The Swami’s Advaita was such a high fashion of theday that even the Bible was interpreted according to vedanticprinciples. For example, Vivekananda’s disciple SriParananda (see also Boyd) interpreted Mt. 6:12 “forgive usour debts”, as follows:

And let that communion be so complete as to efface alldifferentiating sense of ‘I’ and Thou’ or of obligations leftundone by me, Mayest thou, O Lord, graciously annul therelation of debtor and creditor and make me one with thee.1

The effect of all this was to show that the Christianmessage is only a part of Hinduism and so can be absorbedby the latter. It was difficult of course for any Christian tomaintain the uniqueness of Christ in the light of thesemovements. Unless we understand Brahmabandhav in thelight of these movements we do not understand him at all.

BRAHMABANDHAV’S LIFE

Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya was born Bhawani CharanBanerjee (1861-1907). ‘Vandyaji’ was a family title which indue time got anglicised into Banerjee. Brahmabandhav is atranslation of the Greek Theophilus meaning a friend of Godwhich he took upon himself at the time of his baptism.Upadhyaya, his family name meaning teacher, was thename he took at the time of becoming a sanyasi, as we shallsee later. Brahmabandhav was born in Khanyan near Cal-cutta in a Brahmin family. His father was a Police inspectorand thus both religiously and socially influential. His motherdied when he was only a few months old and he was broughtby a very orthodox grandmother. His uncle, KalicharanBanerjee often visited his home and so Brahmabandhavseems to have been introduced to Christianity already in hischildhood. (At the death bed of his father he read a Christianbook called Catholic Beliefs which also seems to haveinfluenced his attitude towards Christianity.) Later, whenhis father moved to Calcutta Brahmabandhav continuedhis schooling at the Scottish Mission School then in HooghlyCollege and finally in the Metropolitan College. Alreadywhen 16 years old in high school he was a burning patriotand had radical idea of overthrowing the British governmentthrough military revolution. In fact along with his friends heplanned to become a soldier and with the help of the freekingdom of Gwalior to fight and drive away the British. Butthe rather childish plan was thwarted when the family cameto know of it and sent them back to school. Brahmabandhavbecame a frustrated man and became a teacher.

He seemed to have got acquainted with Vivekanandaaround 1880 in his college days. Being sincere seekers, theyboth became friends and joined the Brahmo Samaj. Theyalso used to attend Ramakrishna’s meetings regularly.Attracted by K.C. Sen’s message Brahmabandhav became astaunch Brahmo missionary and was sent in 1888 toHyderabad (Sind). There he met two missionaries of theCMS, Rodman and Heaton, gradually led him to Christ.Already at this early age Brahmabandhav was concerned

6 4 6 5

with the two basic elements of the Christian message — thefact of the Resurrection and the truth of Jesus’ deity. Beingconvinced of both, he was baptized in 1891 in the Churchof England. It is important to notice that already at this timeBrahmabandhav took Christ as the fulfillment of the Hinduideal of a sinless guru. This element seems to have remainedmore or less throughout his life, though some contradictiondeveloped later.

Unfortunately at this time, owing both to the strongfamily pressure as well as to the questioning by a RomanCatholic friend against his baptism Brahmabandhav wa-vered in his faith. Led by this friend he ultimately took asecond baptism, joining the Roman Catholic Church thesame year. That is the time when he took the nameBrahmabandhav as we have seen. This anti-Protestantismremained in him throughout his writings. But to his creditwe must remember that when his family and the Arya Samajpersecuted and even stoned him, he along with his friendsand disciples remained true to the new faith he had found,though he was disinherited by the Hindu society.

During 1902-1903 he visited Europe and was surprisedto find idols in Christians Churches all over Europe. Hereturned to India with the strong conviction that the puremessage of Christ had been westernized and diluted. Hisemphasis henceforth was to bring back the pure message inIndian terms. He discovered that Indian churches and theirworship, along with the dress and the lifestyle of Christians,were also western. So in order to become indigenous hediscarded the western clothes and took to sanyasa. That isthe time he called himself Upadhyaya. But he went even onestep further. In order to detach himself from the western“pollution” he took a ceremony of prayschitta, i.e. repent-ance and purification, and joined back into the Hindu fold.Though Hindus accepted him after this ceremony as fullyHindu, apparently Brahmabandhav did not seem to thinkthat way, for as we see in his theology later on, he calledhimself a Christian Hindu. His own Roman Catholic Churchpriests did not allow him to join Christian worship in the

robe of sanyasi. But after appealing to higher authorities onthe basis that even Roberto de Nobili had done that, he wasgiven permission. But he was partly disenchanted by thechurch structure. So he went on as Jesus did and toured allover India, teaching and preaching. He also added a newIndian element — begging like a mendicant. Along with hisdisciples he worked hard among the poor and the sick. Evenin times of epidemics, when some of his friends died, hebravely worked towards the healing of the disease.

Several events from the mature part of his life must bementioned. During these years we can see some drasticchanges taking place in his life and thinking. In a school forHindu boys where he was working he encouraged pupils tovenerate and worship both Saraswati, the goddess of learn-ing, and Krishna. His defense was that these deities wereavatars but Christ was an incarnation, which is an entirelydifferent level. Later on, in a dialogue with J.N. Farquhar hementioned the same distinction. But it seems that he hadlost the sympathy of the Christian leaders for this viewpoint. They felt he was making Christ one among the severalgods as Hinduism does. Perhaps one major change duringthe last few years of his life was that Brahmabandhav tookentirely to political action and writing. He started a Bengalidaily called Sandhya which was a very radical politicalprovocation, which the British held to be very dangerous.

He began to maintain he was fully a Hindu, at the sametime a Christian. He called himself culturally a Hindu,whereas by faith a Christian. He was arrested in 1907 oncharge of sedition. He appealed in the court, not in hissanyasi robes, but identifying himself as a Bengali brahmin.He was released on bail but knew that he was going to bearrested soon after. But before the arrest, he died in anoperation at the age of 46.

Theological WritingLike all creative thinkers, he did not produce any summa

theologica though he was perhaps the nearest to that. Hismain theological writings are to be found in the three

6 6 6 7

periodicals he started and edited. Sandhya we have alreadymentioned. The other two were Sophia (published first as amonthly and later as a weekly), meaning wisdom. Some ofhis main articles include: “Conversion of India”, “Our Atti-tude Towards Hinduism”, “Are we Hindus?”, “Theism in theVedas”, “The Origin of Man”, “Hindu Philosophy and Chris-tianity”, “The Clothes of Catholic Faith”, “The Trinity”, “TheIncarnate Logos”, “The True Doctrine of Maya”, “The Hymn‘Ka’” and the like. For a full bibliography of his writingsplease see K. Baago’s Bibliography, and Gispert Sauch (ed.),Theology of Bramabandab Upadhyay.

Theological MethodBefore going on to study in detail Brahmabandhav’s

theology it is necessary here to analyze two aspects of hismethodology.

a) As it comes clearly in his biography, his wholetheological thinking was motivated by his very genuineconcern for indigenous expression of Christian faith andlife, as Russell Chandran properly evaluates. Chandransays that there are four aspects in which this indigenisationcomes to the fore:

(1) Integration of the social structure of India intoChristian way of life;

(2) The establishment of an Indian Christian monasticorder;

(3) The employment of Vedanta for the expression ofChristian theology; and

(4) The recognition of the Vedas as the Indian OldTestament.

Scholars are divided as to whether Brahmabandhavtook to the Vedas or the Vedantic philosophy but that neednot stop us at this juncture.

b) Brahmabandhav also had a very concrete method ashow this indigenisation of Christian message in India shouldtake place.

He says it is a three-fold task:

First to eradicate from the minds of the Indian people theerroneous and mischievous doctrines (pantheism and trans-migration); Secondly, to lay the basis of Theism by the helpof the Vedas; and Thirdly, to build Christianity on thatfoundation.

Thus the discussion concerning ‘pre-understanding’ and‘indigenisation’ which are now occupying the efforts of thetheologians seem to be anticipated by Brahmabandhav byseveral decades. And obviously these two aspects of hisapproach also show us what kind of content his theology has.

Theological EmphasesPerhaps somewhat simplistically, we can divide

Brahmabandhav’s theology under three main headings

1. his understanding of religion,

2. his understanding of God and Christ

3. his understanding of the Indian Church.

CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS

Unquestionably, Brahmabandhav’s basis for all his think-ing is the distinction made by the medieval theologian,Thomas Aquinas, between nature and supernature (orgrace). Very paradoxically, though he builds all his theologi-cal thought on this Roman Catholic basis, yet he rejects itin order to replace it by the Vedantic type of thinking. Bynow we should be able to say why this contradiction arises.The credit of applying Thomism (the theology of ThomasAquinas) to Indian interpretation must go to Brahmabandhav— not even did de Nobili do this.

Why does he do so? His understanding of Protestantmissionaries was that they approached Hinduism primarilyto find fault with the Hindu thinking, hoping that by thisdemolition of Hinduism Hindus will be converted to Christ.He felt this was too negative an attitude towards Hinduism.On the other hand, Catholicism, with its distinction be-tween nature and supernature, gave room for natural the-ology built on human reason on which the supernatural

6 8 6 9

grace or the theology of revelation can be built. This wasdefinitely a more positive attitude towards to Hinduism, andappealed to the nationalistic spirit of the time. Hence hedescribes the basis of the relationship between Hinduismand Christianity as follows:

It is on account of the close connection between the naturaland the supernatural that we have taken ourselves the taskof expounding the Hindu scripture systematically and offishing out the theistic truths from the deluge of pantheism,idolatry and anthropomorphism and thus glorify him whoenlightens every man who cometh into the world.

He is also clear as to the implications of this principle:

The light which lighteth every man who cometh into theworld (Justin Martyr’s logos spermatikos) is brightest in thethought of the Vedas perhaps with the possible exception ofancient Greece. Thus it is the pure Hinduism of the Vedaswhich is the nearest to the gospels, but the later Hinduismhas been polluted by two developments, the doctrine ofreincarnation and transmigration on the one hand, and theAdvaita philosophy on the other.

Further he says,

we consider these two doctrines the two greatest enemies ofmankind . . . we accept as our own the primitive Theistictruth taught in her shastras.

It is for this reason that Brahmabandhav attacks theAdvaitic philosophies of Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj,who accept these two dangerous doctrines in one form oranother. Thus his main aim was to lead Hinduism back toits original form and thereby pave the way for the Christianfaith, as Baago affirms:

(i) Not only is Hinduism not perfect but even Christianity isnot perfect. Thanks to the Logos Spermatikos idea, he findsthat Christianity can come to its fullness only in contact withthe natural theologies around the world, and especially thepure Vedantic Hinduism. “The development of the Christianreligion has not come to an end. It will grow, blossom andfructify till the end of time”.2

(ii) He also finds it is rather the western form of Christianitywhich is misleading and ought to be got rid of.

Thus following the Thomistic distinctionBrahmabandhav says that Christianity should not come as

the destroyer of Hinduism, but as it is fulfillment. “Theprimitive (Hinduism) and the new (Christianity) are linkedtogether as root trunk base and structure, as outline andfilling.” Since root is a first and then is the trunk, foundationis first and then the superstructure so also nature is firstand supernature is later. Brahmabandhav strives to makeHinduism the foundation on which the superstructure ofChristianity can be built. This is what he calls VedicChristian theology.

It is also in this connection that Brahmabandhav dwelton the parallels between the Old Testament and the Vedas.But since the Vedas contain the Old Testament under-standing of God and nature only spasmodically here andthere, he was not really able to build successfully anadequate Vedic Christian Theology. Perhaps this is thereason why Brahmabandhav shifted his emphasis. Thisdoes not mean that he rejected the Vedas but simply for thesake of the clarity he resorted to Vedanta, which can belinked to the Old Testament. Kaj Baago’s comment that in1898 there was a decisive turning point in Brahmabandhav,in his shift from the Vedas to Vedanta, must therefore bequalified.

The main obstacle for Brahmabandhav in acceptingShankara’s Vedanta was the latter’s interpretation of mayato mean that it is unreal. But later he interpreted maya tomean not illusion or unreal existence but a dependentexistence — that all things created are depending on God.Then he was ready to accept the Vedanta as his foundationfor Christianity.

Before we leave his theology of religions one more aspectmust be noted. It was again Brahmabandhav who was thefirst to differentiate between Hinduism as culture andChristianity as religion. In his own words:

By birth we are Hindus and shall remain Hindus till death,but as dwija (twice born), by virtue of our sacramentalrebirth, we are catholics, we are members of the indefectiblecommunion embracing all ages and climes.3

7 0 7 1

That means: in customs, manners and social relation-ships we are Hindus, in our faith we are not Hindus butuniversal or catholic. To quote him once again:

Our dharma has two branches samaj dharma and sadhanadharma. Our Hinduism is preserved by the strength of samajdharma while the sadhana dharma is of the individual. Itsobject is sadhana and mukti (salvation).4

Boyd penetratingly observes here that Brahmabandhavis advocating that Christians accept cultural Hinduismwithout accepting it as a religion. Or in other words, just asearlier Christianity was married to Greek culture, the In-dian Christianity must be married to Hindu culture. That iswhat is meant by Christian Hindu. This is the reason whyBrahmabandhav is called the Indian Clement, since heunderstands Hinduism as a tutor to Christ as Clement ofAlexandria understood Greek philosophy as a tutor toChrist. This brings us to his Christology.

GOD AND CHRIST

Once Brahmabandhav understands Maya to mean de-pendent existence or second reality, he is at pains to portraythe God whom Christians worship to be beyond this level ofMaya. Otherwise such a God would not appeal to Him andspecially the Vedantins. So for him God is not Ishwara butthe very highest — Brahman or Para Brahman — notSaguna Brahman as some have tried to understand.Brahmabandhav is keen to understand god as NirgunaBrahman. Here Boyd’s apt phrase that Brahmabandhav“gives nothing but the highest honour” summarizes hisChristology beautifully. In fact he calls himself not just a‘theophilus’ but in his thinking, even higher than that —‘Brahmabandhav’.

But if Christians should understand God as NirgunaBrahman, i.e. attributeless, relationless and impersonal,then should they also call God neti neti (not this not that,i.e., agnostic)? Does not then God become, as in the case ofShankara’s Vedanta, unknowable? We find thatBrahmabandhav reconciles this contradiction by resortingto K.C. Sen’s concept of God as saccidananda. If Shankara,

in spite of belonging to natural theology, found it necessaryto understand Nirguna Brahman as saccidananda, thenBrahmabandhav contends, how much more can a Christianunderstanding of saccidananda show the true nature ofGod. Therefore Brahmabandhav’s concept of God is basi-cally Trinitarian. He knows that this is a mystery, which canbe known only through the revelation in Christ.5

Two key concepts helped Brahmabandhav overcomethis contradiction. One is the understanding of Christ as cit,or the revelation of God’s inner being. As cit Christ’s unique-ness lies in “his unfolding the mystery of God’s inner life”.This is also Christ’s claim to His divinity. HereBrahmabandhav also gives his understanding of atonementand sin. For him sin is the bondage which cannot be undoneby Karma, because it is alienation from God.

By choosing the finite (anatma) as our goal we incur spiritualdeath and darken our understanding . . . sin leads to bondageand darkness from which there can be no escape, notwithstanding the hardest struggle on our part. Thus the onlyway we can find salvation is God compassionately acceptingupon himself sorrow and suffering for our transgressions.

Another concept is that of maya. For Brahmabandhavmaya is not a quality of being dependent, it is also a divineoverflow of energy which results in the existence of creatures.

Maya is a mysterious divine operation. It is neither real norunreal. We cannot explain how the phenomenal multiplicityresults from the immutable unity, how being is communi-cated to the finite . . . maya is neither real nor necessary norunreal but contingent. By it non-being (asat) is made being(sat) . . . by it that which is nothingness by itself filled withthe riches of being.6

Here Brahmabandhav resorts to Thomas Aquinas’ un-derstanding of creatio passiva (passive creation) and equatesthat with maya. Thus maya is defined as the habitude ofhaving being. Here Brahmabandhav is philosophical asboth Thomas and the Hindus. The point to note here is this:In Vedanta ultimately there are no individuals. ForBrahmabandhav individuals do not exist, of course, bynecessity, but God has given each soul eternally existingstate. And it is through the power of maya that these soul

7 2 7 3

are kept from dwindling into nothingness. ThusBrahmabandhav comes to the conclusion that therefore thespirit of man will not merge with the divine in such a waythat his individuality is lost, but to know God and to likehim. It is a communion and not a union.

We have already seen that Brahmabandhav does not usethe term avatara for Christ. This is deliberate. For himavatara of the Hindu deities is qualitatively different fromthe incarnation of Christ. His details are interesting. Heholds that the human is, according to vedanta, composed offive sheaths: animate, vital, mental, intellectual to spiritual.While in human beings these five sheaths are controlled bypersonality (aham), in the incarnate Son they are activatedby the Logos or the cit of the Trinity. Hence they are verydifferent from the avataras, of the Hindu puranas. For thisreason Upadhyaya calls Christ often as narahari (nara =man, hari is the proper name for Vishnu) God-Man. ManyChristians took offense at his use of Krishna’s name forChrist. His pen name is also Narahari Das (the slave ofnarahari, the slave of Christ). Following Sen, Brahmabandhavalso rejects the lie of Christian avatarism, for incarnation isfar higher than the avatara of Hindus.

Why then did Brahmabandhav advocate the worship ofHindu deities such as Saraswati and Krishna? Scholars givea two-fold answer: one, being caught up in the nationalisticspirit of the Indian freedom movement, it was necessary forhim to appeal to the Hindu heritage; secondly, havingassured Christ’s uniqueness by calling him Brahman, hedoes not see any harm being done in calling other deities ata lower level of avatara or ishwara. For him therefore thesedeities are just historical figures or moral leaders but not tothe level of Christ. In any case, such a position of worshipof Gods by Brahmabandhav is a very dangerous one.

THE CHURCH AND INDIGENISATION

As we have seen, Brahmabandhav was disillusioned bythe church structures. [Boyd mentions that he even en-couraged others on occasions to use the Church in the

court]. But he did recognize the need for a visible organizedinstitution for the regular ministry of the Word and thesacraments. Yet towards his mature age, because of hisalmost entire involvement in politics, he seems to haveabandoned the church. Also because he died suddenly hewas cremated by the Hindus and not by the church. To somethis means that he died a Hindu.

But he was quite strong in condemning the Europeannessof the Indian Church. He was right in saying that the Hindubrethren cannot see the subtlety and sanctity of Christianreligion because of the cloak of Europeanism, of trousersand hat, spoon and fork, meat and wine. So he says anIndian can be both Hindu and Christian at the same time.This understanding led Brahmabandhav also to found whathe called a Hindu Catholic Sanyas Ashram. Of course suchattempt was preceded by De Nobili and followed by SunderSingh. In all this Brahmabandhav was far ahead of his time.Perhaps more than any other Indian thinker he raised thecredibility of the Christian message before the Indian phi-losophy to its highest level.

Evaluation

Strengths

1. He had a very high Christology. In calling ChristBrahman he was very understandable before the Hindubrethren.

2. His zeal for indigenisation of the Christian messagemakes him an uncalled but sent missionary to the Hindus.

3. His understanding of the Bible as the revealed wordof God is definitely conservative.

Weakness

1. His almost uncritical use of the Thomistic system ofnature and supernature makes Brahmabandhav blind toseveral aspects which come up in Protestantism, such asjustification by faith alone.

2. His resort to Vedanta to understand Christ as thehigher God in relation to the avataras makes the difference

7 4 7 5

between Christ and others only quantitative rather thanqualitative.

3. His finding of Logos Spermatikos in the Vedas, even tothe extent of finding the purer Christian message there,dilutes the authority of the Bible.

4. His understanding of Christ as the atonement for thesins of the world is anything but the penal substitutionwhich the Bible emphasizes.

NEHEMIAH GOREH (1825 - 1895)

BackgroundLike Narayan Vaman Tilak and Pandita Ramabai, Goreh

was of Chitpavan Konkanasth Brahman descent, a veryaggressive, fanatically orthodox Hindu background. He wasborn in Kasipura (near Jhansi), but went in his earlychildhood to Benares studying Sanskrit and Hindu philoso-phy. As such, he naturally learnt to despise Christianity,because for Chitpavans Christianity was the religion of theMlechchhas (pagans). He read extensively works writtenagainst Christianity, and engaged in heated argumentswith missionaries. He got hold of the Bible and began to readit. As he came to the Sermon on the Mount, he exclaimed,

Who is this teacher who speaks in this manner?. . . No mereman, however holy, can preach this sort of sermon. Surelythe author must be divine!

This was his turning point. After a few discussions withthe missionary William Smith, and with his own relatives(giving them a last chance to argue him out of his new foundfaith), he finally took baptism in 1848 with the nameNehemiah instead of Nilakanth. He was commonly knownas father Goreh, after his ordination into the Anglicanministry.

His first wife of childhood marriage had already died, sohe married a second time. His daughter was the well-knownhymn writer, Lakshmi Goreh, the author of “In the secret ofhis presence how my soul delights to hide”. Both his familyand he had to suffer persecution on account of Christian

faith — the wife being drugged and kidnapped. Eventuallyshe died after receiving baptism by her husband.

He visited England twice (1854 & 76), as the pundit forMaharaja Dulip Singh, and met queen Victoria II. ThisIndian apologist of the Christian faith was very welcomethere and on his return from the first trip he was ordainedas a priest and worked in Indore, Panchoudh, Mhow,Chanda, Bombay and Pandarapur. Later he settled down inPune, a stronghold of aggressive Hindus, in order to witnessto them about Christ. In 1876 he was accepted as a noviceof the Society of St. John the evangelist, also called theGowley Fathers. He remained a novice till his death in 1895.

Father Goreh led many significant personalities to Christincluding the Rev. Ranthonji Navaroji of the CMS ofAurangabad, Rev. Khasim Bhai of Satara, Mr. Shahu DajiKukade and others. But the most prominent was PanditaRamabai. At a time when she had decided to reject Christi-anity, there came an unexpected letter from father Goreh,which seems to have answered the queries of Ramabai at thetime and so accepted Christ on that basis. Later on shewrites that none else could have caused to change her mindexcept father Goreh.

Goreh’s writingsBeside a very gifted and fruitful preaching ministry,

Goreh was also a gifted writer. He published more than 35works in English, Hindi and Marathi. His magnum opus isthe Hindu apologetic, Shaddarshana Darpana publishedalso in English, A Rational Refutation of the (six) HinduPhilosophical Systems. His other important works includedtracts in answer to objections against certain points inChristianity, lectures and addresses, theism and Christian-ity, god’s foreknowledge of man’s free will, and the existenceof Brahmoism. In these books, Goreh courageously inserteda subtitle like “Hindu Philosophy examined by a BenaresPundit”, “By a converted Hindu Brahmin” etc. Havingsuffered for the faith, he never drew back from identifyinghimself as a converted Brahmin from Benares.

7 6 7 7

Goreh’s ThoughtIn a nut-shell, Goreh’s thought can be summarized as a

Church-in-witness-and-defense theology. His primary mis-sion was to give an apologetic against reformed Hinduismsuch as Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj, though notthe militant Arya Samaj. His argumentation against theBrahmo teaching runs: Hindu shastras, being pantheisticand monistic are unlike the Bible, which is to do with theultimate destiny of mankind, and therefore true revelation;Brahmos’ concepts are to a very large extent from the Bibleand not from the Hindu shastras. Therefore, they arecompelled on their basis to accept the rest of the Bible alsoas their authority. Here Goreh came in direct confrontationwith Max Mueller, the liberal Oreintalist who was infatuatedwith anything Hindu.

In his apologetic Goreh finds the doctrine of creatio exnihilo as the most important for theology. In all the Hinduphilosophies, the world has both existed from eternity aswell as it has an ultimate material cause. As such none ofthem really understanding Brahman or God as omnipotent;only the biblical account of creation out of nothing makesGod totally sovereign. If the world is an illusion, then God’spower and authority are still less real! The final inference ofthe Hindu system is a dilemma: If only Brahman is real, thento make the world false and illusion and at the same time tosay the world is Brahman is a logical inconsistency. There-fore it must be rejected by thinking persons. Goreh’s rigor-ous logic is also applied to the concept of Brahman: theNirguna Brahman, as he/it is qualityless, it is in fact zero!(Saguna Brahman, being a part of the world of maya, is inany case no more than nothing, illusion). Brahman isunknowable, because he is not! But as for the personal Godof the Bible, being the world’s creator, support and end,nothing higher than him is imaginable.

Goreh’s logical method is best illustrated in his dealingwith the vedantic assertion that atman is Brahman:

It is a maxim of Vedanta, that “The soul is Brahman itself,and nothing other”. How, I would ask the Vedantin, can this

be? For they assert that, on the one hand, soul errs by reasonof ignorance; and that on the other hand, Brahman is, inessence, ever pure, intelligent, and free, and can never for amovement be otherwise. Still, they maintain that the soul isBrahman, and with interest to reconcile their contradiction,they resort the most elaborate mystification.

Goreh’s own answer to Hindu anthropology is a biblicalone: Man is not only a part of God but also of maya. More thanany other thinker he emphasized the Fall and the fact of sinwith utmost seriousness. He approves that “the frightfulnature of sin deserves a punishment whose severity is beyondthe reach of conception.” But such punishments are not justfor good, but primarily to satisfy the justice of God — it isGod’s due. Sin is a positive evil force, not just privative good.The Hindu concept of karma, making both virtue and vice leadto bondage, lacks such a serious understating of sin. ForGoreh sin is serious because it is on account of this that heturned to Christianity.

It was the doctrine of everlasting punishment which shookmy soul from very bottom, and forced me to come away, atany cost, from the path of error, and I resolved in my mindto strive with all my might to leave of sin and follow holinessand virtue.7

Boyd aptly calls Goreh ‘a fearful saint’ rather than ajoyful one!

His idea of salvation is also impeccably orthodox. Forhim salvation from this terrible power of sin over man andfrom the wrath to come is purely by God’s grace throughChrist’s atoning death, and appropriated by faith. Christ asa lamb of God was sacrificed once for all for oursake, as apenal substitution in our place. It is through the death ofChrist that we are made partakers of God’s nature as aChurch — and not like Vedantic identification of Atmanwith Brahman. He dares to ask whether such an identifica-tion was really a misunderstanding, though preparatioevangel ica .

This brings us to another vital theme Goreh dealt in hiswritings — the relation of Hinduism with Christianity.Though Goreh attacked Hindu philosophy mercilessly, like

7 8 7 9

all eminent Indian thinkers he too was wholly indigenous inhis approach and in content. He rejected western lifestyle inall its varieties. “The Western trappings of the Churchrepelled him”. He felt himself wholly Indian, and believedthat in a hidden manner God is preparing them throughHinduism to respond positively to Christ.

Providence has certainly prepared us, the Hindus, to receiveChristianity, in a way which, it seems to me, no other nation— excepting the Jews of course — has been prepared.

He finds this preparatio evangelica in the Gita’s teachingof Ananyabhakti (undivided devotion), Vairagya (renuncia-tion of the world ), Namratha (humility), Kshama (forgive-ness), and the like. On a higher level, incarnation (asavatara) miracles are also a foreshadowing of the Christiangospel. Anticipating Farquhar, Goreh says that Christ is thefulfillment of Hindu longings; this is the divine light whichwas to light every man who cometh into the world, namely,the light of reason and logic. To logic he turned heavily in hisdefense of the gospel.

EvaluationSince Goreh is unquestionably in the main line ortho-

doxy, it is difficult to find fault with his theology. But hisemphasis — unlike the modern de-emphasis — was un-doubtedly on the Church and its sacraments. Since hegrapples with the issues of brahmoism and the Hinduphilosophies his theology is also most relevant and has acutting edge. Like any of his contemporaries, he also ac-cepts without questions the genuineness and the ultimateauthority of the Scripture for the Church. And finally,almost uniquely Goreh adheres to the heart of the Christiangospel — the penal substitutionary understanding of Christ’sdeath and parts company with most of the Indian Christiantheologians of repute.

There are also couple of loop-holes in his thinking. Forexample, in spite of all his refutation of Hindu thinking,Goreh never mentions the crucial Hindu doctrine ofkarmasansara and reincarnation. And further there is an

element of in-built antipathy to Hinduism, and almostnothing is positive in Hinduism for him. Being a church-man, it is to be expected that his Christianity was AnglicanChristianity, closely adhering to its 39 articles and the bookof common prayer. Goreh seems to be the Indian Aquinas ofall the Indian Protestant theologians; it is he who has usedAristotelian kind of logic rather extensively. Some times thisapproach gives the reader the impression that his theologyis based on reason than on the Scripture. But if we remindourselves that Goreh’s audiences were Hindus and Brahmoswho required a particular kind of argumentation, then sucha “rational refutation” falls into its place without jeopardiz-ing the authority of the Bible.

LAL BEHARI DEY (1824-1894)

Born in Talpur (Bengal), educated in the General Assem-bly Institution founded by Alexander Duff, Dey masteredthe English language very early — perhaps it was appropri-ate that his baptism later took place in an English library!He was just nineteen at that time, and consented becausehe was intellectually convinced of the truth of the Christianmessage (some time you should study the relationshipbetween being intellectually convinced of the gospel truth,and being convicted of one’s sin by the Holy Spirit!) againstthe Vedanta philosophy. He was ordained in 1855 andserved as an Anglican minister. Later the British govern-ment recognized his abilities and put him in charge of itsEducational Service. He also taught as a professor of Eng-lish literature, history, philosophy. The moving part of hislife is the last five years, when he became totally blind andinvalid in other ways. His faith and full acceptance of God’swill with cheerfulness amidst affliction is witness to Dey’sstaunch commitment to Christ. His family’s unswervinglove during this period seems to have brought him closer tothe Lord. He used to say, “I shall not be blind in heaven!” FewChristians can witness to the Christian hope that is in themlike Dey. Lal Behari Dey’s main concern was to unite andindigenise the Indian church. He dreamt and wrote aboutthe national Church in India which will be fully freed from

8 0 8 1

the Western yoke. His writings include: On Vedantism,Papers for Thoughtful Hindus, The Desirability and Practica-bility of Organizing a National Church of Bengal, BengaliPeasant Life, etc. He also edited periodicals, includingFriday Review and Indian Reformer.

Dey’s ThoughtWe could pick up three emphases in his thought.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

Living in the Brahmo atmosphere of the time, Deyvehemently rejected the Brahmo concept of authority — beit Vedas, nature or human reason. He disputed that thoughman’s mind is great, there is that blight of sin upon it, anda worm is eating at human reason so that he cannot thinkanything properly! This necessitates revelation, and at themost reason can only confirm this truth, not discover it. Assuch, Brahmoism is baseless, having no proper authority,while Christian message is authentic, based on the Word ofGod, the divine revelation — a thoroughly orthodox posi-tion!

SIN AND SALVATION

Here again, the attack is against the Brahmos. Empha-sizing God’s love against the rest of the divine attributes, theBrahmos have taken away the necessity of punishment forsin, alleged Dey. According to them, God forgives all sinslovingly, unconditionally. Human sin does not affect God.

Thus for the Brahmos, there is a serious lack in theseriousness of sin. Hence the biblical concept of wrath ofGod and the consequent need of sacrifices is alien to them— the truths on which the message of the cross is essen-tially based. The gospel, on the contrary, reveals God’shatred for sin, and the necessity of atonement. Dey’s thesesin this connection are remarkably biblical: i) God’s punish-ment is his active holiness; ii) Punishment is neither chas-tisement nor a consequence of sin, but a vindication ofGod’s honour and justice; iii) Since sin brings infinitepunishment, only an infinite person, Jesus as the son of

God, can atone for it — thus incarnation is a necessity; iv)Man needs not only freedom from the power of sin but alsoremission of it; v) True repentance is a decision to reform,not remorse. One could say Amen!

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

Dey affirmed, somewhat in old Anglican fashion, thatsaving doctrines are the property of the Church (cf. theCatholic principle: extra ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside theChurch there is no salvation). He maintained that since oneform of the Church is more biblical than the other, it isimportant to know which one is most scriptural. Yet inpractice it is hard to play one denomination as being morescriptural than another. The only other alternative is toconsider all denominations, including Roman Catholicsand the Orthodox, as preserving true essence of the Church.Dey seems to have tended to take the Apostle’s Creed as asufficient basis for the unity of all churches. In any case hiszeal for ecumenism and national Church stems from thispositive attitude to all persuasions. As such Dey wasinfluenced more by the ecumenical spirit than missionaryspirit.

EvaluationWe have already said Amen to Dey’s soteriology and the

understanding of the cross, so there is little more left toevaluate. Remember: Christology is central to all Christiantheology, and the Cross and resurrection are the essence ofall Christologies. The best way to evaluate one’s thought isto ask at once, what does he say about Jesus’ cross andresurrection? You can accept or reject his whole system onthat single test! In the light of this, Dey’s imprecise approachto denominations, a premature zeal to Church unity and thelack of missionary concern can be pardoned!

8 2 8 3

NOTES

1. Sri Parananda, The Gospel of Jesus According to St. Matthew, 1898,p. 49

2. Animananda, The Blade, p. 68.

3. Ibid., pp. 71f.

4. Ibid., p. 200.

5. Bramabandhav has written a beautiful hymn in Sanskrit on theTrinity. Many translations are available.

6. Animananda, op. cit., p. 84.

7. N. Goreh, A Letter to the Brahmos from a Converted Brahman fromBanares, 2nd Edition, 1868, p. 52.

8 4

4

DHANJIBHAI FAKIRBHAI (1895-1967)

This theologian is a saint from Gujarat. Born in a devoutHindu Bhakti family of Baroda, he became a Christian as ayoung man. He became a teacher of Physics and retired asprofessor in a college. Only after retirement he devotedhimself to the writing of Christian literature, presenting theChristian faith in a way relevant to the Hindu thinking. Hewrote several books which are very widely read in bothGujarathi and English. These include Christopanishad, ThePhilosophy of Love, Hriday Geeta, Prematatva Darshan,Praktya Adhyatma Darshana, and Shree Krist Geeta.

Dhanjibhai's Focus: LoveAs can be discerned from the list of his writings the

principal divine attribute on which Dhanjibhai concen-trates is that of love. In his own thinking this description ofGod as love is higher even that of God as Saccidananda.Where intellect fails, love proceeds on; for love transcendsall other categories. In this way Dhanjibhai relates all thedoctrines of the Christian faith to love.

Creation is the work of God’s love. The relationshipbetween man and God is one of love. Sin is the rejection ofGod’s love. And what is this love? He explains that it is theself-sacrificing suffering of God on behalf of the good of hiscreatures. As such, the proper response of man to God’s lovecan only be repentance and humble acceptance in faith.Jesus Christ is love incarnation and new birth is the changeof heart to love others and God.

He further maintains that more than the karma marga,bhakti marga, and Jnana marga there is one more margawhich is the prema yoga, the way of love. This leads tonothing less than salvation or moksha. In addition to thisPrema yoga, in another writing called Shree Krist Geetha,

8 5

Dhanjibhai expounds in poetical form several other yogas— of faith, of devotion, of action, of divine sacrifice, of self-surrender, of knowledge, of purification, of perfectness, ofuniversal lordship of the many in the One, and of thesupreme person.

Prof. Dhanjibhai has used the Indian forms extensivelyin bringing out the Christian message. His use of Indianforms such as darshana, upanishad, geeta and bhashya areall very welcome to Indian ears.

However, there are also certain departures in his think-ing from the traditional ones. For example, he does not usethe word cit for describing the second person of the Trinity,the Logos, but rather prefers the words shabda Brahmanand prajnana. And what is this prajnana? He defines it asfollows:

Prajnana — primeval intelligence — is the power whichcreates, maintains and inspires the world and humanbeings. Prajnana is power and wisdom, is the word of God.Shabda Brahman [Brahman in verbal form] is God himself —Brahman. This word of God, prajnana, took a body in the manof Jesus. As the heat of the sun’s light, according to theBrahmasutra, is no different from the heat of disc of the sunitself, so this incarnate prajnana, the avatara, is fully God.”1

This is as orthodox as he can get.

Another change he makes from the usual tradition is inthe use of the term Kristadvaita. Note that Kristadvaita isnot derived from khrista + dvaita but rather, if you know thegrammar of Indian languages (lopasandhi) it is a combina-tion of khrista + advaita.

For Dhanjibhai the primary content of this kristadvaitais faith-union with Christ in a Johannine or Pauline sense.Though in this union Christ is the nucleus, Dhanjibhaidifferentiates six kinds of unity: (1) The unity of Son with theFather (2) Christ’s unity with the created world (3) the faithunion of the disciples with the Lord. (the main meaning ofthe word) (4) the mutual unity of the disciples with oneanother (5) the eschatological unity of all men and of allnations in Christ and (6) man’s unity with nature, in the

sense that physically we are of the same stuff. The point tonotice here is that in all these unions Christ is the one whosums up all things in himself.

This Kristadvaita is not just individual but corporate, as heexplains: When individuals have really became one with theLord Jesus their relation to one another is that of themembers of a body. They all form a body for the Spirit of theLord.2

As you probably know, Boyd, who also worked in Gujaratis very much excited about this use by Dhanjibhai of theterm Kristadvaita. In fact, after Dhanjibhai’s death Boydhimself used the word for a kind of systematic, contextualand commentary-like theology which he has written on theBook of Romans.

EvaluationThis summary of Dhanjibhai’s work is very fragmentary

and brief. Perhaps in future some other elements can beproduced. But by way of evaluation we can definitely say atleast this: An over-emphasis on the attribute of love is ofcourse not new, but in church history it has always tendedto an under-emphasis of the other part, i.e. the holiness orthe justice of God. One can never be put higher than theother. Neither is love higher than the holiness of God nor isholiness higher than his love. The Cross is the connectinglink between the love and the holiness of God. In the BibleGod is love, but the way that love is given to man is holy. SoGod is not just love but holy love. This is how justice andmercy meet. On the Cross the wrath of God was appeasedby the love of God. Unless we keep this tension we aredefinitely tending towards a lopsided understanding of thedoctrine of God and hence of Christology and hence also ofman and salvation.

Other than that, perhaps there is a slight hint of beingtoo sympathetic towards Hindu scriptures, for in followingsome of the cosmic Christ ideas he seems to find revelationabout Christ, or at least some gleanings of them in theHindu scriptures. Other than these one can admit thatDhanjibhai’s writings are very conservative.

8 6 8 7

SURJIT SINGH

Surjit Singh has written his doctoral dissertation on thequestion of Christology. Being driven to the study of Christ’sdivinity through his own personal experience of meaningless-ness, he comes to the conclusion in the book through a directexperience of the presence of Christ. Preface to Personality(1952) is rather an expression of his existential situation.

He starts with an examination of the New Testamentevidence of the divinity of Christ and comes to two conclu-sions, that it manifests a two-fold deity of Christ’s meta-physical as well as historical aspects. As far as the meta-physical aspect is concerned, it comes out clearly. The NewTestament Christ is the very creator of the universe as wellas its sustainer. He is also immanent and the source ofman’s light and knowledge. He has full communion with theFather. As such Christ is of the same nature as God — aclear New Testament doctrine.

The historical deity is manifested in the Hebrew view thatone who does the will of God is the Son of God. The Hebrewconcept of the son is different from the physical or evenmetaphysical concept of the Greeks. The Hebrew concept isbased on a moral relationship of responsibility, care andobedience. There is growth in this filial relationship.

He pursues a similar study also in the other books of theNew Testament where different authors also amply expresstheir understanding of Jesus Christ as fully man. Based onthese double findings, Surjit Singh attempts to combinethem into one New Testament christology.

His own christology starts with the Resurrection. Fromthis he deduces that the divine-human relationship (incar-nation) is a fact from the very birth of Jesus. In thisrelationship neither the divine nor the human is passive orinert. Always they both are active. The resurrection is alsoa point of perfect identification and unity between the divineand the human in Christ. It is a point of perfect relation andcommunion. But this unity is not one of essence, rather itis one of relation.

He takes the analogy of the relation of God with the world(that of God as sat and world as asat, or that of deism, or thatof dynamic relationship, by which he means one affects theother). From this he brings out the inner meaning of therelationship of Godhead and manhood in Jesus Christ.Thus he defines that the relationship consists in a mutualinvolution (one is involved in the other), mutual interactionand mutual interpenetration. All this leads to a unitaryperson. Such a relation is to be found nowhere else. It is suigeneris (unique), found only in Jesus Christ.

Following this line of thought, Surjit Singh criticizesRadhakrishnan’s Vedantic ideas: that God is ultimatelyimpersonal Brahman; that man, though he may seem tohave individuality, in reality he has no personality; and thatpersonality is of no ultimate significance, since ultimatelyatman and paramatman are identical. In fact, according toRadhakrishnan, the personal is a limitation and distortionand a bondage to the eternal self. He points out that besidesreinterpreting several of the basic Hindu doctrines, what islacking in Radhakrishnan’s understanding of man is thatthere is no room for discussion of the freedom of man.

And so, in order to find the inner meaning of personality,Surjit Singh turns again to the fact of Christ. He finds, asalready indicated, that personality manifests itself best in theresurrection of Jesus Christ, because only in his resurrectionthe body becomes an essential ingredient of the total person-ality. It is not a cloak to be thrown away but it shows that manis a psycho-somatic unity and so also Christ. To quote SurjitSingh: “The idea behind the resurrection is that soul-body isthe complete or whole man. The body in general, representinghistorical individuality, is not discarded.”3

This is an adequate antidote both to the idea that spiritis good and matter is evil, as well as to the advaitic under-standing of maya, that God alone is true and the world isuntrue. In the doctrine of resurrection there is a positiverelationship of God to the world and man. Surjit Singh’sconnection is that when we really grasp the content ofpersonality, especially as it is found in Christ, and of course

8 8 8 9

both in God as well as in man. Only then can we find a properunderstanding of God-world relationship, which is thecentral problem of Hindu theology. Here Surjit Singh isreally saying that Christ is the ‘paradigm’ or model ofpersonality.

This book is Surjit Singh’s only work. But it can becomegerminal for beyond the question of essence of spirit andmatter, of God and man, he comes to this conclusion: thatthe real unifying factor in our understanding of God, world,man, and Christ is relationship which is involved; which ispart of personality.

EvaluationTo me the whole presentation looks very exciting and I

do not find any major weaknesses. Perhaps, having littleacquaintance with the Hindu philosophies andterminologies, he tends to resort more to the European-American philosophers and theologians. This may not bereally relevant to the Indian mind. Boyd’s suggestion thatsimilar exposition of the Hindu concept of purusha can beonly partly rewarding, for the content of purusha is differentfrom the content of the person as Surjit Singh has attemptedto develop.

DAVID G. MOSES (1902-1978)

David Moses is a man of our time having lived till the lastdecade. Born in Namakkal (Tamilnadu), he was like themost of the brilliant Christian youth of the time educated inthe Madras Christian College (B.A.) and obtained his M.A.and Ph.D. degree from Columbia University, U.S.A. (1933-49). Being a good administrator, he soon took up such postsas the president of the World Council of Churches (as thefirst Indian), and the principal of Hislop College, Nagpur.There is not much known about his commitment to Christ.He seems to have accepted the message of the gospelbecause of Christian background, but seems to have grap-pled with the real issues only in his theological studiesconcerning the philosophy of Radhakrishnan.

Moses has written numerous articles: “God and Person-ality”; “The Nature of Religious Truth”; “The Need for Chris-tian Thinking in India Today”; “Mission, Unity and Evange-lism”; “Church Union”; “Religious Truth and the Relationbetween Religions”, which is, a response to Radhakrishnan’sphilosophy of religion.

Moses and RadhakrishnanNaturally Moses’ primary interest was also in the area of

religions. You remember our earlier comment that the lastgeneration of Indian Christian leaders were compelled intoadministration and finance and so were least creative byway of theological writing or clarity — Moses also belongs tothem.

Radhakrishnan’s understanding of religion is summa-rized by Moses as follows: All religions are more or lessequal; but theological (conceptual) truths which are inreligion are relative, and therefore their validity as the basisof religion is questionable. There is formless truth of whichall religions are different expressions; this also means thatthere is no final religion. Moses replies: concepts (theology,truth) have value for religions as their basis and instru-ments. Though man can know the absolute truth only in itsrelative forms, truth cannot divide but rather unite. Thustruth elements are necessary to religion.

In other words, Moses is reacting to Radhakrishnan’sridicule that Christianity as a religion of dogmas and rulesfails to do full justice to religious experience as Hinduism,and so is inferior to it. Moses counters that preciselybecause of Christianity is based on (revealed) truth is moreeffective in life and experience.

Radhakrishnan understands Hinduism as seed, theancient (hence the absolute) religion. He asserts that thesearch for the universal religion, for example, by the Parlia-ment of Religions, cannot but end in Hinduism. SinceBrahman is inexpressible all religions are expressions of thesame Brahman though Hinduism comes nearest to thetruth.

9 0 9 1

In reply to this, Moses says that though the differentforms of religions are necessary, they are by no means allequal; otherwise such an approach will lead us into agnos-ticism. We need to discern between essential and non-essential elements of religion. Finally, in reply toRadhakrishnan’s affirmation that faith is “herd infection”,thus is sociological (by birth, like the Hindu), Moses countersthat faith is purely a personal affair, a doctrine, whichmeans the conversion, from one faith to another faith and sochange of religion, is valid and inevitable.

A brief explanation is needed here to understand therelevance and even the content of the above. Moses lived ina time when the debate of discovering one true religion in allthe religions was at its height. Religion with capital R refersto a faith relationship with ‘God’, while religions with lowercase refer to the systems containing doctrines, myths,ethics, rituals, experiences and social institutions. AndMoses’ time was rife also with the question of missionarywork and conversion as proselytisation, and Gandhi andRadhakrishnan were involved in it fully.

Thus Moses is attempting here a Christian apologetics,both against Christianity as a religion as well as defendingconversion as religious rather than sociological, political orecumenical phenomenon.

Towards the end Moses changed (like Karl Barth!) hisposition several times, and his final stance seems to be quiteconservative, rejecting the teaching that all religions areequally as dangerous. He ended up in saying that Christi-anity has the final revelation, opposite to Radhakrishnan’sclaim that Hinduism is the final religion, because it is themost ancient religion.

EvaluationOur comments are brief here also. We should appreciate

that Moses wrote in response to the burning issues of theday, and hence was most relevant. But he seems to be usingthe methods and weapons of the enemy, by taking uprational and philosophical argumentation, a common and

almost inevitable temptation for all of us! In any case,Moses’ writings lack the depth which warms one upto thecross and senstitizes one to the working of the Holy Spirit.

NOTES

1. Boyd, p. 332f.

2. Boyd, p. 334.

3. Surjit Singh, Preface to Personality, CLS, Madras: 1952, p. 112.

9 2 9 3

5

Criteria for indigenisation

At this juncture it is unnecessary to repeat that we aredealing with Indian thinkers whose primary aim was toindigenise the Christian message. There are as manyindigenised theologies as there are thinkers. The questionis which of them is right? Are there any criteria by which wecan judge one more valid than the others?

Once I read an interesting anecdote in a book: duringWorld War I in South India, rice, which is the staple food,became a scarce commodity. In order to meet the crisis theBritish sent wheat to the South Indians but they dumped itinto the sea all along the coast: Not only did they not knowwhat to do with the wheat but they also took an offense atthe British, because knowing that they eat rice they hadsent some other grain. Apparently the British thinking wentsomething like this: there is a big food shortage with you andwheat is better than rice, so we are sending that to you. Ithink the big mistake the British made was they did notadequately south-indianize the wheat and so it was re-jected.

In indigenisation of theology also, more or less the sameconditions hold good. In indigenisation we are not so muchconcerned with the sales technique or even the packagingbut rather with the usefulness (in the case of wheat whetherit gives protein to the body or not), digestibility and form(whether it comes as bread or bun or chappati or nan orwhatever). As far as the Christian gospel is concerned, theuniversal claim of ‘no other name’ takes care of usefulness.But we must also be concerned with the form or theexpression whether they were familiar with hearers or not.And we must consider the digestibility, that is whether thethoughts and concepts used are understandable or not.

9 59 4

There is one more criterion which perhaps becomes thefinal seal whether an indigenisation is valid or not. Since atree is known by its fruit, I think the best way to judgewhether an indigenisation is valid or not is whether thepeople who heard the indigenised gospel have meaningfullyaccepted Christ or not, by showing the fruit of the spirit intheir daily living. That is the final test.

As far as the earlier are concerned I think Brahmabandhavmust be counted among the top. But when we come to thelast criterion — the tree-fruit test — it is not sure whethermany people who heard him really responded to Christ. Butthere is one Indian thinker whose indigenised gospel hasbrought greater response than anybody else’s: Sadhu Sun-der Singh — ‘The most famous Indian Christian who has yetlived’.

The contrast between Brahmabandhav and Sadhu Sun-der Singh is a well known one in Indian Christian literatureand you should some time later dig into it a bit deeper.

SADHU SUNDER SINGH (1889-1929)

Sunder Singh was born at Rampur in Punjab. Hisparents were rich Sikhs, religious yet broad minded. By theage of seven Sunder Singh knew the Bhagvadgita by heart(To make a comparison: we are told that entrance into CairoUniversity is given only to those who know the Koran byheart. Which of us know the whole New Testament by hearteven at mature age!). At 16 he had read through the Granth,the Koran and several Upanishads. This religious inquirywas inspired by his mother who wanted him to become aholy Sadhu and not worldly like his brother. He had alsoacquainted himself with Christianity at the mission schoolin Ludhiana, but was strongly opposed to this foreignreligion — perhaps influenced by the public opinion of thetime. He threw stones at the missionaries and even burneda copy of the Bible. He was also well trained in yoga by thetime of his adolescence.

All these different attempts show enough about the deepthirst Sunder had. He was a seeker and had a restless heart.None of these different religious exercises he underwentcould bring him the peace, the shanti for which he wassearching. In all his search Sunder sincerely believed thathis own religion could bring him peace. Since there areseveral versions of his conversion I think the best way tohear the story is from his own lips:

Three days after burning the Bible, finding that Hinduismgave me no comfort, I decided to commit suicide because tolive in such misery was impossible. Very early in the morning(at 3. a.m.) I arose and taking a cold bath I began to pray ‘Ifthere be any God let him show me the way of salvation; if notthen I will commit suicide by placing myself on the railway’.Up to 4.30 no answer came. Presently there came a light inmy room. In that light the beloved and glorious face of Christappeared and showing his wounded hands, in which thenailprints clearly showed, he said, “why do you persecute?Behold I gave my life for you.” Hearing this his words sank likelightening into my heart. I immediately became filled with joyand I was changed for all eternity.

Later Sunder Singh himself gives testimony to theauthenticity of his conversion.

This was not imagination. If Buddha or Krishna has shownhimself it would have been imagination, for I worshippedthem. But for Christ to show Himself, he whom I hated, is amiracle and clear proof that he is a living Christ. Neither wasit a dream, for no one can see a dream after taking a cold bathand a dream cannot completely change life. This is a greatreality.

This conversion took place on 18th December 1904.Sunder Singh immediately gave his allegiance to JesusChrist, to the dismay of his own people, who persecuted himvery much. But ultimately he had to leave home and wasbaptized next year in September. Following the wishes of hismother he donned the ochre robe and so became a trueS a d h u .

From an American, S.E. Stokes, Sunder Singh learnedabout the monastic life. In 1909 he even joined a seminary,the St. John’s Divinity College in Lahore but had to leave itwithin months. He was given a preacher’s license by the

9 6 9 7

Lahore Diocese but later surrendered it because he wantedto be a preacher-at-large to the universal Church. So justtaking the Urdu New Testament with him he toured all overIndia, especially into Tibet. The many mysterious happen-ings as well as miraculous deliverances he experienced arewell known and need not be repeated here. He visitedBritain, America, Europe and Australia during 1902-22. InGermany, they held him almost equal to Christ, judged bythe veneration they gave him. When he returned to India heagain toured all over the land as well as to his favourite Tibetsince no ordinary evangelist could go into this very difficultplace. Specially in Tibet and in his evangelistic journeys hewas persecuted, beaten, lashed and suffered heavily onaccount of Christ. Once when Chenchiah provokingly com-mented to the Sadhu that his hand were very soft anddelicate like a lady’s the Sadhu replied, “yes, but my bodybears the marks of Christ”. That was literally true.

The end of Sadhu’s life is shrouded in mystery. On hislast journey to Tibet he was seen off by his friends andnothing more is known of him. The Government of Indiasent search parties but nothing is known so far. It is ratheridealistic to say, as some authors suggest, that he was takenwithout death into the presence of God, but that does notneed to detain us here. This was in 1929. His own versionwas that he went to one great maharshi in the Himalayas,with whom he wanted always to be engaged in the ministryof prayer for the whole world.

Perhaps the great commitment the Sadhu had for JesusChrist can be summarized in an anecdote. Once when hewas visiting England, and knocked at a door the little girl(very recently I met this, girl, who is now 85 year old woman)who opened the door, ran back to the mother and said“Mummy, Jesus is standing at our door.” His one passionwas Jesus Christ, so much so that others saw Jesus in him.

Theological WritingsIt is singular that most if not all of the Sadhu’s theologi-

cal pronouncements come as part of trances or visions, or

in contact with supernatural beings or spirits in heaven. Hespeaks often of having visited heaven and having askedquestions to these angelic spirits concerning whateverdoubt he had of life or questions on earth. So mostly hisanswer run like this “I was told . . .”, or “Once the spirits toldme . . . ” etc.

His writings include, At the Master’s Feet, Religion —Meditations on God, Man and Nature, The Search After, Withand Without Christ, Visions of the Spiritual World, Medita-tions on Various Aspects of the Spiritual Life, The Real Life,The Real Pearl and many articles in several of the Indian andnon-Indian periodicals.

Sunder Singh’s TheologyIt is very important to notice that besides the revelations

in the Scriptures Sadhu Sunder Singh gives equal weight tothe trances and ecstatic experiences of visions he has had.He himself explains them very picturesquely this way:

There are pearls in the sea but to get them you have to diveto the bottom. Ecstasy is a dive to the bottom of spiritualthings; it is not a trance but it is like a dive because as a diverhas to stop breathing so in ecstasy the outward senses mustbe stopped.

But it must be equally noted that all his ecstatic expe-riences were always in harmony with the Bible. In fact, theBible was his primary form or standard. As such, one cannotcarp on his resort to his ecstatic visions. At the same timewe must also notice the Sadhu uses mostly the New Testa-ment. There are hardly any references to the Old Testament.There is much written of what he thought about the relationbetween the Old and the New. But definitely he seems tohave made no attempt to replace the Old Testament by theIndian scriptures, as some have done.

Obviously Christ was the central theme of the Sadhu’sutterances. He holds Christ to be fully God, that in himalone God is fully revealed and that to know him is to knowthat he is divine. Christ was the Sadhu’s living experiences.He says: “I do not believe in Jesus Christ because I have read

9 8 9 9

about him in the Bible. I saw him and experienced him andknow him in my daily experience.”

The Sadhu considers Christ as God become flesh. Unlikeothers he does not differentiate between incarnation andavatara. He uses these terms interchangeably.

The Sadhu did not give much details of his thoughtconcerning the Cross. How on the Cross Christ bringsredemption for the sins of man is never clearly told, but thenearest is this: “Christ knew that neither silver nor the goldnor diamonds nor any other jewels would suffice to procurelife. That is why he gave his life for the redemption of theworld.”1

There is a sense of legal transaction here equivalent topenal substitution. But in the Sadhu’s teachings there ismore of a ‘moral influence’ understanding of the Cross. Hisstories are full of how the sufferings of the parents for thebetterment of their wayward children changed the hearts ofthe latter. That is why the Sadhu emphasized that Chris-tians do not like to commit sin because they know that itgrieves God.

Obviously the Sadhu speaks more of life in Christ ratherthan life given at the Cross, more of sanctification than ofjustification. For him forgiveness of sins is only one part ofsalvation. Full salvation includes freedom from sin. This iswhat he means by new life or new creature. For him, just asthe salt which has been dissolved in water cannot be seenbut only discerned, so also this new life can be discerned inour lives by others. Another important aspect of his under-standing of sanctification is that of life as cross bearing.True to his sanyasi state he takes the cross as an essentialpart of Christian life. In fact he says, “The Cross is heaven”.To quote him once more,

To follow him and bear his cross is so sweet and precious thatif I find no cross to bear in heaven I shall plead before him tosend me as his missionary to bear his cross. His presence willchange even hell into heaven.2

Here as elsewhere the Sadhu speaks not so much of thecross of Christ but rather the cross of the disciple whicheach one of us must bear.

For the Sadhu seems to believe in rather a lack ofgoodness than an active principle of evil. “Sin has noindependent existence. It is merely the absence or negationof good.”3 This is of course less satisfactory than what Paulcalls the principle of sin as a positive force in man. Yet theSadhu holds to the fallenness of man: that man sinsbecause he is sinful, than sin has power over him and he hasno power over sin or to do what is good.

Karma is the result of sin, such as the hardening of one’scharacter, or the degeneration of one’s whole personality, orthe very punishment of sin. Thus beautifully the Sadhurelates sin and karma very relevantly to the Indian hearers.

Yet, as Boyd brings out clearly the Sadhu believes thatsuffering for sin is not and cannot be penal. Suffering ratherdrives us into the lap of God and is not a punishment forsins. As such for him eternal punishment is untenable andhe seems to tend towards universalism i.e. the salvationultimately of all men.

Man has neither created his own soul nor can he destroy it.The creator has brought into being every creature for somespecial purpose . . . and even though many wonder and goastray, in the end they will return to him in whose image theyhave been created, for this is the final destination.

Thus emphasizing the love of God more than his holi-ness the Sadhu thinks that it is impossible to conceive thatthe God of the Bible will eternally punish his creatures.

So also his understanding of the last judgment differs.He does not think that the last judgment is when all peoplewill stand together to be judged. No, rather the real judg-ment is that which goes on every day.

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in the Sadhu’s thinkingwas his understanding of the church. When asked to whichchurch he belonged his answer was: “To none. I belong toChrist. That is enough for me.”4 Once out of the church he

1 0 0 1 0 1

was a free man, going like a Sadhu among people. Givinggreater importance to his ecstasies the Sadhu emphasizedmore the individual relationship with God and Christ (theHindu ideal of alone with the Alone) and so the corporateworship had little value for him. He even refused to set upan ashram when he was offered all the means. Wheneverpossible he did partake of the communion in a churchservice and also preach. But otherwise he was neither underthe authority of any church nor had any relations withthem.

What does Sadhu Sunder Singh think of other religions?According to him “The living Christ reveals himself to everyman according to his need.” So he is revealed in every waybecause he is the only true light. Hence “Christianity is thefulfillment of Hinduism. Hinduism has been digging chan-nels. Christ is the water to flow through these channels.”For him religions mean love and commitment and notknowledge. So he rejects all kinds of margas, even Bhaktimarga, which is perhaps the closest to his own method. Hedid use most of the terms from Hinduism (remembering thathe came from an Urdu background it is significant that heuses the Sanskrit words).

Being a Sadhu i.e. living a life away from this world, hespeaks more often of life in that next world. So his themesinclude heaven, hell, the last judgment, the resurrection ofthe body and the coming salvation of all men and the like.For him hell and heaven are not places but states.

Hell also is a training school, a place of preparation for home. . . men were not created for hell and therefore do not enjoyit and when they desire to escape to heaven they do so butthey find heaven even more uncongenial than hell so theyreturn. But this convinces them that there is somethingwrong in their lives and thus they are gradually led torepentance.

This of course smacks of universalism which we havealready seen. Many of the things which he says concerningeschatological things are his own personal experiences, sowe need not dwell much upon these themes.

Perhaps the most redeeming part of his theology was hismethod of communication. More than any one else he hasused the method of parables as Jesus did, and with thegreatest effect. His parables are very apt and coming out ofhis own experience they bring the message to the hearer incrystal-clear terms. Since he was interested neither inproducing a logical consistency in his talks nor a systematicpresentation, we need not hold it against him. But hisillustrations are relevant not only to the hearers of his timebut also have a universal appeal. That is the greatness ofSadhu Sunder Singh. The following is one of his goodillustrations:

Hindus are very fond of saying that god is in everything. Ionce came to a river which I had to cross. There was no boatto carry me over and I stood wondering how it could bemanaged. Then a man called attention to a deflated waterskin and said that that was the only way. So we inflated itwith air and I crossed over in safety. Then the thought cameto me that there was plenty of air all around me but it wasincapable of helping me in any difficulty until it was confinedin the narrow space of the water skin. So it is as unreasonableto deny the necessity of the incarnation of Christ as to declarethat the air-filled leather boat was no use in helping crossthat river.5

Perhaps this method has to do with his lack of theologi-cal training but judged from the ‘tree-fruit’ test his indigenisedtheology was indeed very successful.

EvaluationIt may appear presumptuous to evaluate such a man but

we must do it as objectively as possible. But we are con-cerned more with his thoughts.

a) His Christo-centricity is unquestionable.

b) His basing all his theology on the Scriptures is againcommendable, though we must take account of his givingsometimes a greater importance to his ecstatic experience,but as we have seen none of his experiences are contrary tothose given in the Scripture.

c) Filled with a burning passion to reach people forChrist, his method was to get the message across and so he

1 0 2 1 0 3

developed whatever method was relevant to the hearers. Hisanalogical method can be best explained this way: it wouldbe good if other Indian preachers taken up this method.

Some of his weaknesses are:

a) Of course his rejection of the church cannot bereconciled with what the Bible teaches.

b) His lack of use of OT can be another weakness. Thismay tend to mean that his understanding of the gospel, thewhole counsel of God was inadequate. But given his Christo-centricity one need not carp on that.

c) His tendency toward universalism is again to beregretted.

d) As we have seen Sadhu Sunder Singh looked at Christmore as a living experience rather than the one who bringsjustification or the one who consummates history. Hence hespeaks very little of both the comings of Christ, coming firstto die on the cross and coming at the end of history. Thesetwo do not play any significant role in his thinking. Thus histheology can be said to be more existential and experiential.

A.J. APPASAMY

As we have seen, Brahmabandhav’s interpretation ofChristianity in the vedantic line is not the only type. SadhuSunder Singh’s approach closely related to bhakti is an-other type. There are several Indians who have taken thisline as the best way to interpret the Christian gospel. Amongthem A.J. Appasamy is undoubtedly the foremost. He wrotehis doctoral dissertation and made an extensive researchinto the bhakti tradition from the Christian point of view.

The Bhakti traditionThe bhakti tradition has as its main tenet the existence

of a personal god as well as human beings as personalbeings. Salvation in the vedantic (i.e. advaitic) traditionmeans the absorption of atman into Brahman. But bhakti,or what has now come to be known as vishistadvaitictradition never blurs the difference between God and man.

Keeping these distinctions it is the closest to the mysticismof the Fourth Gospel. To Indians, perhaps because they areinterested more in mysticism than rational analysis, theFourth Gospel has always been a great attraction. Theadvaitic vedantists always contended that the vishistadvaitictradition is inferior, having a personal god Ishwara, who ispart of maya, while advaita rises above that and believes inthe higher impersonal god Brahman.

Yet even in Hindu literature there exist several strandsof this personal god approach. The most important perhapsis Bhagvadgita. Though it has been differently translated tosuit one’s own school of thinking, the devotion of Arjuna toKrishna, the personal god, is definitely the dominant note.During the 10th century there came an emotional type ofbhakti literature called Bhagavata Puranas. Here the per-sonal devotion to god became so intensive that at times itspilled over even into sensual, rather erotic direction. Inaddition there is also a third form of literature by the bestknown Tamil poets called Alvars, who composed very per-sonal bhakti songs. All this was in line with what Bhagvadgitaitself said: “Those who worship me with Bhakti are in me andI also in them.”

About the 11th century came Ramanuja of Kanchipuram,who courageously opposed Shankara’s advaita and underthe influence of both Vaishnavism and the BhagavataPuranas, developed a theological basis which made thepersonal communion with god possible without either get-ting absorbed into an impersonal Brahman or ceasing toexist. This is what is now called Ramanuja’s System orvishishtadvaita — modified non-dualism.

There are many competent scholars who suggest thatthe bhakti literature of authors such as Manikkavasagar,Ramanuja and Kabir were influenced by Christian thought.In any case all this goes to show that the kind of mysticismfound in the fourth gospel is to be found also in othertraditions, including the Indian Hindu tradition, albeit witha mixture of truth and falsehood as is the case with everyrevelation apart from Jesus Christ.

1 0 4 1 0 5

From this Hindu Bhakti tradition to the Christian bhaktitradition bridging is not difficult. There are several wellknown names such as H.A. Krishna Pillai (1827-1900) ofTamilnadu, Kahanji Madhavji of Gujarat and Narayan VamanTilak of Maharashtra (1862-1919). God’s yearning to com-mune with man in spite of man’s sinfulness, with hiseventual death on the cross, the subsequent sanctificationand resultant abounding joy are the themes of these au-thors. Tilak also added another element to this, emphasiz-ing the love aspect of God. He called God mother, somethingfor the feminist to chew on. Even now in most of the Marathicongregations Tilak’s lyrics are sung with gusto.

Appasamy’s lifeAyyadurai Jesudasan Appasamy (born 1891) was the

son of Dewan Bahadur A.S. Appasamy Pillai, who convertedfrom Shaivism to Christ at the age of 24, partly because ofKrishna Pillai. After his studies in Tirunelveli, Appasamyleft for America and later for Oxford, where he wrote hisdoctoral thesis: “The mysticism of the Fourth Gospel in itsRelation to the Hindu Bhakti Literature”. Many well-knowncelebrities, like Canon B.H. Streeter, J.N. Farquhar, RudolfOtto, and Baron Friedrich Von Huegel, helped him in hisresearch. When he was still at Oxford Sadhu Sunder Singhvisited there and they developed a deep friendship leadingto Appasamy’s writing a very authentic book on the Sadhucalled The Sadhu. Apparently the mysticism of the Sadhuhad a great influence upon him — birds of the same featherflock together, do they not?

After returning to India, Appasamy continued his re-search into Sanskrit and Tamil literature, primarily to finda Hindu philosophical basis for the Bhakti tradition. Beforelong he found what he was searching for, vishishtadvaita ofRamanuja. After thoroughly mastering it he publishedseveral works which have become definitive concerning thebhakti tradition. Appasamy became a well known writer-teacher and Bishop of the Church of South India.

His theological writings include Christianity as BhaktiMarga (1928) which is a revised version of his doctoralthesis. His other writings include An Indian Interpretation ofChristianity, The Use of Yoga in Prayer, Divine Incarnation asFound in the Ramayana of Tulsidas, Temple Bells — Read-ings from Hindu Religious Literature, The Johannine Doc-trine of Life — A Study of Christian and Hindu Thought,Christ in the Indian Church — A Primer of Christian Faith andDoctrine, Christ Answers Youth’s Problems, The Gospel andIndia’s Heritage, Christian Task in Independent India, Ser-mons and Letters, My Theological Quest. Besides these hehas written several articles in well known theologicalperiodicals.

Appasamy’s ThoughtIt is necessary to start with Appasamy’s rejection of the

Chalcedonian formula — namely that Christ is fully Godand metaphysically one with the Father. Usually the twogreat sayings or mahavakyas from John’s Gospel, “I and myFather are one” and “Abide in me”, are used to prove thatGod and Christ and believers are one in the same mannerand that it is a union rather than communion. Appasamyrejects this, not primarily because it is western but becauseit smacks of the Hindu advaitic tendency and he will havenothing to do with that. Basing his arguments on anotherpassage in John which affirms the subordination of the Sonto Father, Appasamy argues that the Son’s unity with theFather as well as the disciples’ unity Christ is a moral one,one of commitment and communion. Only on such a simi-larity between the Father-Son and the disciples canAppasamy build his bhakti system.

Going on from there Appasamy develops the thoughtthat fellowship with God does not consist in the harmony ofthe individual soul with the divine soul in thought andimagination, in purpose and will, in humble deed andadoring devotion. This quality of life which the Bible, par-ticularly John’s Gospel, calls eternal life, is what Appasamycalls moksha. Of the three Hindu margas — jnana marga,bhakti marga and karma marga — it is bhakti marga which

1 0 6 1 0 7

maintains this kind of personal communion. Appasamyobviously chooses bhakti marga as the only way to attainmoksha. In an interesting definition Appasamy says:

(Moksha) is a real harmony with the holy and righteousFather. It is a personal experience which, however, in itshigher reaches transcends the personal. It is a corporateexperience, man mingling with his fellow-men in order toattain the heights of God’s love. It begins even in this life anddoes not wait for an indefinite future.6

Such an interpretation of moksha not only preserves thepersonalities of both God and man but also gives humanbeings a social dimension which probably is an addition tothe original meaning of the term.

This call of Jesus, “abide in me”, demands a responsefrom the disciple which is “keep my commandments”. ThusBhakti marga necessarily involves a commitment to Christin this life in an ethical character and conduct. Analyzingthe concept of personality in Hindu Bhakti literature,Appasamy concludes that even there the response of thebhakta (worshipper) to God is a whole response involvingthoughts, emotions and decisions, though they are a bitweaker on the will.

He further contends that in Hindu literature the ‘I’ ispictured as the root of all our troubles and so if we respondto God using our will, being and thought, the suspicion issuch a development of egoism. We are commanded to obey,which takes care of that.

Building on this bhakti kind of communion between Godand man, Appasamy develops also the relevance of family inthis context, since family is the first social unit where suchmoral relationships are developed. Jesus’ attachment toseveral families such as Lazarus, Martha, and Mary andothers show that he himself had these family relationships.This is to safeguard against the bhakti tradition’s rejection offamily in Hinduism. Many of the bhakti poets rejected theirwives and parents and children and other family members intheir ecstatic and even sensual relationship with their ishtadevata, their personal god. But Appasamy rightly suggests

that Jesus did nothing of the kind. In fact he encouragedfamily relationships. This is to safeguard against agape (love)to growing (or degenerating) into Eros (desire).

THE IMMANENT CHRIST

Another of his important thought is his exegesis of John1:10, “he was in the world”. While normally this presence ofChrist in the world is understood to refer only to hisincarnation, i.e. as Jesus of Nazareth, Appasamy howeverinterprets it to mean the presence of the immanent Christboth before and after that. This is something similar to theLogos Spermatikos idea which we have already seen. So hesays “Incarnation is a more effective means of showing Godthan mere immanence.”7

This kind of presence makes Christ antaryami, the in-dweller or the inner controller. Here it must be pointed outthat while many Indians use the term antaryami for the HolySpirit, Appasamy uses it for the ‘cosmic’ Christ. In histhinking this antaryami is fully equivalent to the Logos ofJohn’s Prologue. He is quick to point out, of course, that thisLogos shone at its brightest in Jesus, and so without comingto know Jesus one cannot know anything about this antaryamior Logos. In other words, what Appasamy is affirming here isthat all religions have a revelation of Christ, though dim, butonly in Jesus (the Church) this light is the brightest. This alsomeans that the difference between Christianity and otherreligions is one of quantity and not of quality.

It is easy to see from the above argument that forAppasamy God is in the world, but is not identical with it,but he is active in the world as Logos. Using Ramanuja’sanalogy he says that God is the soul and the world is thebody. Boyd rightly points out that this analogy of body andsoul is an important part of Appasamy’s theology, for heuses it also in other contexts such as in dealing with thepresence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the church.

CHRIST’S AVATARA

Rejecting the advaitic teaching Appasamy also rejectstheir interpretation of avatara. Yet he is very careful to make

1 0 8 1 0 9

the distinction between the Hindu view and the Christianview. He gives several distinctions.

(a) In Hinduism avatara is repeated while in Christ it isonly once.

(b) In Hinduism avataras are incomplete, since only theKrishnavatara is called the full or purna avatara

avatara is a complete one.

(c) In Hinduism after the avatara is over the deity usuallyreturns to his original state while in Christ it is a permanentone.

(d) In Hinduism, as Bhagvadgita says, the avataras arefor the destruction of the wicked and the reward of therighteous, whereas the avatara of Christ is to seek and tosave the lost. In all this, Appasamy has adequately pre-served the once-for-allness of Christ’s incarnation.

(e) He also calls the Hindu avataras mere theophanyrather than real incarnation.

(f) There is no more distinction which comes in SaivaSiddhanta, where the avataras do not have a real physicalbody but only an apparent one.

Appasamy contends that Christ’s is a real physical body,that Christ’s avatara is not appearance or illusion but it wasreal. He became flesh. Following the vishistadvaitic tradi-tion Appasamy is careful to maintain the reality and thedistinction of the world from God.

PERSONALITY, SIN, KARMA

Even with all this Appasamy is not quite clear whetherGod is truly personal or impersonal, truly absolute orrelative. He finds some traces of personal description of Godin John, such as in descriptions of personal aspects — awarm person and empathetic human being, full of love andgrace. He concludes his exegesis of John by saying thatJohn wants “to emphasize those aspects of Christ whichtranscend personality as against those aspects which arepersonal”.8 Thus Appasamy is really making a synthesisbetween Ramanuja and Shankara.

As far as his understanding of sin is concerned Appasamygives a new insight: “The problem of getting rid of Karma isfar more pressing than the problem of getting rid of sin.”9 Hisdefense is that since a Hindu normally has a real passion forGod he should be first helped to understand God’s love andonly later he will be shown the seriousness of sin. He alsofinds an adequate solution of karma in John 3:18: “He thatbelieveth in him is not judged. He that believeth not isjudged already . . . ” Following this line of thinking Appasamyrejects also eternal punishment but rather advocates “aperpetual retributive judgment going on even now, men arejudging themselves by their good or bad choices. In thissense there is a continual karma working itself out inhuman lives.”10 Here there is an unmistakable influence ofSadhu Sunder Singh.

What does Appasamy think of the work of Christ on thecross? As can be expected, that again is an original interpre-tation. Starting with two passages “Except a grain of wheatfall into the earth and die it abideth by itself alone, but if itdie it bears much fruit” (Jn. 12:24) and “I, if I be lifted up fromthe earth will draw all men unto myself” (Jn. 12:32), heinfers that suffering is universally necessary and thatsuffering influences all the spectators. Clearly this is amoral influence theory of the atonement. He is reluctant tothink of the cross in a negative way, that is as penalsubstitution, but in a positive way, as the illustration of thelove of God which draws men to him. However there areindications that later Appasamy seems to have seen theinadequacy of this interpretation of the cross and hastended to accept the penal substitutionary theory, at leastin certain aspects.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

As we have seen in the first Chapter, Hinduism acceptsthree authorities for their faith. The first is shruti (scripture),second yukti or anumana (reason) and thirdly anubhava(experience). Appasamy accepts these, but with great in-sight he also adds a fourth one, which actually in histhinking comes second, that of the Church, the sabha. He

1 1 0 1 1 1

is quite right when he says: It is of the essence of theChristian religion that God reveals himself not merely toindividuals but to his church. The Hindu religion failsdisastrously in this respect.11

Perhaps as a result of the same syllogism Appasamy alsoaccepts, unlike many other Indian Christian thinkers (suchas Chenchiah), that the Old Testament is an essential partof Bible, the Scriptures, and not to be replaced by Hindu orother traditions. This positive attitude towards the church(remember he is a Bishop) resulted in making his Churchthe body and Christ the soul, as we have already seen. Andespecially in the case of the Eucharist.

Christ himself comes into our soul through the elements,and abiding in us endows us with his spiritual energy.Through faith we abide in him. We turn our thoughts to himin prayer, surrendering all we have into his sacred keeping,and he comes into us and directs us from our inner self.12

Here, of course, there is no hint of the physical presenceof Christ as trans- or con-substantiation would have usbelieve.

Similarly Appasamy affirms that when Jesus says “Thisis my body” he is actually using the body-soul analogy.Jesus takes the created elements of bread and wine forfulfilling his purpose of revealing himself to men.

Evaluationi) Appasamy’s choice of marga is perhaps the closest one

can think of in making the gospel meaningful to the Indianmind, since other schools such as advaita or dvaita aremuch further in thought content from the gospel message.

ii) His high view of the Church is very commendable. Sincethere is no lonely Christian and since Christ gives all his giftsand responsibilities to the Christians as the Church this isperfectly biblical. One wonders if he had not been a bishopwhether he would have emphasized the Church that much!

iii) His acceptance of Old Testament as equally norma-tive as the New Testament is another commendable aspectof his theology.

iv) Perhaps the greatest weakness of Appasamy lies inhis Christology. The complete or near complete rejection ofthe legal aspect of the cross is a sad lack. Remember, theCross is the pivot for whole Christology.

v) Perhaps for the same reason the seriousness of sin ismissing in his thinking. Though he properly emphasizes theinfluence of karma on Indian mind. Yet a sub-scripturalunderstanding of sin does not understand Christ in hisessence.

vi) Finally, his use of Ramanuja’s body-soul analogy isanother creative aspect of his theology. I hope in the nearfuture someone can develop another more relevant IndianChristian theology taking that as a theological method.

NOTES

1. F. Heiler, The Gospel of Sunder Singh, LPH, Lucknow: 1970, p. 144.

2. A.J. Appasamy, The Cross is Heaven, London, 1956, pp. 39f.

3. F. Heiler, op. cit., p. 164.

4. Ibid., p. 210.

5. B.H. Streeter and A.J. Appasamy, The Sadhu: A Study in Mysticismand Practical Religion, London, 1921, p. 57.

6. A.J. Appasamy, What is Moksha?: A Study in the Johannine Doctrineof Life, CLS, Madras, 1931, p. 6.

7. A.J. Appasamy, Christianity as Bhakti Marga, p. 43.

8. Appasamy, What is Moksha, p. 103.

9. Appasamy, The Gospel and India’s Heritage, ISPCK, London, 1942,p. 97.

10. Appasamy, What is Moksha?, pp. 218-220.

11. Appasamy, What Shall We believe? CLS, Madras: 1971 p. 16.

12. Appasamy, Christianity as Bhakti Marga, p. 147.

1 1 2 1 1 3

6

VENGAL CHAKKARAI (1880-1958)

Vengal Chakkarai is considered by some as the onlysystematic theologian from the Indian continent. He be-longs to the well known trio of theologians — Appasamy,Chenchiah and Chakkarai.

He was born in Madras in a rich Chettiar family. Hisfather was a Vedantin, while his mother was a devoutVaishnava bhaktini. He received his early education inChristian institutions: Scottish Mission school and MadrasChristian College, where he came under the influence ofWilliam Miller. He studied the Bible himself and through thefriendship of Miller he was helped gradually to a personalexperience of Christ. What really mattered most to Chakkaraiin his conversion was the cry of dereliction on the cross byJesus, “My God, My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?” Hededuced from this that any man who should cry like thatmust really be divine. As you have already noticed theperson of Jesus Christ touches different people in differentways!

He made public profession of his faith and was baptizedin 1903. Though qualified as a lawyer, he worked in theevangelistic department of the Danish Missionary Societyin Madras, among educated Hindus. Yet as early as 1906 hebecame a patriot throwing himself passionately into thenational struggle against the British. In 1907 he joined theHome Rule Movement and in 1920 he supported Gandhi’snon-cooperation campaign. Later he also took active part inthe Labour movement. He became one of the best knownChristians and was elected Mayor of Madras in 1941. In1951 he served as the Chairman of the All India Trade UnionCongress.

Along with Chenchiah, his brother-in-law, he was one ofthe founders of the Madras group known as the Christo

1 1 51 1 4

Samaj. Later he started a paper, The Christian Patriot, andbecame its editor. Most of his theological writings werepublished in this periodical. He was also one of the chiefarchitects of the group called “The Rethinking Group”. Thiswas rather an informal group and is known by that namebecause they all produced a most significant book under thetitle, Rethinking Christianity in India. This you can find inthe rare-book shelf of a few seminary libraries.

His writings include Jesus the Avatara, his magnumopus; The Cross and the Indian Thought, and numerousarticles over the years in The Christian Patriot.

Chakkarai’s Theology

GOD AS THE MANIFEST

For Chakkarai, theology cannot begin with some ab-stract nirguna (qualityless) or avyakta (unmanifested) Brah-man. We must begin with the manifest, i.e., Ishwara. Thismeans that we must begin with Christ himself and indeedas Jesus Christ. This approach is the Indian way of doingChristology from below. So he calls it the doctrine of theChristhood of God. In Jesus, the Deus Absconditus (hiddenGod) has become Deus revelatus (the revealed God). If thereis any aspect of God which is not to be found in Jesus, then,Chakkarai asserts, it is simply non-existent for us. This isanother way of saying what Paul says in Colossians, that inChrist the fullness of Godhead dwells bodily. And how do weknow this Christ? Chakkarai’s answer is: through a per-sonal experience. Christ is now Emmanuel or God with us.He thinks not of the divine immanence but of the humanimmanence of Christ. As such Christ is alive today and it ispossible for men to know him and love him. It is the veryperson of Christ, seated in the lotus of the human heart,who is antaryami. In a picturesque language Chakkaraidescribes it: “In the picture of Jesus the express image of theinvisible has found his own soul. The painter and thepicture are one.”1

In all this Chakkarai is attempting to answer the schoolof Albert Schweitzer which was very influential at the time.

It was very negative and skeptical about the historical valueof the gospels and their picture of Jesus.

Though Chakkarai understands Christ as the mulapurusha (root man, first man) or even as the true man, yethe does not understand Jesus Christ to be metaphysicallyone with the Father in any monist sense, but as one wholived in communion with the Father. Jesus is satpurusha,the true man, in the sense that there is no influence of mayaon him, while all the rest of us are so influenced by it. Thatis why Satan could not be successful in tempting Jesus. Assuch, for Chakkarai, Christ’s sinlessness is not because ofhis metaphysical divinity, but a dynamic sinlessness whichis the free choice of his own free will. In the self-giving ofhimself on the cross, this sinlessness comes to its fullestmanifestation. And Chakkarai takes pains to stress thateven today the knowledge of God is through Jesus alone.Jesus was not only avatara 2000 years ago. Even now he isstill the avatara. Incarnation did not end with crucifixionbut is a permanent avatara and it is still advancing today.

The Jesus of history is to us the avatara of God, butincarnation whose real significance we are trying to graspfrom the standpoint of Indian thought, was not a staticproduct which admitted of no growth.2

Thus these are the two elements in Jesus’ incarnation:it is both permanent and dynamic. Very interestingly, hesays that not only did the incarnation mean a new phase inthe life of man, but also in the life of God. To explain this wehave to turn to Chakkarai’s pneumatology.

THE HOLY SPIRIT

For Chakkarai the work of the Holy Spirit is the continu-ing part of the incarnation or avatara of Christ. Actually heidentifies the Spirit with the risen living Christ, at work inthe world today. His biblical basis for this is John 14:18: “Iwill not leave you comfortless; I will come to you”. At thePentecost this promise was fulfilled. He observes: “Thehistorical is the primary element in the western interpreta-tion.” (that is, concentration on the Jesus of Nazareth), but

1 1 6 1 1 7

“the spiritual is or will be the primary element in Indianconception” (that is concentration on the Holy Spirit). So hesays: “It is from the Holy Spirit, our antaryamin, the indweller,that we start our inquiry concerning the nature and work ofthe person of Jesus”. Elsewhere he very directly says: “TheHoly Spirit is Jesus Christ himself taking his abode withinus . . . The starting point in the consciousness of theChristian disciple is that the Holy Spirit is Jesus himself.”3

Obviously this dilutes the doctrine of the orthodoxTrinitarianism.

While Vivekananda went about interpreting Christian-ity in terms of Vedanta, Chakkarai goes the other wayround. He thinks Vedanta can be really understood only inthe light of the Christian gospel:

The Mahavakya: tat twam asi is a tremendous assertion ofthe possibility. In Christian anubhava it is not a meremetaphysical postulate to start with or to end in. It is not amere achievement, a sambhava. This advaita has beenwrought on the anvil of the life of Jesus.4

Thus except for the metaphysical union of atman andparamatman he has re-interpreted advaita in order to suitto the life of Jesus.

THE CROSS

What does Chakkarai understand about the cross ofChrist? He would not accept the theory of vicarious suffer-ing, though he holds that the way to communion with Godis definitely through the Cross. Rather than penal substitu-tion he tends to adopt the Christus-Victor theory, since heunderstood Christ as being the Victor on a battlefield,fighting against the evil forces, the powers and the princi-palities of the air. Sometimes he even speaks of the death ofChrist as a sacrifice, but somewhat in a Hindu fashion.

How does man respond to the Cross? Here Chakkaraifollows the Gita, where karma marga and jnana marga arefound to be inadequate and bhakti marga is portrayed as thesolution. He thinks that bhakti, or an intense and lovingattachment to the risen Christ, is the proper human re-

sponse. The Jews followed the karma marga, the Greeksfollowed the jnana marga but Christians must follow thebhakti marga as far as Christ is concerned. Though thiscomes nearest to the Pauline understanding of faith asappropriation, yet there is no clear indication how thejustification is wrought by faith.

MAN’S PERSONALITY: SELF-EMPTYING

There is one section where he talks of anthropology,specially in relation to man as personality. He thinks thatthe whole concept of ‘person’ is not actually biblical, butcomes from the Latin persona and is very different from theGreek hypostasis. He thinks the western scientific attitudehas limited personality to that of individuality, and hasraised it to “the supreme excellence of man” This “sicklygrowth of the ego” must be stopped. When we see Jesus asthe one who has completely eliminated the aham, ego, andhas become one with God, then we can enter into commun-ion with him. This is the type of kenosis (emptying) we havealready seen earlier, that on the cross Christ gave his self:

Christ ignored and denied his self altogether . . . he destroyedself, and as self ebbed away heaven came pouring into thesoul, for nature abhors a vacuum . . . hence as soon as thesoul is emptied of self divinity fills the void.

Thus he understands Christ as “the most egoless personknown in history and therefore the most universal of all.”Here he bases his argument on Hebrew 5:8 and Philippians2:7 which speaks of the learning by obedience throughsuffering, and the emptying of himself. To him the historicalJesus was in the ego. But the risen Jesus ceased to be ahuman being. He became the universal Spirit; hence we canworship him as God since he is no more a human being.

Here he comes to the innermost of the cry of Christ onthe Cross. When Jesus was on the Cross, he was strippedof everything. But still he was holding on to God as Fatherand himself as the beloved Son. But when he cried even thatlast straw of security was gone and he was where no god is.“He plunged into the nirvana or suniyam where god is not”.

1 1 8 1 1 9

This was indeed the depth of kenosis and nobody can godeeper than the absence of God, as Jesus.

HINDUISM AND CHRISTIANITY

What does he think of Hindu religion and its relation toChristianity? Like many of his contemporaries, he alsothinks that Hinduism is a preparation for Christ. Since theGod who reveals himself to man is the same everywhere hebelieves that He whom the rishis of old saw is also the Godof the Bible, and will not wipe away all of Hinduism. That iswhy Indian Christianity must take the contribution ofHinduism seriously. This is the reason why his writings arefull of Sanskrit terminology. However, one feels that just themere use of Sanskrit terms does not really give a Christiancontent into them.

EvaluationI think it is easier to evaluate Chakkarai than others for

the simple reason that he concentrates exclusively on JesusChrist. In one way this is a true approach. But as he does notgo into other essentials of the Christian gospel, such as theChurch, for example, his theology is rather a beginning thana whole system of doctrines. This is to be regretted all themore, since from such a fertile mind more could be ex-pected. His view of Scripture is no doubt very orthodox, andhe takes it as verbally true.

But his view of equating the Holy Spirit with Jesus isindeed disturbing. Of course in the history of the Churchthe Trinity arose by way of accepting Jesus’ deity and onlylater Nicene Creed was the deity of the Holy Spirit recog-nised. In any case the real question about the Trinity is notso much Holy Spirit or Jesus, but actually it is a questionof terms: What do we mean by person, substance andessence?

As we evaluate any theologian, let us keep the criterionalways in mind: How far does one’s theology lead one to asaving faith in Christ?

P. CHENCHIAH (1886-1959)

Chenchiah is considered the most creative and originalamong the Indian Christian theologians. For this reason,perhaps, the summary given in Boyd is a little difficult tograsp at the first reading. We will therefore study him withthe help of extracts from The Theology of Chenchiah (CLS,1966) by D.A. Thangasamy. We will not repeat here thebackground of Chenchiah’s life and especially the influenceon him of Sri Aurobindo and the guru ‘master CVV’. You canread this in Boyd. These influences are important. Thefollowing summary evaluation of Chenchiah is taken fromRevolution as Revelation, p.51:

Pandipeddi Chenchiah (1886-1959), is the most creativeIndian Christian thinker of our time. Following the biblicaland evolutionary language of the time, Chenchiah takesJesus Christ to be the starter of a new era of a new stage inthe process of evolution. For him, Jesus Christ is thus theadipurusha (original man) of a new creation. For, “in Jesus,creation mounts a step higher”. He is more interested in thefact of Jesus rather than the act of Jesus; hence he repeatsthat we are saved not by the acts but by the fact of Jesus.Having been committed to a philosophy of evolution, it isdifficult for Chenchiah to accept the doctrine of the Fall: hecould not accept that human history should start so nega-tively. As such, salvation is not redemption nor reconcilia-tion, but simply “reproducing Jesus”, by means of ouressential (sayyujya) union with him. In this existential andindividualistic approach, clearly there is no place for eitherthe tradition (including Old Testament:) or for the corporateChurch. He could hence say that Christianity took the wrongturn when it accepted the institution of the Church. Hesincerely strove to prove the continuity between Christianityand Hinduism, as that of old with the new.

Chenchiah’s basic theological convictions are helpfullysummarized by Thangasamy under 6 headings:

1. The Raw Fact of Christ the only Absolute

2. The Person and work of Jesus Christ

3. New Creation

4. Christ in Relation to Christianity, Church and Scripture

5. Christianity and Hinduism

6. The secular Mission of the Church.

1 2 0 1 2 1

The Raw fact of Christ: The only AbsoluteChenchiah distinguished clearly between ‘two views of

the task of theology in India — one broad and the othernarrow’. He says

The broad view holds that the only fixed immovable absolutecentre in Christianity is the fact of Christ and place Christianexperience and faith in the relative sphere and sets theologythe task of renewing direct experience of Jesus. Believingthat God’s training to different nations in different waysenables them to see new features and appropriate newpowers in Jesus, not hitherto appropriated by others, thisview assigns to theology the function of building with newexperiences and powers, new structures of faith. The otherview working with three absolutes of unchangeable core,unalterable faith and essential deposit, allots to theology thelimited function of translating the fixed faith into a variety oflanguages, seeking proper ideas and words to express thethree absolutes. The province of theology shrinks and ex-pands according as you believe there are three absolutes orone in Christianity.5

Chenchiah accepted only one absolute in Christianity,namely, ‘the raw fact of Christ’. He fought a relentless battleagainst the absolutisation of ‘doctrine and dogmas, worshipand ritual, mysteries and ceremonies’; for they ‘gather roundtill at last the bright nucleus gets enveloped by a huge globeof tradition and testimony’. He said, ‘Jesus is beyond creeds,churches and they cease to point to Him and at best only pointto Him.’ But they cease to point to Him, when ‘the Churchjudges the words of Jesus by the words of the creed’. Chenchiahsounded the trumpet of freedom to accept, reject, reinterpretor modify every doctrine of the Christian churches, no matterhow long and how universally it may have been held.

Let it be clearly understood that we accept nothing asobligatory save Christ. Church, doctrine and dogma, whetherfrom the West or from the past, whether from Apostles orfrom modern critics, are to be tested before they areaccepted.6

We must underline that in the above quotation,Chenchiah considers even the apostolic interpretations ofJesus Christ on the same level as church doctrines anddogmas. Or again:

We can call the New Testament a revelation only in thesecondary sense inasmuch as it contains the results of theearliest study of the Revelation of the fact of Jesus. Revela-tion is not, as Christians and Hindus believe, the speech orword of God. It is the creation. God reveals in the stream ofCreation. No explanation exhausts the fact, no expositioncan be final. Jesus may be found but no interpretation of himcould be final. There can be no unalterable dogma or doctrineof Christianity.7

Chenchiah was not unaware of the historical and intel-lectual difficulties involved in trying to extricate the simpleand authentic facts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christfrom the theological convictions that had become bound upwith them even through the manner in which incidents andutterance had been selected and clothed in language. Heknew quite well the argument that it was the early Churchthat processed the Gospels for half a century before theywere released to the world. Chenchiah maintained that forthe discerning eye and the devoted heart the core of theGospel, devoid of doctrinal accretions, was not difficult tofind.

In fact, for Chenchiah, rethinking Christianity in Indiawas not primarily an intellectual or even a ‘theological’ task.Nor was it even to be thought of as a task, but rather as thethrust of the two great urges of the Indian Christians —

A desire for direct contact with Jesus (prathyaksha) anaspiration for rebirth, to be born a Son of God in the imageof Jesus (Punarjanma). It is not so much a desire to be aChristian i.e. a follower of Christ, as to be identified withChrist — for sayyujya [with the highest certainty] withJesus, a longing that made Paul to say, “I no longer live, butChrist in me.”8

It is as a corollary to these twin urges that Chenchiahcalls upon Indian Christians that their theological enter-prises should be one of rethinking Christ himself and notonly ‘the substance or content of faith’. Chenchiah wasdeeply conscious of the revolutionary implications of suchdirect experience of Christ and reflection on it. He wrote, “Aman who comes in contact with the raw fact of Christ, if wemay say so, upsets law and order.”9

1 2 2 1 2 3

So Chenchiah strove to explore behind ‘creeds, churchesand scriptures’, seeking to discover new dimensions ofmeaning in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. He did soagainst the background of India. He was conscious of tworealities in this background — the long and unbrokenHindu religious tradition of the people and their contempo-rary struggles to build a new state and society. He spoke ofthe need to reconstruct Christianity in the light of Hindu-ism, to approach the Hindu mind and to recover someaspects of Jesus not seen in the Western traditional historyof Christianity.

He was conscious also of the need of exploring themeaning of Christ in the light of the political and socialstruggles of contemporary India.

We have explored the implications of the two ideasrelating to Jesus, namely the value of Christhood as propi-tiation and reconciliation as well as the meaning of Christto the individual. But we have to discover the purpose andachievement of our Lord in the redemption of the socialorder or in his relation to the cosmic revolution. The enquirybears intimately on the new powers imperatively needed byus in our conflicts in society and state.

The Person and Work of Jesus ChristFor Chenchiah Christianity begins with Jesus Christ

and not with Genesis or even with God. Writing about aconference on Christology held at Jabalpur during the visitof Dr. Brunner to India in 1949, he said that one of the pointsof agreement reached at that Conference had been ‘thatChristology should govern theology and not vice versa ashitherto’.

THE PERSON OF JESUS

According to the outlined suggestion, the new lines ofthought that Indian Christian should pursue were listed inan Editorial in the Pilgrim in June 1950 as follows:

1. The discovery and recovery of Pauline theology ofincarnation as new Adam.

2. The working out of theology of the Son of Man incontrast with the traditional theology of Son God, and

3. Linking Incarnation firmly with Resurrection ratherthan with the Cross.

The Church has not understood the real significance ofincarnation. In Jesus God has come down to us to abide withus for ever as a new cosmic energy. But the church has madeof Jesus an object of worship, made him ‘absolute’, andplaced him on the right hand of God in heaven. But Jesus asportrayed in the records is less than God. He says so explicitly(John 14:28). We wish to make him the very God — Tran-scendent and Absolute. The Jesus of the Gospels transcendsthe measure of man: we try to make Him the very man. Hepresents us a harmonized picture of God-Man — not merelyhyphenated God-man.10

God’s assumption of humanity, including the body, wasa permanent one, and from now on, Jesus is the power ofGod and the first fruit of a new creation, a divine humanity,transcending mankind. In this connection Chenchiah makesa clear distinction between the Hindu and Christian viewsof the Incarnation; and in fact his criticism of Barthiantheology is precisely that it is more akin to the Hindu thanthe Christian view. He says,

Incarnation is perfected human body receiving the fulldivinity of God into permanent integration. (It is essential forour doctrine of incarnation to hold that Jesus assumed bodypermanently as the consummation of creative human proc-ess). In Indian Christian theology Jesus belongs to man andeven though he may sojourn in heaven. He will return toearth for here lies his home. A type of Christian theologyapproximates his function to that of Hindu avatar. The Sonbecame Jesus to offer his life on the Cross as propitiation andwent to his home in Heaven after His mission was fulfilled.In that case incarnation will be an adventure, an interludein the Eternal Son’s life, leaving no permanent deposit onearth or in heaven. He assumed the body for a purpose andwhen it was over, he assumed his former status. Ourconception of the Son of Man radically differs from this.Jesus, on the view controverted, does not remain un-changed. He reverts to his place as Second person in Trinity. . . Indian Christian theology probes deeply into the meaningof the fact that Jesus ascended into heaven as Jesus andnever resumed his place as the second person in Trinity.After ascension the Trinity was no longer the Father, Son and

1 2 4 1 2 5

Holy Ghost, but Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit . . . Humanitydid not borrow Jesus to stay a while on earth. We have lenthim to heaven to stay there for a while.11

In this long quotation, Chenchiah affirms that Jesusrepresents not merely the meeting but the fusion into unityof God and man so that man may partake of it.

Jesus is not God and is not Man, but is the Son of Godand the Son of Man. The word ‘Son’ indicates the measureof unity — something less than complete identity with Godbut something more than difference in category — betweenGod, Jesus and the Christian. God is God. Man is Man. Thetwain have met in Jesus; not merely met, but fused andmingled into one . . . This is the message of Christianity —that the Word has become flesh and God has become man.

It is thus that Jesus becomes ‘God permanently residingin Creation bringing to birth “a new order in creation”’.12

Here incarnation and resurrection are linked. The fact ofChrist is the birth of a new order in creation. It is theemergence of life — not bound by karma of man, not stainedby sin, not humbled by death, of man triumphant, glorious,partaking the immortal nature of God, of the birth of a newrace in the creation of the Sons of God. If Jesus is not theincarnation of this, what else could he be? A mere visitorfrom heaven who moved by his love, made a supremesacrifice and then went away to his place on the right handof God? Is not Emmanuel, God permanently residing in thecreation — the answer to the prayer of man to transcend hisdestiny? These are penetrating and crucial queries indeed.

THE WORK OF CHRIST

Chenchiah asks:

What can we say to the Gospel which limits the totality ofChrist’s achievement to a restoration of man to the originalcondition? This reconciliation and restoration can only be anew start for life and not its positive content. Is there any newadvance for man in Jesus beyond regaining the groundlost?13

There are two approaches to the Work of Christ. Onesees Christ as saving man from original sin through his

sacrifice on the Cross and restoring him to his originalrighteousness and the other as bringing mankind andcosmos to a new creative destiny. Chenchiah’s approachwas the latter. Therefore he wanted Indian Christian theol-ogy to start not with myths of Adam and his fall, but with thefact of the new Adam, Jesus; not with the Cross, but with theIncarnation and the Resurrection.

So long as the orthodoxy adopts an interventionisttheory of Incarnation — of God intervening to save mankindand going back to heaven after achieving the purpose — allefforts to distinguish Krishna and Jesus on grounds ofhistoricity fail.

The uniqueness of Christianity lies beyond the promiseof salvation, here or hereafter. Other aspects of the life ofChrist than that of the role of a sacrificial lamb were far morefascinating to Chenchiah. To him Jesus is no less a Re-deemer to non-Christians. But for him the redemption inChrist is the opening up of the infinite possibilities of newcreation. He holds that the

construction of Christianity making law, disobedience, sin,cross, propitiation, judgment . . . [the essence] misses thebeauty and the newness of the Gospels, while a poetry thatstresses love, resurrection, service, communion, sonship,gets us nearer to the Master.14

And the salvation of Jesus is “by virtue of his existenceand being and not by an act of His”.15 Christ does not saveus by suffering on the cross. Just as an animal is saved inman by the animal nature being sublimated by the entry ofmind and reason, men are saved by attaining Christhood.

CHRIST IN TRINITY

Chenchiah believes in Trinity — of God the Absolutewho ‘lies beyond our thought, comprehension and capac-ity’; of Jesus who is ‘God standing in relation to man’ andhas assumed humanity permanently to bring to creation anew order of existence (“The finite God is still God, yea, evenso our Lord Jesus Christ”)16 and the Holy Spirit who isuniversalized Jesus. He differentiates Jesus from God from

1 2 6 1 2 7

the time of the Incarnation, but only to identify Him more orless with the third Person of the Trinity after the Ascension.He says, “The Holy Spirit is the Universal Jesus”17 andagain, “The Holy Spirit presides over the new creation andlives in the sons of God as their atman”. But elsewhere theHoly Spirit is spoken of as cosmic energy which can hardlybe the regarded as a Person. For example, “The Holy Spiritis the energy beyond Creation which . . . flowed into theworld.”18 This identification of the Holy Spirit with theperson of Jesus virtually amounts to non-recognition of anyactivity, or even existence, of the Holy Spirit, in the worldbefore the incarnation. The Holy Spirit is the power thatdescended vertically in the human stream in Jesus.Chenchiah sums up his doctrine of Trinity thus:

God the Father represents what has not passed into creation.God the Son represents what of Him has passed intocreation. He is adi Purusha of a new creation while the HolySpirit is Viswakarma of a new world. Jesus is he thatdescends and having descended abides with us. He isavathari (he that descends) and Tathagatha, he that is tocome to save the world process.19

New CreationSince Chenchiah regards New Creation as being not

only the basis for his christology but as the only rationale forthe continued existence of Christianity, we should givepriority over all his other theological views which were alllike corollaries from that primary vision of his. He claimsthat “the real uniqueness of Christianity consists in thedoctrine, or rather, the fact, of new creation and new birth.”

Chenchiah announced the changes of his favouritedoctrine in numerous papers that he wrote. The following isa typical statement of its essence:

Viewed as an outburst or inrush into history, Jesus is themanifestation of a new creative effort of God, in which thecosmic energy or Shakti is the Holy Spirit, the new creationis Christ, and the new life order, the Kingdom of God.20

For Chenchiah, the Gospel of Jesus is essentially thegood news of New Creation. It is not just news of what hasalready been done, but extends to the hope of ‘things to

come’ because of what has been done. It opens up vistas ofgrowth and fulfillment for both man and society. ‘TheChildren of God are the next step in evolution and theKingdom of God the next stage in cosmos’.

Critics of Chenchiah have pointed out that, at best,Chenchiah’s concept of a new creation in Jesus is only areiteration of a sadly neglected doctrine of the Apostolic age,that the Church has never completely lost sight of the truththat if any man is in Christ Jesus he is a new creature.However, what is distinctive in Chenchiah’s view of newcreation, and what usually meets with incredulity on thepart of his critics, is the ‘change of gradient’ that heenvisages in the progress of humanity as a gift of Godthrough the power of the Holy Spirit that has come to residewith men in Jesus’ incarnation. New Creation is not just amatter of individual men and women being ‘born again’ inthe evangelical sense of the term, but it is a further stage inthe planetary life of mankind brought about by the releaseof fresh energy through a new tremendous creative act ofGod.

The horizontal flow of creation receives new force andelements that descend on it vertically from above and breakinto it. Life, reason or soul (to use Pauline language) marksuch descents of new creative energies into creation frombeyond itself. Without the recognition of such ingestionsinto creative current, we cannot satisfactorily account forthe vital turns in creation. The temptation of science hasalways been to interpret the higher in terms of the lower. Thecorrect way of stating the fact that would be the creativeprocess has received accessions from itself from time to timeand these accessions mark the place where creation changesas it were the gradient and raises itself to new heights.

The change in the nature of being man is to be reflectedin his environment or order of existence also. It has alreadybeen said that in Chenchiah’s view ‘today we have to realizeJesus as the head of new world order’. Hence Chenchiah’shopes for a changed world as well as for changed men.

1 2 8 1 2 9

Chenchiah’s exposition of the doctrine of the new creationloses clarity even plausibility when he insists that it is to beachieved through a biological process. This biological view ofthe new creation, as something that supervenes at birth andin our physical constitution, made Chenchiah emphasize thedoctrine of the virgin birth, as for example when he argued,“The birth of Jesus is of greater importance (that his death)from a biological point of view, for every vital change in thecreative order is accompanied by a new process of birth”.Applying the law to the people of today he says, “it is suggestedthat mutations occur not in the fully developed body, but inthe larvae stage. So also the new life may come to man whilebeing formed in the womb of woman.” But, as the GurukulGroup points out, the iteration that Christianity is a problemin genetics does tend to obscure the spiritual character of thenew creation.

Parallel Indian and Western ThoughtThere have been several Western theologians in our time,

who have sought to interpret Jesus as both heralding andushering in a new turn upward in the creative process ofhistory and cosmos, bringing to birth a new order of existence.These Western thinkers had not come to Chenchiah’s notice,at that time in the forties and early fifties when he wasthinking hard on the possibilities of new creation. On thecontrary, he found support for his view in the philosophicalexcursions of two of his contemporaries in India. One of thesewas Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, perhaps the greatest philosopherand spiritual adviser of his time in India. He preached that‘supernatural life is at hand, seeking embodiment in us andworking towards creation of new race of super men, theChristian sons of God’. The other Indian sage who, Chenchiahadmitted, had seen the vision of a new creation after men hadlost it for nineteen centuries, was ‘Master C.V.V’ —Venkatasami Rao of Kumbakonam. The ‘Master’ had a verysmall following and made but a feeble impact on Hinduthought or spirituality. Nevertheless, Chenchiah admiredhim as one who “devoted himself to the technical problemsinvolved in engineering the new power and inducing it in ournew personality”.21

Though Chenchiah argues for New Creation on the basisof biblical text and Christian faith it is possible to trace theparticular biological slant of his exposition of the doctrineto the influence of Master C.V.V. However, he saw the NewCreation as a supernatural act of God and not as the resultof the pressure of the biological urge characteristic of man.This is the chief difference in approach between him andPierre Teilhard de Chardin whose concept of neogenesisruns otherwise closely parallel to Chenchiah’s account ofthe new creation. Starting from scientific data de Chardinargues that the ‘upward thrust’ of consciousness, passingthrough the stages of matter, life and thought, must culmi-nate at an Omega point. Hence, in his view man is not thecentre of the universe as we thought in our simplicity butsomething much more wonderful — the arrow pointing theway to the final unification of the world in terms of life.

For Chenchiah, the only ground of certainty that the newcreation must take place is that it has already happened inChrist. To de Chardin, too, confirmation of his biologicalpostulate of Omega-point is to be found in what has alreadybeen accomplished in the ‘Great Presence’ of the Christ.

Christ in relation to Christianity, Church andScriptures

Chenchiah’s approach to the Christian religion, to Churchand the Scripture is based on his conviction that Jesus andthe New Creation in Him form the only essence of Christian-ity, and that all the rest, Christianity as religion, the Churchas Institution and the Scripture, are relative and have to beevaluated in terms of their power to point to, express andconvey that essence. On the whole Chenchiah’s view wasthat they have largely become ends in themselves, hinder-ing rather than conveying the truth in Christ, and he washighly critical of them, and frequently advocated doing awaywith them. He saw religion smothering life, Church displac-ing the Kingdom of God, and letter killing the spirit.

There is one type of Christianity which is biological,pivoted on new birth, acquisition of a new body and faculties

1 3 0 1 3 1

for the creative operations of the Holy Spirit — a Christianitythat reproduces Christ in the Christian, and another type ofChristianity where life forces are translated into a lowernotation of Church, ideology, organization, state power.

The dangerous fact is that doctrines, institution, sacra-ments, priests and pastors, all join together under the nameof the Church and take the place of Jesus whom they indoctrine exalt as God. The Christian does not go to Jesusdirect, but clings to Church as the author of his salvation.Chenchiah accuses the Church also of having betrayed theKingdom of God. The result is that there has been anexchange of the Kingdom of God for the Church. The Churchis an institution which came into existence under extraor-dinary circumstances. It may be seriously doubted whetherit was in the mind of our Lord. It was born out of theexigencies of early Christianity when it was confronted withthe highly organized imperial society that was in Rome. AsChristianity developed, we find the Church slowly raisingits structure on tradition or on the Bible, and its social andreligious organization on the principles of Roman society.Why did we allow the conception of the Kingdom of God toatrophy and the idea of the Church to take shape andstrength?

Yet Chenchiah did not wish to escape the Churchaltogether, but he wished it could be reformed and make anew beginning here in India. Hence his stress on the needfor repentance and renewal. If the so-called Church has anydiscernment yet left, it may leave its offerings at the altarand go in search of God in heaven and implore Him in thename of His creation to come and live with us, chastening,inspiring, ruling and overruling our petty plans and schemes.

Unfortunately, however, losing all hope of the Church’srethinking of its own mission, he began to write of thepossibility of a Churchless Christianity. For his ideasChenchiah claimed the support of a successful experimentin Japan.

Verbal Inspiration versus the SpiritualChenchiah did not regard the Bible as a verbally or

divinely inspired book, but rather as collection of records ofand treatises on God’s revelations of Himself to man andman’s expression of Him. This was not because he made arational approach and could not accept the miraculouselements in the narrative. On the contrary he did notquestion the miracles; but on account of the romantic veinin him, he had a pre-disposition to look for them even amongthe incidents of everyday life. It was clear to him that noteverything in the Scriptures was helpful to the understand-ing of God’s nature and his dealings with man. He saw thatthe quality of spiritual discernment varied considerablyfrom book to book. Hence Chenchiah could not place equalvalue on every part of the Bible or give to the whole of it theattention, trust and reverence he spontaneously offered tosome particular parts.

Chenchiah made a distinction between the Old Testa-ment and the New testament as books and ways of life. Asbooks, he said they stood closely related and the under-standing of some of the doctrines or the Pauline theology ofthe New Testament it would be necessary to know the OldTestament just as ‘to understand Ahimsa as a doctrine it isnecessary to know the teachings of the Upanishads, Bud-dhism and Jainism’. But neither for the understanding ofthe ethical or spiritual teaching of the New Testament norfor ‘accepting Jesus’ was the Old Testament necessary. Heargued that Judaism could give no help at all in under-standing some of the New Testament doctrine such as theIncarnation, which would be readily ‘intelligible in theGreek and Hindu religious traditions’. Another example heresorts to is the idea of the Holy Spirit is not intelligiblewithout Hindu experience.

As an intelligent and thoughtful reader of the BibleChenchiah realized that it is a book that often perplexes thereader as much by many of its utterances as by the uncer-tainties of its text. He said,

1 3 2 1 3 3

I have not the fortune to be one of that group of Christianswhich mostly represents by pastors, zealous evangelists andstrong sections to whom the word of God speaks with a clearand crystal voice supporting whatever views they happen tohold for the nonce . . . My lot is cast with those to whom thescriptures are more confounding than clarifying and who seethrough the glass of the world darkly rather than clearly,here nothing more than a thunder, [which] others interpretthe voice of God . . . If I am never left in doubt after readingthe scriptures, I am never in complete assurance either. Tome scriptures are part of a Chinese puzzle, not of much useunless we get all the pieces together.22

Quite courageous, though unorthodox stuff! He asks,Did Jesus ever say that scriptures are our unfailing guidesand illuminators? Was there a New Testament at all forJesus to speak of its guidance?

Christianity and HinduismChenchiah’s definition of the relation between Christi-

anity and Hinduism arose out of five of his deep convictions.First, that the New Creation in Jesus is the essence of theGospel; second, that it is so entirely new, that it is other thanall the religions which represent only the old creation, andis little apprehended even by the Christian religion and theChurch; third, that God has been at work in all religions sothat it is possible to build bridges from Christ to them;fourth, that the spiritual treasures of other religions willbring to light new facts of the Person of Christ and ofChristian life and experience; and fifth, that the New Crea-tion in Jesus can be realized by all religions if they areprepared for radical transformation in their spirit and lifethrough the Holy Spirit.

Christ Destroyer or Fulfiller?Chenchiah’s understanding of Christ’s relation to other

religions was dialectical. The newness of the New Creationin Christ led him to emphasize the truth that Christ ‘abro-gates’ all religions. There is no continuity in the reverse. Hesays:

Neither Judaism nor Hinduism leads to Christ. Christabrogates Judaism and Hinduism more than he fulfills them.

Christian theology builds bridges from Jesus to Judaism andHinduism, and not bridges from Judaism and Hinduism toJesus . 23

The radical newness of Christ places both Judaism andHinduism on the same level as belonging to the old. There-fore he fought against making a radical theological distinc-tion between Judaism and Hinduism, though he recognizedfundamental sociological and historical differences. Thisattitude determined also his theological attitude to thescriptures of the Old Testament. For Chenchiah, the Jewdoes not walk forward from the Old Testament to the New.The Christian walked backwards from New Testament to theOld. The Jewish Messianic proof texts did not point toJesus. Matthew unearthed texts in Old Testament to suitJesus. Jesus did not point to Old Testament fulfill proph-ecy. Prophecies are picked up after Jesus to form a sort ofbackground for Jesus. This sort of trick-effect can beproduced if you turn Jesus towards Hinduism. Those whoadvance fulfillment theory of the relation between Jesusand Hinduism, seek to build the same sort of bridge as thedisciples built. It was a bridge not built by Jews from the OldTestament side but by the Christians from the side of Jesus.He could pick up material for an Old Testament in Hinduismmaking selections in the light, of what Jesus said and did.That was exactly what early Christians did and later con-verts sought to do.

Chenchiah was convinced, however, that bridges can andought to be built from Jesus to other religions. They can bebuilt because God has been at work in the old creation, workwhich can be discerned in the light of Jesus. He himself wasvery sensitive to the working of God in Hinduism.

Now and then without preparation or warning, the religiousforces of Hinduism throw into light men of Christian heart,features and love who had no contact with the historicalJesus or the visible Church. They are silent reminders of thefact that God is working in his own way in religions.24

Chenchiah’s respect for Hinduism was neither a matterof native prejudice, nor one of uncritical acquiescence. Butit came out of full knowledge of the philosophy and religious

1 3 4 1 3 5

literature of the Hindus. He was critical of several doctrinesof Hinduism and interpretations modern scholars tried togive them. For example he suggested that ‘the postulate ofultimate unity of truth so readily believed by the Hindudevelops a spiritual shortsightedness which incapacitateshim from seeing differences in religion’. Of the karma theoryhe said that the view that the ‘soul is sent into the world inseveral births or that it may acquire different experienceswhich will be summed up and brought into consciousnessat the time of fruition’ is a view that ‘rests on pure specula-tion that finds no support in the facts of life’, He also arguedthat ‘the absence of all consciousness of previous birthsmilitates against its ethical value’.

Prominent among the features of the spiritual heritageof Hinduism that Chenchiah wanted Christianity to assimi-late were ashramas and yoga. He wrote several chapters inthe book, Ashramas Past and Present, which was publishedby the Indian Christian Book Club. He wrote a series ofarticles on Yoga in The Guardian. But, while giving ahistorical and philosophical account of these institutionsthemselves to be adopted by Christianity he saw a great dealof experimentation need to be carried out in ‘spirituallaboratories’ for the purpose.

While Chenchiah believed that Hinduism could offerspiritual discernment and experience to the Indian Chris-tian, and particularly to the convert, he was aware of widedifference between its understanding of truth and that ofChristianity. “To the Semitic”, he said, “Truth is ethical,dividing the right from the wrong, good from the bad. To theHindu, truth is the support uniting the divisions on thesurface”.25 He was also aware of differences in the goals orattitudes to ultimate Reality when he stated, “Hinduismcelebrates the end of the life, Christianity its birth”.26

CONVERSION TO CHRIST NOT A NEW RELIGION OR COMMUNITY

Chenchiah had a great longing that all his countrymenshould come to know Christ. But the process ofChristianisation that he advocated was “the spread of the

gospel . . . as life, opinion and inner change rather than associal groups or spiritual groups outside Hinduism”.27 Hewas for changing the life impulses of Hinduism itself.According to him the process of Christianising Hinduismwill take the shape of men who are influenced by the spiritof Christ partially at first and in increasing degree later. Andhe asked, “When we have Christians in name with little ofthe spirit of Christ, why should we not allow Hindus in namebut possessing the spirit of Christ in reality?”28

Further he explained that making a Christian shouldmean implanting the light of Christ in a human heart,creating loyalty to his ideas, promoting devotion to theleadership of Jesus — in short to fill the mind with enthu-siasm for Christ’s way of life. Evangelism is a change of heartand mind, not an annexation to the Church. The outflowingof the Christian spirit into the soul and mind of the nation,a movement into Hindu and Islamic society rather than alandslide from those masses to quality, change to character.

Chenchiah saw Christ’s influence on Hinduism alreadyat work. According to him, Christ’s influence on Hinduismmanifests itself in the re-construction of Hinduism, as inthe case of the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, and theRamakrishna Mission; in the transvaluation of religiousand ethical and social ideals; in the creation of a purifiedspiritual vision which feels the presence of a new spiritualenergy in life; in personal devotion, as in the case of eclecticmovements such as theosophy and Visvabharathi.

The Secular Mission of the ChurchAs early as 1928 Chenchiah wrote, ‘Any attempt to

separate the Church from its mission is fraught with disas-ter’. He conceived of the mission of the Church in terms ofthe new creation, the Kingdom of God and the renewal of thesocial order. We have already spoken of the new creation.Chenchiah believed that it was the mission of the Church to‘harness the Holy Spirit to the creation of new life’. And thatnew life was to be the sign of the Kingdom of God comeamong men. The period between the Wars was a time of the

1 3 6 1 3 7

rediscovery of the message of the Kingdom and an alto-gether too optimistic gospel was fashioned out of it. ButChenchiah insisted on the need for a firm spiritual basis forthe Kingdom. It is only by bringing a new divine power andthe energy of the Holy Spirit that we can hope to become theSons of God and establish the Kingdom of God.

Chenchiah was sure that the strong motivating powerfor the reordering of society, ‘the spirit of nishkamya karmaand self-forgetting love so much needed for nation-building,could come only from the ministrations of faiths at thehighest level’. The Christian, more than any other, had toenter all areas of life with this spirit and redeem them for theKingdom. He deplored the compartmentalisation of life intoreligious and non-religious spheres.

Chenchiah outlined a programme of social service andsocial action by Christians in India. Among these weresuggestions for the organization of mobile service groups toundertake relief work on occasions of famine, fire, pesti-lence and storms; co-operatives; experiments in commonfarming (advocated as a national policy by Nehru fifteenyears later), housing schemes and co-operative banks.

He encouraged that Christians should first equip them-selves with knowledge, both of their faith and of the possibleways in which social problems could be tackled, before theycould play a significant redemptive role in the affairs of thenation. The absence of such thinking was a great lack in thearmour of the Indian Christian. Therefore he called upon hiseducated fellow-Christians to ‘discuss and formulate afterstudy a Christian scheme or policy in politics and econom-ics which they shall try to implement whatever party theymay join’. And to stimulate their thinking, he along withclose friends like A.N. Sudarsanam, V. Chakkarai and G.V.Job, started the Indian Christian Book Club.

EvaluationThangasamy agrees with Chenchiah’s assessment in

one of the numerous articles in The Guardian, that thecourage to think through the challenges to Christianity

without doctrines and dogmas may be the new gift of theSpirit of the times to the Indian Christians.

Chenchiah’s own greatest contribution to the cause ofChristianity may be precisely this courage and the leadgiven by him. Chenchiah declared that the Indian Christianhas come of age and therefore, is able to think on his ownand add to the spiritual treasuries of mankind.

Indian Christians have not been eager to face the chal-lenges of the times but content to face those of a remote pastin the manner in which they had been met in the past. Likecertain spirits which did not wish to be troubled by Jesus,they would only wish to be left alone to carry on theirexercises of piety in their own way. Facing the world of todaywould demand too great an exertion on their part and wouldseem to be so dangerous as to upset even the foundationsof their faith and life. It was to such a group that Chenchiahaddressed his call to courage that is demanded by the effortto meet the new challenges by abandoning the security andthe moorings of traditional Christianity.

Chenchiah was often at issue with those who sought toprescribe limits within which Indian Christian theologicalinquiry should be contained. The stand of the typicalmissionary of the time and his Indian satellites was thatwhat they regarded as basic doctrines could not be ques-tioned, but only explained or interpreted in images andspeech-forms that were indigenous. But if theology is notregarded primarily as a set of doctrines which may not bequestioned, but as the growing understanding of God’sdealings with man, especially through the life and work ofJesus Christ, it would then rank as a discipline in which anyone interpretation of observed or historical fact cannot beaccepted as being final. In every science there is periodicalre-examination of presuppositions and the theories basedon them — from the theory of a geocentric universe inastronomy to the constitution of the atom in physics. In thisview, which was certainly Chenchiah’s doctrines such asthose of the ‘Trinity and Atonement’ would be regarded asdoctrinal theories rather than as absolutes, as they have

1 3 8 1 3 9

been in theology so far. They would, in other words, betreated as the first; profound, perhaps, but by no meansfinal or complete interpretations put upon the facts of thebirth, life and resurrection of Jesus as these may be gleanedfrom the Gospels.

It must be admitted that in rejecting, modifying andoriginating doctrines, Chenchiah tended to rely too muchon his own judgment and experience and too little on thatof the large body of believers who had faced no intellectualof spiritual difficulty in thinking and living within the neatbut narrow framework of the traditional understandings ofChristian doctrines. And when he asserts, “Christian indi-vidual experience is the centre and circumference, founda-tion and superstructure, of Christianity. There is no expe-rience which is not individual.”29 He seems to steer toodangerously towards the existentialist obsession with ex-perience as the basic reality. But, as against this, one hasto bear in mind what Bonhoeffer says about a world that has‘come of age’ — Kairos, as well as God, seem clearly to becalling upon Christians to travail for a new understandingof His nature and His relations with the world. However, thepresent “is a time for ploughing, not reaping . . . it is a timefor making soundings, not charts or maps”.30 Hence, exceptfor the development of the thesis of the New Creation, thereis hardly any systematic formulation of doctrine or systemof ideas in the writings of Chenchiah.

Chenchiah’s Christianity was rooted in the experienceof life of the saints down the centuries. He had no regard forconventional religion which “builds on a foundation ofnature, colouring and sometime controlling, but reallyconquering our instincts and impulses”.31 For him religionis the supernatural permeating, transforming and activisingthe natural, not getting dissipated in it or standing apartfrom it. The vital experience of such supernatural activityconstituted real advance in religion and it alone couldprovide the means of theological illumination. The experi-ence that Chenchiah was talking about is something farnobler than an individualistic ‘experience of salvation’ that

revivalists often talk about. The experience that Chenchiahwas talking about was that of being admitted by grace intothe state of striving for oneness with God. Dynamic experi-ence is possible only where there is a willingness to experi-ment not only in the narrow fields of faith-healing and thelike, but also in the larger arena of life. Chenchiah was formaking bold experiment that would extend, as MahatmaGandhi’s did, to the fields of political and social life.

What is the experiment and experience that Chenchiahwas advocating?

It is power of the Holy Spirit as a cosmic energy that isseeking to transform the race of man. Even the critics whowere otherwise repelled by Chenchiah’s theology havecommended him for rediscovering or re-emphasizing theforgotten doctrine of the creation. There has been such alack of faith in the power of the intention of God to ‘make allthings new’ on the earth or to transform the kingdom of theworld into His own Kingdom that for centuries the Churchhad settled to the job of saving a few brands from the fire thatmust inevitably consume the world and its structures. Onlynow, thanks to the struggles of the minds and the souls ofmen like Chenchiah, we are beginning to affirm that new lifemust permeate and change its environment. If it is really thesupernatural power, if its energy is that of the Holy Spirit,it must transform the social order. Chenchiah was one of thefew Christian thinkers in India who, even before the SecondWorld War and the Independence of India, tried to show howChristians in India should participate in the task of nation-building. Participation implies living and working withothers, taking them seriously as persons respecting theirconvictions and belief and entering into real partnershipwith them.

Chenchiah was one of the very few Christians who maybe said to have not only got inside the world, but to have feltquite at home in it. This was not because he had been borna Hindu, but because quite deliberately he set out to gain aknowledge of Hindus and Hinduism after he was converted.

1 4 0 1 4 1

Dialogue with men of other faiths was a spontaneous,almost natural, Christian self-expression for Chenchiah, atbar association premises, verandah clubs and many otherplaces of meeting. At a time when Christians in India aretaking their ‘participation’ in nation-building seriously andare concerned with ‘partnership’ with men of other faithsand ‘dialogue’ with them at depth, it is right and proper thatwe go back to Chenchiah and draw upon the resources of histhought. Chenchiah is significant as one who cleared theground for a mature ‘Indian Christianity’.

P.D. DEVANANDAN (1901-1962)

Paul David Devanandan was born in Madras in a pas-tors’ family. After his studies at Madras, Tiruchirapalli andHyderabad he went to University in Madras. Coming underthe influence of K.T. Paul, he went as his secretary to theUnited States of America in 1924. He stayed on for sevenyears and eventually finished his doctorate in the PacificSchool of Religion and later at Yale, with the subject “TheConcept of Maya”. Later on he ended up as K.T. Paul’s son-in-law!

On his return to India he taught Philosophy and Historyof religions at United Theological College, Bangalore, at atime when these subjects were scorned. He taught them for17 years. When he was serving as the Literature Secretaryof Y.M.C.A., the National Council of Churches called him tolead the newly formed CISS — Christian Institute for theStudy of Society. This institute later merged with theChristian Institute for the Study of Hinduism and becamethe present CISRS — the Christian Institute for the Study ofReligion and Society. Till his untimely death by heart attackin 1962, he remained in the position of Director. During thistime he went often as a teacher and lecturer all over theworld. One of his great contributions was his messageunder the tittle “Called to Witness” in the third Assembly ofthe W.C.C. at New Delhi in 1961.

In his autobiographical writings, Devanandan confessesthat one of his great spiritual experiences was in his reading

of Hendrick Kraemer postulated the discontinuity thesisthat there is no point of contact between Christianity andother religions. Thus he rejected the validity of all naturalrevelations. This stance disturbed Devanandan very greatly.He could not bring himself to condemn Hinduism, underwhose influence he had grown all his life, as demonic orcontaining no element of truth. But later, after a long andstrenuous research, he hit upon the idea what can be nowcalled the ‘Devanandan discovery’ on which many latertheologians have built their theology of religions. We willlook at it later.

His theological writings include, beside several articlesthe following books: Our Task Today, The Gospel andRenascent Hinduism, Christian Concern in Hinduism, I willlift up mine Eyes, (Sermon and Bible studies with a bio-graphical Sketch) and the posthumously published Prepa-ration For Dialogue.

Devanandan’s Theology of ReligionsAs indicated above, the very decision of Devanandan to

study Hinduism (the concept of maya) shows that his entryinto theology was through the study of religions. Devanandanunderstands religion, or more accurately faith, as a series ofconcentric circles — creed, cultus and culture (a system ofdoctrinal beliefs, the religious rites and ceremonies, and theworld view and life style respectively). The innermost circleis the creed. Invariably, when a religion interacts with itsenvironment, the impact is first felt in the outer circle, areaof culture, only later upon the cultus and still later if at allon the credal core itself. This means that the theology ofreligion changes with great inertia. That is why when arenewal takes place in a religion it effects all the spheres,and it is right to deal with a faith in all these spheres, andnot with an isolated one.

Devanandan affirms that these resurgent or renewalmovements, in a religion are of four types — reform move-ments, revival movements, renascent movements and re-volt movements.

1 4 2 1 4 3

In reform movements there is change brought about fromcauses outside. The change brings an emphasis upon the newas against the old, and many old ideas and practices andvalues are given up for the new ones. By contrast, a revivalmovement takes place within a particular religion. Here theresponse of the religion to an environment is dynamic andhence the emphasis is not so much on the new as on the oldelements. Therefore, all revival movements are both defensiveand apologetic, seeking to justify the validity the old claims.Renascent movements are the changes brought about by theforces acting both from without and from within. There is arevolutionary shakeup of the fundamentals of the religion.Finally, in revolt movements the ancestral faith is shaken upso much that it leads to a repudiation of it. Here the oldervalues are outmoded and the modern elements are lifted up.

Devanandan further affirms that in modern Hinduismthere is a new renascent movement taking place. The newvalues of person, society, and history are definitely foreignto the age-old Hinduism with its caste system and karmasansara. Then the question arises: from where does Hindu-ism absorb these new elements?

Here we come to what we call the ‘Devanandan discovery’.His thesis as in The Gospel and Renascent Hinduism, is thatthe new Hinduism is the result of the Christian message. It isin interaction with the gospel of Jesus Christ that neo-Hinduism has imbibed these new human values. Thus asChristians we must rejoice in this creative activity of the HolySpirit. As we enter into dialogue we will often find that thehidden Christ is there at work in Hinduism previous to us.This is the point of contact for Christians with Hindus. Thisis Devanandan’s post-Kraemer position. His discovery hecalls a second spiritual crisis, a second conversion, equivalentto his own experience of conversion to Jesus Christ.

In such a dialogue there are three steps according toDevanandan. First, there is a study needed of the variedtypes of Hinduism. Secondly, there must be clarification ofterminology so that the concepts used are properly under-stood by Christians and Hindus. Thirdly, there must be an

Indian theological expression of Christian faith. So he says:

Effective communication of the gospel to the non-Christianman of faith depends on the effective use of the religiousvocabulary with which he is familiar, and of the culturalpattern of life in which he finds self-expression and commu-nity being.32

Christian influence of HinduismIn his approach Devanandan has gone much beyond the

earlier approaches either of rejecting Hinduism totally ortaking Hinduism as the foundation for Christian faith orChristianity as the fulfillment of Hinduism. What are thesenew elements in Hinduism which it has borrowed fromChristianity? Obviously Devanandan takes pains in devel-oping these and we will do well to look at them one by one.

PERSONALITY

As far as the question of person is concerned Devanandantakes a daring step. He regards Brahman as neither per-sonal nor impersonal; he says that he is both at the sametime, i.e. he equates Iswara with Brahman. But God makeshimself known to human beings in personal relationshipsand never as a series of oppositions.

As Boyd says, this concept of God as personal, speakingto and dealing historically with man as a responsibleperson, is fundamental to Devanandan’s thinking. In thisconnection he develops the imago dei doctrine of man andprimarily in opposition to prakriti or nature. It involves atleast three attributes: a mutual encounter of I-thou; acapability of being in dialogue and of penetrating another I;and a purposive striving to realize a common end.

At the same time we must also point out that Devanandanholds to the orthodox view of human depravity and his viewof sin is quite orthodox.

SIN AND SALVATION

But how does man come out of sinfulness? Not byevolution or by education or by self-realization, but by adeliberate commitment to the offer of Christ.

1 4 4 1 4 5

It is the power and personality of the resurrected Christwhich transforms men and makes them into a new and livingcreation. Hence we can properly say “Therefore if anyone isin Christ he is a new creation”.

Thus Devanandan stoutly defends the idea of conver-sion and carefully distinguishes it from proselytism.

HISTORY AND MAYA

Another elements which he dwells on is the concept ofhistory. Thanks to the Hindu concept of maya neither theworld nor history have any abiding value. Giving adequateexamples, Devanandan shows how modern Hinduism isgradually awakening to a sense of purpose in history -another influence of the Christian message. Thus the age-oldconcept of cyclic understanding is replaced by a linear under-standing. He sees that the transformation of all religions (ashe has shown to be the case in Hinduism) is steadily moving,towards the eschaton, “the hope of glory”, the final end. Butthe question is, if all the religions are moving to this gloriousend, will they remain as they are, or will they be abolished, orwill they merge into a world religion? Devanandan is not quiteclear on that and he leaves the question open, very wisely. Hethinks that the truth belongs to the eschaton and we need notspeculate on it.

If he takes history so seriously, then how doesDevanandan interpret maya? This was after all his doctoraldissertation. The earlier thinkers understood maya eitheras illusion or as a second rate reality. Devanandan attemptsa new Christian interpretation: “Time is as it were shotthrough with eternity”. Thus the Christian talks about manas a citizen of two worlds. This is really a way of stating thatthis is a world of maya, a world which is both real andunreal, conditioned by time and shot through with eternity,the scene of human endeavour and the plane of activity. Buthere the sat-asat nature of world life is not understood interms of ultimate reality, but final purpose.”

In other words Devanandan shifts the realm of mayafrom being to that of purpose. That is, where God’s will isfollowed that is reality (perhaps he meant mainly the salva-

tion history); and where God’s will is opposed that is maya(the secular history). Thus his understanding of maya ismore or less similar to the understanding of vanity in thebook of Ecclesiastes.

COMMUNITY

Another new element which he finds in Hinduism iscommunity. Since Hinduism regards religion as a privateenterprise, Devanandan stresses the need of communitylife. In Devanandan’s words, “Man is truly man only in so faras he is found in the network of human relations whichmakes what the Bible calls ‘people’ and which in modernlanguage is called ‘society’.

He makes his point by basing it upon the very creationof man in the image of God, which involves the personalityand community of man in relation to God and man inrelation to others. Thus man is more than both manava andpurusha for he must be a bhakta in satsanga or koinonia(fellowship) with God and his people. Following this line ofargument obviously Devanandan rejects also the Hindudoctrine of karma sansara, that one is responsible for onlyhis own deeds, because it is not only against social justicebut also is not realistic.

For Devanandan the Church is this community. It is notonly a transformed community. He is not so much inter-ested in the narrow ecclesiastical issues but in the signifi-cant contribution of the church that it should be a living,witnessing, worshipping and serving fellowship, as a modelto the world, of what a community ought to be.

True community is created by the conscious sense whicheach one in the group has of being vitally connected with aliving centre and because of this living relationship to thecentre they are all bound to one another. That is the realdifference between a communion of saints and an associa-tion of people.

Thus he defines the church as “the fellowship of thosewho endeavour in community, as well as in their ownpersonal lives, to do the will of the Father.” This doing thewill of the Father involves not only kerygma or proclamation

1 4 6 1 4 7

or evangelism but also diakonia i.e., service of the commu-nity around, and koinonia fellowship with another. Theomission of leiturgia (worship) is significant, but sinceDevanandan was thinking of the Church as a communityvis-a-vis Hinduism, it might not be relevant here. AndDevanandan defends evangelism in no uncertain terms. Heaffirms that the primary mission of every Christian believeris to spread abroad good news that God has started amovement in the history of mankind by himself for thesalvation of man.

Following from this Devanandan advocates praxis aswell as orthodoxy as a must for the church’s witness. Andhe earnestly calls upon Christians to participate actively inthe nation building activities and gives a firm basis for this.This means taking part with other groups or non-Christianorganizations for a combined effort towards social upliftment— even if need be secular or other ideological groups.Association with non-Christian ideologies and structuresdoes not deter him from the Christian duty of nationbuilding. Other elements in Devanandan’s theology arequite conservative and thus we need not repeat them here.

EvaluationWe can only say this here, that most of his ideas are

conservative and often give a new insight which is mostrelevant to the Indian situation. The only element which isdisturbing is that he goes too far in developing the logosspermatikos idea in other religions. However we must be fairin admitting that he does this only subsequent to theChristian mission. One wonders, to what extent his idea ofdialogue will be practical, because sooner or later it is abattle at the level of the spirit and one religion’s interpreta-tion and evaluation of the other will necessarily come upwith some contradictions and hence confrontation. Dia-logue may be short lived, as Devanandan envisages.

NOTES

1. V. Chakkarai, Christ the Avatar, CLS, Madaras, 1932, p. 208.

2. Ibid., p. 112.

3. Ibid., p. 117.

4. Ibid., p. 220.

5. “Indian Christian Theological Task”, The Guardian, 1947, pp. 20f.

6. Rethinking Christianity in India (2nd Edition), 1939, p. 150.

7. The Guardian, 1943, p. 352.

8. The Guardian, 1947, vol. XXV, no. 6, p. 67.

9. Rethinking Christianity in India, p. 53.

10. Rethinking Christianity, p. 53.

11. The Guardian, 1947.

12. D.A. Thangasamy, The Theology of Chenchiah, CISRS & YMCA,1966, p. 8.

13. Rethinking Christianity, Appendix, p. 22.

14. The Guardian, 1950, vol. XXVIII, no. 9, p. 143.

15. “Dr. Brunner and the Indian Christian Reaction”, The Guardian, 17-24 August, 1950.

16. Rethinking Christianity, pp. 10-19.

17. Christianity and Hinduism, p. 18.

18. “Christians and Yoga”, The Guardian, 20 vol. XXII, no. 16, p. 6-7.

19. “Who is Jesus?”, The Guardian, 1943, vol. XXI, no. 32, p. 6.

20. Rethinking Christianity, p. 56.

21. Miller Endowment Lectures, pp. 54f.

22. “My Search for the Kingdom”, The Guardian, 1951, pp. 65f.

23. “Indian Christian Theological Task”, The Guardian, 1947, vol. XXV,no. 10, p. 8.

24. Christianity and Hinduism, p. 3.

25. Christianity and Hinduism, pamphlet of Thangasamy’s Theology ofChenchiah, p. 38.

26. As quoted by Thangasamy, op. cit., p. 38.

27. Rethinking Christianity, Appendix, p. 52.

28. Ibid., Appendix, p. 48.

29. “Our Theological Task”, The Guardian, 1947, p. 270.

30. Quoted in J.A.T. Robinson, The New Reformation, p. 19.

31. D.A. Thangasamy, op. cit., p. 51.

32. P.D. Devanandan, Preparation for Dialogue, CISRS, Bangalore,p. 191.

1 4 8 1 4 9

7

K.M. BANERJEA (1813-1881)

K.M. Banerjea (also spelt Banerjee or Banerji) was arecognized leader of the Indian Christian community inBengal, and was made the first president of the BengalChristian Association in 1870. The main purpose of thisassociation was to establish a national church of India,ministered by Indians and supported by Indian money.

He was one of Alexander Duff’s early converts and alsoa member of the Free Church of Scotland. Right after hisbaptism in the Anglican Church he became a priest, in1852, and taught for 15 years in Bishop’s College, Calcutta,as a Professor. Till 1870 his approach to Hinduism wasnegative, but after his retirement from Bishop’s college hebecame sympathetic to Hinduism. His books include Dia-logues and The Arian Witness.

In this book he starts off by saying that there are strikingsimilarities between the Old Testament and the Vedas.Thereby his desire was to show that Christianity, if notidentical with, is in any case the logical conclusion oforiginal Hinduism: He also finds parallels between Vedicand Assyrian texts and even the Hebrew and Sanskritlanguages. For Banerjea the Hebrews and the Aryans havea common background. Even etymologically Banerjea findsManu and Noah to have the same root. All this implies thatChristianity is not foreign religion but the fulfillment ofVedic religion. Though the Christian message would frightenmany Indians, he exhorts that this is also what happened toApostle Peter. He did not want to mix with the uncircumcisedand had to be mildly rebuked by the Lord in order to be ledto the full truth.

The corner stone of the commonness is in the institutionof sacrifice and priesthood. He is specially quick to find

1 5 11 5 0

parallels for the biblical Lamb that was slain from thefoundation of the world in Vedic literature. Even the parallelbetween the Creation, Fall and Deluge cannot be accidental.But what happened was that in the course of time theHindus have forgotten the implications of sacrifice, throughwhich men became gods and attained moksha. But to throwaway the whole Vedic sacrifice system is to throw away thebaby with the bath water. The Vedas still remind us of thehigh value in which sacrifices were held in earlier times.

Coming to Christ, he finds an excellent parallel betweenthe self-sacrifice of Prajapati, the lord of the universe, for thesake of the creatures, and the self-sacrifice of Christ for theremission of the sins of the world. These two truths he putsin his own words as follows:

Firstly, the fundamental principles of Christian doctrine inrelation to the salvation of the world, find a remarkablecounterpart in the vedic principles of primitive Hinduism inrelation to the destruction of sin and redemption of thesinner, by the efficacy of sacrifice itself a figure of Prajapati,the lord and saviour of the creation, who had given himselfup as an offering for that purpose.

Secondly, the meaning of Prajapati, an appellative variouslydescribed as a purusha, begotten in the beginning asVishwakarma, the creator all, singularly coincides with themeaning as Vishwakarma, the maker of all, singularlycoincides with the meaning of the name and offices of thehistorical reality Jesus Christ, and that no other person thanJesus of Nazareth has ever appeared in the world claimingthe character and position of the self-sacrificing Prajapati, atthe same time both mortal and immortal.

This means that Christian speakers, when they speak ofthose things mentioned above, do not “utter which things becalled strange to Indian ears”. The idea of salvation from sinby the death of a saviour who was a god and man himself wasa conception which had administered consolation to ourancient rishis, says Banerjea. And to a greater degree it doesso now to us Indians.

Beyond this, Banerjea asserts also that, “not a singlecharter in Hindu pantheon or in the pantheon of any othernation has claimed the position of the one who offered

himself as a sacrifice for the benefit of humanity”. Only onehistorical person, Jesus of Nazareth, has claimed this Vedicidea. Thus we may conclude, says Banerjea, that Jesus isthe true prajapati, the true saviour of the world, the onlyname given among men whereby we must be saved. He callsthe prayer to Varuna, which is mentioned in Rig Veda, atruly Christian prayer :

O illustrious Varuna, do thou quicken our understanding,we that are celebrating this sacrifice, that we may embark onthe good navigating vessel [Banerjea thinks this meanssacrifice] by which we may escape all sins.

So Banerjea shows that these doctrines, namely, Christas the true prajapati, the true purusha begotten in thebeginning before all the worlds, the doctrine of savingsacrifice, the primary religious rites, the double character ofpriest and victim, the ark by which we escape the waves ofthe sinful world, all these doctrines are found, amid rub-bish, in our Vedas and are the fragments of real truth ofChrist. Boyd calls the theology of Banerjea ‘Vedic theology’.What he means by this is that since the beginning of timethere was a universal cosmic religion in existence, whosebasic principle was that there is no salvation without theshedding of blood. Already sacrifice is practised by Abel.Some corrupted forms of this sacrifice have been forwardedto different religious traditions, whereas among the Jews,by God’s special care, it was kept intact, and so he finds acommonalty between the Jewish and the Hindu systems.

EvaluationI think we must hold fast to the principle that only

through the eye of faith in Christ we can discern all otherthoughts and systems and religions. It is when testedagainst the touchstone of Christ that we know whether aparticular aspect is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong.He is the norm. By the same token, only in comparison withChrist can we discover whether a particular element is aforeshadowing of him or not. No doubt there is truth in everyreligion, but for us who are disciples of Christ, Christ is thefinal touchstone.

1 5 2 1 5 3

It is one thing to say that there is truth revealed in theVedas and another to say that it can be discerned. Banerjea,by discerning the truth, I think raises the vedas to the levelof revelation. This is unacceptable.

SWAMI ABHISHIKTANANDA (1910-1973)

Swami Abhishiktananda was a French Catholic Priestwhose real name is Dom Henri Le Saux. He came to Indiaexpressly with the purpose of finding a meeting pointbetween Christianity and the great Eastern religions andthus have the way for the dialogue of all religions. He camealso as a colleague to Jules Monchanin who is the founderof the Saccidananda Ashram on the banks of the riverKaveri. After the death of Monchanin he became the mainguru and lived there until his death in 1973.

You would have by now noticed that India is really theplace where dialogue is at its best. In fact not just the termdialogue, but the very theology of dialogue, is created as wellas maintained by Indian thinkers. And so SwamiAbhishiktananda set out boldly to explore the heart ofHindu spirituality, first as a lonely pioneer and later with agrowing number of friends whose Christian commitmentled to them to Gangotri with other Hindus, and some of hisexperiences on the way are quite revealing.

He wrote several books in French and English. TheEnglish books are A Benedictine Ashram, The Mount of theLord, Pilgrimage to Gangotri, Prayer, The Church in India, AnEssay in Christian Self Criticism, Towards the Renewal ofthe Indian Church, Saccidananda: A Christian Approach toAdvaitic Experience, and The Further Shore. Many of themwere published posthumously.

As we have already seen, it is precisely because of theirbelief in the validity of natural theology that there are moreRoman Catholic theologians who affirm the validity of otherreligions than the Protestant theologians. This also is thereason why the dialogue is a constant theme among them,including Swami Abhishiktananda. Following the tradition ofRobert De Nobili ( whom we shall study shortly) there is a line

of courageous spirits who have taken the step of entering intothe heart of Hinduism to know it better. Happily SwamiAbhishiktananda is more readable than Panikkar!

Hindu Christian Meeting pointThe book Hindu-Christian Meeting Point, with the sub-

title “Within the Cave of the Heart”, is a translation from theFrench by Sarah Grant. As she writes in her introduction,the book was written a few months before his death, butafter his experience of “the reality of Upanishads andgospels”. He wrote and edited the book meticulously so thatit also might be awakened to its purpose, “the awakening ofothers to awareness of the truth of their own being”.

The book starts with an analysis of momentous changesin the Roman Catholic Church in 1964. The appointment ofConciliar Commission by the Pope to relate the church withother Christians around the world, and of the RomanSecretariat to relate with the world religions, are seen bySwami Abhishiktananda as the Church’s admission thatChrist is already at work outside the Church’s boundaries.These appointments also show the Church’s admission ofsuch a truth. He writes in his own words:

The church thus realizes that her mission is not to lead toChrist the Saviour isolated and poverty stricken individuals,sunk in deepest error and sin. With reverent wonder shefinds that, in the hearts of those to whom the name of theLord is still unknown, his Spirit is already at work bringingthem to fulfillment and resurrection. She sees that it is notin spite of but precisely through, the instrumentality of theirvarious religious traditions, their rituals and scriptures andthe spiritual vigour and thirst for renunciation which thesehave transmitted from generation to generation.

This idea of fulfillment, the pleroma of Christ, is then themain theme of Swami Abhishiktananda’s theology. Thismeans that the Church is no more satisfied with thecontacts which individual members have made with theindividual members of other religions, but she must nowstart “official contact” with the accredited representatives ofother religions. All this is of course in line with SwamiAbhishiktananda’s advaitic experience before his death.

1 5 4 1 5 5

Entering into the heart of HinduismFurther, if the church is really serious to enter into

dialogue with Hinduism, it is, according to SwamiAbhishiktananda, absolutely essential that it prepares it-self adequately. But this preparation is not at the level ofconcepts and thoughts, which is theological, but at thedeeper level: “the ‘knowledge’ of those ultimate depths of theself, the ‘cave of the heart’ where the mystery revealed itselfto the awareness of rishis.” It is only here, in the secret placeof the heart, that real dialogue can take place.

This means two things. One, it means that Christiansmust be ready to exercise epoche which he defines as “atemporary suspension of one’s faith”. Not only that, theChristians must also be ready to enter into the deep mysti-cal experience of the Hindus.

Such an experiment was conducted in Almora in ‘61, inwhich Swami Abhishiktananda was playing a major role.Here several of the participants shared their experience.One striking example was from a person who lived inBengal. Swami Abhishiktananda says,

He helped us to understand the truth that is hidden in theworship of idols, which in India at least does not merit thedenunciation launched by Israel’s prophets at the cults ofCanaan and Babylon. He explained to us the religious andeven contemplative meaning of the worship of ‘signs’, andtold us how idol worship had helped him to enter more deeplyinto the mystery of the signs used by the church as meansof grace in order to ‘concretize’ the worship of God’s peopleespecially that essential sign which constitutes the church,the Eucharist.1

Two conclusions followed this: “first that Christ wasalready in India”,2 and second “that India has received fromher Creator a very special gift of interiority and a uniqueinward orientation of the spirit”.3

In these experiments, of course only by Christians, eventhe Upanishads were read “in the presence of Christ”. Theconclusion that Swami Abhishiktananda and his followerscame to is this: there is a great similarity between St. John’s

and the Upanishad’s messages. The use of light and life byJohn, the use of the word Dabar or Logos can be paralleledalso in Upanishad by Vac or the word Om. So they call St.John’s gospel the supreme Christian Upanishad. They alsofind a parallel between Yahweh’s revelation ‘I Am’ and thevedantic ‘aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). Thus SwamiAbhishiktananda advocates that advaita is no danger toChristian faith, because to the pure all things are pure.

Fulfillment in ChristThe study of these details of the advaitic experience with

epoche makes Swami Abhishiktananda come to his conceptof fulfillment. He believes that God has planted the seeds oftrue faith in Hindu hearts. So it is the task of the ChristianMission to help the holy seed germinate, since “in thedesigns of God Hinduism tends of its very nature towardsChristianity as its eschatological fulfillment”.4 This meansthat even the Hindu Upanishads will find their fulfillment inthe Bible. That is, for Swami Abhishiktananda fulfillment isa matter of a deep spiritual experience rather than atheological exercise. Following Upadhyaya he also acceptsthat the meaning of Brahman is really understood only asSaccidananda and only when Saccidananda is experiencedas the Christian Trinity. When, in the cave of the heart,Christians and Hindus meet, first they experience theultimate non-duality of the Christians and secondly “theexperience of divine sonship in the unity of the Spirit”.5 Thefirst will inevitably pass on into the second. And that is howthe first is fulfilled in the second.

He dwells on what he calls “the cosmic covenant and thepleroma”.6 He calls attention to Melchizedek whom he calls“a priest of the cosmic covenant”. His sacrifices foreshad-owed the sacrificial death of Christ and are seen therefore asan example of a cosmic liturgy, to be found also in the non-Christian faiths, including Hinduism. Yet he is carefulenough to say, that to enter this pleroma the passage mustnecessarily go through the Cross of Christ. Nothing cancome to God unless through the Cross of Christ.

1 5 6 1 5 7

PresuppositionsBoyd analyses the presuppositions behind Swami

Abhishiktananda’s thought. First, he sees that behindSwami Abhishiktananda’s thinking there is an assumptionthat the intellectual formulations of western Christianityare inadequate to express the spiritual reality of the Chris-tian faith and that the Upanishads are more capable ofdoing it. So “aided by Indian spirituality, Christian theologymust now recover the experiential wholeness which now ithas lost”, says Boyd.7 A second presupposition he finds inSwami Abhishiktananda’s thought is that “spiritual life isthe most important issue for Christians, at least in India”.8

Of course, many Indians like M.M. Thomas have vigorouslyrejected such a spiritual approach. Boyd’s own criticism isthat whether such a religion of Swami Abhishiktananda canever be, in Bishop Newbigin’s words, “an honest religion forsecular man”?

EvaluationSince we have already been alerted to the Roman Catho-

lic approach to theology in general we need not repeat hereour criticisms of the Swami which are due to his Catholicfaith (there is more of this later in Panikkar’s theology).However, we must point out that all do not follow the sameapproach, there are exceptions to every rule. We can men-tion at least three things which are rather predominant.

One is the question of epoche. Having once been filled bythe Spirit and adopted as the child of God, it is hard for meto imagine that I can suspend my faith for the time being andsay that I do not belong to Christ and act as if I am neutral.I personally am opposed to the whole philosophy of epoche.It does not take the existential situation of faith seriously.

The other is the question of justifying idolatry. No doubtBoyd, in summarizing Swami Abhishiktananda’s theology,avoids such extremes, but I have purposely mentioned it toshow where dialogue patterned after SwamiAbhishiktananda’s guidelines can lead to. So the Swami’sapproach to idols stands rather weakly supported.

Then finally, again following the Roman Catholic two-tier scheme of discipleship — the higher clergy and the lowerlaity — Swami Abhishiktananda’s approach seems to caterto the monks and nuns rather than to the mass of lay people.As such it is more a method for the elite and not for thecommon disciple of Christ. This also explains why it isexclusively spiritual, in a monastic way.

KLAUS KLOSTERMAIER

Klaus Klostermaier is a young German theologian who,as a member of the Order of Divine Word, lived for two yearsnear Mathura in Vrindaban, the famous pilgrimage centreof the Hindus, the birth place of Krishna. In these two yearshe emphathetically entered into the very spiritual experi-ence of his Hindu friends. Out of this experience he wrotetwo books: Kristvidya: A Sketch of an Indian Christology,and Hindu and Christian Vrindaban. The first one was apaper in one of the Catholic ashrams for discussion, whilethe later is an account of his experiences and their analysis.

As the title Kristvidya (knowledge of Christ) adequatelyshows, his main attempt is to develop a Christology forIndia. So his one burning concern is to give a meaningfulanswer to the question which Christ himself asked, “whatdo men say about the Son of Man? Whom do they think heis?” (Mt. 16:13). Like the disciples of old, many Hindus evennow understand him as one of the avataras, like Rama orKrishna or Chaitanya, etc. Some others may take him as agreat moral teacher, a saint, a miracle worker like the oldyogis or even like the modern Sai Baba. This is the reasonwhy many Hindu homes also have a picture of Christ.

But the question Christ asks his disciples is morerevealing, “Whom do you say that I am?” (Mt. 16:15). Peter’sanswer “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (Mt.16:16), according to Klaus Klostermaier, is totally inad-equate, because in many Indian translations ‘the Son ofGod’ does not make any impression upon the Hindu mind,since to them all are sons of God. The concept of ‘the livingGod’ makes still less sense for them, since for them God

1 5 8 1 5 9

cannot but be a living God. And to say that he is ‘Christ’makes absolutely no sense since the word Christ is such astrange name that they cannot make head or tail of it.

So Klostermaier affirms that since it is useless to intro-duce any new foreign terms or idioms, we Indian Christiansmust “find the ‘theological place’ of Christ within the Hindusystem as the Greek Fathers of the church did.” Only so“does Christ become meaningful for a Hindu”. So he is surethat for the Hindus we have to express Christ as the livingrelationship of everybody with the Ultimate. Hence he callshis study Kristvidya, according to him a literal translationof the Greek Christ-logia, Christology.

This Kristvidya is presented in a most systematic man-ner in three parts.

The Prerequisites: Attitudes(i) First, since the New Testament authors inevitably go

back to the Old Testament in order to explain Christ, so also“to make clear to a Hindu what it means to ‘search for thekingdom of God’ we have to make use of his Hindu scrip-tures”.9

(ii) The second attitude is a recognition of the necessaryHindu pluralism: many schools and sects in Hinduism“differ not only in inessentials but in the very basic idea ofthe absolute and the way to it”.10 Klostermaier then master-fully describes the basic attitude of this variety of schools.

The basic attitude of Sankara’s school is pure andexclusive desire for the absolute. That of Ramanuja isprapatti, “complete surrender to the Lord” as the onlycondition for receiving his grace. Bhakti schools have sev-eral attitudes, all of which Klostermaier calls the basicattitude required for Hindu ‘seekers’. Madhava emphasizesresignation to the Lord Vishnu, Nimbarka emphasizessakshatkara, a bodily vision of God, and absolute faith inthe guru, others emphasize passionate love and devotion.The basic attitude of karma yoga is that of absolute obedi-ence or faith even when one does not understand it. This iswhy yajna is a basic element in karma yoga.

(iii) Thirdly, since according to Klostermaier, the aim ofall these several schools are “to enable man to be ‘in’ or ‘with’God or the Absolute”,11 Kristvidya must also approach notintellectually but existentially experience of being withChrist as in Brahman.

Basic Categories(i) It does not do any good to call Christ holy or great or

good and so on. Klostermaier observes that in the Biblewherever Christ is mentioned there is “a movement towardsGod”.12 That is, Christ always makes the distinction be-tween ‘my Father’ and all other things, and he definitelyincludes himself on the side of the Father. There is alwaysa basic distinction between two radically different andmutually exclusive realms of realities in Christ’s mind. Ourcategories of Hinduism must maintain this thought.

(ii) The logical categories of Hinduism are very differentfrom those of Christians. They use the term viveka for thehigher level of discernment. While the lower level of discern-ment gives pairs of opposites like hot and cold, dark andlight, sweet and sour, good and bad, the higher level ofdiscernment or viveka gives higher pairs of opposites be-tween the relative and the absolute, between the eternal andthe temporal, between prakriti and purusha, betweenJeevatman and paramatman and the like. We Christiansmust always be careful not to mix these two levels and usethose higher categories.

(iii) Following from the above, since the Christian Father-world relationship is not the same as Brahman-world, totranslate one with the other is a gross mistake. The logic of thehigher level, as is the case with Brahman-world, is not that ofpratyaksha or upamana but of shabda alone, that of logos.

Constructive ElementsHere he starts off by accepting paradox as the method of

explaining Kristvidya, exactly as was the method also forBrahmavidya. Only this way can we enter into certaintranscendent levels of understanding, which otherwise we

1 6 0 1 6 1

may never reach. Then he examines the three margas ofHinduism in detail. Since Christ also calls himself the Way,Klostermaier is sure that he is a marga — though he doesnot teach it, he lived it.

(i) Karma marga: Here Klostermaier believes that to usethe word deva to describe Christ can only lead into misun-derstanding, at least one reason being that devas are onlythose who are called as such in the Vedas. Even otherwise,the function of the Hindu deva is essentially different fromthat of Christ. As such the term does not apply to Christ. Buthe finds another term shabda in karma marga, which heunderstands as mantra. This word is “the connection of theworld with akriti, the uncreated idea which as such isincomprehensible and is never exhausted by the individualword.”13 Coming back to John’s prologue, Klostermaier saysthat according to John Christ also is in the sphere ofshabda-Brahman and akriti. “It should be possible to com-municate something of the mystery of the divine sonship ofChrist in the terms of the shabda philosophy”.14 This ratherthan other translation like ishwar ka putra, Son of the livingGod, is far more fruitful. Another term, yajna, is also usedfor sacrifice but only with limited earthly promises. It cannotbe directly used for the sacrifice of Christ, but he believesthat shabda yajna can be better used than other terms inkarma marga.

(ii) Bhakti marga: Since bhakti is interpreted severally bydifferent Hindu commentators, it is best to accept thegeneral characteristics. He mentions, some of these. First,since bhakti marga concentrates on avataras, the manifes-tations of God is visible form, it insists rather on thehistoricity of salvation. If you want to say Kristbhakti it isdefinitely much more than the historical part of salvation.Also, since bhakti is not speculative but rather an analysisof human emotions and techniques,eros plays a significantrole in bhakti. So to translate the gospel as the gospel of loveis again a misnomer. We must be careful, if at all we use theword bhakti, to bring the content of agape, in it.

Klostermaier says that the real theological problem ofbhakti is in its concept of avataras. For the bhakti systemthe lord, Ishwara, is Brahman. He is the controller and theprinciple of all, the one worshipped in every religious act,the bestower of every fruit, the sustainer of all, the cause ofall effects. As such, though it is appropriate to be used fora high view of Christ, says Klostermaier, we must rememberthe five-fold existential modes of Hindu divinity, namely, aspara, vyuha, vibhava, antaryamin and arkavatara. As parahe is Narayana, as vyuha he is the highest brahman himself,as vibhava he is the ten avataras, as antaryamin he is thedweller in the hearts of the individual selves, and arkavatarais the form where he accepts those from which the devoteechooses. Now, which of these five form can we attribute toChrist properly? Since Christ cannot be identifiedontologically with any one of them it is best to use all theforms. As para is the procession from the Father, as vyuhahe is the procession as the Spirit, as vibhava the divinemission of the world, as arkavatara in the eucharisticpresence.

Another element of bhakti marga he would like toinclude in Christian practice is that of japa. Both the OldTestament as well as the Hindu bhakti groups make Godand his name equal. The repetition of the name of God, thatis nama japa, is an essential part of their worship. There isalso a parallel for this, Klostermaier says, in the Jesusprayer of philokalia in the ancient church. As such namajapa and kirtan can be accepted.

(iii) Jnana marga: In this school, of course, the essentialcontent is the basic distinction between brahman and non-brahman. One of the expression used to distinguish thesetwo spheres — and unfortunately not enough attention isgiven to it — is the pair of karma and adhyatma. Karma isthe sphere of constant stage and repetition, nothing eternaland lasting can take place in it; whereas adhyatma is therealm of the self, the spirit, the reality proper. When Valmikidescribes Rama as a great king and hero, bound by the lawsof this world, it is a karmic description. But when the

1 6 2 1 6 3

adhyatmic Ramana interprets the same adventures, thenRama becomes the absolute being, ultimate reality, and allthe episodes are mere allegories for spiritual realities. In thesame way the parts of the gospels which only tell the birth,death and events of Christian life belong to the karmic typeof scriptures. They cannot possibly satisfy the Hindu mindwho looks for the adhyatmic Christianity or esoteric Chris-tianity. For example, Christ understood the miracles andparables as signs and even before his death he only spokein parables. This is the adhyatma Kristvidya, saysKlostermaier. He strongly believes that all the gospels haveboth poles, the karmic as well as adhyatmic aspects ofChrist. St. John’s Gospel appeals to Hindus most, perhapsexactly because it gives more of the adhyatmic Christ, theLogos of Christ.

This means that Kristvidya does not belong to thesphere of karma but it is equivalent to brahmavidya.

In the conclusion of the book, Klostermaier says that theprinciple upon which kristvidya is based

Demands a full and real ‘incarnation’ of Christ in the cultureand categories of India. We have to find the place of Christwithin the Hindu religious systems. That it is not possible tocarry him into them from without should be proved by nowfrom history. Christianity is not an additional theologicalsystem — perhaps ‘the only true logical’ infallible one — butcommunication of the Word of God: it should be possible toexpress the meaning of Christ in any language and philoso-phy, to point him out as the soul and depth of all philosophiesand theologies that deserve the name.15

Just as the Greek Christologia does not exhaust themystery of Christ, kristvidya also cannot exhaust the mys-tery of Christ. An Indian Kristvidya differs from the GreekChristologia in its method. It will not

culminate in a summa of doctrines and definitions but will belargely marga — a systematic liberating of man from allwrong attitudes and concepts to ‘free’ him for the one, theultimate experience. What is unique is not the way but thegoal.16

Thus, Klostermaier says, in Kristvidya we preserve allthe elements of karma marga, bhakti marga and jnana

marga. His other book, Hindu and Christian in Vrindaban,is an exposition of his experience of this Kristvidya.

EvaluationKlaus Klostermaier is not the only one to accept a

combination of all the margas, though, as Boyd points out,he seems to have a preference for jnana marga.

It is highly unlikely therefore that a theology which mixes upterminology from the various ‘strands’ will carry convictionto a Hindu; and the Christian theologian is left with a greatdifficulty: how is he to substantiate his claim that Christ isGod at the same time demonstrate the reality and thegoodness of the created world, including the human person-ality, the human body and human history?17

Beside this, I would also apply the tree-fruit test.

S.K. GEORGE (1900-1960)

Srampikkal Kuruvilla George was born in 1900 in aSyrian Christian family in Kottayam, to a rich cloth mer-chant. He grew up in the pious and closed atmosphere of theAnglican communion under the C.M.S. Church. After hiscollege education he went to study in Bishop’s college,Calcutta, earned a B.D.degree. But since he developedserious doubts about the orthodox theological position ofhis church he could not go back to minister there, butworked in the College as tutor for some years. During theseyears he plunged into the Independence movement and wasconverted to nationalism. He wrote his manifesto called“India in travail”. Because of this he had to resign from theCollege, and several years he wandered in the wildernesswithout finding any group to attach with or support hisfamily. In fact. his small daughter died due to starvation. Hecame to Gandhi’s ashram and developed a very close loyaltyto him and wrote his first book Gandhi’s Challenge toChristianity. Later his wife Mary George, stayed back inKerala, on Gandhi’s insistence that she take up the work ofKasturba Trust there while her husband went toShantiniketan to work there with Tagore. Later he came toWardha and taught there as a lecturer for about six years

1 6 4 1 6 5

and edited the quarterly The Fellowship of Friends TruthQuarterly. That he was against conversion seems to beevident as the Niyogi Commission accepted him as a goodChristian against the rest who proselytized. After retiringfrom the Wardha College they returned home and Georgedied in 1960.

Besides the writings mentioned above he also contrib-uted articles in journals and magazines like The Guardian,and Young Men of India, and several other books: The Lifeand Teachings of Jesus Christ, The World Teachers, TheStory of the Bible and The Life of Jesus.

One can summarize his thinking about Christ as follows:though Christianity has unwarrantedly raised Jesus to thelevel of deity, what is important is Jesus after the flesh, theman of Nazareth. He is the central figure. His charge was thatwhen he was seeking to deify Jesus the churches have failedto follow him. Thus his purpose to reveal the reality andrelevance of Jesus the Christ. As such, he selectively takes upthose parts of the gospel narrative where the humanity comesthrough. Thus his conclusion is:

What is indispensable in accounting for the rise of theChristian movement and what really matters for modernliving in the power of Christ is the belief that the spirit ofJesus has triumphed over physical death, and that thoughdead he still speaketh. That faith is independent of the legendof the empty tomb.

This means that the old form of Christianity presentedas a creed, a system of beliefs and rituals, is no morerelevant. Rather we must preach it as a way of life in theworld and the struggles of today.

As far as the scriptures are concerned he gives creditthat his spiritual life has been nurtured on them, though hethinks that God has also spoken in literature other than theBible. He had the dream of contributing to the “larger Bibleof mankind”. As such, the Bible is not the unique, the onlyauthentic word of God to man. He further says:

Every sacred book, every religion, is in a sense unique. It isthe result of a double process, of human search and divine

self-giving. The later is rightly regarded by every religioussoul as the more primal activity. The initiative is God’sthough the human response there to indispensable.

But what is unique about the Bible is the vision of thegood it shows. This vision of the good is gradually developedand is consummated in “Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man andSon of God” who is “the unique treasure the Bible mediatesto man”. This means that though the Bible gives narrationsabout Christ, it does not necessarily give scientific answersto the questions of how and when of creation. Neither doesthe book of Revelation give an authentic record of whathappens but rather a figurative way of God’s challenge toChristianity.

George postulates that (1) “a true Christian in Indiamust necessarily be a Gandhiite”, and (2) “a true Gandhiiteis essentially a Christian”. Such a conviction of George isbased on the truth that the Cross of Jesus Christ is the wayfor every man, and his belief that Gandhi has demonstratedits applicability and proved its efficacy more than everyoneelse.

As we have seen, George does accept Jesus Christ as ahistorical person, but he accepts him only as that and nomore. According to him the deification of Christ is some-thing parallel to the deification of other gods in India andhence does not belong to the essence of Christianity.Therefore he also does not deal with the crucial issues suchas atonement and the Cross and Resurrection. His ap-proach to the Bible is liberal in the sense that he does notsee that God’s full and final revelation is to be found inChrist and that he finds that God speaks in other religiousscriptures also.

1 6 6 1 6 7

1 6 8

NOTES

1. Swami Abhishiktananda, Hindu Christian Meeting Point, The Instituteof Indian Culture, Bombay, 1969, p. 27.

2. Ibid., p. 27.

3. Ibid., p. 28.

4. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

5. Ibid., p. 19.

6. Boyd, ICT, 1989, p. 294.

7. Ibid., p. 296.

8. Ibid., p. 297.

9. Klaus Klostermaier, Kristvidya, CISRS, Bangalore, 1967, p. 13.

10. Ibid., p. 13.

11. Ibid., p. 15.

12. Ibid., p. 39.

13. Ibid., p. 21.

14. Ibid., p. 22.

15. Ibid., p. 40.

16. Ibid., p. 41.

17. Boyd, ICT, 1989, p. 308.

8

M.M. THOMAS (b. 1916)

In this chapter and the following we will be studying livingtheologians, so their theology is still in the making andchanging. Looking at it one way, of all the contemporarytheologians we have studied, M.M. Thomas is a crucialtheologian in his own right. He is not only the most experi-enced among the contemporary Indian thinkers but also theone who has read most and written most. In the years to comehe may also have the greatest influence for Indian ChristianTheology. Along with Raymondo Panikkar and StanleySamartha, M.M. Thomas makes up the modern trio of Indiantheologians, comparable to the classical trio — Chakkarai,Chenchiah and Devanandan. As we studied the first triotogether it will be beneficial to study the second one alsotogether, as they influence and cross fertilize one another.

Early DaysMadathilaparampil Mammen Thomas was born in 1916

in Panavila, Kerala. His father was a member of the Ortho-dox Syrian Church. He was pious and quite well to do, awell-known evangelist, also an enthusiastic patriot whowore khaddar. After early schooling at his native place,Thomas went to Trivandrum to study Chemistry. It wasduring the first year at college that he came into contact withChrist in a meaningful way which he describes in his ownunpublished autobiography:

It was through an evangelical experience as a first yearcollege student in Trivandrum in 1931-32 that Jesus Christbecame real to me as the bearer of divine forgiveness and gavemy life, awakened to adolescent rages, a principle of integra-tion and a sense of direction.1

During his turbulent adolescence he was drawn in grate-fulness to God and began reading the Bible and meditating onit. At the time his moldable mind was deeply impressed by

1 6 9

books like The Imitation of Christ, The Transforming Friend-ship, The Practice of the Presence of God and The Life of Prayer.He also began to witness for Christ among his friends and tookactive part in his own Mar Thoma Youth Union and also theStudent Christian Movement. To begin with he was depend-ent upon the church. He writes, “I became devoted to thechurch and beside availing myself of its liturgical and sacra-mental resources I made regular visits to centres in theneighborhood of the city for evangelistic work.”2

Finishing his college study, he went to PerumpavoorAshram, teaching in a school belonging to the Ashram. Heorganized his friends into an “interceding fellowship” andregularly circulated among them some letters apparently ofpersonal nature. At the same time he was actively involvedin the creating of an international fellowship among stu-dents as well as an inter-religious fellowship of students.Here he rejected both evangelism and the exclusive claimsof Christianity, arguing that “love is at the heart of universe”and in love we need not pressurize one another to changeone’s convictions. He also met Pennamma, his future wife,during these student activities and after ten long years ofengagement married her. As he himself mentions in some ofhis books, it was his wife who was the primary cause forThomas’ Christ-centredness.

CHRISTIAN ACTION

1938 was a significant event in Thomas’ life when he wasco-founder of the Youth Christian Council of Action, whoseprimary objectives were to bring out the social implicationsof the gospel, to expose the evils within and without thechurch and to act to remedy them. He was the secretary ofthe Council, but soon there were splits in the organizationon the question of violence and so disassociated from thosewho rejected violence and formed another new organizationcalled National Christian Youth Council in 1942. But thislatter organization was short lived. At this juncture, he saysin his autobiography:

I was with this last group and desired to make my doubleorientation real by getting ordained to the ministry of the Mar

Thoma Church and by becoming a member of the Commu-nist Party of India. Both of them refused, the Church’sordination committee on the grounds that I was not Christ-centred enough, because I did not adhere to the ethic of truthand non-violence; and the Party on the basis that myreligious conviction would bring disruption of the partyranks and pave the way for reaction.3

This impossible attempt of Thomas to reconcile thespirit of Christ to the Marxist-Leninist ideology has re-mained the most dominant characteristic of his life andthought throughout. Later for a little while he worked in ahostel for street boys. This was the time when he came intoclose contact with Sadhu Mathai, who remained a life longfriend of Thomas. This was also the time when his views onthe church were crystallized. In his own words:

There was a time when I thought of joining the ordainedministry of the church and if I now think that way it isbecause I have come finally to that strong conviction that asthings are now I can better serve the church by being outsidethe official ministry.4

This anti-clerical attitude of Thomas has remainedthroughout and also explaining why henceforth he workedonly with para-church organizations. In 1941 he was in-strumental in defining the social creed for the Mar ThomaStudents’ Organization, which also became the social mani-festo of the church. He based the manifesto of the divinepurpose of human brotherhood, the worth of human per-sonality, and the equality of men in the sight of God —elements which have remained with him for good.

After leaving the work in the boy’s hostel, along with oneThamby he went to Bangalore to study with the well-knownGandhian brother Ralph Keithahn. In Bangalore well knownwriters like Reinhold Niebuhr, Hendrick Kraemer,Christopher Dawson, C.H. Dodd, and Nicolas Berdyaev,seem to have made a lasting impression on his youthfulmind. He also read Marxism.

STUDENT LEADER

During 1943-45 he joined the Student Christian Move-ment, partly through the urging of M. Adiseshaiah, who also

1 7 0 1 7 1

encouraged him to write in the official organ The StudentWorld. This was the time when he read Luther, Augustine,Aquinas, Aristotle and also met personally John Bennett ofUnion Theological Seminary, New York, who became a closefriend.

This association with SCM brought him to Geneva as apolitical secretary of the World Students’ Christian Federa-tion. In that capacity he toured and organized conferences,specially the famous Asian Leaders’ Conference at Kandy in1948, and the World Youth Conference in Kottayam (1947).He attended the Oslo Youth Conference in 1947. He alsoattended the EACC meeting at Bangalore and was made thesecretary for the Church and Society wing. Being in Genevaduring 47-48, he also got involved in the preparations forthe first Assembly of the World Council of Church atAmsterdam and came into contact with leaders like Oldham,Brunner, Ellul, Niebuhr and others. He seems to havecontributed substantially to the Church and Society de-partment. Perhaps because of his involvement with WCC,which was seeking an alternative both to communist andcapitalistic societies, he eschewed communism, at least inhis thinking. He writes:

1948 saw a definite change in my orientation to communistpolicies . . . I thought in Christian obligation to follow Marxiantechnique of class struggle for social revolution, within aliberal democratic framework, where it is viable.5

Turning point

Later on he toured quite a bit and this was the time whenhe wrote The Christian in the World’s Struggle along withPaul Abrecht of WCC. But actually a new stage began onlyin 1953, as he himself confesses in his autobiography. Hecame at this time to Union Theological Seminary, New York,to study theology for a year (the only theological study heever had). Meeting people like Bates, and Paul Tillich, wasvery exciting for him. After the study and a subsequenttouring of the United States, he returned to India to workwith the newly formed Christian Institute for the Study ofSociety (later changed to Christian Institute for the Study of

Religion and Society), as Associate Director with P.D.Devanandan, the Director. When Devanandan died in 1962he became the Director, until his retirement.

Thomas is perhaps one of the very few Christian leaderswho have attended all the Assemblies of the World Councilof Churches and also has made significant contributions toeach. In India he worked also with the Committee forLiterature for Social Concerns and several allied efforts. Hisconviction was “That the insights of the theologians andsocial scientists should coalesce in these studies . . . it hasbeen an explicitly ‘Christian’ interpretation but in thehuman and not in the communal sense.”6

As already mentioned, his ecumenical activities tookhim all over the globe. He was made the chairman of theWorld Conference on Church and Society, Geneva, in 1966.His understanding of society, revolution and ideology wasstabilized mainly in connection with his preparation for andcontribution in this conference. His book Christian Partici-pation in Nation Building is another key book in this area. In1966-67 he went for a second time to UTS, New York, butthis time to teach as a visiting professor. The notes of histeaching were later published as a book, The AcknowledgedChrist of the Indian Renaissance, a thoroughly selectiveanthology. In 1968 he was elected the moderator of theCentral Committee of the WCC, perhaps the highest honourgiven to any Indian Christian. Many of his ecumenicalutterances have been published by him in the form of a bookSome Theological Dialogues.

In 1969 a further decisive event took place in Thomas’life. His wife Pennamma died after a long period of sufferingwith cancer. This loss was irreparable. Since her pastoralcare was missing, he himself acknowledges that his theol-ogy went wild afterwards. On his 60th birthday some of hisfriends at CISRS produced a Festschrift in honour of himentitled Society and Religion. At present he is engagedprimarily in writing a mammoth commentary on the wholeBible and also in touring and lecturing a couple of timesevery year in Europe, the United States and other places. He

1 7 2 1 7 3

lives in his home in Panavila and is also actively engaged inindoctrinating the Kerala youth in his thinking.

Perhaps one more event in his life must be mentioned.During the Emergency under Indira Gandhi’s prime minis-tership, when there was an effective silence over all legalmeasures, it is significant that Thomas boldly wrote againstthe lapses of the government and circulated his notesprivately among friends. Later, when Indira was defeatedand another party came to power, his writings were col-lected and published as a book entitled Response to Tyr-anny. This paved the way for him to become the governor ofNagaland for two years.

Theological WritingsHis theological output, as already mentioned, is unbe-

lievably great. Besides, nearly 1000 articles, he has writtenseveral books, and contributed or edited many more. Hisprimary books include, The Acknowledged Christ of theIndian Renaissance, Man and the Universe of Faiths, Salva-tion and Humanization, The Christian Response to the AsianRevolution, Christian Participation in Nation Building, Secu-larism in India and the Secular Meaning of Christ, Towardsa Theology of Contemporary Ecumenism, Risking Christ forChrist’s Sake. One hopes that his autobiography, “FaithSeeking Understanding and Responsibility”, will be pub-lished in the near future. It is an excellent reading, portray-ing the sincere searches, successes and failures of anhonest soul.

Theological MethodBefore coming to a description of his theology it is

necessary to have a look at his theological method.

With an astounding consistency Thomas starts with theworld. He looks at the world, analyses what is happeningthere and tries to understand what the Christian solutioncan be. Thus the first step in his theology is what can becalled a contextual or situational approach. This is wellexpressed as an appendix in his book The Acknowledged

Christ of the Indian Renaissance. This concentration on thehuman situation has some implications.

1. Since it speaks only to those issues which are rel-evant, that becomes a selective theology, and since thehuman situation is the starting point his theology asks forpluralistic answers. Apparently this sounds as if his theol-ogy lacks the power of conviction. One also gets that feelingthat his theology is not only empirical, but also quitefragmentary, which he himself admits.

2. His theology is action-oriented. Like the liberationtheologians of Latin America he places praxis before ortho-doxy. Responsibility is the key word here. This is what theWCC calls the action-reflection method. He finds the basisfor this in the New Testament: as “faith working throughlove”. It is for this reason that Boyd labels Thomas’ theologyas “The Way of Action”.

Since Thomas is not an ‘academic’ theologian, it isdifficult to summarize his thought into some accessibletitles. For the sake of convenience we can study it under fourheads: Man’s quest, Christ’s Offer, the Mission of theChurch and the Goal of History.

Theological Emphases

MAN’S QUEST

Thomas starts with what is happening in the world, thatis history, and as he looks at history he discovers that aboveall phenomena revolutions are predominant. Following theapproach of Vatican II and of the World Conference onChurch and Society, Geneva (1966), he also finds basicallythree revolutions in the world: the scientific and technologi-cal; the revolt of the oppressed groups, nations, classes andraces, demanding social and international justice; andfinally the break up of the traditional integration betweenreligion, society and the state or the secularization ofhuman life.

Of these, undoubtedly secularization is the basic revolt,for while earlier man was afraid of nature, which swarmed

1 7 4 1 7 5

with spirits and Gods, now he is no more so afraid; insteadman has moulded nature to suit his own desires andcomforts and has created a hominised world. This is also thecause for the scientific revolution. Earlier the ChristianChurch either rejected all revolutions as satanic or followedthe revolutions blindly. He says that both these attitudesare false. The proper approach to revolutions consists in twosteps.

First, to recognize that within the revolutions Christ isat work awakening desires for more human (that also meansChristians) values. Secondly, to identify these values. Heenumerates them: freedom, selfhood, humanness of thecommunity and a sense of personal destiny, being involvedin mankind’s historical destiny.

Such an approach tends to mean that a revolution is apartial fulfillment of the kingdom of God. No doubt he seesthe evil in revolutions, that revolution devours its ownchildren, but he says this is where revolutions need theprophetic voice of the church. Hence,

Herein lies the mission of the church. It is to participate inthe movements of human liberation of our time in such a wayas to witness to Jesus Christ as the source, the judge and theredeemer of human spirituality.

GOD’S IMAGE IN MAN

Behind these revolutions Thomas sees a revolution inthe human spirit. He says that the traditional understand-ing of man as being created in the image of God needs to bere-cast, so he defines the image of God in man as “theobligation to respond to the call in freedom is the core of hispersonality, the basis of his eternal status as a person.”7

This means that freedom and responsibility are the keyelements of God’s image in man. Thus the social aspect aswell as the spiritual aspect are found here. Here Thomas isconsciously following the process theology since he saysthat not only man, but God also, is in process of evolution.So he finds the evolution of man an inevitable necessity,following to some extent Chenchiah here.

NEW SPIRITUALITY

Continuing on the revolutions, Thomas says there mustbe a fundamental change in our understanding of humanspirituality. He is not so much concerned about humannature or person or spirit but spirituality which he definesas “the way in which man, in the freedom of his self-transcendence, seeks a structure of ultimate meaning andsacredness”8, the goal being self-realization through in-volvement in history. His contention is that for our age ofrevolutions an adequacy must be sought in open secular-ism. The goal of such ideology, as of revolutions, is aresponsible world society — in other words, either thekingdom of God or the Marxian classless society. Sincereligion is a most potent source for strife in the world it doesnot help towards a classless society. Hence there must be aneed for inter-religious dialogue. And so he comes up withhis famous “Christ-centred syncretism”, which means con-version not of individuals but of the whole religious systemsto Christ. And so ultimately all religions and ideologies willbe found in Christ.

GOD AND SIN

He scarcely deals with the doctrines of God or sin. Whiledealing with sin he emphasizes corporate sin, corporateremedies rather than personal sins: “Oppressive structuresof corporate life are the result of the accumulated sins ofgenerations and they develop an anonymity and momen-tum almost independent of persons now living.”9

Rejecting the doctrine of creation, Thomas rejects alsothe doctrine of human depravity. Man ‘falls’ in his destruc-tive and selfish ambitions and is created in his nobler works.This figurative interpretation of the biblical passages alsoshows that he does not take the inspiration of the Bibleseriously. As far as the doctrine of God is concerned, thereis hardly anything worthwhile he has written except acouple of gleanings among all his writings. When he doesspeak about God he speaks of God’s action in politicalhistory rather than the attributes of God. That the theology

1 7 6 1 7 7

of hope has tremendous influence on Thomas’ thinking isclear from the following quotation:

Creation is the world in motion towards its fulfillment in thecoming eschaton. The eschaton is the creative power, theinner dynamic of the world in process, of the history ofmankind towards integration in the lordship of Christ.

Following Chenchiah he sees “the absolute as a con-struct of the human mind involved in the process”, and thushe does not think of God as unchangeable and absolute butas being a part of the evolving process.

CHRIST’S OFFER

All the foregoing is discussed as part of what man isseeking after and hence he comes to the understanding ofwhat Christ has to offer. Since man is seeking freedom andhistorical involvement etc., Christ, Thomas discovers, offersexactly these things. So his christology is a tailored one. Intalking of Christ’s incarnation Thomas is concerned not somuch about God becoming man but rather about twoaspects: since Jesus is a man born in particular time inhistory, for him the incarnation means the validation of manas the method of God and history as the arena of God’saction.

As far as the Cross is concerned, it is “the eternal andultimate symbol of . . . condemnation and forgiveness”. Heresolutely rejects the penal substitution on the Cross. Toquote him once again, “the crucifixion of Jesus Christreveals that self-love has its source not in any accident ofcircumstance but in the spirit of man.” Like some earliertheologians he understands that on the Cross kenosis tookplace, i.e. the emptying not of Christ’s deity or any otheraspect, but of his self. And so the Cross becomes a symboland an example for men to imitate. What does he think of theresurrection as a physical event? Thomas, like Bultmanians,believes that Jesus was raised from the dead but in theminds of the disciples and so it was a spiritual resurrection.In any case, Thomas thinks of Jesus Christ as the new man,as the proto-type of self-sacrificial love.

How does man respond to Christ’s offer of being anexample, of being the new man? There are several re-sponses. First, those who accept the pattern of self-givinglove and forgiveness have already responded to Christ tosome extent. At a deeper level are those who accept thedivine mediation or the atonement of the suffering Messiah.At another level there are those who accept the very personof Jesus as the ultimate model of the Messiah to come. Hesees all these as valid responses to the Christ. This quanti-fying of the Pauline faith is rather radically new. But finallyhe also sees man’s response to Christ involving his alle-giance to him as the Lord and saviour and joining his churchin baptism.

Thomas has more to say on the universal lordship ofChrist: “the certainty that Christ reigns as the sovereignLord of the cosmos and will sum up all things in Christ is anessential part of the biblical faith”. He sees the whole worldas being under the hidden kingship of the risen Christ andmoving towards the day of his open reign, at his secondcoming — all these categories are understood figuratively.In this Lordship of all he sees all religions, all nations, allrevolutions being imbibed with Christian values and thespirit of Christ. And also on this basis Thomas differentiatesbetween secular and salvation history, as many have done.Thus for Thomas Christ is not only the agent of creation, thedivine power, but primarily he is the fulfillment of history.Here very openly Thomas accepts the logical conclusion —universalism.

THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH

Then what is the mission of the Church? As we have seenearlier, according to Thomas it is to participate in therevolutions of our time. The Church’s mission is primarilyone of humanization and not of salvation. Salvation orredemption is only one aspect of humanization, catering tothe inward or to the spiritual aspects of mankind. Therecipients of Christian mission are not individuals anymorebut structures such as cultures, religions and ideologies.The method is no more proclamation, but now it is partici-

1 7 8 1 7 9

pation or as he calls it the confession of participation. Thebearers are no more the called and sent missionaries, butrather organizations or the churches who do the work. Hehas enough to say why the verbal communication of thegospel is utterly inadequate for our time. So he comes to theconclusion that evangelism in our time equals service.Unless the church exercises its prophetic ministry of con-structive criticism, the priestly ministry of the sufferingservant, it has lost its salt. Following from here he goes onto give details of the task the church has in several areas ofnational and international life — the political, the economic,the cultural, the social, the religious etc.

True to his anti-clericalism, Thomas emphasizes moreon the ministry of the laity in the world when he talks aboutthe church. For him the church must have koinonia, or openfellowship, without any barrier. For this reason he dis-cusses baptism whether it should be an entrance ticket intothe church or privilege of the member of the church (like theEucharist). These insights lead him also to the formation ofthe church in Hindu and other religious systems:

Once we acknowledge that the Christ-centred fellowship offaith and ethics transcends the Christian religious commu-nity, are we not virtually saying that the church can takefrom as Christ-centred fellowship of faith and ethics in theHindu religious community?

And so he comes up with what he calls “the Christ-centred Hindu church”. All this is in line with his under-standing of the pluralistic response of man to Christ dealtwith earlier.

THE GOAL OF HISTORY

If that is the mission of the church, what is finally thegoal of history? Here Thomas admittedly takes the Marxiananalysis of history as class struggle, and so the goal is, in hisown words, the unity of all things (his equivalent of classlesssociety) (see my book, Revolution as revelation - there Ihave tried to show that he takes this goal essentiallyfrom Hinduism as well as from Marxism and from processtheology).

EvaluationEvidently, the theology we have outlined thus far is very

much unlike theology, in the sense it looks more like apolitical or sociological history of man. This is to the creditof Thomas, for he does not see the spiritual aspect of manisolated but in its integral relations with all other aspects.My own evaluations are as follows:

1. Thomas has tried to reconcile the biblical revelationwith three systems: Marxist ideology, Hindu spiritualityand process philosophy, but he has failed in bringing thisreconciliation. He has so failed because the character of thebiblical revelation is entirely different from the other threesystems. Since he has attempted this impossible amalga-mation, his theology ultimately ends up in one or all of thefollowing results: Either God’s holiness as given in the Biblewill be rejected, or the personal lordship of Christ will berejected, or faith as the connection between God and manwill be rejected.

2. Following from such an understanding of God, Christ,man and the world Thomas’ theology inevitably leads topolitical action.

3. There is a basic lack in his approach to the scripturalrevelation — he has tried to find revelation in the revolu-tions. Thomas has done very little exegesis in all histheological writings. His writings are more philosophical,sociological, ideological or political, but almost never havebiblical support. Raising history and scientific expertise tothe level of the scriptures in authority he has diluted thescriptures radically. It is not just a question of how tointerpret the Bible, but of the very place of the Bible in ourFaith.

RAYMONDO PANIKKAR (b. 1918)

In ecumenical meetings where Protestants, Catholicsand Orthodox are involved, invariably it is the Catholicswho dominate the scene by their philosophical input. Thisis to be expected, because in Protestant seminaries the

1 8 0 1 8 1

whole theological education is finished within three or atthe most four years. But in Roman Catholic seminaries theystart by learning philosophy for about five years and onlythen they go on to the study of theology for another six orseven years.

Here I am definitely thinking of theological reasons. Forme it is obviously based on Thomas Aquinas’ structure ofnature and supernature. To nature belongs the natural oruniversal ability of man given in creation. To the super-nature or grace belongs the additional capabilities giventhrough Christ. As far as theology is concerned, reasonbelongs to nature and faith belongs to supernature. In otherwords, there is a natural theology as well as a revealedtheology. Natural theology is that which man can knowabout God by human reason without the aid of revelation.Revealed theology necessarily bases itself on the Scrip-tures. Aquinas accepted natural theology as valid andtherefore philosophy has been part of the Roman Catholictheology since his time. Reformation theology has generallyrejected the competence of the fallen human reason toengage in natural theology. Only by the enlightenment ofthe Spirit in regenerate man can a true knowledge of God befound.

But behind this framework of thought there is the basicexegetical approach to the image of God in man. In Genesis1:26 we read “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image,after our likeness’.” Here the use of the two terms ‘image’ and‘likeness’ have different meanings in Protestant and RomanCatholic Circles. The Protestant theologians rightly equateone with the other, since elsewhere in the Bible they areinterchangeably used. But the Roman Catholics make astrict distinction. According to Aquinas and the Catholicsthe ‘likeness’ or similitudo consists in the original right-eousness given to man, whereas the image or imago con-sists in, among other things, reason. They contend thatwhile similitudo (likeness) was lost in the fall of Adam andhence for the rest of mankind, the imago is not lost, that is,the human reason is still intact to know true elements about

God. For this reason the Roman Catholics have majored innatural theology and hence in philosophy.

There is one more final reason and that has to do withsanctification and the sacraments. The Protestants generallyaccept that sanctification is something imputed to man. Thatis, Christ’s righteousness, imputed to use by faith. It is basedon our relationship and standing before God. But Catholicsbelieve that it is a complete, almost substantial transforma-tion of the inner being, effected by the sacraments. For them,God’s righteousness is imparted to us. Thus sacraments havean effect ex opere operato. That means, the sacraments areeffective in the operation itself apart from the faith of thebeliever. This means that the Church, by the use of thesacraments, has direct access into, the realm of supernatureor grace or revelation. Hence, it has a greater command overits ‘subjects’ than the Protestant churches. Ultimately it islinked to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Churchand Papal infallibility.

Thus far we have spoken about natural theology be-cause in Raymondo Panikkar we see it at its highest. Youwill not be surprised by the use of Latin and Sanskrit termswhich have to be expected and in which he is an expert.

Raymondo Panikkar was born in Spain to a Hindu fatherand a Spanish Roman Catholic mother. He was also broughtup in both places, India and Spain. He learned both Vedantaand the Bible equally. And then he studied in Spain,Germany, and Italy and later also in Benares. Even now helives in two worlds: he teaches part-time in the West andpart-time in Benares. He has written many books both inSpanish and German. Most of them are unknown in India.But what are known are his English books: Cult Mysteriumin Hinduism and Christendom, Religion and Religions,Kerygma and India, Indian Letters, The Trinity and WorldReligions and above all the publication of his doctoralthesis, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. This last men-tioned book was published in 1964 in the midst of theproceedings of Vatican II, and was virtually taken up as thetheology of the Vatican II concerning religions, as the final

1 8 2 1 8 3

pronouncements of that Council show. We can begin tostudy the major emphases of his theology from this book.

He starts with the question, what is the meeting place fora fruitful dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity? Toanswer in his own words:

Where can a real encounter take place, so that both havingmet there could no longer be room any more for ignoring eachother, but only for a catholic embrace and exclusive substi-tution or a mutual interpenetration?

Here both segregation and substitution are definitelyneither desirable nor possible, according to Panikkar. Heanalyses and finds that neither mere cultural synthesis nordoctrinal parallelism are adequate as meeting point. But heaffirms that Christ is the meeting place for the two religions.Both meet in Christ: Christ is there in Hinduism butHinduism is not yet his spouse. Hinduism is the desiredbride whose betrothal was celebrated long ago in the Vedictimes and whose marriage still remains the mystery ofhistory. According to him Hinduism seems to say: “Becausewe all are really the same, what harm is there if we keepseparate?” while Christianity seems to answer: “if we are allreally the same what harm is there in coming together?”

Basing his logic on the classical passages in the Book ofActs about the Logos spermatikos idea Raymondo Panikkarasks,

If God has a universal providence over the whole of mankind,and Christianity is the fullness of his revelation ‘in those lasttimes’, there, must also be a link between the cosmicreligions and the religion of his Son.

In fact he finds that Hinduism is a kind of Christianityin potential, a kind of Christianity in seed. Apparently hisown life situation is reflected here, the relationship of hisHindu father and Catholic mother.

Panikkar states as his basis the exposition of BrahmaSutra (1:1, 2 ). The text reads, Janmadi asya yatah. Literallyit means “whence the origin of this?” According to the rulesof the Hindu exposition the text could be expounded tomean “Brahman is the whence, the origination, sustenance,

and transformation of this world” or in simpler words“Brahman is the total ultimate cause of this world”. The texthas been of course a crucial one in Hindu theology asShankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Yaksha and several othershave very variedly expounded it. The question is an old one.If Brahman is the unconditional Absolute how can he be thecause of the world? And this is precisely where Panikkarsuggests: a Christian solution to this logical dilemma. In hisown words, “that from in which this world comes forth andto which it returns and by which it is sustained — that ‘that’is Christ”. Thus already in the very core of the BrahmasutraChrist is there, for without Christ the dilemma cannot besolved. This is the agnostos Christos, the unknown Christin Hinduism. Of course in accepting Christ as Brahman headopts the personalist strands in Hinduism to the exclu-sion of the advaitic strands. Based on this presence of Christin Hinduism Panikkar, like M.M. Thomas advocates theconversion or transformation of Hinduism to Christ. In thistransformation he maintains that there is no real loss forHinduism but it only gains its own soul. It will be atransformation into a higher sphere, yet keeping its fullidentity. The concept and the logic is a bit difficult tounderstand but that has been main trust of his thinking.

In a latter book called The Trinity and the World Religionshe arrives at a similar conclusion from a different angle. Hismain concern is to work towards “the universalisation ofChristianity, towards the actualization . . . of its catholicity”contributing “to the development of all religions’ unity”. Hethen proceeds to show how in the doctrine of the Trinity thethree kinds of spiritualities, karma marga, bhakti marga andjnana marga, are not mutually exclusive but can be recon-ciled. Here he admits, of course, the key problem is the realmeaning and content of the terms ‘nature’ and ‘person’ — thiswe have seen already earlier. His final solution is ‘theandrism’.

Theandrism is the classical and traditional term for thatintimate and complete unity which is realized . . . in Christ,between the divine and the human and which is the goaltowards which everything here below tends in Christ and theSpirit.

1 8 4 1 8 5

And he finds theandrism best suited to characterize thesynthesis of the three spiritual attitudes described earlier. Ofcourse, the term ‘theandric’ is an alternative term for Trinity.In philosophical terms he puts it thus: “Theandrism stressesin a paradoxical fashion (for one can speak in no other way)the infinitude of man, for he is tending towards God theinfinite; and the finitude of god for he is the end (finis) of man.”

This theandric vision of reality of Panikkar is an alterna-tive both to dvaitic and advaitic visions. Thus according toPanikkar theandrism is more than both thought and action,it is a spirituality; for Panikkar man is more than a merehuman being: he is a theandric mystery.

EvaluationOf course, as we have already hinted, the whole of

Panikkar’s theology is philosophical in approach and the logicof it eludes the reader. Yet we can attempt some evaluation.

(a) Basing himself firmly on Thomism, that is on Aristo-telian logic, and on the magisterium (teaching authority) ofthe Church, Panikkar does not budge from the orthodoxdoctrines of the Church. As is the case of most of the RomanCatholic theologians, he tends to centre all authority in thePope. I say this because as long as Catholicism was closedto outside religion so were its theologians, and once itopened so also did the theologians.

(b) Secondly, he has followed the usual Logos spermatikosidea (by now you will be familiar with the term) whichthough has some truth and biblical support, yet in myopinion definitely dilutes the uniqueness and the finality ofJesus Christ as the culmination of God’s revelation. If onecan find Christ in Hinduism, or elsewhere in revolutions, asM.M. Thomas has asserted, why then do Christians preach,why does the Church exist? What at all is conversion andwhy at all incarnation?

(c) For Panikkar, the fact of his being born to a mixtureof religions — a Hindu father and a Catholic mother — hashad a strong effect on him. A parallel is the life of Paul Tillich,who was born and brought up in Germany in the border

situations of the World War. Then later on he worked andlived in America. So all his writings deal with the two worlds,and with border situations, as he himself admits. We find asimilar influence of Panikkar’s life context on his theologiz-ing. After all, each of us is a child of our times, are we not.

STANLEY JOSEPH SAMARTHA

BackgroundLike M.M. Thomas, Russell Chandran and Panikkar,

Stanley Samartha is one of our contemporary, senior theo-logians in India. He hails from the South Kanara district ofKarnataka, as his name reveals. His influence outside Indiais more than inside. After having studied at United Theologi-cal College, Bangalore, he finished his doctoral dissertationin the United States, on the philosophy of Dr. S.Radhakrishnan. On his return he taught for several years inUTC and then at Serampore where he became the Principalof the Serampore College.

In 1968, when the World Council of Churches was re-organizing its Study Unit on the Word of God and the LivingFaiths of Men they called Samartha to the Unit as its director.Soon his excellent leadership converted the Unit into a full-fledged organization within WCC, named DFI — Dialoguewith Men of Other Faiths and Ideologies. Till 1975 he workedas Director at Geneva and after his retirement he came toteach at Karnataka Theological College, Mangalore. Now he isa lecturer and theologian at large, particularly at UTC.

He has written and edited several books. One of the mostreadable and clear presentation of his thoughts is his bookThe Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ. Beside that hehas either written partly or edited several other books in thecapacity of Director of DFI, all on the subject on dialogue.

Samartha’s ChristologySamartha’s main contribution is naturally in the realm

of christology, and here he has gone beyond his predeces-sors. Raymondo Panikkar’s The Unknown Christ of Hindu-

1 8 6 1 8 7

ism postulated that Christ is already present there in pureHinduism but not yet known to Hindus. M.M. Thomas wenta step further in The Acknowledged Christ of the IndianRenaissance affirmed that though Christ is still unknown inthe pure Hinduism, he is already acknowledged in themodern Indian renaissance. Samartha goes beyond boththese steps. In The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christhe postulates that Hindus have recognized Christ in theirown traditions and even have responded to him at severallevels. His book is a study of the several levels of Hinduresponses. As a conclusion he gives a summary of what anauthentic Indian Christology should be and here he defi-nitely takes an advaitic interpretation of Christ.

In his books he gives excellent guidelines as to whatkind of Christology the Indian Church must evolve:

Its (i.e. the Indian Christology’s) central effort should be toacknowledge the mystery and explain the meaning of theperson and work of Jesus Christ. Its starting point is the totalcommitment to Christ as crucified and risen Lord. Its contextis one of sharing and involvement . . . it is my conviction thatunless Indian Christian theological thinking takes advaitaseriously in both its classical and modern forms it is not likelyto make any effective contribution to the quest for resourcesto undergird our national life.

Thus he makes clear that his primary purpose in study-ing Christ is to make his claims and offers relevant to thenational needs struggles of India, and not a spiritualizedversion of these needs and struggles.

His theology starts with a very valid question: “What doesit mean to affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour todayin India?”10 In answering this the basic situation of Indiaought to be in competition with the whole range of Hinduismbut can rather be in “co-operation with it.” The reason for thisis that “if the message of the gospel has to become challeng-ingly relevant to human needs today both the credibility of theSaviour and the meaning of the salvation he offers have to bestated afresh”11, that is, only by involvement and meeting thepresent struggles and meeting the present needs. But sadly,he says, the Christian presence is symbolized by “the church

building on the same river bank, with a cross on the top butwith its doors shuttered and its gates locked, to be openedonly on the following sunday”12 while on the other side thereare slums and huts and workers and strikes going on. Yet, inthe midst of all this, Christ is standing incognito because “TheHindu response to Christ is sufficient evidence of his pres-ence, even though the manner of the response and itscharacteristics may be unfamiliar to those inside the hedgesof the traditional church.”13

In this connection, Samartha emphasizes that only theuniversal accessibility of Christ, but also his universalinitiatives, are to be taken account of. But then he is quiteaware that such an acknowledgment of Hindu response toChrist outside the church has several implications:

a) Now that Christ is found to be present in mostimportant areas of Hindu life and thought, the church mustbe grateful for such a revelation rather than offer suspiciouscriticism.

b) It paves the way in which direction indigenous Chris-tianity must proceed.

c) The Church must start afresh the meaning of “thehistoric particularity of Christ even when he is ‘unbound’”.14

d) Christianity need not be in competition with Hindu-ism but learn to co-operate with it.

Our Hindu brethren should not be regarded as recruits to thekingdom of God but as fellow citizens in the commonwealthof Christ, seeking together the fullness of Christ in hiscontinuing work of reconciliation and renewal.15

e) It also means that this common quest could helpHindus themselves “by way of deepening and enriching itsown heritage as it seeks to relate itself to modern needs.”16

Of course, Samartha is not speaking of one response butof several Hindu responses to Christ, because “Response is acomplex attitude involving cultural, psychological and theo-logical factors, and in trying to describe it one should becareful to avoid generalization and over-simplification of theissues.”17

1 8 8 1 8 9

HINDU RESPONSES

With that principle he differentiates three types of Hinduresponses to Christ.

a) “Response to Christ without commitment to him”.18

As examples he cites the following Indian thinkers: SreeRamakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Akhilananda,Raja Ram Mohan Roy, S. Radhakrishnan. For these peoplethere is absolutely no value in the Christian Church norcommitment to Christ.

b) “Response and commitment to Christ, and Christalone, but reject the context of Hinduism itself, but witheither indifference to or a total rejection of the Church.”19

Here belong the people who accept Jesus Christ but rejectthe institution of the Church, like Subba Rao, Parekh andothers.

c) “Response and commitment to Christ and an openentry into the Church through baptism, but with strongcriticism of the church from within its fellowship.”20 Peoplebelonging to this kind of response are part of the church, onthe membership roll of the church, but raise a propheticvoice against the church practices. The ‘Re-thinking Chris-tianity’ group is an example he mentions, that is people likeChenchiah, Chakkarai and the like.

As a postscript he adds a fourth category of responsewhich he describe as “The effort to discover the hiddenChrist within Hinduism itself and to unveil him even thoughthere is no conscious visible response to him.”21

Raymondo Panikkar and Klaus Klostermaier are exam-ples of this type of response. Naturally this is not a Hinduresponse, as Samartha is aware of. The attempt here is tomake explicit what is already implicit in this very citadel ofHinduism.

Then Samartha goes on to analyze in detail the differentresponses. Some of the common elements of those who havegiven the first type of response to Christ are:

1) To all of them experience is the supreme authority inreligion.

2) All of them make a selective use of the scripture,whether Hindu or Christian, in interpreting Christ. Theyalso show little interest in the Old Testament. The Gospelsare their primary interest and specially the fourth Gospel.

3) The church is an unnecessary appendix for them. Thenotion of election or the people of God is arrogance in theirsight.

4) There is no special significance they attach to thehistoricity of Jesus Christ.

5) They rather give importance to the ethical teachingsof Christ and especially to his sermon on the mount. Yet allof them regard the death of Christ with the greatest respect,since it is a symbol of self-sacrifice and renunciation. Butthe resurrection has no special significance for them.

6) All of them make conscious effort to separate Christfrom Christianity. Thus their response is not to the Christof the Church but to the unbound Christ.

7) To all of them service is a crucial category, and theyregard service to man as equivalent to service of God. Assuch, worship of God and philanthropic activity are broughttogether.

8) Most of them use the advaitic framework to fit Christand his work, so Samartha asserts: “Therefore it is clear thatany attempt at Christology in the context of Hinduism, if itshould command their intellectual respect, must in someway come to terms with Advaita, not just in its classical formbut also in its modern interpretation.”

9) There is a strong tendency in all of them to universalizeChrist, to lift him out of his Jewish particularity and westerncultural bondage and emphasize the Christ principle againstthe Jesus of Nazareth.

10) None of them really commit themselves to Christ. “Atbest Christ is an additional item in their spiritual menu.”

1 9 0 1 9 1

They do not consider Christ as an alternative to presentpossibilities but only as additional source for their spiritualgrowth.

INTERPRETING CHRIST THROUGH ADVAITA

With these responses in mind, Samartha comes todefine what he calls “the core of the Christian dogma”, “theessence of the faith once delivered to the Saints”. Sinceanubhava is the chief source of knowledge among theadvaitins, that is, since Brahman can be known only throughanubhava, Samartha believes that it should be our startingpoint. But Christian anubhava has a certain distinctive-ness,

First in that, unlike advaita, here the Christian anubhava iscontrolled by the historical fact of Christ, and second, in thatit has a social dimension in the church, in the fellowship inwhich it is sustained, strengthened and transmitted toothers.22

Here Samartha of course criticizes both the bhaktiunderstanding of avatara as unsuitable for Christ, as wellas Ramanuja’s understanding of matter and consciousnessraised to the level of Godhead. He thinks advaita is the moresuited strand for the interpretation of the Christian gospel.And particularly the Advaita of Shankara. But since there isa tendency of dvaitic inquiry to reduce the significance bothof person and history, Samartha suggests that the Christianview of advaita would “help in recovering the sense of thepersonal, the historical and the social in the structure ofHindu spirituality”. This means that in Samartha’s thinkingthe interpretation of Brahman is not impersonal but it isreconcilable with personal values. Thus he is free to relateChrist to Brahman. Samartha realizes that the real point ofcontention here is: What do we mean by the term person? Hesuggests that there should be at least the following as itscontent: subsistence, distinctiveness, completeness andintelligence.

How do we then in advaitic system understand theworld? Is it an illusion or a reality? Samartha says, “It is notnecessary to understand maya as advocating the unreality

of the world. Maya should be regarded not so much as thedoctrine of the ontological status of the world as descriptionof its relation to God.” He approves Devanandan’s approachthat maya need not mean even a first-rate reality but adependent reality which has worth in the sight of God. Inany case, Samartha is clear that the maya of advaita is notidentical with the world of the Bible. Therefore,

The historical nature of Jesus Christ, with all its implicationsfor man and society, can be justifiably considered in thiscontext. It can be noted that the ontological status and thehistorical fact of Jesus Christ are held together in his life andframework.

So what is more important is to affirm the fact that inJesus Christ this world of nature and history is created,redeemed and sustained, and of course God’s grace is beingdirected to its final consummation.

THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST

Then how do we view the two natures of Christ andspecially the deity of Christ? Along with Cullmann, Samarthasays that there is no need to say that God’s nature iscompletely exhausted in Jesus. That is to say, while accept-ing God’s truth and love in Jesus Christ, the sense of themystery and depth in God should not be eliminated in anychristology in India.

Then Samartha considers the work of Christ’s salvation.In the advaitic monism some things are not given enoughsignificance. These include: Freedom and responsibility ofthe individual personality; the social and historical dimen-sions of human life; the possibilities for the emergence of thenew both in nature and in history; the fact of tragedy and evilwithin human spirituality sometimes masquerading asgoodness; the persistence of sin, guilt and death in humanexistence, particularly at a time when new weapons of totaldestruction create the disposal of man, which may willfullybe used or accidentally released.

So Christian christology must give them significance.Only through an interpretation of Cross and the Resurrec-

1 9 2 1 9 3

tion of Christ can this be possible. Yet we must avoid the‘emergency measure’ or ‘rescue operation’ kind of interpre-tation of the Cross, because the scope of Christ’s work islarger than the redemption of individuals:

As the agent of creation and as the Saviour of mankind, hiswork is continuing until all things are summed up in him.Here therefore the advaita emphasis on the unity of life,where history and nature are seen together in the totality ofthe life of God, is not irrelevant.

This does not mean, as Christians have often done, thatwe should explain away the mystery of the Cross. Yet theoffense of the Cross need not be stated in an offensive way.He would like us to avoid the following mistakes: thetendency to describe the Resurrection as a kind of happyending to an otherwise tragic story; theories of atonementbased on the idea of sacrifice; the tendency to remainweeping at the foot of the Cross and join the emotionalcatharsis; and over-emphasis on original sin; the stress onfeelings of sin and guilt as prerequisites before the savingpower of the Cross; obsessions with the symptoms of sinrather than its root and the like.

Samartha says Christ’s death and suffering were, first,voluntary, secondly, vicarious “in the sense that there is adeliberate recognition that it was for the sake of the others”,thirdly, it is the resurrection which is the culmination of thecross. Hence the cross cannot be interpreted without theresurrection.

In the conclusion of the book Samartha comes back tothe original question with which he started: What does itmean to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour in Indiatoday? He answers:

To accept the lordship of Jesus Christ means that one mustbe prepared to obey God’s demand in Christ to crucify theself, in its desire for isolation and in its feeling of self-sufficiency, in order that the promise of renewal in theresurrection might become operative in human life. Wher-ever the Christ event is recognized and whatever people areprepared consciously to die with him and to be raised againwith him, there God’s work of reconciliation takes place.

The Goal of SalvationSamartha knows that this salvation in Christ is beyond

human or social or cosmic history. It includes the consum-mation of all life, the disclosure of the ultimate meaning ofcreation. It is definitely not a return to the beginning but anenrichment and fulfillment, a move through the strugglesand conflicts, overcoming evil in love and finding finalfulfillment in the fullness of God himself. Thus there is noexclusiveness in Christology in India. On the contrary, “it isthe declaration of the universality of the unbound Christ .. . Christ transcends all cultures.”

So Samartha concludes his book Hindu Response to theUnbound Christ by saying Christ is always involved inhuman situations, wherever the struggle for justice, free-dom and truth is going on, and demands that his followersalso participate in his crucifixion and resurrection. And hecannot be bound or identified with any particular culturalsituation nor to a particular system of thought.

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

Since Samartha is also the primary spokesman for thetheology of dialogue of WCC we must say something on thattopic also. We will speak of one aspect of dialogue from hiswritings. He thinks of two principal attitudes for any dia-logue: openness and commitment. First commitment. Un-less one is committed to a particular set of beliefs he cannotdialogue. Thus he exhorts that only committed Christians,those who are fully committed to Christ, can have thecourage to have the dialogue. But commitment is notsufficient unless it is coupled with openness. One should beopen not only to understand what the other has to say indialogue, but be open enough to change one’s own positionin the light of the dialogue; only then it is true openness.

And dialogue does not take place between structures,i.e., religions or theologies, nor at the intellectual level, butit takes place at the human level. That is why WCC sub-unitis called dialogue with men (later, people) of other faiths andideologies. This is certainly healthy.

1 9 4 1 9 5

Since dialogue takes place in community there are twoaspects to it. First the Dialogue within the community: “thebuilding up of relationships expressing mutual care andmutual understanding”. Among the Christians this mustlead to communication. Secondly dialogue between com-munities: “For the sake of a wider community of peace andjustice”. Common purpose in society are important here.This may lead to international consensus or inter-religiousdialogue. Without the first the second becomes shallowsentimentalism, but without the second the first becomesnarrow exclusivism.

What does dialogue do? a) it clarifies the meaning ofterms used in dialogue; b) it makes possible “a morecoordinated theological reflection on the relationships be-tween religions”; c) it provides a theological frameworkwithin which questions can be asked from all sides. Thus,a theological dialogue is necessary, says Samartha.

EvaluationSamartha’s resort to the advaitic system as the proper

vehicle for interpreting Christ is based primarily on empiri-cal enquiry and not necessarily on theological grounds.

He seems to be carried away by the vision of unity ofAdvaita and thus he seems to dilute the uniqueness (onecan say even exclusiveness) of Christ as portrayed in theBible. Since his goal seems to be more of a society of peaceand justice and harmony he is more concerned with avoid-ing religious conflicts than in preserving the truth of theGospel. As a result, his reinterpretation of the Cross andResurrection existentially and his dilution of the penalsubstitutional theory of atonement of the Cross and eventhe deity of Christ are to be regretted. Though his startingquestion, what does it mean to confess Jesus Christ as Lordand Saviour in India today, is most significant, his answerseems to be tailored more to meeting the need of the hour inIndia.

NOTES

1. M.M. Thomas, “Faith Seeking Understanding and Responsibility”,p. 1.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 24.

4. Ibid., p. 9.

5. Ibid., pp. 56-57.

6. Ibid., p. 89.

7. J.R. Chandran and M.M. Thomas (eds.), Political Outlook in IndiaToday, pp. 168-169. 8. MM Thomas, Christian Action in Asian Struggle,speech at EACC Assembly at Bangkok, 1975, p. 3.

8. Ibid.

9. M.M. Thomas, speech at 5th Assembly of WCC at Nairobi, inRevolution as Revelation, p. 118.

10. S.J. Samartha, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ, CLS,Madras, 1974, p. 5.

11. Ibid., p. 3.

12. Ibid., p. 3.

13. Ibid., p. 4.

14. Ibid., p. 14.

15. Ibid., p. 14.

16. Ibid., p. 15.

17. Ibid., p. 117.

18. Ibid., p. 117.

19. Ibid., p. 117.

20. Ibid., p. 117.

21. Ibid., p. 117.

22. Ibid., p. 118.

1 9 6 1 9 7

9

In the recent decade or two, there have appeared scoresof theologies from new Indian thinkers which are a thoroughmixture of all strands we have discussed so far. Many ofthem are theologically very creative and bold, even radical.Some are good thinkers but not writers. In this chapter webriefly note their contribution, without attempting to do asystematic analysis of their thought. Time, it appears, is notyet ripe for such an effort.

RUSSELL CHANDRAN (b. 1918)

Russell Chandran belongs to that generation of IndianChristians who stand between the colonial period and theemergence of indigenised Christianity. As such he and hiscontemporaries were compelled to take up the leadershipfrom the outgoing foreigners in all the Christian institu-tions, and so were unfortunately bogged down in adminis-trative and financial aspects of their organizations. Thismeans that their creativity in those lines, and so theirwritings are neither definitive nor plenty. But they areimportant land marks on the way.

BackgroundJoshua Russell Chandran was born in Tamil Nadu in

Kanyakumari district in a Christian family. After his earlyeducation he took to ministry at the young age of 20, as aprobationer in the Kodankarai pastorate. This led him totheological studies at United Theological College, Bangalore,(BD). He then served as pastor in the Irenipuram Church forthree years. He pursued higher studies at Mansfield Col-lege, Oxford (1947-49), Union Theological Seminary, NewYork (1949-50) and Chicago University Divinity School(1957-58). In between he was appointed as a lecturer atUnited Theological College, Bangalore in 1950, and becameits principal in 1954. He was the principal of this prestigious

1 9 91 9 8

institution till his retirement in 1981. He was, needless tosay, the first Indian principal of UTC. He also taught at otherwell-known international institutions: Union TheologicalCollege, New York (1964-65), Louisville Theological Semi-nary, Kentucky and the Episcopal Theological Seminary,Cambridge, Manchester (1972). He became the president ofthe Senate of Serampore College (1968-71) and contributedin this way a great deal to Indian theological education. Hewas the president also of the Ecumenical Association ofThird World Theologians (EATWOT) and its prime mover.Chandran has represented the Church of South India atvarious international ecclesial conferences, including beingthe delegate to the WCC from that church. He worked alsoas the vice-chairman of the CSIU’s Executive Committee(1966-68). He was the convenor of union negotiations of theCSI before it was founded, and has decisively shaped theCSI constitution. He was also on the negotiations commit-tee of the joint council of CSI, CNI and the Mar ThomaChurch. He is also the founder-president of the ChristianUnion of India (see later). Chandran was honoured in 1978on the occasion of his shashtabdhi-poorthi (60th anniver-sary) with a festschrift entitled A Vision for Man, a bookcontaining several articles by his colleagues in India andabroad. In this work, he is described variously as “thetheological teacher”, “the theologian of the Church”, “thefighter for peace with justice”, “the ecumenical man” and as“the Asian Christian”. In recent years he has played adecisive role in the politics of Fiji islands concerning theliberation of Indians there.

Chandran’s WritingsAs hinted already, Chandran has not done much of

serious writing, commensurate with his ability. Most of hiswritings are in the form of articles (above 120 in English,Tamil and German). These are in theological periodicalssuch as the Guardian, National Christian Council Review,International Review of Missions, Ecumenical Review, SouthIndia Churchman and North India Churchman. In Tamil hehas written one book on Christian ethics, and in English,

Following Jesus. His unpublished thesis “A Comparison ofthe Pagan Apologetics of Celsus against Christianity asContained in Origen’s Contra Celsum and the neo-HinduAttitude to Christianity as Represented in the Work ofVivekananda” is considered a scholarly work.

A personal word here: Now that Indian Christian theol-ogy has come of age, what is desperately needed is a swarmof creative Indian theologians! Administration and financialexpertise can be picked on the way, while theologicalspecialization cannot, and so your and my generation musttake up the challenge of writing. If you are called to do so,take it up by all means!

Chandran’s VisionSamuel Amirtham, a colleague of Chandran and the

editor of the festschrift in honour of Chandran, has beauti-fully summarized the theology of Chandran in his articleentitled “A Vision for Man”. The title excellently summarizesChandran’s thought. Even the eulogisations cited earliershow that Chandran is primarily concerned about man asman — not man as sinner. This sweeping statement willbecome clearer in the following but one preliminary com-ment on that title “A Vision for Man” is necessary here. Itspeaks of man in his individuality, as well as in his collectivity— a thoroughly anthropocentric approach. But it speaksalso of man not as he is now but rather of man’s utopiangoals, of a further futuristic vision of man, what he would befinally. Again, this vision is only one among the many — “avision” — and thus is very tolerant of other religious andideological streams — no wonder that Chandran is calledthe “ecumenical man”. The emphatic element in this visionis apparent in that it is a vision ‘for man’, and not ‘of man’.It is not the self-determined goals of man and society butsomething which is given for man to grow beyond himself —namely from the perspective of the New Man, Jesus Christ.

This vision, the central thought of Chandran, has fourelements.

2 0 0 2 0 1

A Vision of Human Community that is Inclusive

For Chandran, the Cross of Jesus Christ broke down allthe barriers between man and man, and resurrection meansthat Jesus’ “ministry continues through the people whomChrist indwells through the Holy Spirit”.1 The Churchcontinues this ministry, and is thus “a foretaste of newhumanity and therefore, an inclusive community”.2

Chandran repeatedly bewails that Baptism is sadly misun-derstood as bringing man and woman from out of the worldinto the exclusive community of the church. For Chandranbaptism represents “not separation from the world butcommitment for the Lord”.3 The ‘corrupt communal inter-pretation’ of baptism must be replaced by “an interpretationemphasizing commitment for the renewal of the world.”4 Thetheological basis for this inclusive interpretation whichChandran suggests is from Christ’s baptism. It was not abaptism of sinners, but Jesus’ identification with sinners.

This inclusiveness of all mankind is based on the commonhumanity of man as man. This is the meaning of baptism:incorporation into the New Humanity of Jesus Christ, com-mitment to mission in the world, and identification with theworld. And so Christian mission is interpreted by Chandranto mean the task of making man genuinely human, in otherwords, humanization. He exhorts Christians to discard thefalse understanding of the church as the realm of grace, whilethe world is the realm of law and judgment. He recommendsthat we should rather speak of the hidden and open operationof God in the world and the Church respectively. Thus JesusChrist is the firstfruits of the final inclusive destiny.

A Vision of Renewed Community with a New Style of Living

Renewal of life is the second emphasis in Chandran’sthinking, which he takes from the New Humanity of Christ.Everytime people have responded to the gospel there hasbeen great transformation. This conversion, “from the oldcomplex of law, commandment, reward, punishment, sin,guilt, judgment and death, to the new complex of grace, love,forgiveness and life”,5 has no fixed conventional pattern ofoperation. Further, this renewal is not just personal; “the

renewal of the Church would imply taking societal con-cern”.6 This means that “solidarity with the people of God,separation from evil, and being a community of love aresome marks of this style”.7 But it should be noted that forChandran, people of God are not just Christians, but “allpeople”. Externally, this life style means that we identifywith our neighbours in even their religious activities likeonam, pongal, deepavali, and other pujas. Initially it meansliving with a double focus, with the Word and the world, “thesacramental-real” and the “love-law” foci. Such an ap-proach approves of secularization of life as well as ‘man-for-others’ ethics. So a selfless life is the key of this renewed lifestyle, and love is the key of such renewal. Chandran’stheology has as its goal “the new inclusive humanity whereChrist gathers everybody into one family.”

A Vision of a Community where there is Peace with Justice

and Freedom with Dignity

These four concepts of peace, justice, freedom anddignity are referred to by Chandran in almost all his ser-mons, articles and talks, for him, since love means concreteaction — “love has to be expressed in terms of justice, mercyand peace”. And there is no justice without political change,and the people of God are always on the move changing.This means clearly that political involvement is a must forevery Christian, for the Church. To restore every man todignity and freedom — this is the meaning of biblicalrighteousness. It means that development is synonymouswith freedom from karma, the consequences of my back-ground. Since justice and peace inevitably go together, thebiblical concept o peace (shalom) means “wholeness of life,harmony of humanity living together”. And freedom in-volves an openness for all, respect for dissent and respon-sible criticism. So freedom cannot be separated from humanrights and human dignity. It is in this connection thatChandran founded the unique organization called the Chris-tian Union of India. The motto of this union was “to serveIndia in the name of Christ”. And the following were itsobjectives:

2 0 2 2 0 3

1. to strengthen and promote secular democracy;

2. to educate the Christian community in nation-build-ing;

3. to cooperate with other agencies towards a classlesssociety; and

4. to strive for international peace, justice and goodwill.

As is obvious, humanization is the goal of this effort.

A Vision of Humanity in Dialogue with Commitment

Since coexistence and survival of mankind are at stakeand since religion is a most potent source of human strife inthis world, a religious dialogue is a must. Religious pluralismthus has only one answer: dialogue in depth with all religions.Such a dialogue must include a positive respect for allreligions, and Christians must be humble enough to admittheir limitations. It is only dialogue which preserves the goodin all religions. He asserts that it is a way of communicatingChrist to others, but not a relativisation of the Christiangospel. In dialogue, there must be a give-and-take attitude inall participating religions. Chandran makes the following fourassumptions concerning inter-religious dialogue:

1. Only those who are committed to Jesus Christ as Lordand Saviour can enter any meaningful dialogue betweenreligions.

2. There must be willingness to reformulate our faith inthe light of other faiths, listening is thus an essentialelement in dialogue.

3. Each religion must be understood from its own pointof view.

4. Every participant must be open to the result of thedialogue.

With such an approach to religions it is natural thatChandran affirms that the polarization is between light anddarkness, since these two are found in all religions. But itis not between religions. It is clear that even here, Chandranaccepts only that religion as true which supports and aims

at humanization of man and society. This is truly a vision forman indeed.

EvaluationHere, we have met a line of thinking which is bold and

radically different from the conservative thinking, thoughtypical of many contemporary Indian theologians. So wehave already dealt with such theologians earlier, such asM.M. Thomas, so, here only comments on some dominantaspects should suffice.

First, it must be appreciated that Chandran is passion-ately concerned about the welfare (shalom) of man — this isno arm-chair theology, but has concrete implications allthrough. This is good. But what is sadly lacking is a biblicalunderstanding of man as sinner and there is no proportion-ate emphasis on man’s predicament, as the Bible gives. Assuch, this anthropocentricity is in danger of turning intoanti-theological humanity.

For the same reason, Chandran’s approach to the au-thority of the Bible as the inspired word of God is far fromsatisfactory, though his resort to human expertise, philoso-phies and religions is admirably expressed.

Secondly, his compassion for all mankind is praisewor-thy, but to sacrifice biblical distinctives of the disciples ofChrist (repentance and faith in Christ) against the rest of theworld as ‘unbelievers’ is equally blameworthy. This bifurca-tion of humanity into believers and non-believers is hurt-ing, no doubt, but that is a biblical bifurcation, and the NewTestament authors have confirmed it. We cannot do less. InChandran’s understanding of dialogue, the Christiandistinctives can be easily lost, in spite of his plea to thecontrary. There is also, furthermore, an unwarranted inclu-sion of political involvement as an essential part of thechurch’s mission, that is, there is really no biblically devel-oped support for this aspect in Chandran’s writings. Nodoubt a Christian as a citizen should be a patriot by allmeans and also partake of the political, cultural and eco-nomic life of the nation; but it is another thing to say that the

2 0 4 2 0 5

Church of Christ must participate in political actions — willnot the Church lose her salt? She must be a worshippingfellowship, and a proclaiming servant — that is her natureand calling according to the New Testament. Let the Churchbe the Church was the cry of Christian leaders for the lasthalf century.

Finally Chandran is fascinated with the great visions ofthe contemporary ideologies of futuristic outlook, and un-consciously, at least, Marxism seems to have molded hisprogramme of action. Perhaps in this summary of histhinking by his friend it may not be clear, but in thestatement of EATWOT, which Chandran drafted, it is un-mistakably clear. This statement affirms the task of IndianChristian theology as follows:

We want Indian Christian theology to be a service to theIndian people in our common search for full humanity in anopen fraternal fellowship. Indian theology seeks to discern,eliminate and support people’s struggle for human whole-ness in freedom and dignity. Its endeavour is to make ameaningful contribution to the march of our people towardhuman completion in a just society.

So it is only fair to judge that Chandran’s theology hasturned into ideology — and that too consciously!

VINAY KUMAR SAMUEL

Vinay Kumar Samuel, an ordained clergyman of theChurch of South India in Bangalore, is a energetic thinkerand activist, whose primary interest is something likeSamartha’s question: what does it mean to confess JesusChrist as Lord and Saviour in India today? That means thathe emphasizes more on Christian ethics rather than Chris-tian theology.

His definitive thinking on ethics seems to have materi-alized in his Bishop Joshi Memorial Lectures (1980) withthe theme “The Meaning and Cost of Christian Disciple-ship”. He starts with the assumption that Jesus called hisdisciples not into a vacuum but into a political-social-economic community with definite justice concerns. And

Jesus showed an example in this in himself by taking theinitiative and announcing that the kingdom of God hadarrived in him. He was the embodiment of the kingdom. Thiskingdom was expressed in the community of discipleswhich he called to express the life and power of the kingdom.Forgiveness to enemies, welcoming the marginal, renounc-ing violence and giving an example of servanthood, thosewere the marks of this nucleus community. Samuel studiesthis question of Christian discipleship in five aspects,namely, its understanding and its implications in the politi-cal, economic, social and religious context.

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT

The political context of the time of Jesus was one of foreignrule under Rome. There was resentment against taxation,and military imperialism. Economic exploitation, and oppres-sive religious and cultural traditions were enforced by thepolitical domination over the Jewish nation. But Jesus re-fused to accept the way of achieving and maintaining poweradopted by the Romans and collaborators. Roman power wasbased on the maxim,’strong are the rulers’ but he rode adonkey into Jerusalem in direct contrast to the Romancommanders who entered with horses and chariots. Insteadhe identified himself with the victims of such power and hehimself died as a result of it. Thus, instead of a separateexistence of Caesar’s and God’s cities, Jesus really broughtthe city of God and its structure to man.

THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Since land ownership was the main source of wealththen agriculture was the mainstay of the economy. Jesusstrictly warned against the evils of possessing great materialwealth. This news was good news to the poor but woe to therich. In any case, it is amply clear, says Samuel, that inJesus’ attitude towards the economic sphere was a funda-mental bias for the poor and the basis was.

God is the God of Justice and poverty is an expression ofinjustice; it is the world that is biased against the poor, Godis biased towards justice. So the invitation to repentance andthe kingdom means a putting down of the mighty and an

2 0 6 2 0 7

exaltation of the poor. His bias is to bring us all back towholeness.

In order to demonstrate his bias for the poor Jesus senthis community of disciples to serve the poor, to heal thesick, bring the dead back to life and to treat all kinds ofdiseases and exorcise demons.

The reverse side of this coin of bias for the poor was thebias against the rich. Jesus vigorously attacked the rich andsaid the rich could not enter the kingdom of God. He criedwoes to the rich. According to him riches were definitely nota sign of God’s blessing. That is why when many rich youngmen wanted to join him he asked them to sell all what theyhad, distribute among the poor and follow him.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT

Vinay Samuel says that there is no fundamental distinc-tion between the social and the economic, but yet we canmake a case for the social outcast. In Palestine woman andchildren were socially disadvantaged but Jesus honouredthem both and gave them special attention. He fellowshippedwith Samaritans, with sinners and tax collectors and alsowith lepers, the sick and the demon possessed.

THE RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

Jesus did not follow the religion of the Pharisees and theScribes, but in fact was in conflict with them since, in orderto keep the traditions of men, they disobeyed the command-ments of God. He attacked the Sabbath on the grounds thatit prevented men from doing good to the sick and the needy.In opposition to the traditions of washing, he affirms thatnot what goes inside a man but what comes out of him iswhat makes him unclean. He said for the sake of religiouskorban it was not right to take away the natural support forthe parents. Thus Jesus was against all the de-humaniza-tion of the law. Against all this he affirmed that he himselfwas the fulfillment of the law. He fulfilled the law in twoways, in giving it true meaning in his own life and inproviding the power to obey it.

In the light of this Vinay Samuel says that the wholeunderstanding of Christian mission also must be trans-formed. It was not just the winning of souls but meeting theneeds in these contexts. Just as Jesus was incarnated in hiscontext, the missionaries must incarnate themselves inthese context and alleviate suffering. Mission is a struggleagainst power and principalities. Therefore in the comingdecade the emphasis will be not so much on dogmatics buton the study of sociology and social change. He predicts thatthe major areas of study will be salvation, church andChrist.

Vinay Kumar Samuel has also edited several books andbooklets along with Christopher Sugden. These includeChristian Mission in the 80’s, Current Trends in Theologyand Sharing Jesus in the Two-Thirds World.

VISHAL MANGALWADI (b.1952)

Vishal Mangalwadi, from Chhatarpur, M.P. is another ofthose young theologians who would like the shift fromreflection to accelerate. He and his family have suffered,both for the sake of the gospel as well as under theexploitation of the rich zamindars, and so along with theothers founded ACRA, an institution to bring justice to thepoor farmers against the rich shopkeepers, the zamindars,the police and the political forces. He has written severalarticles and books, including The World of Gurus and TheTruth and Social Reform. The following is taken from thelatter book.

As he himself confesses, being an untrained theologianhe does not resort to exegesis, but his theology is theoutcome of confrontation in courts and prisons and with thepowers and principalities. He begins by saying that compas-sion for suffering was a prime element in Jesus’ ministry.This was a prophetic compassion. In meeting with humanmisery Jesus went to the root of it. In our context this meansthat our service takes the form of radically stirring thestagnant pool of a selfish society and a judgment of itsblindness. But Christians must not stop at that, they also

2 0 8 2 0 9

must go on to social create an alternate power for socialchange. Then from compassion to social reform is but astop.

He analyzes social reform to mean (a) a critical aware-ness in a society that their values and institutions arefundamentally wrong, (b) a hope that change is possible, (c)a hope that better alternative is in fact available, (d) aleadership that is able to organize and mobilize the massesagainst the status quo. He observes that as a rule theprivileged, the rich class in society, is not interested inreform since it attacks their own security and luxury. Thisalso means that the reformers cannot play the game by therules of the establishment since the establishment is cor-rupted by the elite in the society. This is exactly what Christdoes, affirms Mangalwadi. Even John the Baptist called,“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Unless ourmessage comes not only as a good news to the poor but alsoa threat to the rich we are neither relevant nor the salt of thisearth. With strained exegesis Mangalwadi attempts to showthat Paul was a social reformer but had rather spiritualisedthe issues.

Starting from this necessity to reform the society,Mangalwadi comes to the church as the necessary agent forsuch a social reform. Mangalwadi does see the church as anessential element in the message of Christ and even as anantidote to social evils such as poverty. Though he does notdeal with the role of the church essentially, from here onMangalwadi goes to the role of the Holy Spirit in socialreform. The promise that “ye for shall receive power” has theimplication that this power is the power for cross-bearingand to judge and to protest against evil structures. Anotherform of power, says Mangalwadi, is prayer.

After the above theological basis, Mangalwadi goes on tooutline a practical proposal as to how farmers’ economicreform movements can be established and gives the detailsof this proposal. His main contention is that poverty iscreated and so must be rooted out. Exploitation is the truecause of poverty in India, he says, specially in that part of

India where he lives. The cause of the political economicproblem really boils down to religious tensions.

My own comments on Mangalwadi’s theology is that allhis interpretation of the church’s inability and inactionagainst injustice, as well as the exploitative situation in thesociety, are fully valid. But by the same token, it will benecessary not to reform the society (social church renewal).

As we have seen, more of the younger generations arereally concerned as to how the church can actually partici-pate in the present time in the processes of nation buildingand in developing a just and equitable society for all. Thenext theologian study is, unlike them, more interested inthe philosophical explication of the gospel content.

PAULOS MAR GREGORIOS (b. 1921)

Paulos Mar Gregorios is a veteran of Indian ecumenism.He has also participated in several of the WCC meetings atthe highest levels and has written and lectured profusely.Formerly Paul Varghese, he is known as Mar Gregorios asthe Metropolitan of the Orthodox Syrian Church. He is alsoat present the Principal of the Orthodox Seminary atKottayam. His books include: The Gospel of the Kingdom, BeStill and Know, Freedom and Authority. The following areexcerpts from the last mentioned book.

In the present discussion of the whole question ofliberation in Jesus and the liberation theologies, Paul MarGregorios asks the fundamental questions of what doauthority and freedom mean in Christian perspective. Therelevance of the question is clearly seen as authority isbreaking down everywhere. This crisis of authority is touch-ing not only the Christian church but the whole of humansociety at its very foundation.

The question is, if man is created to do good, and he iscreated free in the image of God, to love God and his fellowmen, how is it that both freedom and authority are nowcrumbling? He begins by establishing the cause for thiscrumbling of authority in the present cultures, both eastern

2 1 0 2 1 1

and western, that this is partly because of the Church’simage; it has been too authoritative and has often failed tofoster freedom. Then, analyzing the philosophical aspects offreedom and authority, Gregorios bases his convictions onSt. Gregory of Nyassa, whom he thinks is a corrective tomany of Augustine’s deviations. From there on he gives theChristian conclusion which he summarizes as follows:

All historical human existence is under some pressure tointeriorize what is good in certain patterns of authorities, todiscard the authority structure with all its freedom-hamper-ing element and to move on to a greater degree of freedom bydeveloping new structures of authority which foster humanfreedom.

Coming to his christology, more can be said specificallyabout his conviction. Taking the ultimate unity of mankindas his basis, Gregorios affirms that man cannot be trulyman if he does not identify with the whole of mankind. Jesusis the one who showed this can be done. This is the newhumanity which God created in Christ. So Gregorios be-lieves “Jesus Christ effects salvation for all men whetherthey believe in him or not.” Because the power of Christ andthe Holy Spirit are at work in the church, the churchbecomes essential in his confession. Yet he is sure that“God’s saving power is at work also outside the church” ( itis revolutionary for an orthodox to say such a statement).

This emphasis on cosmic christology, on the universal-ity as well as the historicity of Jesus, the essential unity ofmankind with Jesus, all these elements are to be seen alsoin other ecumenical theologians, such as M.M. Thomas.

SAPHIR ATHYAL

Saphir Athyal was the erstwhile principal of UnionBiblical Seminary, Pune. He is involved in the LausanneCommittee on World Evangelisation as its director forMisson and Evangelism. He is also one of the founders ofwhat was earlier known as the Theological AssistanceProgramme which later developed into the Asia TheologicalAssociation.

Unfortunately, he has not written much though he is athinker in his own right. The main thrust of his articles andpapers seems to be his concern for indigenisation of theology.

In answering the question, what should characterize anAsian Christian theology, he gives several answers.

a) The Christian faith has a historical basis and charac-ter and so the Bible is the only written witness to thisspecific history of God’s salvation deeds. This means that insome way the basis for indigenised theology must be theBible.

(b) Since the context and the background in which God’sword came to man in the Bible are similar to the lifesituations in Asia today, our theologies cannot be muchdifferent from the biblical categories.

(c) In the Bible itself there are examples of indigenisingthe message to particular forms of thought.

If that is what contextualisation is, Saphir Athyal con-tends that in Asia there also must be a systematization butnot as in the west. While in the west systematization wasmore rational, Asian systematization must be around theparticular issues in Asia. This means, Asian Christiansneed to study in depth and sympathetically the culturesand religions of Asia — after all Asia is the birthplace ofreligions and cultures. This means: “Inter-religious dia-logues can be quite valuable in several aspects”. It cancreate openness and friendship between peoples and helpthe participants understand the basic essentials of oneanother’s faith. It also highlights the dissimilarities. Sincein Asia culture and religion are closely linked together, allour lifestyle and thoughts have religious overtones. Athyalcontrasts this with the western theologies which are prima-rily based on Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophies.

In contrast to the western theologies Asian theologiescannot afford to be purely academic and philosophical.Asian Christians have suffered for their faith and thismeans that one of the distinctive characteristics of Asian

2 1 2 2 1 3

theology must be its mission-orientedness, and willingnessto suffer. Thus in developing an Asian confession of faith inthe total life of the church, Asian theology needs to be moreissue-oriented rather than academic.

These extracts are taken from his article “Towards anAsian Theology” published in 1975.

NOTES

1. A Vision for Man, 1978, p. 31.

2. Ibid., p. 31.

3. Ibid.

4. “CSI Synod Theological Commission” in South India Churchman, April1969, p. 13.

5. A Vision for Man, p. 34.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

2 1 4

10

Hindu Interpretation of Christ

MAHATMA GANDHI (1869 - 1948)

Many historians call Mahatma Gandhi as the man of thecentury, “the most effective potency in the awakening of theOrient”. In India, without doubt he is the watershed in themodern history of the century, and the most influentialvoice in every sphere of thought among the Hindus. Assuch, Gandhi’s understanding of Jesus Christ and theChristian message carries greater weight among Hindusthan perhaps all the Hindu philosophical and religiousinterpretations of Jesus.

Life and WorkMohan Das Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma is a title,

meaning ‘great soul’) is the subject of literally hundreds ofbooks if not thousands, and so his life sketch is too wellknown to be repeated here. His autobiography, My Experi-ments with Truth is an authentic and absorbing self-exami-nation of a sincere soul, and makes profitable reading. Weneed only to mention some major elements of his life whichhave been influential on his thinking. The powerful positionhis father and grandfather had as ministers in the localprincedom, and his mother’s Vaishnavite bhakti devotionmust be the earliest and strongest to make impression onGandhi’s character. His early youthful experiences andfailures led Gandhi to be “devoted to none but truth”. Rightfrom an early age, there is an intense and unyielding pursuitof truth as the chief characteristic of his personality. Later,when he went to South Africa as a lawyer, there he encoun-tered his first life-mission: the two decade long struggleagainst the racist discrimination against the Indian settlers

2 1 5

there. Gandhi’s patriotism was awakened here. The secondwork which absorbed his time and his attention was his life-ambition and attempt to bring Hindu-Muslim unity in theland, but which unfortunately ended in the division of Indiainto Hindustan and Pakistan. His third life-mission wassimultaneous with the last mentioned one, viz., to leadsuccessfully the Indian Independence struggle against Brit-ish colonialism. Gandhi described the communal violencethat erupted after the Partition as “the greatest tragedy ofmy life”, because the masses had completely forgottenGandhi’s philosophy of non-violence. His final missionwhich he set before himself was the emancipation of theuntouchables and the socially outcast. It was in opposingthis orthodox caste system as well as in his attempt toreconcile Hindus to the Muslims that Gandhi angered theHindu orthodox elite, fell prey to their plots and so died amartyr. He realised rather too late to what an impossibleextent he had to appease the Hindu orthodox for the sake ofIndian unity and freedom. Thousands of years old struc-tures cannot be rooted out in a short span of decades — canthey?

Beside the collected works of Gandhi and perhaps morereadable are the smaller booklets published by non-Gandhian organizations in his honour. Gandhi — the Manand His Mission, Mahatma Gandhi — an Interpretation areamong the books which described Gandhi’s understandingof Jesus Christ and Christianity. Christian Mission in India,The Christian Significance of Mahatma Gandhi (by John W.Sadiq), What Jesus Means to Me (compiled by Prabhu),Gandhi’s Challenge to Christianity (by S.K. George) are someof the good ones. I personally like the two small booklets byAnand T. Hingorani, a personal friend and associate ofGandhi: My Philosophy of Life, and The Message of JesusChrist, here Hingorani lets Gandhi to speak for himself(quotes all relevant writings/words of Gandhi) withoutmuch of his interpretation, and so they are valuable.

Philosophy of LifeBeing primarily a man of political and social action,

Gandhi was no systematic thinker. Nonetheless, he had abroad philosophical framework which governed all his think-ing and acting. So before looking at his approach to JesusChrist, it will be necessary for us to briefly look at hisunderlying philosophy of his — “my philosophy of life”, as hecalled it.

In the ashram Gandhi founded at Wardha, every inmatemust take eleven vows, and Hingorani rightly points outthat these eleven vows are the epitome of Gandhi’s philoso-phy. Gandhi always said that life without vows was “Iike aship without anchor or like an edifice that is built onslippery sand instead of a solid rock”.

These eleven vows are: 1) Truth, 2) Non-violence, 3)Brahmacharya (chastity), 4) Control of the palate (fasting) 5)Non-stealing 6) Non- possession (renunciation or sanyasa),7) Fearlessness, 8) Removal of untouchability, 9) Equality ofreligions, 10) “Bread-labour” and 11) Swadeshi (indigeniety).

Of these except truth, non-violence and swadeshi, therest of the vows deal with the practical aspects of developingpersonal and social virtues, while equality of religions willbe discussed later. So we will concentrate here mainly onthese three, which form the core of his framework as manypoint out. Here it must be noted that Gandhi arrived at thisbasis empirically, he said that they are “not final — I maychange them tomorrow!”

Of the three cardinals of Gandhi, Satya, Ahimsa andswadeshi, (truth, non- violence and indigeniety), truth is byfar the most important. He always put truth first — “I wascapable of sacrificing non-violence for the sake of truth”,said he. Truth is the supreme goal or dharma of man (cf. themotto on the Seal of the Indian Government: Satyamevajayate - truth alone conquers). In an honest confessionGandhi says, “I am but a seeker after truth. I claim to havefound the way to it . . . But I admit that I have not yet foundthe Truth.”

2 1 6 2 1 7

Gandhi knows that this way is “straight and narrow . .. like the edge of a sword”, and he strives and rejoices to walkon it — for God’s word is that “he who strives neverperishes”. And what is the nature of this truth? “Truth isGod — nothing else, nothing less . . . I worship God as truthonly . . . My uniform experience has convinced me that thereis no other god than Truth.”

Gandhi could say that love is God and God is Love; withChristians he always preferred to speak of God as Truth andTruth as God. This means, for Gandhi there is no atheist, foreven an atheist is a seeker after truth! And the vision of Godmeans the realization that God dwells in one’s heart — truth“is what the voice within tells you”. But it is also relative (andonly God knows the absolute truth, it is not given to man).This means that people who worship idols also are pursuingtruth, albeit in a lower level. This condemned and supportedat the same time the idolatry of the Hindus.

Is then Gandhi’s concept of God impersonal? He himselfsays, “I do not regard God as a person. Truth for me is God. . . Because God is an idea . . . not a blade of grass grows ormoves without his will.”

Ahimsa, non-violence, is always coupled with Satya,truth, in Gandhi’s thinking. His ashram’s ideal was, “seek-ing Truth through the exclusive means of Ahimsa”. Thus ifTruth is the supreme dharma (the goal or righteousness),ahimsa is the supreme — “exclusive” — means to attain it.“Ahimsa means ‘love’ in the Pauline sense”, said Gandhi.Negatively, it means “not injuring any being, whether bybody or in mind”. Positively, “ahimsa means the largestlove”. That is why if I follow ahimsa, I must love my enemy.The difference between man and beast is that while man canpractice ahimsa, a beast can practice only himsa. Forahimsa requires the highest form of courage — the spiritualcourage. Hence no coward can be a practitioner of ahimsa,and the greater the ahimsa, the greater the civilization of thepeople who practise it. Gandhi therefore equated cannibal-ism with himsa and vegetarianism with ahimsa. Whenpressed, he admitted that himsa is the utter selfishness of

man, while ahimsa is the self-giving love. But Gandhi wascareful enough to see the limits of his concept. So headmitted also that all taking of life is not himsa. “Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases”. A man whoruns amuck and goes about killing people, needs to bekilled. A physician’s operation causes only pain and nothimsa. So to commit as little as possible himsa to othersmeans to practice ahimsa.

Gandhi, ascribing good to the spirit and evil to the body,like the Greek Gnostics, affirmed that as long as we are inthe body it is difficult to live a fully non-violent life. Ahimsais essentially a soul-force, while himsa is a body-force.Perhaps the great strength of Gandhi’s teaching on ahimsais that he practiced it:

I have been practicing with scientific precision Non-violenceand its possibilities for an unbroken period of over fifty years.I have applied it in every walk of life, domestic, institutional,economic and political. I know of no single case in which ithas failed.

Thirdly, Swadeshi. “Swadeshi is that spirit in us whichrestricts us to the use and service of our immediate sur-roundings to the exclusion of the world remote. By this hemeant, “I must not serve my distant neighbour at theexpense of the nearest.” It does not imply hatred of theforeigner or of foreign things, but it means positively that aman’s first duty is to his neighbour. It is for this purpose, tohelp our own neigbours, the village producers, that Gandhisupported the wearing of Khaddar (home spun yarn andcloth), and the use of the spinning wheel.

This swadeshi spirit for Gandhi is all pervasive. Con-cretely it takes the following forms: In economics, it meansa rejection of Industrialization and modernization and theencouragement of cottage industries to create self-suffi-cient villages; in sociology, swadeshi means the submis-sion to the age old varnashrama dharma (the duty of aHindu to his caste and stage in life), and the rejection of theforeign Christian, liberal or other social systems. In politics,it means the support of the ancient village panchayat orgram panchayat. In religion, one’s continued support of

2 1 8 2 1 9

one’s own religion in opposition to conversion. “I mustrestrict myself to my ancestral religion — that is, the use ofmy immediate, surroundings in religion. If I find it defectiveI should serve it by purging it of its defects”, instead offorsaking it. As such, Gandhi does not envision one worldreligion in the future, but rather that each religion growsstrong and participates in a parliament of religions.

Gandhi’s Understanding of ChristWith the above philosophical basis of Gandhi, let us now

turn to his understanding of Christ and Christianity.

It is rather unfortunate that Gandhi’s contact with thegospel was not good to start with. The condemnation by themissionaries of the Hindu gods and religion, the conversionof a Hindu who was ‘forced’ to eat beef, drink alcohol andwear western dress, his reading of unpalatable books in theBible like Leviticus or Numbers — all this seems to havedriven him away from the content of the biblical message.Happily, his reading of the New Testament, and especially ofthe Sermon on the Mount, caught hold of his heart andimagination at once. “Resist not evil” seems to have been themost influential message he got from Jesus’ teaching. Inspite of his rejection of the gospel message in its essence,Gandhi was honest enough to say that it is Christianity towhich he is indebted “for the religious quest which (it)awakened in me”.

“It is that Sermon [on the Mount] which has endearedJesus to me.” And the message of Jesus is contained in thissermon. Bhagvadgita’s message of renunciation was con-firmed for Gandhi in the Sermon, and so became one of hismost cherished sources of life. But Jesus himself failed toimpress upon Gandhi’s mind. Like Vivekananda, Gandhialso rejects the significance of Jesus’ historicality, for Jesusis only an illustration of the principle of Christhood.

I may say that I have never been interested in a historicalJesus. I should not care if it was proved by someone that theman called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated inthe gospels was a figment of the writer’s imagination. For theSermon on the Mount would be still be true to me.

Therefore, for Gandhi, like a great number of Hinduthinkers, even the cross of Jesus is only a symbol of theprinciple of Christhood, and at best a concrete example ofChrist’s selfless love for others. So Jesus was a martyr. Butin the ultimate analysis what is significant is the eternalprinciple of Christhood (for that matter, also the principle ofBuddhahood) and the person becomes irrelevant. Hencethere is no uniqueness in Jesus not found in other souls.The birth, life and death of such Christs are recurring eventsin the history of mankind. It is by following what Jesustaught that we can attain to his height. Following from this,Gandhi said that God did not bear the Cross nineteenhundred years ago, but he bears it today. He is also dyingand is being resurrected day by day. It is clear that in all ofthis Gandhi is strictly following the primacy of principle overperson. Here one is moved by the frank challenge given byStanley Jones — a friend of Gandhi — to “penetrate throughthe Principle to the Person” of Jesus Christ, in order to findthe truth. As Jones says in his book Mahatma Gandhi —Christian?, Gandhi failed to penetrate the principle andmeet the person Jesus.

Once this uniqueness is rejected, the equality of allreligions is just a matter of deduction. As M.M. Thomasanalyses, the basis for this equality is to be found inGandhi’s beliefs: a) that there is one God, unknowable; b)his revelations and human responses to them are to befound everywhere and in all ages; c) the central teaching ofall religions boils down to the principle of Ahimsa, thoughit is called by a multitude of names; d) there is error andimperfection in all religions as human enterprises; e) allreligions are continuously evolving towards the fuller reali-zation of Truth. So Truth or revelation cannot be themonopoly of any single religion. This calls for mutualrespect and tolerance of one religion to another.

For Gandhi religion is a matter of the heart, not of themind. If one reaches in his own heart in his quest, then hehas reached all hearts too. So, preaching of one’s faith toanother, and proselytisation of any kind are unwarranted.

2 2 0 2 2 1

The value of each religion must be judged by its ethicalteaching and practice, rather than its mystical or philo-sophical achievements. In another context Gandhi eventalks like a nationalist: he says that from his youth upward,he “learned the art of estimating the value of scriptures onthe basis of their ethical reality.” He exercises “his ownjudgment about every scripture, including Gita” on thebasis of his own conscience and reason. “I cannot surrendermy reason while I subscribe to divine revelation!”

Having experienced the Western Christianity adulter-ated with imperialism and materialism, Gandhi has a lot tosay to remake Indian Christianity. He insisted that IndianChristianity must disassociate itself from its Western coun-terpart, because of the latter’s alliance with himsa andmammon. Christians have misunderstood Christ’s com-mand to “go ye into all the world” by taking it to mean onlyproselytisation. But what Christ actually sent his disciplesinto the world for was philanthropic work. We have alreadyseen how Gandhi’s opposition to conversion and evange-lism stems from his concept of Swadeshi in religions, and sowe need not go into that here.

EvaluationBy way of evaluation, we can see the following:

a) the greatest strength of Gandhi lay in his life ratherthan in his teaching. With utmost diligence and sincerity hepracticed what he taught, — almost perfectly. This isperhaps the greatest challenge he has for you and me as thedisciples of Christ. I am reminded again of the maxim ofStanley Jones: “If I will not obey the light to the extent I can,the time will soon come when that light turns into darkness,and I cannot obey even if I will!” Gandhi did obey the lightgiven to him, there is no doubt about that. Have I so obeyed?

b) As almost every Christian critique of Gandhi hasrightly pointed out, Gandhi’s concept of God is far from thebiblical concept, but soon turns into an impersonal idea,and not a living person. This is at the root of most of hismisunderstandings of the Christian message.

c) In spite of all the geniality and tolerance, Gandhi was,or became in his maturer years, a staunch Hindu. Hissupreme allegiance to Bhagvadgita, the name of Rama and,to the Hindu caste system show that he died a Hindu.

d) It is this loyalty to Hindu teaching that blindedGandhi from seeing the uniqueness of the historical person,Jesus Christ. In one sweep the Cross, the person and workof Jesus are brushed aside as irrelevant and the principleshe represents are preferred instead. Once a hot debate, thequestion whether Gandhi was a Christian thus need notdetain us a bit here. He was born, lived, worked and died amartyr for the Hindu cause.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA (1862-1902)

Ramakrishna and VivekanandaDuring the waning years of Brahmoism there arose in

Bengal another entirely different movement in the person ofRamakrishna Paramahamsa, who was the guru of SwamiVivekananda. We cannot study Vivekananda’s thoughtwithout getting acquainted with his guru. So here we do abrief summary of the life and teaching of Ramakrishna.

Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1834-86) originallyGadhadhar Chhatopadhyaya, is the name he chose forhimself when he became a sanyasi. He was through andthrough a mystic, little educated in Sanskrit or English orin his mother tongue Bengali. Coming from a very poorBrahmin family of Karparkar (West Bengal), at an early agehe was made a pujari (ministrant, priest) in Calcutta, andlater of the famous Dakshineshwar temple. He gave it uplater to devote his life fully to contemplative meditation andthe practice of Yoga. At the age of 59 he married a five yearold girl, Sharada, who later became his disciple and livedwith him as a virgin all through his life.

His thought was influenced by several people. As ayoung man he came into a contact with a Hindu nunBhairavi, through whom he was introduced to ecstaticvisions as possible and essential religious experiences.

2 2 2 2 2 3

Through the ascetic Totapuri he learnt Shankara’s Advaita.Only later in his life he learned about Christianity, throughJadhu Malik, who was one could say, an uncommittedChristian. Except in the first case of Bhairavi’s ecstaticvisions and trances, Ramakrishna was not committed toothers. He also went through experiences of other religionsin turn, and so through these trances he came to his basicphilosophy of religions: all religions are the same. So muchso that he could experience the opposing strands, likeShaktism and Vaishnavism. He was even in a trance for sixmonths with Christ — after which till his death, Ramakrishnawas convinced that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of God.This experience is described by the publications ofRamakrishna Mission in Belur Math thus: “Christ mergedin Ramakrishna, who forthwith lost his outward conscious-ness and became completely absorbed and savikalpasamadhi in which he realized his union with Brahman withattributes.”

Swami Vivekananda, his archdisciple, was never tired oftelling his disciples that Ramakrishna was not only a perfectman, but the incarnation of god himself, and relates how onseveral occasion Ramakrishna claimed this, and in somecases also manifested his superhuman power.

Ramakrishna was a unifying factor not only for Bhaktiand Shakti sects of Hinduism, but the whole of Hinduism inhimself — the goal of course to unite all religions. Thus, asThomas points out, personal, ecstatic experience was toRamakrishna of supreme importance in his religion. That iswhy he repeatedly said:

I have practiced all religions, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity. . . and I have also followed the paths of different Hindu sects. . . I have found that it is the same god toward whom all aredirecting their steps, though along different paths . . . Thetank has several ghats. At one Hindus draw water in pitchesand call it jal; at another Musalmanns draw water in leatherbottles and call it pani; at a third Christians do the same andcall it water.

This equality of all religions and the realization of thisfact through the medium of Sadhana (practice, experience)

have remained as Ramakrishna’s main tenets. Only hevehemently rejected the Christian concept of sin, and re-fused to settle down to one concept of god as well.

Once a man gave me a Bible. A part of it was read to me, andit was full of that one thing — sin and sin! One must havesuch a faith in oneself that one can say, ‘I have uttered thename of god . . . how can I be a sinner?’ This is the one troublewith Christian and Brahmos.

There is thus a lack of a realistic concept of humannature as well as against the biblical understanding of fallenhuman nature. All these three elements — the equality of allreligions, personal, mystical, experience as necessary, therejection of sinful human nature — have been passed on toSwami Vivekananda.

Swami Vivekananda’s LifeIf we pause to note that Vivekananda lived only forty

years, his influence and creativity cannot be explainedexcept we accept him as an intellectual giant and spiritualgenius. Originally named Narendranath he was a sensitivesoul, who came into contact with RamakrishnaParamahamsa in his search for an authentic guru. To hisquestion, Have you seen god? the simple answer ‘yes’ ofRamakrishna ended his search there. Unlike RamakrishnaVivekananda was a highly educated and intellectual per-son. He graduated from Calcutta university in 1884. In1886, when his guru Ramakrishna died, he was the obviouschoice and successor and took on sanyasa with the nameVivekananda. His faith in Ramakrishna as the incarnationof God seems to have given him an unquestioned leadershipand following among the educated Hindus. In 1893 he wassent by the maharaja of Mysore to represent Hinduism atthe world parliament of religions. He gave there severaladdresses and was hailed as the greatest influence andthinker at the meeting. Later on he also founded theVedanta Society of America which became a part of theRamakrishna Mission, with Belur Math as the headquar-ters. This Ramakrishna Mission, the first missionary or-ganisation proper of Hinduism, was also his creation. The

2 2 4 2 2 5

main objective of this Math was to propagate the teaching ofRamakrishna (as described above) and also to revive Hindu-ism. He toured all over India and established Maths whoseobjective was to produce dedicated workers for the good ofHinduism and India. He died very young at the age forty.

His speeches and writings have been selected andpublished as Collected Works, in seven volumes. There arenumerous Christian interpretations of Vivekananda also, ofwhich the dissertation by J.R. Chandran on a comparativestudy of Vivekananda and Origin, is worth special mention.An easier reading would be Selections from SwamiVivekananda, published by the Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta,in 1944.

Vivekananda and advaitaAdvaita was in the air as the hottest subject of philosophi-

cal debates in India, and being a fully patriotic Hindu,Vivekananda identified himself at once with the movement ofAdvaitism. Thus it is true to say that Vivekananda addedAdvaita to Ramakrishna’s other teachings. For Vivekananda,Vedanta is the true and universal religion, and mother of allreligions. The reason for this universality, as against Chris-tianity for example, is that while Christianity rests upon aperson as its basis, Vedanta’s foundation is purely principle:

It is in vain we try to gather all peoples of the world arounda single personality. It is difficult to make them gathertogether even round external and universal principles. If itever becomes possible to bring the largest portion of human-ity to one way of thinking in regard to religion, mark you, itmust be always through principles and never throughpersons.

But this does not mean that every human being mustfollow the same religion. He advocated Ramakrishna’s con-cept of Ishta Devata, one’s personal God according to one’sliking. A person can at best provide one of the paths butnever be universal, for there are ever so many persons tofollow — and Christ is only one among them. Vivekanandadefined the concept of Ishta Devata thus:

Your way is good for you, but not for me. My way is good forme, but not for you. My way is called in Sanskrit my Ishta.Mind you, we have no quarrel with any religion in the world.We have each our Ishta.

This idea of Ishta stubbornly rejects any corporatereligion! For here religion is purely a private affair — an echoof what Ramakrishna taught.

Advaita and ChristianityWith this basis of Vedanta as the universal religion, he

interprets Christ and Christianity in Hindu terms. Christ isa Vedantin for Vivekananda. Buddha is the greatest charac-ter the world has ever seen, and Christ is next only to him— but both are representations of the principle of Christhoodand Buddhahood. Each of us too can attain this state ofBuddha- or Christ-hood:

Jesus had our nature; he became Christ; so can we and somust we. Christ and Buddha were the names of a state to beattained. Jesus and Gautama were the persons to manifestit.

Thus Jesus is unimportant, except as an instrument forthe manifestation of the Christhood. But the significance ofJesus as an incarnation of God is to be seen in three aspects:

1) he was a yogi who has realised jivanmukta. This Jesusachieved by complete self-renunciation. In renunciation,the man within dies and only God remains — thus theVedantic goal is realised.

2) Christ was God “If I as an Oriental have to worshipJesus of Nazareth there is only one way left for me, that isto worship him as God and nothing else.” Here the advaiticidea of “I am God” is clear. For, in the same breath when heacknowledged Jesus as God in the above quotationVivekananda continues, that he also worships all criminalsand murderers and everyone else as God!

3) Jesus realised his identity with Brahman and taughtthis at three different levels. To the common people, Jesustaught, “Our Father...” To a higher circle he gave a moreelevated teaching, “I am in my Father and he in me, and I in

2 2 6 2 2 7

you...” But his final and most advanced teaching wasadvaitic — ”I and my father are one”.

These are the three Christian mahavakyas. It is ofcourse easy to see all the dvaitic, vishishtadvaitic andadvaitic teachings.

From this it is clear that there can be no real significanceof the Cross and hence of atonement. “Christ was Godincarnate; they could not kill him. That which was crucifiedwas only a semblance, a mirage.” We are “saved” by imitat-ing Jesus and hosts of others like him; as noted earlier,Vivekananda does not use Christian categories.

Again, as an Advaitin, it is impossible for Vivekanandato have any sympathy towards the Christian concept of sin:He says,

The greatest error is to call a man a weak and miserablesinner. Every time a person thinks in this mistaken manner,he reverts one more link in the chain of avidya that bindshim, adds one more layer of ‘self-hypnotism’ that lies heavyover his mind.

The fact that Jesus cannot be separated from Christ isthe problem of Christianity. Having a circular view of his-tory, Vivekananda affirms that nothing happens in historyonly once, and therefore all historical personalities andevents are accidents for him — only the principles areeternal and universal.

Close to the foregoing is another essential advaiticelement in Vivekananda’s teaching: God cannot createanything, be it even ex nihilo, but only evolves himself. Assuch man is not created and so cannot be identified with theessential conditions of this history.

There is not much of Vivekananda’s understandingconcerning other aspects Christian faith to be learned. Butthe above sample suffices to show that he stoutly interprets— for the first time — Christ in terms of Hindu goals. Thiswas a line which Radhakrishnan developed more fully in hisPolemics Against Christianity.

EvaluationBy way of evaluation, one can say several things in

appreciation of Swami Vivekananda. For example, he wasan innovative thinker in Hinduism itself. His idea of ‘prac-tical vedanta’, that is, absorption into Brahman throughselfless service gave this material world and man’s actionsessential place in Hindu theology for the first time. Noticehere the departure from the classical understanding of suchabsorption — absorption into Brahman through self reali-zation. Further, his commitment to advaita philosophy isconsistent. When we look at his approach to Jesus Christ asbeing God, it is this advaitic interpretation rather than anyChristian one. In any case it is to Vivekananda’s credit thathe gave the highest possible status to Christ in his system.In all his thinking he most deliberately and consciouslyusing Hindu terms — as such fully relevant to the Hindus.This is perhaps one of his greatest appeals with his country-men.

On the other hand, being a dedicated disciple ofRamakrishna, Vivekananda could not come out ofRamakrishna’s teaching of the equality of all the religions,the plurality of the approaches (the concept of Ishtam) andthe divinity of the human nature. This is also Vivekananda’sgreatest misunderstanding concerning the Christian gos-pel. Lacking a biblical concept of holy and gracious God, hecould not see the human depravity, the qualitative differ-ence between God and man (what Karl Barth calls the ‘gulf’).For this same reason Vivekananda could not see throughthe seeming equality of all religions to their essential differ-ences, or the significance of a human person over against aprinciple. As such he tends to reject sin as moral evil.

Further, thanks to his loyalty to advaita, Vivekanandadoesn’t seriously consider God as being a personal being,and all historical personalities are given even lesser signifi-cance. We need not find fault with his handling of thebiblical passages inadequately and eclectically, but it isenough to say that it is this mishandling of the Christian

2 2 8 2 2 9

Scriptures that leads him to wrong interpretations of bibli-cal doctrines.

As noted earlier, Swami Vivekananda, as the pioneer ofone of the two types of modern neo-Hinduism schools, is ofcrucial importance in relating the Gospel of Christ to themodern Hindu mind.

SARVAPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN (1888-1975)

BackgroundBy sheer force of personality Gandhi’s understanding of

Christ became more or less the most common Hindu under-standing. But because Radhakrishnan was an originalthinker and philosopher of the highest calibre, his interpre-tation of Jesus Christ is better known and discussed in theWest and in Christian circles. He is regarded as “thespokesman par excellence for Hindu spirituality”. Moreo-ver, we could also say that he is the most formidable Hinduopponent of Christianity! Being the “the best, most elo-quent, learned and erudite ambassador of India all over theworld,” he lacks the utter honesty and courage of Gandhi.Instead, even in his appreciations of Christian elements,one invariably finds a mine hidden! There is a reason for hisapproach. While he was studying in Madras ChristianCollege, he was intensely disturbed by the condemnation ofHinduism by the missionary professors and principals ofthe college. Their attack on Hinduism, that it was notcoherent intellectually, aroused in him the fighting spirit todefend Hinduism at all costs. In one of his letters to a friendat that time, he reveals how he vowed to reverse the trendand determined to create a Hindu apologetic and polemicagainst Christianity.

This warns us to be careful in our dealing with ourneighbours, does it not? Often what we speak may beforgotten, but how we speak remains! More than the contentof our words, the attitudes behind them evoke a response —either positively or negatively.

Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan was born in Tiruttani, AndhraPradesh, in a rich Brahmin family. He received his educa-tion in almost exclusively Christian institutions, such asMadras Christian College, Tambaram. Later he worked asprofessor of philosophy in the universities of Madras, Mysoreand Calcutta. During 1936-52 he was at Oxford as aprofessor of Eastern religions and ethics. After this heentered politics, and was the leader of various Indiandelegations to UNO commissions. From 1949-1962 he wasthe Indian ambassador to Moscow. Afterwards he becamethe vice-president of the Indian Republic, and finally thePresident.

He wrote many books. Some of the well known are: IndianPhilosophy, Vol. I & II; The Hindu View of Life, The Religion WeNeed, East and West, Eastern Religion and Western Thought,Religion and Society, Recovery of Faith, etc. His philosophyhas been included in the best series all over the world whichare dedicated to the study of philosophy or religion. (e.g. in theLibrary of Living Philosophers, History of Philosophy, Easternand Western and many others).

In his autobiography, Radhakrishnan says that it isVivekananda who aroused the patriotism in him, not Gan-dhi! Thus we have here the second line of neo-Hinduism,that of Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan.

Radhakrishnan’s PhilosophyRadhakrishnan’s method is quite scholarly, yet simple.

For him, water is purer at its source, though it gets muddiedin its flow later. Similarly Radhakrishnan compares in orderto evaluate a religion, be it Hinduism or Christianity (inci-dentally, these are the two religions in whose contextRadhakrishnan’s thought developed exclusively), we mustnot go to the church history in Christianity, nor to the lateraccretions in Hinduism. Each religion must be judgedaccording to its Scriptures — we must go to Vedas and theBible. Yet, he is ‘progressive’ enough to reinterpret theseconservative thoughts in a way that is relevant to themodern time.

2 3 0 2 3 1

Like all Hindus, Radhakrishnan also starts with a con-cept of reality. What is reality? Following Shankara, he alsoaffirms that the absolute or the Brahman is the only reality.However, there are five different stages in realizing thisreality — anna (matter), prana (life), manas (conscious-ness), vijnana (intelligence) and ananda (bliss). In thisladder of reality, different religions belong to different stages.Semitic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), beingobject oriented religions, belong to the lower type. Hindu-ism or Buddhism, emphasizing experience, are of the highertype. While the former insist upon belief and conduct, ritesand ceremonies, authorities and dogma, the later go beyondthese and insist upon self-discovery and the contact withthe divine. As such, the latter are the spiritual religions!“The fundamental truths of the spiritual religions are thatour real self is the supreme being, which it is our businessto discover and consciously become what this being is.”

This is pure Advaita, to be sure. From this as a corollaryit follows that this world is not a creation, as the Bibleteaches, but a movement of God. Further this world is notan illusion or unreal: “the perfection of God overflows intothe world. The world is the outflow of the surplus energiesof God, the supreme artist.” This is a far cry from Shankaraor orthodox Hinduism! Following this process of argument,Radhakrishnan redefines the concept of Hindu karma aswell. For him, it is an expression of the functioning or morallaw in human life. Since the past has inescapable influenceon the present, and since God is the supervisor of thisprocess of automatic justice, the doctrine of karma is fullyconsistent both with facts and with Hindu thinking. It ismost significant that in spite of all his elaboration of mayaand karma doctrines, he never says a word about anotherrelated and important Hindu concept — that of sansara(world).

Radhakrishnan’s Interpretation of ChristNow we are ready to analyze Radhakrishnan’s under-

standing of Christ and Christianity. For him, Christ isnearer to the Indian thought than the Western or Greek.

Hence Christ must be interpreted and best understood inthe Hindu framework. In Jesus, the Jewish nationalisticspirit as well as the Indo-Aryan religious elements weremixed — nay, they were in tension. Thus Jesus was amixture of conflicting elements, hence not perfect. Thelegalistic and the mystic, material and the spiritual,messianic and the universalistic, militarism and passivism— were constantly fighting to dominate Jesus’ actions. Itmust be stressed that the latter concept in each of the abovepair belongs, according to Radhakrishnan, to the Indo-Aryan element in Jesus. Thus Radhakrishnan’s Christ is anintegrated Christ. In this scheme, the Cross is understoodas “the abandonment of the ego” and “identification with afuller life and consciousness”. Similarly, resurrection andeternal life are merely goals of men in Christian garb. Butunderstood in their true spirituality (that is, in Hinduterms), resurrection is “the passage from the death of self-absorption to the life of unselfish love . . . from falsehood totruth, from slavery to the world to the liberty of the eternal.”This allegorical interpretation is again typical of Hindu aswell as liberal thinkers.

But further, Radhakrishnan sees in Jesus a failure.Jesus was hoping for the establishment of the kingdom ofGod in the Jewish manner. As he failed to fulfill this claim,eschatological interpretations became predominant, andthe risen Lord takes the place of God, and the Church theplace of the Kingdom of God! So just as Jesus is the mixtureof Hindu (Aryan), Jewish, Platonic, Gnostic influences,Christianity also is a syncretistic religion, incorporating initself the Upanishadic, Buddhist, Gnostic concepts. But theworth of Jesus is to be seen in his historical context, just likeRama’s or Krishna’s avatara in their contexts. As such,Jesus is not unique, but only an avatara. His incarnation isneither final, too — there could be better incarnations in thefuture.

His attitude to religions is again exclusively a Hinduone. In a nut-shell, he says that all religions are equally true,but Hinduism, being the sanathana Dharma, (the ancient

2 3 2 2 3 3

religion) is the essence of them all. This attitude we can trulycall Hindu philosophia gloria. The reasons for this glorifica-tion of Hinduism are precise in his thinking.

First, the most basic tension between the plurality of theexpressions of truth about the ultimate reality and the onetruth, is best dealt with in Hinduism. Secondly, religion,being above all a matter of experience, and mystical experi-ence at that, is best fulfilled in Hinduism. Vedas are “therecord of spiritual experiences of souls strongly endowedwith the sense of reality. Thirdly, a central principle ofHinduism is religious tolerance, since Hinduism is totallyundogmatic, and is therefore best suited to become theuniversal religion. Fourthly and finally, the Hindu dharmaalone “acknowledges all spheres of life and accords to themtheir appropriate place and mutual relations within thesystem.” Here Radhakrishnan means no doubt the castesystem, the four stages of life and the three margas or yogas.

Christianity because of its idea of exclusiveness ofChrist, Judaism because of its concept of ‘jealous God’,Islam because of its Jihad — they all lack inclusivenesswhich Hinduism has. In fact, it is wrong to speak of differentreligions — there is really only one religion. All religions aredifferent expressions of the true religion. And what is thisreligion? Radhakrishnan says, “The eternal religion behindall religions, this sanathana Dharma . . . it is our duty to getback to this central core of religions”.

Hinduism is the modern, anglicized name for thissanathana Dharma, as all Hindu writers throughout theages have emphasized.

EvaluationIt is difficult to evaluate Radhakrishnan’s thought,

because he appears to be more tolerant and sympathetic,while in reality he is a strong Hindu defending Hinduism tothe last straw. But a few things can be said about him.

First, Radhakrishnan’s attitude to religion in general,and Christianity in particular, seems from his self-assigned

mission of defending Hinduism at any cost. This lacks ascholar’s integrity and honesty.

Secondly, being a militant Hindu, his understanding ofJesus is a Hindu interpretation — he is of course free tointerpret Jesus as he likes, but the point here is that likeVivekananda, Radhakrishnan also sees Christ as an imper-fect traveler on the road to the advaitic goal. This does notdo full justice to the claims either of Jesus, or of theprophets and apostles. In making Jesus a mixture andChristianity a syncretism, Radhakrishnan advocates a uni-versal religion which borrows faithful obedience fromJudaism, a life of beauty from Greek paganism, noblecompassion from Buddhism, divine love from Christianityand a spirit of resignation from Islam.

Thirdly, he himself does not stand in the line of orthodoxHinduism, but rather his is a radical modern interpretationof Hinduism.

Fourthly, his goal was so to interpret the Hindu funda-mentals that they give an undergirding to the problemsfacing modern India — as such his relevant expressions arepraise worthy but to claim the stamp of orthodoxy for themis to defeat orthodoxy.

2 3 4 2 3 5

2 3 6 2 3 7

SECTION 3

WHAT IS INDIAN CHRISTIANTHEOLOGY

11

You will notice in this final chapter we are coming backto the questions we raised in the earlier chapters of thiscourse — the question of doing theology in context. It is atruism to say that Indian Christian theology has of courserelevance for the Indian people, but the question here is:Does it have any significance for churches outside India?We want to draw out from what we have learned in thethinking of many Indians.

Again we may look at Boyd’s summary of the developmentof Christianity in the world. It had to struggle to survive andevery time it overcame a particular culture or philosophy orreligion its growing power increased correspondingly.

THE THREE CONFRONTATIONS

Boyd says that the first great confrontation Christianityhad was with the Jewish culture. With a strong sense ofbeing the elect the Jews thought they were the centre of allnations — they called all the other nations heathen. It musthave been well-nigh impossible for the early Jewish Chris-tians and apostles to come out of the Jewish environment.It was very easy for them to understand that Christianitywas just a continuation of the Jewish religion and thatJesus was the promised messiah to consummate the Jew-ish kingdom. In fact, some understood that way. But it is themiracle of history that Paul and Peter and James tore awayradically from Judaism and that at its very birth. Perhapshere some of the Jerusalem Christians can be the cause.But whatever the cause, the Christianity of the early churchwas definitely no mere sect of Judaism.

That is one reason why it could immediately take root inheathen and Greek cultures and that is why Antioch andnot Jerusalem became the centre of mission, and later thecentre of orthodox Christianity (here I am referring to the

2 3 8 2 3 9

tension between Antioch and Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rdcenturies). It is for this reason that even the very highcultured and highly intellectual Hellenism (Greek philoso-phies) could not contain the gospel. The Christian gospelbroke through the walls of Hellenism also and went beyondthe then world of Greece. This, Boyd calls the second greatconfrontation.

Then when Christianity spread beyond the known worldof the time into Africa, India and other lands, it confrontedalso barbarism, animism, and above all Islam. Boyd prefersto call all these confrontations insignificant, but they seemformidable enough to be termed the third and the fourthgreat confrontations. But all these confrontations weremild. Some of these tribal or barbaric cultures had nosystem of theology or doctrines or culture or ethics. Islam,of course, was itself a child of Judeo-Christian teachings,claiming itself to belong to the children of Ishmael. Theconfrontation with the Chinese culture, “where along withthe dominant Confucianism and Taoism there was also theIndian derived Buddhist tradition”, has now been virtuallybroken off. Boyd seems to suggest that even this confronta-tion was not a big match for the two thousand year oldChristianity. Though there is another kind of confrontation,that with communism, Boyd seems to think that along withthe Chinese traditions communism also has been van-quished. Hence he says: “The task of presenting the gospelin India is then of quite exceptional importance.”

Therefore, according to Boyd, the third great and finalconfrontation of Christianity is with Hinduism. Christianitystands or falls as it fares with Hinduism. For one thing, asno other religious or philosophical tradition Hinduism hasboth a very developed intellectual and closed system ofthinking added to that, it also had its own sociologicalsystem and world-view. In another context we have alreadyseen that Sanskrit contains more philosophical and theo-logical words than all the terms in Greek, Latin and Germanput together. That means that any theology, anywhere inthe world, which interprets the message of the gospel of

Christ, cannot be complete without the Indian contribu-tion. Thus Indian Christian theology adds not only to thefullness of the Christian gospel but also a depth so farunknown to it. You and I as Indian disciples are called uponto do our bit in this great task. God forbid that we fail.

Since in this chapter we are more or less summarizingwhat has been said in the earlier chapters, we need not gointo the details as to what an Indian Christian theologyshould contain. We can briefly describe the issues in thecurrent debate as follows.

Starting at Radhakrishnan’s comment that Christianityis a dogmatic religion which requires the assent of itsadherents to prepositional statements, and not a religion ofexperience, many Christians have tended to reject dogmat-ics. As we have seen most of the Indian Christian theolo-gians have been rather apologetes and not systematicians.Thus dogmatics, the sum of the teachings of the church,and systematics, the presentation of dogmatics accordingto one coherent principle of relationships, have been delib-erately avoided. So far I have not seen any systematictheology or dogmatic theology from Indian writers, thoughthere are several books containing some chosen doctrines.So in Radhakrishnan’s criticism there is an element oftruth, namely, we Christians have preached but notpracticed. We accept a set of beliefs but that has no lifeimplications. Now the questions is, what kind of theologymust now be produced in order that the church can berenewed and be vital again? The following are a minimum:

(a) I think we have already seen that the exegetical workfrom Indian writers is almost negligible. So it is of utmostimportance that we start producing biblical theology. Notthat our biblical theology will be much different from others,but it shows that we Indians go to the Bible ourselves andfind the truths in it originally and so apply it to our situation.That will have weight.

(b) We have said already that Indians are weak on historyand I think to a great extent it is true. That is why we do not

2 4 0 2 4 1

have very many biographies of Christian saints or events inIndia. So the second great need is to produce an account ofwhat the Lord Jesus Christ has done to particular personsin concrete situations in India, rather than to think vaguelyon an Indian national scale.

(c) Perhaps the one area where we have all been strong,as the host of above Indian thinkers show, is in the area ofapologetics. It is necessary in order to defend the gospelagainst the current questions and attacks from outside thechurch. And every generation must write its own apologetics,since it cannot borrow it from the past generations.

(d) Since in India we have more than 550 million Hindus,when we think of Indian Christian theology the tendency isto think rather of theology relevant to Hindu hearers. Sucha tendency has been disastrous in evangelism among Mus-lims, since to the Muslims Indian Christian theology is moreor less Hindu theology. Thus, I think we Indians mustdevelop Christian theology or the message of Christ in formsrelevant to religions other than Hinduism — Islam, Bud-dhism, Jainism, Parseeism and Sikhism. It is a sad fact thatthe Sikh community, though they have a population only afew lakhs, have had the influence to have a Sikh President,whereas with 20 million we have not yet had one ChristianPresident in the last half century since Independence.Unless the Christian gospel makes an impact on religionsother than Hinduism we cannot be the salt of the earth.

(e) There is one new problem which is now coming on thehorizon of Indian Christians — that of liberation theology.I believe in the coming years liberation theology will occupymost of our energy, be it evangelical or otherwise. So ourtheology must develop some kind of expression relevant tothe socio-political context. I mean a balanced emphasis onChrisitan ethics or even Christian social ethics is an urgentneed right now. Dalit theologies are now in the air, albeitwith shaky bases.

INDIAN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICALEXPRESSIONS

In this section we will simply analyze the various termsand strands of thought in Hinduism used in Indian Chris-tian theology, eventually attempt to evaluate, and makesome recommendations also. In the next section we try tointegrate all that we have learned and we want to evolvesomething for the future. In fact we ask the basic question:Is there such a thing as Indian Christian theology, and if yes,what is it? We hope to describe it a bit. In the final sectionwe supplement our analysis to even a broader level anddiscuss what contextualisation or indigenisation is, and wehope to arrive at a presentation as to what elements anIndian Christian theology should have.

THE TERMS

We have used various terms — literally hundreds ofthem — from Hindu, Sanskrit and other linguistic back-grounds of India. Apparently they are not all equally impor-tant. Are there certain crucial terms which in any case wemust either use or baptize?

Terms for God

Of course the question, what kind of word we use for Godis essentially related also to the words we use for the worldas well as Christ. Following are the terms which we haveseen as attempts: deva (which is cognate with theos of Greekand deus of Latin), ishwara, parameshwara, Brahman andsaccidananda. Sometimes even the word bhagwan is usedexclusively for Krishnavatara). One redeeming feature ofthis is that several names like Hari or Rama or Purusha areconspicuous by their absence. Sometimes we have used theword paramatman but as we have seen the word atman,meaning spirit, in almost all its allied forms is used for theHoly Spirit.

Of these perhaps the most important are the followingthree: Iswara, Brahman and Saccidananda. As far as theword saccidananda was concerned, we saw that it was

2 4 2 2 4 3

confused neither with the terms for Christ nor for the world,so perhaps that is the one with least difficulties. But we haddifficulties about both Brahman and Ishwara. The problemwith Iswara is that it belongs to the world, the maya, so canit bring out the transcendence of God as the Bible portrays?As far as the word Brahman is concerned we had two setsof difficulties (i) which Brahman do we mean, nirgunaBrahman or saguna Brahman? Nirguna Brahman, beingmore impersonal and having no relations or attributes, isactually not suitable as consummator of all things. Butsince nirguna Brahman is the highest understanding of Godin Hinduism, we dare not leave it alone. For the same reasonto use saguna Brahman for God, which is rather a lowercategory of God for the Hindus, is not really suitable to usefor the one almighty God. The other difficulty was: If we usethe word brahman for God what other word can we use forChrist? Several people who have taken the advaitic strandsas the only means of interpretation, like Brahmabandhav orSurjit Singh and Samartha would give nothing less than theterm Brahman for Christ. So using the word Brahman forLord Jesus Christ deprives him of his significance, that wasthe feeling we had. One solution was to call nirguna Brah-man the Reformer’s Deus absconditus or the God hidden;and saguna Brahman the Deus revelatus or the revealedGod. In another theologian’s words a God of grace and a Godof wrath though the opposition is not exactly similar. I donot think our studies have proved that Brahman is higherthan ishwara because there is at least one case (in bhaktiinterpretation) where ishwara is manifested as Brahman.

Terms for God and the World

We saw that various authors use various words for theworld: maya, sthiti, prakriti, asat and shrishti, prapancha,sansara, loka. The three problems which confront us in thiswere: (i) whether the world is real or unreal? (ii) whether it iscreated by God out of something or is it fully under hiscontrol? (iii) what is the means of the creation of the world?From these points of view the last term shrishti has noproblem since shrishti means creation as well as the sum of

all created beings. It is of course difficult to choose a termwhich answers all the questions adequately — unless ofcourse we invent one, which may also not be any more useful.Perhaps more than anywhere else it is here that, if any of theseterms is chosen for the world or creation, as the Bible means,it must be baptized carefully with the biblical content.

Terms for Christ

We encountered the following: maya, shakti, chit ofsaccidananda, avatara, purusha, sat purusha, mula purusha,purna avatara, antaryamin, saguna brahman, nirgunabrahman and ishwara. The problems here were (i) that anyterm we use for Christ we must say that he is fully God andhence not part of this world, maya, and at the same time heis fully man and so must be part of this world; (ii) he mustbe co-equal, co-eternal in all respects with God the Father;(iii) and he also must be presented as the prototype man, thefull man, the true man, the real man. Particularly thesechristological terms show us as to what dangers we run intoif we use one term without explaining the missing elements.We also encountered in this respect the two mahavakyas,so called, of the Johannine Gospel: “I and my Father areone” and “Abide in me” as being crucial in interpretingChrist to the Indian minds and hearts.

Terms for the Holy Spirit

Several thinkers have used the following: atman,paramatman, antaratman, antaryamin, shakti, para shakti,maha shakti, ananda and jeevatman. And what were thedifficulties here? (i) In any case the term should not give theconnotation of just a mere influence or power or principlebut rather the Holy Spirit as a person must be preserved. (ii)It also must not be made lower than the second person of theTrinity. (iii) It must somehow be more accessible to man asthe paracletos and wisdom, as the indweller. (iv) The term forSpirit must not make it pneumomonism — an exclusive butnon-biblical emphasis on the third person of the Trinity.That means that it should not exclude the first and or thesecond person of the Trinity.

2 4 4 2 4 5

It is most interesting to see that of all the languages inthe world it is Sanskrit which has the greatest abundanceof words for the Spirit. So it is quite possible, the Indianphilosophical and religious genius can provide a moreadequate elucidation for the slippery category of the spirit.Professor Hengel of Germany once voiced that the greatestweakness of the German language is that it has no word forthe ‘spirit . So the Germans somehow manipulate the wordthey use for the spirit also for reason, rational intellect, andyet understand it to mean spiritual things.

Terms for Man

We saw the following: atman, purusha, bhakta, manava,aham, ahamkara. One problem we faced in the terms usedfor man is to preserve the finiteness of humanhood, incomparison with the Hindu advaitic infiniteness. The sec-ond problem was that the question of ‘I’ the person, shouldbe preserved in its positive connection, while generally inHinduism freedom is rather considered as a fall! Andthirdly, the Gnostic idea that only spirit is good and matteris evil has tended to understand man only in his spiritualelements, so that the body does not play a real part. Anotherproblem was the differentiation between self and soul —since as the popular understanding goes among Hindus, itis the self which is contaminated by sin while the soulremains pure. Recently I learned that the very concept ofperson, like of history, is a Christian contribution to theworld. In fact, it is in dealing with the problems of christology(one person and two natures)and of trinity (one substanceand three persons) that we find how crucial is our definitionof the term ‘person’ for our theology.

Terms for Sin

We saw one term which came to be used overwhelminglyis karma. Actually the only other term is of advaitic origin,avidya, ignorance. We also used words like ahamkara(selfishness), agnana (ignorance) for sin. But actually theserepresent certain particular sins rather than the principle ofsin. The word mala meaning dirt was also used. But it is

surprising that the one word which most of the Indianlanguages use for sin was conspicuous by its omission —the term papa. The difficulties here were, of course, to seeman as not only a sinner but sinful in nature. In addition,sin as belonging only to the realm of matter was discussed.We also saw that Hinduism does not have a sense of guilt forsin but rather for the shame of wrong. What was mostconspicuous is the discovery that in Hinduism sin is notnecessarily godward, as in the Bible.

Terms for Church and Sacraments

Sabha, samudayam, quam, ashram, math, were some ofthe expressions. Some Indian languages have found greatdifficulty in finding an Indian equivalent and so they haveretained the very Greek word ecclesia in their translation ofthe Bible. The problem here was whether the Church as aninstitution has any serious theological value. Thanks to theHindu vedantic approach to God, man and the world, thecorporate worship or life of the community of the church isdefinitely lacking. Surprisingly, there was not much diffi-culty in accepting the Christian ministry. There seems to bean unconscious transfer of the sanyas to the ministry ofpriests or clergy in Christian church. As far as the terms forthe sacraments are concerned there are as many terms asthere are Indian languages. Some of the languages haveretained either baptism or eucharist, but more often thannot they have used some rather very common expressionindicating the Lord s Supper or initiation in baptism.

Terms for History

I am sure we did not come across any particular Indianterm, other than charitra or itihasa being used for history.Though we use the word itihas or charitra or story in someother way, I do not think any of these terms have yetacquired a theological significance. That in itself is theproblem, is it not?

HOW DO WE USE THEM?Actually the problem is that the terms one uses are

entirely dependent on what line of thought one accepts. By

2 4 6 2 4 7

that we mean, since most of these terms are more or less partof a particularly Hindu philosophical or religious system,we cannot use them without these contexts. This requiresus to study briefly also what different strands of Hinduthinking the Indian Christian thinkers have attempted touse as their vehicle.

Strands of Hindu Thought

(i) Of course, the most obvious is the advaita strand. Thereason behind Brahmabandhav or Surjit Singh acceptingthis line of thinking is that the advaitic categories are morecomprehensive. But the problems encountered here werenumerous. The impersonality of God, the unreality of theworld, the status of Christ’s deity the finiteness of man, thenature of salvation, and even the very concept of sin, just tomention a few.

(ii) The second strand was that of Ramanuja, thevishishtadvaita. As we have seen, it has certain markedadvantages over advaita. But it has the tendency to makeGod or Christ too mundane and historical and empiricalrather than eternal. Perhaps that is the reason why thevishistadvaitins are accused by the advaitins as idolaters.In addition, what Rudolf Otto calls the gap — the mysteriumtremendum et numinosum — between God and man islacking in this type of strand. But many like Appasamy,have seen the bhakti tradition, coming in this strand, as thebest suited to the Christian message. The reasons were, ofcourse, that it speaks of grace, of a personal relationship, ofobedience and faith and love and commitment, as well as itnecessitates incarnation. As we saw, Klaus Klostermaiersuggests that even the bhakti practices of nama japa andkirtan are good worship modes for the Christians.

You will notice that another vedantic interpretation,that of dvaita (dualism) is not used for communicating theChristian message. Perhaps you know that the whole ques-tion of duality between good and evil, light and darkness,really goes back to the Zarathushtrian duality betweenAhriman and Ahura Mazda. Scholars are divided as to

whether Israel took their quality of good and evil and theeschatological implications of the final victory of God overthe forces of evil from the Persians.

(iii) Of course there are many like Klostermaier, who didnot advocate any one strand because they believed none ofthem are really adequate. We should rather use the richnessof all the strands to express the message. Some haveinterpreted that this is what the Bible means when it saysthat all the riches of the nations will be brought to Zion. Butwe also saw the weakness of that. As Boyd pointed out, it willbe difficult to avoid misunderstanding of the terms otherthan as used in their own strands.

Some Guidelines

Many strands and the terms have been used by ourIndian thinkers during the last 200 years. I suggest thefollowing guidelines for using such indigenous categoriesand expressions:

(a) It is necessary that the Christian Church in Indiastrives to use Indian modes of thought to express theChristian message. One must definitely analyze to whatextent the western or the in-between missionary has broughtinto Indian Christian theology their cultural elements, andthen to eliminate them. This is a long process.

(b) Having said that, we must also say we cannot do thesame with the Jewish culture, because if we accept at all OldTestament as part of the word of God, then we must alsoaccept it as normative for us. So what we need to do is tostudy the biblical culture and find counterparts in our ownculture.

(c) Just because a term is found in all the languages(such as karma or deva or bhagwan etc.), it does not meanthat it has the same connection or sense. Those who use theword bhagwan for God may be surprised to see others usethe word andavar or still others to use the word deva orishwar or allah or even devi or mother, as Narayan VamanTilak used. That is, it is not really so necessary to develop an

2 4 8 2 4 9

Indian Christian terminology as it is to develop Christiantheology in particular languages or cultures — since herewe are thinking mostly of terms and thoughts.

(d) I have noticed that in most of our Indian prayers wenever use the word Brahman or such high sounding words.We use mostly words like swami, prabhu, pita, and so on.That is to say there are many words in our Christian usage,borrowed from the Indian cultures, which have been natu-ralized for such a long time that the new content of this isobvious even to the Hindus. All this goes to show that justas the early Christians let the Holy Spirit decide as to whatthe canon should be and only later endorsed it, I think wewill be safer if we also let the Spirit guide us as to what termsand strands we must use for communicating the gospel toour Indian brothers and not to make such deliberate andconscientious efforts to create or apply the existing terms.Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit is able enough to guideeven a weak church or a congregation, to guide into all thetruth?

(e) Most of these contextualisations must take place inan evangelistic context. It is in speaking to real persons thatissues arise and the Spirit will guide us as to what we shoulduse. We will see later the example of Philip and the Ethio-pian eunuch.

SOME GUIDELINES FOR CONTEXTUALISING INHINDU CULTURES

As long as particular cultures, religions and ideologiesexist contextualisation is a necessity. As long as there aremore than five hundred millions from the Hindu back-ground, this is the peculiar situation to which the gospelmust address itself in India.

Notice that we are dealing in the plural — “in Hinducultures”. As far as India is concerned, it is thoroughlypluralistic context. Hence one can speak only in the plural.Hinduism is an ocean, of many religions and cultures,morals and philosophies. One can of course distinguish

certain features common to all shades. At a popular level,the caste-system, the belief in karma and punarjanma, theworship of various gods and goddesses and festivals andpilgrimages in honour of them, observance of religious daysand duties — these can be taken as the essence of Hindu-ism. Perhaps the greater influence of popular religiousliterature, such as puranas and epics and folklore can beadded.

But the power and resilience of Hinduism through themillennia is to be found at another level — we could call itthe spiritual level. Some key elements of this level are:

(a) A synthetic way of thinking. Reconciliation of oppo-sites has always dominated the Indian mind. It is becauseof this that a Hindu is perfectly at home with atheism,pantheism, polytheism and monotheism, henotheism anddemonism. Hindu thought can simultaneously accept theconcept of nirguna and saguna Brahman (the brahman whois without qualities and cannot be known by man, and theone with qualities and hence can be known). Or, that atmancan be one in substance with the brahman and yet is subjectto maya (illusion) is no inconsistency to Hindus. Theybelieve that this kind of truth can be grasped only by“intuition”, while contradictions belong to the rational level.That reality is one essentially, but only apparently many, isthe philosophy (advaita) which is at the root of it all. Thusthe well-known Hindu religious tolerance is a theologicalnecessity for Hindus! In addition, such a logic has givenHinduism numerous philosophical systems, which are veryrigorous and precisely worked out in all details, and co-existto this day. The advantages of the Hindu way of thinking,however, include: paradoxical concepts like incarnation(fully God and fully man), inspiration (God’s and man’s wordsimultaneously and fully), the Union with Christ (not essen-tial, neither moral, ethical . . .), can be easily comprehendedby the Indians. The disadvantages are: mixing up good andevil, right and wrong, etc., one is left without a point ofreference. This robs man of any sense of direction andaction. The recent theological method developed by Asians,

2 5 0 2 5 1

called the Yin-Yang approach, is very closely related to thistype of thinking, though it has many advantages over theAristotelian (the law of contradiction) way of thinking.1 Yetone must accept, as Boyd rightly observes,2 the syntheticway of thinking is not the only way in India; in fact, theanalogical and the analytical logics also are used for theIndian philosophical systems.

(b) An exclusive emphasis on spirituality. The renuncia-tion of this world of society and material and physical thingsin preference for spiritual realization is a coveted high idealin Hinduism. In fact, it is a religious requirement for everyHindu, that once he has satisfactorily completed the firstthree stages of his life namely balashrama (childhood),brahmacharyashrama (youth), grihastashrama (adulthoodand marriage), he must go on to the final stage, that ofsanyasashrama (renunciation). Such an ideal has causedthe sprouting of many ashrams, gurus, sadhus, andsanyasis. It has led to the devaluation of this world andhistory and has encouraged a life of detachment. It has alsoled to the preference of individualism and spontaneityrather than organization and planning.

c) The all-compassing Hindu world-view, can be bestsummarized in the doctrines of maya and karma-sansara.Maya is the mysterious creative power which brahmanpossesses through which all changes, pluralities and quali-ties come into being; since brahman is without quality orpotentiality maya is the illusion, karma sansara is the cycleof rebirths from which the individual soul (atman) wants tobe liberated (moksha). Neo-Hindus, like Radhakrishnanand Gandhi have attempted to interpret maya so as to givereality and responsibility to earthly life. In particular, in theface of the struggle for freedom from the colonial Britishpower and the task of nation-building following independ-ence, it was necessary for these Hindu leaders to givemeaning and reality to world, society and history by reinter-preting the classical meaning of maya; but thousands ofyears of indoctrination cannot be so easily counteracted.

(d) The ways of God. Another very widespread beliefamong the Hindus is that there are essentially three margasto God (ways): karmamarga (the way of action or duties),bhaktimarga (the way of personal devotion, submission)and gnanamarga (the way of wisdom, enlightenment). Itdepends on the type of personality as to which way oneshould choose gnanamarga is the highest while karmamargais the lowest, conceptually speaking, but all ways lead toGod.

These factors mentioned above reveal the magnitude ofour task in contextualising the biblical message for India.That contextualisation is particularly necessary in India isbest illustrated by Sunder Singh, the greatest Indian Chris-tian of the century.3 We in India do not just need to useIndian words for some foreign concepts. We need to makethe biblical message so relevant to the Hindu’spre-understanding that he hears what the Spirit has to sayto him through the Word. What are some of the specialemphasis needed in India?

i) Religious authority. Both among the Indian Christiansas well as Hindus the discussion concerning authority isvery much alive. We discussed this in the first chapter. Aswe have seen, the three main pramanas sruti, yukti, andanubhava have been extensively used by Indians.

Sadhu Sunder Singh was careful to check that hisexperiences were no contradiction to the Bible.Brahmabandhav and Panikkar, as well as Appasamy tosome extent, give the first place to the Church. The doc-trines and authority of the Church have precedence.Chakkarai, Goreh and several others have given the Scrip-tures the first place as the supreme authority. Hinduismitself places sruti first, anubhava second and yukti third. Inthe face of excesses of Indian legalism (brahmanism) andoccultism (shakti and bhakti), the one-sided emphasiseither on the Scriptures or on the Holy Spirit in the IndianChristian theology will not meet. We need to stress the‘objective word and the ‘subjective Spirit as equally,supreme authorities and necessarily together. Actually,

2 5 2 2 5 3

both comprise one single authority, as the two sides of thecoin. It must be stressed in the Indian scene that inference,analogy and experience must all be judged by this two-edgeddivine authority. This is perhaps the only way to keep IndianChristian from ‘bibliolatry’, on the one hand, andschwaermerei (that is, an irrational movement, as of beesswarming) on the other.

(b) There is no other system which has influenced theHindu mind more than the advaita system, that truth isultimately one, monistic. (We are speaking here of course,of the cream of philosophical Hinduism). In this system,good and evil, right and wrong, life and death, etc. arenecessary pairs (as in the Yin-Yang method), and so Hindu-ism leads one to a kind of universalism unimaginable inChristianity. In real sense it is a justification of evil, wrongand falsehood along with good and right and truth, like inthe Hegelian system. Such a thinking leads not only toantinomianism but also to apathy, meaninglessness. In theface of this, it is imperative that the Christian Church inIndia lifts up the biblical picture of God as a holy God, whois of holier eyes than to behold evil. Most of the Hinduwriters and thinkers accept without reservation the biblicalidea of God as love, but what all of them miss is His holiness.The Bible portrays God as a jealous God, who does not giveHis glory to others! Without such an uncompromisingemphasis on the holiness of God, the biblical message losesits cutting edge. The atoning death of Christ, the missionaryenterprise, the ethical responsibilities and even the exist-ence of the Church become unpalatable to Hindus. Thus theChurch stands in constant danger of being absorbed by thevortex of Hinduism. That God is not love alone but holy loveis the one strong foundation of which the Indian Church canbe built up and be a strong witness to her Lord.

(c) The world and reality. Renunciation of this world hasa great appeal in India because of the belief in maya, thatthis world of matter is an illusion or, at best a second-ratereality. Unless maya is drastically reinterpreted, Hindus donot have any basis for historical or ethical action. As we have

seen, this is what both types of neo-Hinduism ofRadhakrishnan and Gandhi attempted to do.

Men, world, society, history will have meaning providedthey are real. Hundred of thousands of sadhus and sanyasinshave completely renounced this world of relationshipsprecisely because of the reality of this world is negated. Insuch a scheme of things the Bible’s message comes with achallenging relevance, when it discloses that this world is acreation of God and is the realm of His loving action onbehalf of man. You remember Surjit Singh’s theology, thatit is precisely because of the resurrection of Christ that thebody, the world and history have infinite significance inGod’s scheme of salvation. Man also is not only a creature,but one who is in the image of God. The doctrine of creationand providence have tremendous relevance to India.

(d) That man reaps what he sows, either in this birth orin the following ones, is the most universal belief of Hindu-ism. The religious zeal of Hindus can be explained only bythis root motivation. The world for a Hindu is a prison, of hisdeeds and their consequences, and to get out of this prisonis thus his only salvation, or goal — mukti. Justification bygrace through faith is more relevant to Hinduism thanperhaps to any other religions or ideological system! Theone word the Hindus use most often is the word shanti,peace, which they strive to achieve by their own works.Peace with God which grace brings to the believers will bea most welcome message for them provided it is clearlyshown to them with a challenging relevance. Perhaps theunderstanding of conversion, regeneration, sanctification,union with Christ do not make much sense with Hindus ascompared with justification. Bruce Nicholls comments,

In the context of the Hindu notion karma and the total lackof assurance of salvation, I believe the recovery of justifica-tion by faith is one of the greatest needs in the formulationof an Indian Christian theology.4

(e) Fellowship. C.F. Andrews wrote, after interviewingmany leading Indian Christians of his day, that in manycases the reason for their conversion was not a desire for

2 5 4 2 5 5

personal salvation, but rather the appeal of Christian broth-erhood. He adds;

I do not imply that the sense of individual need for salvationis absent or that this experience is necessarily typical. But insuch cases as these, the purely personal aspects developlater. The community is the primary concern.

It is the deep-rooted caste-system, where one’s socialand religious and even human status is determined bybirth, which is the cause for driving thousands of Hindusout of the Hindu fold. During the last few years severalhundred thousand harijans or the untouchable, castelessHindus embraced Buddhism openly, declaring that it givesdignity and meaning. Many of the people movements inIndia were primarily among the harijans. It is obvious thatthe one thing they were looking for was this element offellowship.

Hindu people are now fed up with the ritualistic andlegalistic pictures of the Church. Nothing will attract themmore than the koinonia, which is expressed in leiturgia anddiakonia. We Indian Christians have failed most in showingthis koinonia not with outsiders but with one another.

Have we Indian Christians fully realized the great truthin the Lord’s saying, “If you have love for one another . . . theworld will know that you are my disciple”? Koinonia isperhaps one of the most effective forms of witness for Christ.Would to God that he sends such a revival of the spirit fromabove and so unites the grain together, even throwing awaythe husk, that there be a sense of koinonia as never before,and so the whole continent of India comes to know that webelong to Christ.

(f) Power Encounter. We in India are deeply grateful thatthe gospel can be understood in terms of power.5 Nothingseals the fruits of evangelism more than a power encounterwith the force of darkness and the victory of the Holy Spiritover them. When one constantly sees among the neigh-bours the fear and bondage to evil spirits, and how the feargoverns their total religious and social life, one is convincedthat the message of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of power

brings liberation. We do not need so many organizers andorganizations, not so much theologians and scholars assimple people filled and led by the Spirit. Among the Hindusnothing gives surer acceptance than the evidence of a Spiritfar stronger than their own.

GUIDELINES FOR INDIAN EVANGELICALTHEOLOGY

A BIBLICAL MODEL

One of the most thrilling stories in the Bible about theleading of the Holy Spirit is the story of Philip — the firstmissionary to the Gentiles and the Ethiopian eunuch, thefirst Gentile convert. Philip, as you know, did not belong tothe top twelve but rather to the serving seven. Yet he was sozealous in preaching Christ that he was called “the evange-list”. The eunuch was neither a Jew nor a Samaritan but aGentile worshipper of God. He belonged to a ‘third worldnation’ of the time. He was so honest that he was made theminister in charge of the queen’s treasury (it is of course truethat the greatest need in the Indian Church is for welltrained evangelical Christian leaders. Money is the otherGod, as Jesus said, and unless we have learned to overcomethis idol worship we are still worshiping mammon.)

Actually, eunuchs were forbidden to worship in thetemple, according to Deuteronomy 23:1. We do not knowwhether he was forbidden or was allowed to worship onaccount of status or even the long journey — probably hewas allowed to worship. In any case he was having a portionof the scriptures in his mind and was reading it on his wayback home.

Philip was directed to meet the eunuch on the way. Theeunuch was reading, providentially, that part of the scrip-ture which was well suited to speak about Christ. And theSpirit prompted Philip to join the chariot. He joined andasked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “Howcan I”, answered the Ethiopian, “unless someone guidesme?” (Ac.8:31)

2 5 6 2 5 7

Now the Bible does not tell us exactly what Philip told theEthiopian except that “beginning with this scripture he toldhim the good new about Jesus”. Neither do I want tore-create the whole of Philip’s message; but what I amdriving at here is that what Philip did then is exactly thecontextualization of the message of the gospel to the Ethio-pian’s needs. In any case I am convinced that in ourattempts to contextualise the gospel and concentrate oninterpreting the scriptures, in telling others the good newsof Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide us, as we dependupon him. That is exactly what Philip did.

WHAT IS CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY?Christian theology can be described as the articulation

by a disciple of Christ of his understanding of the contentsof the biblical revelation. Such an articulation is historicallyconditioned by several factors such as language, culture,socio-politico-economic conditions, the past inheritanceand so on. So Christian theology must be contextual in thesense that it is shown to be relevant to these contexts.

Perhaps a better word to express the connections ofindigenisation and contextualisation is relevance . Unfortu-nately it has no verb. The word comes from the Latin relevare, to raise up, relieve — from the notion of helping.Thus it is free of either geographical or situational connec-tions. Perhaps one of the best usage of the term is by A.G.Hogg, his famous phrase “challenging relevance”. HerbertJaisingh uses the term somewhat naively to mean “speak-ing to a situation”.6 Explicitly or implicitly such a relevanceis a must in any theologizing. Otherwise no theology wouldhave any cutting edge!

All systematic theologies, all confessions and dogmaticsand all summae theologies are contextual too. This is whywe have not one but many systematics, dogmatics andconfessions: by Origen, Aquinas, Melanchthon, Calvin,Berkhof, Tillich, Chakkarai, and a host of others, as well asconfessions of different churches. The origin, the method oftreatment, the issues dealt with and their emphasis or

de-emphasis, the principle of the system, are all so drawn asto be relevant to the context of the theologian — hence theplurality of these results.

You may be surprised to find that even biblical theology(or exegetical theology as some call it) is not all absolute; forin speaking to describe and classify the facts of the biblicalrevelation within the limits of biblical categories and times,it must use contemporary human language. Moreover, thecriteria of classification are extra-biblical and are deter-mined by the theologian himself. There may be greateragreement in biblical theology than, let us say, in dogmat-ics, but both have varied. Thus all theologies, as humanexpressions, are inevitably conditioned by, and thereforerelevant to the theologian’s particular context.

There are three aspects involved in any valid contextualtheology.

Contextual theology is the contextualisation of the biblical

revelation.

This is based on the conviction that the Bible is “the onlywritten word of God, without error in all that it affirms, andthe only infallible rule of faith and practice” (LausanneCovenant). So a contextual theology must primarily attemptto determine and interpret what the biblical authors wantedto say.7

A proper contextualisation does not philosophize the‘gospel message’, into some abstract ideas like ‘self-givinglove’, ‘man for others’, ‘liberation’, ‘shalom’, etc. Rather itconcretizes such ideas in images and pictures portrayed inthe Bible, and builds its tenets upon them. For example,instead of discerning an abstract Christ who is hidden in allreligions, cultures, liberation movements and ideologies, avalid theology attempts to discover the Christ who is re-vealed in a concrete person, Jesus of Nazareth.

To take another example, instead of deducing the natureof the Church from its functions, which may be particularlyuseful to a human situation, a valid theology must start

2 5 8 2 5 9

with the biblical understanding of what the Church is andthen deduce the function, and the form of the Church whichexpress her nature — and so discover what the Church cando at a particular time.

The primary issue here, therefore, is not an understand-ing of an idea of Christ or the gospel in particular context.Theology is primarily an interpreting of the Bible or scrip-ture in context. The Bible is thus the primary source,ultimate authority and foundation for it.

Such an affirmation has at least two implications.

(a) This high view of the Bible is a confession of faith. TheBible is given primarily as an object of faith and obedience.If God has spoken, how else can man accept his word if notby faith? No miracle can really replace the hand of faith —that is why Abraham told the rich man who was suffering inhell-fire, “if they do not hear Moses and the prophets,neither will they be convinced if someone should rise fromthe dead” (Luke 16:31). Further the Bible exhorts, “be doersof the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves”(James 1:22). He who believes God’s word honours God. Sofaith is the only proper attitude towards the Bible. The resultof all biblical research — exegetical, historical, critical,hermeneutical — entirely depends upon this attitude for itsvalidity.

(b) Our faith attitude towards the Bible is also a confes-sion of our human predicament, for it admits that both thehuman reason and experience, individual or collective, areimpotent to grasp any true knowledge of God. All our logic,wisdom, memory, history, must be judged by the Bible. Inmatters pertaining to God all our faculties are bankrupt. AsPaul says in Romans, “None is righteous, no not one. No oneunderstands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside,together they have gone wrong. No one does good, not evenone” (Ro. 3:10-12).

(c) Thus, in starting with the Bible, a valid contextualisedtheology recognizes human fallenness and looks away from

all human strivings and recognizes God as trustworthy andlooks up to him.

Contextual theology depends on the power and presence

of the Holy Spirit

How can man understand if by nature he is fallen andincapable? Hence the sola scriptura principle is powerlesswithout the presence and power of the Spirit (1 Co. 2:11).The Holy Spirit who has separated the sixty six books of theBible by inspiration and fixed the canon, is also the one whointerprets the recorded word relevantly in every situation.He is also the Spirit of truth and so leads them into all thetruth. He is the power and criterion of all valid theology.

This second affirmation also has its implications.

(a) “For as yet as Spirit had not been given because Jesuswas not yet given glorified” (John 7:39). The scripturesabundantly clarify that the Spirit shall come in Jesus’ name(John 14:26). He shall bear witness to and glorify Jesus(John 15:26; 16:24) and remind the disciples of Jesus’teaching (14:26). Even the conviction of sin, righteousnessand judgment which the Holy Spirit brings to the world isconcerning Jesus (16:7-11). Thus the content of theology isJesus Christ and nothing else. “You search the scripturesbecause you think in them you find eternal life and it is theythat bear witness to me”, said Jesus (John 5:39). The Bibleis given in order that we may know him, and believing in himwe may have life (Phil. 3:10; John 20:30, 31). Thus weproclaim Jesus, not any truth or wisdom. He is our truth,our life, our way, wisdom, redemption and goal. “In him allthings were created, in heaven and on earth, visible andinvisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities orauthorities — all things were created through him and forhim . . . for in him all the fullness of God was pleased todwell” (Col. 1:16ff). And so we look forward for the day when“at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow in heaven andon earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess thatJesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:10-11).

2 6 0 2 6 1

(b) It is precisely because of the presence and activity of theHoly Spirit that a valid Christian theology is also the theologyby the whole Church. For to each of us is given a variety of gifts“by the Spirit for the common good”. So none of us knows thetruth, i.e. Christ, fully — but only partly, for at best we can seeonly through a glass, as it were. The variety of the gifts is forthe purpose of “building up the body of Christ” and therefore,“we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, intoChrist, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together,. . . makes bodily growth and upholds itself in love” (Eph. 4:12,15, 16). Across all the barriers of time and space, race andnation, language and culture, we as the body of Christencourage and correct one another. We need one another. Allchurch traditions and persuasions which are built upon theabove two affirmations though seemingly sectarian, are at adeeper level ”eager to maintain the unity of spirit“ (Eph. 4:3).Both at universal and local levels therefore all Christiantheology is the articulation by the church of her knowledge ofand devotion to the Lord Jesus.

Evangelical contextual theology needs to build uponfirm foundation of the Bible and the divine power behind it.“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to thechurches” (Rev. 2:7 etc.).

The ultimate goal of evangelical theology is worship and

the glorification of God

In whatever way our doctrines are formulated, be it theBible or the Holy Spirit, faith or sin, Christ or the Church —all must lead to the glory of God the Father Almighty, Makerof heaven and earth. Of course, our theologies have objec-tives such as leading people to Christ, planting churchesand edification of the believers to grow into the maturity ofthe fullness of the stature of Christ. But all this must bedone with the ultimate goal of glorifying God the Father. Anyother goal is atheological and hence anti-theological. Ourfirst wish in prayer is always, “Our Father, who art inheaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy willbe done . . . !” (Matt. 6:9,10). And our final item is even thesame: “Amen. Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanks-

giving and honour and power and might be to our God forever and ever!” (Rev.7:12).

The implications of this are :

(a) The above seven-fold doxology is based on thethree-fold revelation of God as the creator, sustainer andconsummator of all things. Hence, he is the source, supportand end of man too. Though everything that is, is by him andfor him since he is holy he cannot be made the author of evil,for he is of holier of eyes than to behold evil! But not only ishe holy but also holy love. Thus he sustains all things,including man, through all situations, including the situa-tion of the evil one. In this way we should speak of provi-dence as redemptive providence, instead of as creativeprovidence (as some have affirmed). He is also almighty andso can consummate what he has begun hence our assur-ance is God and God alone! “Holy, holy holy is the Lord GodAlmighty who was, and is and is to come!” (Rev. 4:8).

(b) It is surprising that in spite of all the difference intheir understanding of man, anthropologists agree on onething — that man is what he is only when he is before God.Thus, instead of making our theology anthropocentric, asmany have already attempted, evangelical theology tries tounderstand man from God’s point of view. Hence anthropol-ogy must necessarily follow theology. It is not our self-understanding which is crucial, but rather God’s under-standing of us. Only when we know that God is holy love canwe speak of the redeemed man, new creation. For “what isman that thou art mindful of him and the son of man thatthou dost care for him?” (Ps. 8:4)

To summarize, evangelical theology has at least threeessential characteristics. Based upon the Word, accompa-nied by the Holy Spirit, it serves and glorifies God, All threeelements are equally essential and fundamental.

Without the Word, the natural desire we have to worshipleads to mysticism, and the sensitivity to the Spirit we havebrings conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment. Thiswas the case with Cornelius. It may lead to seekers, but it

2 6 2 2 6 3

leads also to judgment, hopelessness and fatalism. Unlessthe word, that is the word of grace, is spoken, there is noredemption.

But without the Holy Spirit, our natural desire to wor-ship can become dry and dogmatic, like the Pharisees whohad a form of godliness but lacked the power thereof. And wemay even have the Word without the Spirit, but then we getmixed with words and philosophies (like Hegel,Schleiermacher) and this may lead to dogmatism and schism.

Only the Bible, without the Spirit and the supreme goalto worship God may lead to worship of the creature ratherthan the creator. In fact to self-worship and even to ideolo-gies (Utopia or Christo-marxism). Only the presence of theHoly Spirit, without the Word and the supreme desire toglorify God may lead to false worship which is not worshipin truth — to occultism, animism, and spiritism. And onlythe goal of worshipping God without both the Spirit and theWord, will of course lead to error — lacking both the powerand the Word of God — to heresies, ritualism and religions.

Thus it is of crucial importance that evangelical theologymust always keep all three basic elements intact and inbalance.

Whatever the terms, the genuine concern behind thecontextualisation debate is a step forward in the sense thatit has made us realize the inadequacy of the both the termsin their traditional connection. Indigenisation as a processof relating the gospel to a culture, and contextualisation asrelating the gospel to a secular situation — both are out-dated. Because, as Bruce Nicholls shows, a person spre-understanding is not based on either of these alone, oreven both taken together. There are other factors which alsodecisively influence the interpreter’s/receiver’spre-understanding. The expansion of one term to includethe other has not really clarified the issues. Perhaps newterminologies and new approaches are needed. In any case,though it may seem arbitrary, I have chosen the termcontextualisation to express our concern here, partly be-cause it frees one from geographical and political overtones.

Thus contextualisation is meant here as the process ofshowing the Bible to be meaningful/relevant to the receiverin whatever culture/context he may be, in order that he maytruly discover what the Bible has to say to him. The mainconcern here is to take the total pre-understanding of thehearer into consideration and not just one aspect such asculture, ideology etc.

BEYOND CONTEXTUALISATION

Our above definition has several implications

(a) In order to present the good news of Jesus Christ tothose of the Hindu fold, Indian Christians are compelled togo beyond both cultural and theological contextualisationin modern India. There are some who consider only thereligious aspects as the relevant sphere, while others dealonly with the ideological aspect. Thus far a wholisticcontextualisation, taking into consideration the totalpre-understanding of the receptor, has not been attemptedin India — at least no concerted effort is seen.

(b) Perhaps of even greater weight is the fact of the“coming world culture”. Whether we like it or not we arebeing caught up in “the current of the single world history”which is huddling us together as neighbours to one anotherin “one global village”. This is a new fact, particular to ourtime. Perhaps as in other parts of the world, also in India itis becoming increasingly difficult to identify what a Hinduculture is. As the cross-fertilization of ancient cultures issteadily preparing for the one world culture it is alsode-culturizing many aspects of them. Like many others, themodern Indian is in a cultural vacuum, or at least in amulti-cultural situation. Will it not be more meaningful andmore fruitful if instead of only a cultural approach, we alsoadd a person-to person approach in proclaiming the gospelof Jesus Christ?

(c) Empirically, it is this exciting realisation of theimminent unity of mankind, the “one world” ideology whichis sweeping everywhere, which makes us Christians depend

2 6 4 2 6 5

upon one another as never before in past church history.The number of inter-denominational activities and confer-ences in our time so outweighs the denominational onesthat it is a truism to speak of the ecumenical character of ourcontextual theologies. The historical distinctions may con-tinue, yet we have all amply realised that we need oneanother across denominations and persuasions, acrosspolitical, economic, racial and ideological barriers. After allwe are one body and have one spirit, one faith, one Lord andone hope. Not only does the west need the east and the northneed the south, but we of the Two-Thirds World need theFirst World brethren. Any evangelical theology in any cul-ture needs henceforth to re-state itself in the light of theseabove inter-contextual factors. Otherwise it will not be arelevant theology. Though the scriptures belong to a par-ticular historical context and culture the biblical message isuniversal. Christian, secular and other religious ecumenismsof our time are clarifying this truth to us very effectively.

TOWARDS APOLOGETICS OR DOGMATICS?(d) The consolidation of theology into confessions or

dogmatic or systematics or summae is necessitated onaccount of heresies and controversies. Looking at the In-dian scene at a time when the production of theologies isincreasing rapidly, one reluctantly agrees that a time forsuch a consideration has come. One is overwhelmed by thescholarly (doctoral) monographs written, or being written,by Indian Christians let alone by the literature churned outat the popular level. But it is another question how much ofthis bulk is evangelical or how long any system will last inour fluid situation.

This means at least one thing: One great need in theIndian Church, even for the sake of her mission, is what St.Paul calls diakrisis — the dividing of the spirits or thediscerning of the spirits. Partly due to historical reasons(colonialism, denominational rivalry, the intoxication of thenationalistic spirit in the pre-independence era, the ChurchUnion movements etc.) and partly due to our cultural

background (the synthetic way of thinking, the pluralisticsituation, the need for a united front against communalopposition, Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist counter-missions etc.)Indian Christians have set aside theological differences inthe name of unity and service, survival and growth. But nowat long last we must realize the seriousness of these differ-ences. They are as great as the gulf between the unknownChrist of Hinduism and Jesus Christ of the New Testament;between action groups to break down inhuman structuresand the fellowship of believers for worship and witness;between vedic Sruti and biblical revelation. It is time that theevangelicals discern the spirits and take a stand.

We also recognize gratefully that such efforts are on theincrease. What is needed in the Indian Church now is not somuch loyalty to various organisations such as EFI, NCCI,etc. or to denominations and institutions like CISRS, UTC,UBS, etc., but cutting across all these, a loyalty to the Lordof the Bible. Such cases are to be found, we are thankful,more and more.

Though the need for developing theologies relevant tovarious Hindu contexts is no less now than before, thesimultaneous need for an evangelical confession/consoli-dation is also increasing. Systematics or dogmatic are not soirrelevant as many seem to think.

In a nutshell, our theology must also edify the IndianChurch beyond the legitimate task of equipping her forevangelistic efforts. Only when the Church is so built up canshe be the base for missionary outreach. Evangelical theol-ogy is therefore more than evangelistic theology or a theol-ogy of mission, or even a theology of the church. It must aimat the contextualisation of the comprehensive biblical mes-sage — as we have already seen in other lessons, the wholecounsel of God.

THE MESSAGE OR THE MESSENGER?(e) In our effort to develop a relevant theology there are also

factors which are more significant than the theology itself.

2 6 6 2 6 7

The biggest hindrance to the Church of Jesus Christ inIndia is not outside her but inside — the very lives of thoseof us who are called the disciples of Christ, what StanleyJones calls “the Great Hindrance”. Gandhi once said, “if youcall one of us a Christian man he is complimented, but if youcall him a Christian, he is insulted.” Hindus have time andagain told us very frankly that if we Christians lived a littlemore like Jesus Christ or practiced a little of what wepreach, the process of conversion would have gone on farmore rapidly. The following conversation between StanleyJones and Gandhi, the greatest representative of and themost influential among the Hindus, is revealing:

In conversation with him one day I said, “Mahatma GandhiI am very anxious to see Christianity naturalised in India, .. . what would you suggest that we do to make that possible?”He very gravely and thoughtfully replied: “I would suggest,first, that all of you Christians, missionaries and all, mustbegin to live more like Jesus Christ . . . Second, I wouldsuggest that you practice your religion without adulteratingor toning it down . . .”

This brings us directly to the next point: we shouldconcentrate more on preparing the messengers than themessage itself. If we look back to the story of Philip, werealise how contrasting were the missionary and the native,the preacher and the hearer. But the preacher was sothoroughly prepared by the Holy Spirit in Samaria, inserving the tables, that he finds it no problem to contextualisethe message to the Eunuch — it was a complete success.Also the messenger is already on his way to the nextassignment after the Eunuch’s baptism. It is a story of themessenger. Every time we stand up for the sake of the Lord,may He grant us his grace, and prepare us and the hearers,rather than the message.

Finally, we need Philip’s sensitivity to the leading of theHoly Spirit — and more we need the presence of the HolySpirit. Nothing less than a visitation by the Spirit of God isthe solution or India, for the Indian Church.

NOTES

1. Jung Young Lee, “The Yin-Yang way of Thinking: A Possible Methodfor Ecumenical Theology”, in Mission Trends No. 3, pp. 29-38.

2. ICT, pp. 231-233.

3. Once when he was traveling in Rajputan he saw a brahman hurryingto the railway station. Exhausted by great heat, he fell down on the platform.The Anglo-Indian station master, anxious to help him, offered him water.Although the brahmin was thirsty he refused it. “I cannot drink that water.I would prepare to die”, he said. “I am not asking you to eat the cup”, thestation master chided him. “I will not break my caste”, replied the brahmin,“I am willing to die.” When, however, the water was brought to him in hisown brass vessel, he drank it eagerly. It is the same with the Water of Life.Indians do need the water of Life but not the European cup. This is wellexpressed.

4. Contextualization, p. 54.

5. Once with a German friend I had long discussions about the authorityof the Bible. He could not see how the BIble can be the supreme authority.In desperation, I told him, “If you want to see how the Bible is powerful, youjust come to India and see how the gospel works as a power against the evilpowers everywhere.” A tree is known by its fruits, Jesus said.

6. Herbert Jaisingh, “Toward a Relevant Gospel in India”, in IndianVoices in Todays Theological Debate, Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow,1972, pp. 125-142.

7. Bruce Nicholls says, “The purpose of this method is to discover whatthe biblical writer said, and it must be distinguished from the morespeculative historical-critical method which aims to discover the author’sintention”. See Contextualisation: A Theology of Gospel and Culture, p. 49. Iam indebted to this booklet for many of the insights here.

2 6 8 2 6 9

2 7 0 2 7 1

APPENDIX

The importance of writing Biographies

We are indeed very much indebted to Dr. Kaj Baago forproducing under the research plan of the United TheologicalCollege, Bangalore, an anthology of Indian Christian writing.This is a good, though by no means exhaustive collection. Asyou read through the collection, one dominant feature is thatthe biographies of Indian Christian saints are lacking. This isnot to say that there are none of them; there are of course. ButI am convinced that there is a greater majority of saints whosebiographies are not written.

There are varied reasons for this: (a) Following the orientallogic one is not supposed to say anything bad about those whoare dead and gone (perhaps that has to do with ancestralworship?) except in eulogies. (b) Lacking a sense of historyperhaps our Indian mind is less inclined to put down the factsor even to interpret them with a definite purpose. (c) SinceChristianity came to India through the western colonialismand was already an established religion in western countriesfor several centuries, there seems to be an unconscious idea inthe Indian mind that only Saint Francis or Saint Teresa aresaints in India. (d) Finally, what Jesus said also is true. Sincea prophet is without respect in his own country, those whoknow him best tend to remember rather the working side of theperson. The right side is often forgotten, hence its usefulnessto the wider world is gone.

If you read some of the Puranas or Hindu literature, andthen turn to the Bible, one of the most striking features is thateven about the great patriarchs like Abraham or David or Jacobthe Bible is very realistic in picturing their character. It doesnot hide their mistakes. In fact, I remember as a youngChristian this aspect greatly impressed me concerning thetruthfulness of the Bible.

But what I am driving at is this. The Bible itself has severalbiographies written. If the gospels were not written you wouldnot have known about Jesus now. The famous list of the faithgiants in Hebrew 11 is a grand cloud of witnesses which canedify us even today. Just think how much poorer our under-

standing of God’s relationship with man would be if we did nothave the records of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, or Mosesrunning away to Libya, Hannah’s dedication of Samuel, QueenEsther’s devotion to her people, Job’s suffering and his fightingwith God, Daniel in the den of Lions, Paul’s conversion andmissionary journeys, and dozens of other biographies.

It is wrong to think that biographies are written only forself-glory. On the contrary they are written with the expresspurpose of glorifying God; that what God’s grace has wroughtin others can also work in me and encourage and edify andstrengthen me in my Lord’s service. Thus one of the mainreasons why throughout history several saints’ lives andministries have been recorded is that they edify the churchuniversal. Is not God really glorified through the faith andcommitment and life of his servants?

But this education is two fold. It not only helps us to followwhere the saints have trod, but it also helps us to avoid themistakes they have done. For example, David’s adultery,Jacob’s deception, Peter’s denial are still strong warnings to ustoday. Actually speaking, church history is the story of God’speople.

Right now I am involved in corresponding with seniorChristians all over the land to collect some of the unknownChristians’ biographies. Some of the things I have discoveredare most illuminating. I hope some day to publish them. Butit is most encouraging to see that in the recent decade severalanthologies of Indian Christian saints have appeared. If youcome across any of these biographies I will be grateful if youcan kindly write to me or even send a copy of that to me or letme know the address where they are available. If you know ofany unwritten stories, you could tell me also. Perhaps we canshare it for the benefit of other Christian Indian brothers andsisters. Thank you.

ADDRESS:Dr. Sunand SumithraTheological Book Trust54, MIG. ColonyKoramangala, Bangalore- 560095.

2 7 2

2 7 3

SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abhishiktananda, Swami, Hindu Christian Meeting Point, CLS,Madras, 1969.

Amirtham, Samuel (ed.), The Vision for Man, CLS, Madras, 1973.

Samuel & Yeow Choo Lak, Spiritual Formation in Asian TheologicalEducation, ATESEA, 1986.

Anandakrishna S.V. et al. (eds.), India Today, CLS, Madras, 1968.

Appasamy, A.J. Christianity as Bhakti Marga, CLS, Madras,1 9 3 0 .

--------------------, The Gospel and India’s Heritage, SPCK, 1948.

Baago, Kaj, Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, CLS, Madras,1 9 6 9 .

-------------------, Bibliography of Indian Christian Theology, CLS,Madras, 1969.

Boyd, Robin, Khristadvaita: A Theology for India, CLS, Madras,1 9 7 7 .

-------------------, India and the Latin Captivity of the Church,Cambridge University Press, London, 1974.

-------------------, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 2ndedition, CLS, Madras, 1975.

Braybrooke, Marcus, The Undiscovered Christ, CLS, Madras,1 9 7 3 .

-------------------, Together to the Truth, CLS, Madras, 1971.

Buraga, J., Questions in Christian Theology, BBC Publishers,Secunderabad, 1985.

-------------------, In Defence of the Faith, Bharat Bible CollegePress, Hyderabad, 1985.

Butler, J.F., & Chandran Devanesan, Communism and Christian-ity, CLS, Madras, 1980.

Caplan, Lionel, Religion and Power, CLS, Madras, 1989.

Chakkarai, V., Jesus the Avatar, CLS, Madras, 1927.

-------------------, The Cross in Indian Thought, CLS, Madras, 1932.

Chatterji, Saral, The Asian Meaning of Modernization, ISPCK,Delhi, 1972.

Chenchiah, P., Rethinking Christianity in India, CLS, Madras,1 9 3 8 .

-------------------, Ashramas Past and Present, CLS, Madras, 1941.

Daniel, J.T.K. (ed.), A Vision For India Tomorrow, Madras Chris-tian College, Tambaram, 1987.

Das, Soman, Jesus Coming is our Coming, CLS, Madras, 1985.

David, Christianity and the Encounter with Other Religions, UTC,Bangalore, 1988.

David, George, The Eclipse and Rediscovery of Person, TRACI,Delhi, 1976.

Devanandan, P.D., Christian Concern in Hinduism, CISRS,Bangalore, 1961.

-------------------, Preparation for Dialogue, CISRS, Bangalore,1 9 6 4 .

Devadas, Nalini, Swami Vivekananda, CISRS, Bangalore, 1968.

Doraiswamy, Solomon, Christianity in India, CLS, Madras, 1986.

Fakirbhai, Dhanjibhai, Christopanishad, CISRS, Bangalore, 1965.

Farquhar, J.N., Geetha and Gospel, CLS, Madras, 1917.

-------------------, The Crown of Hinduism, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 1913.

Fleming, Bruce C.E., Contextualization of Theology, William CareyLibrary, Pasedena, 1980.

Geevarghese, Mar Osthathios, Theology of the Classless Society,CLS, Madras, 1989.

George, S.K., The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ. Ahmedabad,1 9 4 7 .

Gnanakan, Ken R., Kingdom Concerns, TBT, Bangalore, 1989.

Graham, Carol, Azariah of Dornakal, CLS, Madras, 1972.

Griffiths, Bede, Christ in India, ATC, Bangalore, 1986.

Hargreaves, C., Asian Christian Thinking, CLS, Madras, 1970.

Hedlund, Roger, Mission to Man in the Bible, ELS, Madras, 1985.

------------------- & Beulah Herbert, Culture and Evangelisation,CGRC, Madras, 1984.

Hiriyanna, M., Essentials of Indian Philosophy, George Allen &Unwin, Bombay, 1973.

Hoerst, Buerkle & Wolfgang Roth, Indian Voices in Today’s Theo-logical Debate, LPH, Lucknow, 1966.

Hogg, A.G., Karma and Redemption, CLS, Madras, 1970.

-------------------, The Christian Message to the Hindu, SCM, Ma-dras, 1947.

Houghton, Graham, The Impoverishment of Dependency, CLS,Madras, 1983.

Jayasingh, H., Inter-religious Dialogue, ISPCK, Delhi, 1967.

Joseph, M.J., Biblical Reflections on Peoples’ Theology, ISPCK,Delhi, 1979.

Kappen, Sebastian, Liberation Theology and Marxism, Asha Kendra,Puntamba, 1986.

Karokaran, Anto, Evangelization and Diakonia, Dharmaram Pub-lications, Bangalore, 1979.

Keithahn, Ralph Richard, Pilgrimmage in India, CLS, Madras,1 9 7 3 .

Klostermaier, Klaus, Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras,1 9 8 6 .

Kraemer, H., The Christian Messege in a Non Christian World, IMC,1 9 3 8 .

Kulandran,S., Grace: A Compartive Study of the Doctrine onChristianity and Hinduism, SCM, London,1964.

Kumarappa, J.C., Practice and Precepts of Jesus, Navajivan,Press, Ahmedabad, 1947.

-------------------, Gandhi and Hindu Christian Dialogue, CLS, Ma-dras, 1967.

Kuriakose, History of Christianity in India — Source Materials,CLS, Madras,1982.

2 7 52 7 4

Kurien, C.T., Poverty and Development, CLS, Madras, 1974.

-------------------, Mission and Proclamation, CLS, Madras, 1981.

Lyon, David & Albert Manuel (eds.), Renewal for Mission, CLS,Madras, 1967.

Mabry, Hunter P., Christian Ethics — An Introductory Reader,Indian Theological Library, Serampore, 1987.

Macnicol, Nicol, The Living Religions of the Indian People, Y.M.C.A.,New Delhi, 1934.

Macphail, Palmer, The Kingdom And The King, CLS, Madras,1 9 7 7 .

Mahadevan, T.M.P, & G.V. Saroja, Contemporary Indian Philoso-phy, Sterling, New Delhi, 1985.

Mangalwadi, Vishal, Jesus The Trouble Maker, Manohar Publica-tions, New Delhi, 1979.

-------------------, Truth and Social Reform, Good Books, Mussoorie,1 9 8 5 .

Martin, The Kingdom of God, CLS, Madras, 1952.

McMullen, Clarence, The Nature of Guruship, ISPCK, Delhi, 1976.

McMullen, Marxism And The Religions of India — Spirit AndMatter, ISPCK, Delhi 1979.

Moses, D.G., Religious Truth and the Relation Between Religions,CLS, Madras, 1950.

Devlali Findings, ALCOME, New Delhi, 1977.

Panikkar, R., The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, DLT, 1964.

-------------------, Trinity and the World Religions, CLS, Madras,1 9 7 0 .

Paratkar, B.A.M., Theology of Goreh, CLS, Madras, 1969.

Parekh, M.C., A Hindu Portrait of Jesus Christ, Rajkot, 1953.

Parker, Rebecca, Sadhu Sunder Singh, CLS, Madras, 1918.

Paul C.S. , The Suffering God, 1932.

Paul, Rajaiah, Triumphs of His Grace, CLS, Madras, 1967.

-------------------, Ecumenism in Action, CLS, Madras, 1972.

Philip, Krishna Mohan Banerjea: Christian Apologist, CLS, Ma-dras, 1982.

Pillai, K.V. Paul, India’s Search For The Unknown Christ, IndianInland Mission, New Delhi, 1978.

Popley, K.T. Paul, CLS, Madras, 1938.

Ro, Bong Rin & Ruth Eshenaur, The Bible and Theology in AsianContexts, ATA\AETEI, Bangalore, 1984.

Ro, Bong Rin, Urban Ministry in Asia, ATA,Taichung, 1989.

Samartha, S.J. The Search for New Hermeneutics in Asian Chris-tian Theology, The Senate of Serampore College, Bangalore,1 9 8 7 .

-------------------, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ, CLS,Madras, 1974.

Samuel, V.C., The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, CLS,Madras, 1977.

Samuel, Vinay & Chris Sugden, Sharing Jesus in the Two-ThirdsWorld, Partnership in Mission- Asia, Bangalore, 1983.

-------------------, The Gospel Among Our Hindu Neighbours, ATC,Bangalore, 1983.

Sargent, Norman, From Mission to Church in Karnataka, CLS,Madras, 1987.

Schiff, L.M., The Christian in Society, CLS, Madras, 1960.

Scott, Keshub Chunder Sen, CLS, Madras, 1981.

Shah, E. Ahmad, Theology—Christian And Hindu, LPH, Lucknow,1 9 6 6 .

Sharma, D.S., Hinduism Through The Ages, Bombay, 1954.

Singh, Daniel Scott, Religious Traditions, Indian Theological Li-brary, Serampore, 1988.

Singh, Sadhu Sunder, The Spiritual World, CLS, Madras, 1967.

-------------------, At the Master’s Feet, CLS, Madras, 1957.

-------------------, Search for Reality, CLS, Madras, 1972.

-------------------, With and Without Christ, FLSR.

Singh, Surjit, Preface to Personality, CLS, Madras, 1962.

2 7 72 7 6

Spencer, Islam And the Gospel of God, ISPCK, New Delhi, 1956.

Subbamma, Christ Confronts India, Diocesan Press, Madras,1 9 7 3 .

Sumithra, Sunand, Revolution as Revelation, TRACI/ICN, NewDelhi, 1984.

Sunder Raj, Ebenezer, The Confusion Called Conversion, TRACI,New Delhi, 1986.

Sunder Rao, Mark, Concerning Indian Christianity, YMCA, 1973.

Thangaswamy, D.A., The Theology of Chenchiah, CISRS, Bangalore,1 9 6 7 .

Thomas, George, Christian Indians and Indian Nationalism 1885-1950, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 1979.

Thomas, P.J., 100 Indian Witnesses, KSBTB, Bombay, 1974.

Thomas, M.M., Salvation And Humanization, CLS, Madras, 1971.

-------------------, Response to Tyranny, ECCPS, New Delhi, 1987.

-------------------, Joyful and Triumphant, CLS, Madras, 1970.

-------------------, The Realization of The Cross, CLS, Madras, 1972.

-------------------, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renais-sance, 2nd edition, CLS, Madras, 1976.

-------------------, Christian Response to the Asian Revolution, CISRS,Bangalore, 1966.

-------------------, Man and the Universe of Faiths, CISRS,Bangalore, 1975.

-------------------, Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Mean-ing of Christ, CISRS, Bangalore, 1976.

Thomas, P.T., The Theology of Chakkarai, CISRS, Bangalore,1 9 6 8 .

Thomas, P.K., The Impact and Challenge, CLS, Madras, 1969.

-------------------, The Witness of S.K. George, CLS, Madras, 1970.

Van Leeuwen, Gervin, Searching for an Indian Ecclesiology, ATC,Bangalore, 1984.

Verghese, T.Paul, Freedom and Authority, CLS, Madras, 1974.

Ward, Marcus, Our Theological Task, CLS ,Madras, 1946.

Wati, Ben I., Focus on Foundation, ETC/EFI, New Delhi, 1966.

Wietzke, Joachim, Paul D.Devanandan, CLS, Madras, 1987.

Williams, Theodore, Building Bridges or Barriers, WEF MissionCommission, Bangalore, 1979.

-------------------, God Alive, IEM Outreach Publications, Bangalore,1 9 8 4 .

-------------------, Together in Mission, WEF, Bangalore, 1983.

Wray, Naomi, Symbols of Our Faith, CCE Methodist Church SouthAsia, 1962.

Zachariah, Mathai, Ecumenism in India, ISPCK, Delhi, 1980.

Zacharias, An Outline of Hindusim, J.M.Press, Alwaye, 1956.

2 7 92 7 8

2 8 12 8 0

SUBJECT INDEX

action-reflection 175

adesha 48, 53, 55, 56

advaita, advaitic 15, 17, 38, 64, 70, 105,

107, 109, 112, 157, 186, 188, 191-

194, 196, 227-229, 232, 235, 246,

248, 254

ahimsa 9, 133, 218, 219, 221 (also see

non-violence)

analogy 38, 89, 109, 112, 113, 252, 254

antaryami - Christ 109, 116, 163; Holy

Spirit 118, 245

anthropocentric 201, 205, 263

apologetics 18, 23, 28, 77, 78, 92, 144,

201, 242, 266

Apostolic Durbar 57

Aristotelian logic 37, 81, 252

ashram 75, 102, 136, 154, 159, 165, 170,

218, 226, 247, 252

atonement 46, 52, 73, 76, 82, 139, 167,

179, 194, 228, 254

authority 14, 15, 22, 27, 31-36, 38, 76,

78, 82, 111, 181, 186, 191, 205, 211,

212, 253, 254, 260

avatara(s) 74, 75, 109, 110, 117, 125,

159, 162, 163, 192, 233, 245

baptize, baptism 45, 49, 66, 76, 77, 81,

179, 180, 202, 247, 268

Bhagwadgita, Gita 17, 96, 105, 110,

220, 222, 223

bhakti 48, 104, 118, 160, 162, 163, 192,

224, 244, 248; bhakti schools 160;

bhakti groups 163; bhakti system 107,

163; bhakti marga 85, 102, 107, 108,

118, 119, 163, 185, 253; bhakti tradi-

tions 104, 106, 108, 248

biblical theology 241

Brahman 4, 37, 72, 75, 78, 91, 104, 145,

157, 161, 163, 185, 192, 224, 227,

229, 232, 243, 244, 245, 250, 251;

Para Brahman 72; Saguna (and

Nirguna) Brahman 72, 78, 244, 245,

251; Shabda Brahman 86; impersonal

Brahman 89, 105; avyukta

(unmanifested) Brahman 116; Brah-

man-world 161

Capitalist 172

caste, caste system, casteism 11, 12, 15,

23, 41, 144, 216, 219, 223, 234, 251,

256

Chalcedonian formula 23, 107

Christ 58, 86, 89, 96-100, 102, 103, 116,

117, 119, 131, 132, 145, 146, 152,

153, 158, 159, 161-163, 165-167,

169, 174-176, 179, 181, 182, 189,

192, 194, 203, 210, 212, 221, 222,

226, 227, 232, 243, 248, 258, 289,

260, 262, 268; adhyatmic 164; as

avatar 67, 109, 110; as the basis of

tradition 32; as cit 73; as sacrifice

118, 157; Asiatic Christ 50; atoning

death of 154 commitment to 90, 108,

190, 195; conversion to 136; cosmic

87, 109; cross of 59, 118, 157; deity

of 193, 196, 228; divine and human

in 88; divinity 88; doctrine of 4, 49,

50, 51, 53, 58, 107, 112, 209; experi-

ence 115; Gandhi’s understanding of

220-221; hidden Christ 55, 56, 144;

Hindu response to 189, 190, 195;

imitation of 170; immanent 109, 116;

incarnation of 58, 67, 103, 117; Indian

interpreters of 55; lordship of 178,

179; message of 66, 210, 241; mystery

of 164; nature of 44; person of 116;

pleroma of 155; presence of 109, 112,

156; present in all systems 53, 164,

184, 185, 188; revelation in 73; risen

Christ 118, 255; salvation in 195;

significance of 44, 56; sinlessness of

117; spirit of 137; terms for 243-245;

unbound Christ 187, 188, 191, 195,

197; union with 251; uniqueness of

44, 64, 196; unknown Christ 183,

185, 187; working outside the church

155; works of 59, 111, 126, 127;

Christification 52, 55

christianising 136, 137

Christian action 170

christology 23, 43, 44, 50, 51, 53, 72, 75,

83, 87, 88, 113, 116, 124, 128, 159,

160, 178, 187, 188, 191, 195, 212,

245, 246

church 3, 19, 23, 25, 44, 49, 60, 75, 80,

83, 98, 101, 102, 104, 109, 111, 112,

120-123, 125, 131, 132, 141, 147,

151, 154-156, 166, 170, 171, 176,

179, 180, 183, 188, 190, 200, 202,

203, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212, 241,

242, 247, 254, 256, 260, 262

class struggle 172, 180

classless society 204

communal 9, 10, 12, 267

commune, communion 51, 64, 71, 74,

88, 102, 105-108, 117-119, 127, 147,

165

communication 4, 5, 10, 33, 103, 145,

162, 164, 180, 196, 204, 248

Communist 172, 240

community 5, 9, 21, 25, 26, 34, 60, 136,

145, 147, 148, 151, 176, 180, 196,

202, 203, 206-208, 242, 256

compassion 239, 240

conservative, conservatism 28, 92

consummation 51, 125

context, contextual 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13,

14, 22, 27, 28, 87, 108, 174, 187,

207-209, 213, 233, 239, 242, 248,

265, 267

contextualization 7, 213, 243, 250, 253,

259, 264, 265

contextualizing 4, 5, 7, 258

contextual theology 28, 259-261

conversion 14, 21, 68, 92, 97, 115, 136,

144, 146, 166, 202, 220, 222, 255,

268

cosmic covenant 157

council (s) 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 170,

187

creation, creator 12, 58, 78, 85, 101, 121,

126, 127, 128, 132, 135, 147, 152,

177, 178, 179, 182, 244, 263; doc-

trine of creation 12, 58; new creation

121, 125, 127, 128, 130, 134, 137,

140, 146, 263

creatio passiva 73

creed 15, 59, 83, 122, 124, 143, 166;

Apostolic Creed 15, 122, 124, 143,

166; Nicene Creed 120

criterion 96, 120, 261

cross 9, 44, 46, 52, 56, 59, 82, 83, 87,

100, 101, 106, 111, 113, 115, 117-

119, 125, 127, 157, 167, 178, 193,

194, 196, 202, 221, 223, 225, 228,

232, 233

culture (s) 8, 12, 15, 24, 71, 72, 143, 164,

191, 211, 239, 240, 249, 250, 258,

259, 265

dalit 242

denomination, denominationalism 12, 83,

266, 267

dharma 72, 217, 218, 234

dialogue 19, 28, 67, 142-145, 148, 149,

151, 154, 156, 158, 173, 177, 184,

187, 195, 196, 204, 205, 213

discipleship 207

dvaita 15, 112, 186, 192, 228

EATWOT 200, 206

ecumenical, ecumenism 173, 174, 181,

200, 201, 211, 212, 266, 283

energy 73, 128, 138, 141

epoche 157, 158

eschatology, eschatological 13, 86, 102,

157, 249

eschaton 146

eucharist, eucharistic 49, 109, 112, 156,

163, 180, 247

evangelical theology 27, 251, 262, 263,

266, 267

evangelistic 23, 98

evolution 38, 51, 121, 145, 176

exegesis 109, 182

existential 88, 104, 121, 158, 163

experience 16, 29, 31, 34-38, 88, 91, 92,

98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 108, 111, 115,

116, 122, 133, 136, 140-142, 154-

157, 169, 215, 218, 223, 224, 232,

234, 260

fall 152

Festschrift 173, 200, 201

folklore 251

freedom 12, 212

fulfillment 157, 176

Gospel, Gospel message 3-6, 13, 17-19,

20, 37, 41, 57, 59, 112, 120, 123,

126, 137, 140, 143, 144, 155, 162,

164, 170, 188, 191, 192, 196, 202,

204, 209, 211, 220, 229, 240, 241,

250, 256, 258, 260, 264

harijans 11, 21, 256

heresy, heretical 3, 7, 28, 56, 264

history, historical 13, 104, 117, 123,

127, 128, 139, 145-148, 165, 175-

178, 180, 181, 192-195, 213, 215,

221, 228, 239, 241, 247, 255, 260

Holy Spirit 32, 37, 44, 45, 54, 55, 58-60,

81, 93, 117, 118, 120, 126-129, 132-

134, 137, 138, 141, 144, 202, 210,

212, 243, 245, 250, 253, 256-258,

261, 262, 264, 268

human dignity, depravity, right 12, 203,

229, 246

humanity 7, 126, 204, 205, 226

humanization 52, 174, 179, 202, 204,

205

human nature 46, 225

human reason 69, 82, 182, 260

ideology (ies) 9, 53, 56, 132, 148, 173,

177, 179, 181, 187, 195, 206, 250,

264, 265

idolatry 16, 41, 42, 158, 218

image of God (imago Dei) 12, 145, 147,

176, 182, 211, 255

incarnation 7, 45, 58, 59, 67, 68, 74, 80,

83, 85, 88, 103, 107, 109, 110, 117,

124-129, 133, 164, 178, 186, 209,

224, 225, 227, 233, 248, 251

Indian Church 8, 66, 69, 75, 81, 106,

151, 200, 266, 267, 268

indigenisation 12, 20, 29, 63, 68, 69, 74,

75, 81, 95, 96, 103, 213, 243, 258,

264

indigenous 9, 21, 22, 24, 29, 54, 55, 63,

66, 68, 80, 139, 189, 199, 249

Indianising 5

infallibility 183

inspiration 133,177

interiority 156, 212

interpretation 107, 108, 111, 117, 136,

139, 140, 146, 148, 164, 211, 216,

226, 229, 233, 244; Christian 173;

Hindu 45, 235; of Christ 43, 46, 122,

188, 196, 215, 230, 232, 245; of

Christian message 28, 192, 240; of

Christianity 104, 107; of cross 111,

193; of moksha 108; of tradition 21;

Islamization 21

Jesus 3, 4, 42-45, 98, 103, 105, 109, 115-

118, 122-128, 132, 134, 135, 144,

152, 153, 163, 166, 167, 169, 176,

178, 186, 188, 193, 194, 196, 201,

202, 204, 206-208, 212, 215-217,

220, 229, 233, 242, 244, 257, 258,

259, 261, 268

2 8 32 8 2

journeying God 52

jnana marga 85, 107, 118, 119, 163, 164,

185, 253

justice 175, 195, 196, 200, 203, 204,

206, 207, 232; of God 79, 82, 87,

207; automatic justice 232; social jus-

tice 11, 13, 28, 147

karma 73, 79, 80, 101, 110, 111, 113,

126, 136, 138, 144, 147, 163, 203,

232, 246, 249, 251, 252, 255; karma

marga 85, 107, 118, 119, 160, 162,

164, 185, 253

kenosis 51, 119, 120, 178

kerygma 147, 183

Kingdom of God 45, 128, 129, 131, 132,

137, 141, 160, 176, 177, 189, 207,

208, 211, 233

Koran 96

liberalism, liberal 28, 167, 172, 219, 233

liberation 12, 17, 28, 48, 175, 176, 200,

211, 242, 257

linguism 11

literature 19, 25, 34, 42, 81, 105, 106,

142, 166, 173, 251, 266; bhakti 105,

106, 108; Christian 24, 85, 96; Hindu

107, 108, 136; Sanskrit 106; Tamil

106;Vedic 152

logic 15, 35, 78, 80, 103, 151, 161, 184,

186, 252, 260

logos 35, 51, 70, 74, 76, 86, 109, 148,

157, 184, 186

low caste 11

mahavakya 55, 58, 107, 118, 228, 245

martyr 221, 223

Marxism 171, 177, 180, 206

maya 4, 13, 45, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 89,

105, 117, 142, 143, 146, 147, 192,

193, 232, 244, 245, 251, 252

methodology, method 14, 68, 113, 164,

174

polytheism 16, 41, 251

poor, poverty 7, 207, 208, 210, 223

pramana 33, 34,

pre-understanding 4, 5, 6, 69, 264, 265

preparatio evangelica 24, 35, 79, 80,

personality - concept in Bhakti literature

108; Gandhi’s 215, 230; K.C. Sen’s

49; of Christ 89, 90, 146; of man 74,

90, 91, 101, 110, 119, 145, 147, 165,

171, 176, 193; one man’s personality

226

praxis 148

prayer 98, 154, 170

proselytism 146, 221, 222

reality - ethical 222; historical 45; Indian

29; Jesus’ 166; ladder of 232; second

order 13, 72, 193; spiritual 158; ulti-

mate 4, 97, 146, 163, 164, 251

reason 37, 81, 111, 129, 182, 183, 222

reconciliation 124, 126, 181, 189

redemption 127, 152, 194

reform 144, 210

reformation - in Hinduism 16; Protestant

32, 33, 112, 149

reincarnation 70, 80,

reinterpretation, reinterprete 7, 17, 19,

41, 122, 196, 254

relevance, relevant 3-7, 18, 19, 30, 85,

108, 166, 239, 255, 258, 259, 265,

267

religion 15, 72, 91, 92, 97, 131, 134, 136,

140, 143, 146, 153-155, 158, 179,

183, 184, 186, 191, 195, 196, 201,

204, 205, 208, 213, 217, 219, 220-

222, 224, 225, 227, 229, 231, 234,

235, 241, 259, 264, 250; theology of

71, 143; of Mlecchas 76; history of

142; cosmic 153, 184; Eastern 154;

equality of religions 217, 225, 229;

universal 235

mission - Christian mission 17, 26, 148,

157, 209, 216, 239; of Christian be-

liever 148, 212; of Goreh 78; of Jesus

125; of the church 132, 137, 155,

175, 176, 179, 180, 202, 205, 266; of

Gandhi 215, 216; of Radhakrishnan

235; of Ramakrishna 17, 224;

Ranthodji’s Medical mission 18; secu-

lar mission 121

missions - Brahmo missions 48; Bud-

dhist counter-missions 267; Chris-

tian missions 8, 16, 17, 23; emer-

gence of missions 21; Hindu missions

41; indigenous missions 22; Interna-

tional Review of Missions 200;

moksha 18, 85, 107, 108, 152, 252

monotheism, monism 16, 42, 78, 117,

251

motherhood of God 49, 106

mystery (of Christ) 73, 164, 188, 194

mystical, mystic, 37, 105, 106,156, 222,

223, 233, 263

nationalism 8, 9, 12, 28, 42, 64, 165

natural theology 69, 73, 154, 182

nature 82, 86, 194; Church’s nature 206;

nature of God 73; nature-supernature

relationship 69, 70, 71, 182; nature

and person 185, 227, 246

new dispensation 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 57

Nicene formula 44, 50,

Niyogi Commission 166

non-violence 171, 216-219 (see also

ahimsa)

Omega Point 131

pantheism 57, 58, 60, 69, 70, 78, 251

pentecost 117

pluralism 14, 19, 28, 160, 204, 234, 250,

267

pneumatology 60, 61, 117

pneumomonism 60

renaissance 16, 20, 42, 43, 46, 174, 175,

188

renunciation 18, 191, 220, 227, 252, 254

repentance 44, 52, 66, 85, 102, 132, 205

resurrection 44, 45, 52, 59, 66, 83, 88,

89, 102, 125-127, 140, 155, 167,

178, 191, 193, 194, 196, 202, 221,

233, 255

Rethinking Group, rethinking Christian-

ity 116, 123, 190

revelation 3, 35, 36, 44, 48, 49, 53, 54,

58, 59, 70, 73, 78, 82, 87, 92, 99, 105,

109, 123, 133, 143, 154, 167, 181-

184, 186, 189, 221, 222, 258, 263,

267

revolution (s) 14, 18, 28, 47, 65, 124,

172, 173, 175-177, 179, 181, 186,

212

sabbath 208

saccidananda 50, 55, 72, 73, 85, 154,

157, 243, 245

sacraments 75, 80, 132, 170, 183, 247

sacrifice 5, 49, 82, 118, 126, 127, 151,

152, 153, 157

Saiva Siddhanta 110

salvation 18, 44, 52, 58, 61, 72, 73, 82,

83, 87, 100, 102, 104, 121, 127, 132,

140, 145, 148, 152, 162, 174, 179,

188, 193, 195, 209, 248, 255

sansara 232, 244

sanskrit 23, 43, 76, 102, 120, 151, 183,

223, 227, 240, 243, 246

sanctification 100, 106, 183, 255

sanyasa 66,

scriptures 7, 22, 32, 36, 37, 38, ,48, 49,

54, 80, 81, 87, 99, 103, 111, 112,

120, 121, 124, 131, 133, 134, 135,

155, 160, 164, 166, 167, 181, 191,

222, 230, 231, 253, 257, 258, 260,

261, 266

secular, secularism, secularization 9, 11,

2 8 52 8 4

12, 18, 19, 174, 175, 203, 204

self-sacrifice 52, 57, 85, 152, 178, 19

sermon on the mount 9, 42, 76, 220

sin 46, 52, 53, 73, 76, 79, 82, 100, 101,

106, 110, 111, 113, 126, 127, 145,

152, 155, 177, 193, 194, 202, 225,

228, 229, 248, 261-2631

sinlesslness 117

social justice 12,13,28,

sources 22,

spirit - doctrine of 57-60; of Christ 87,

117, 119, 137, 155, 157, 166, 171; as

contrasted to matter 89, 90, 131, 148,

156, 163, 219, 246; of the times 139;

as Holy Spirit 158, 182, 185, 245,

253, 256, 257; human spirit 176;

swadeshi spirit 219

spirituality 6, 19, 29, 57, 154, 158, 166,

176, 177, 181, 186, 192, 193, 218,

230, 233, 252

subordination 107

substitution, penal 52, 56, 76, 79, 80,

100, 111, 118, 178, 196

suffering 44, 85, 100, 101, 111, 119,

179, 180, 194, 209

supernature 69, 70, 71, 75, 99, 131, 140,

141, 182, 183

syncretism 18-20, 28, 45, 53, 56, 177,

233, 235

systematic 32, 49, 103, 115, 164, 199,

213, 217, 241, 258, 266, 267

Tamil 23, 105, 200

Theandrism 185, 186

theological education 29, 30, 182

theologization, theologisation 3, 4, 29,

187

third world 7, 257

Thomism 69, 70, 75, 186

tradition (s) 6, 16, 21, 22-25, 33, 36, 37,

46, 56, 86, 104-106, 108, 110, 112,

121, 124, 132, 133, 153-155, 188,

207, 208, 240, 262

transform 141, 208

transformation 146, 185, 202

transmigration 70

trinity 44, 50, 58, 60, 61, 68, 74, 86, 120,

125, 127, 128, 139, 157, 183, 185,

186, 245, 246; trinitarianism 118

Truth 217, 218, 234

uniqueness, unique 156, 167, 233; of

Christianity 128; of Jesus 221, 223

unitarian, unitarianism 45

untouchables 11, 13, 216, 256

universal, universalism 7, 59, 60, 102,

104, 119, 122, 179, 185, 188, 191,

212, 225, 226, 228, 233, 255

Upanishads 16, 17, 42, 58, 86, 96, 133,

155-158, 233

vaishnava 47, 48, 105, 115, 215, 224

varnashrama dharma 15, 219

Vatican II 180, 183

vedanta 38, 64, 69, 70, 68, 71-75, 78, 79,

81, 82, 89, 104, 118, 183, 227, 247

vegetarianism 218

violence 170, 207, 216

virgin birth 44, 130

vishishtadvaita 15, 38, 104-106, 110,

228, 248

vision, ecstatic 223, 224

worship 5, 12, 15, 42, 44, 45, 66, 72, 74,

97, 102, 105, 122, 147, 148, 163,

191, 206, 218, 227, 247, 251, 257,

262, 264, 267

wrath of God 82, 87

yagna 160, 162

yin-yang 252, 254, 269

yoga 18, 96, 136, 223, 234; prema yoga

85, 86

2 8 72 8 6

PERSON INDEX

Boyd, Robin 22, 23, 26, 35, 36, 38, 42,

46, 52, 61, 64, 72, 74, 87, 90, 93, 109,

121, 145, 153, 158, 165, 168, 239,

240, 249, 252

Brunner, E. 124, 149, 172

Calvin 258

Carey, William 24

Chakkarai, Vengal 115-120, 138, 149,

169, 190, 253, 258

Chandran Russel 68, 187, 197, 199-206,

226

Chenchiah 25, 36, 38, 98, 115, 121-142,

149, 169, 176, 178, 190

Cullman, O. 193

Das, Motilal 49

Dawson, Christopher 171

De Chardin, Pierre Teilhard 131

Devanandan, P.D. 25, 142-149, 169, 173,

193

Devi, Sarada 47

Dey, Lal Behari 81-83

Dodd, C.H. 171

Dom Henri Le Saux (see Abhishitananda)

Duff, Alexander 24, 81, 151

Fakirbhai, Dhanjibhai 85-87

Farquhar, J.N. 24, 67, 80, 106

Gandhi, Indira 12

Gandhi, M.K., 9, 10, 17, 25, 92, 115,

141, 165, 215-223, 252, 268

George, S.K. 165-167, 216

George, Mary 165

Ghose, K.S. 49

Gokhale, Gopala Krishna 17

Goreh, Nehmiah 25, 38, 76-81, 84, 253

Goreh, Lakshmi 76

Grant, Sarah 155

Abhishiktananda 154-158, 168

Abrecht, Paul 172

Adiseshaiah, M. 171

Ahmed, Mirza Ghulam 21

Amirtham, Samuel 201

Andrews, C.F. 49, 255

Animananda 84

Appasami, A.J. 36-38, 104-113, 115,

248, 253

Appasami Pillai, A.S. 106

Aquinas, Thomas 3, 23, 38, 69, 73, 172,

182, 258

Aristotle 23, 172

Athyal, Saphir 212-214

Augustine 172

Aurobindo 38, 121, 130

Azariah V.S. 49

Baago, Kaj 26, 67, 70, 71, 270

Banerjea, K.M. 151-154

Banerjea, S.N. 49

Banerjea, Kalicharan 63-65

Banerjee, H.C. 49

Banerjee, Bhawani Charan

(see Upadhyaya)

Barth, Karl 3, 92

Berdyaev, Nicolas 171

Berkhof 258

Bhairavi 223

Bhave, Vinobha 11, 18

Bishop Westcott 6

Bonhoeffer, D. 140

Borthwick, Meredith 49

Bose, Mathuranath 46-48

Bose, Subhash Chandra 10

Grregorios, Paulos Mar 211-212

Harrison, M.H. 30

Heaton 65

Hegel 264

Heiler, F. 113

Hengal 246

Hingorani, Anand T. 216

Hogg, A.G. 258

Huegel, Friedrich Von 106

Iqbal, Mohammed 20

Iraneues 32

Jaisingh, Herbert 258, 269

Job, G.V. 138

Jones, Stanley 222, 268

Kabir 105

Keithahn, Ralph 171

Khan, Syed Ahmed 20, 21

Khasim Bhai 77

Klostermaier, Klaus 159-165, 168, 190,

248, 249

Kraemer, Hendrick 143, 171

Krishna Pillai 106

Krishnapillai, H.A. 106

Kukade, Sahu Daji 77

Kumar, Prosonno 42

Lee, Jung Young 269

Luther, Martin 31, 32, 172

Madhava 160, 185

Madhavji, Kahanji 106

Malik, Jadhu 224

Mangalwadi, Vishal 209-211

Manikkavasagar 105

Manu 15, 151

Marshman, J. 44

Martin, Henry 21

Martyr, Justin 70

Ranson, Charles 30

Ranthodji 18, 77

Rao, Venkatasami (Master CVV) 121,

130, 132

Robinson, J.A.T. 149

Rodman 65

Roy, Raja Rammohan 16, 17, 25, 41-46,

48, 50, 55, 190

Roy, G.G. 49

Roy, B.V. 49

Sadhu Sunder Singh 36, 38, 75, 96-104,

106, 253, 255

Sadhu Mathai 171

Sadiq, John W. 216

Sai Baba 159

Samartha, S.J. 26, 28, 56, 169, 187-196

Samuel, Vinay Kumar 206-209

Saraswati, Dayananda 16, 48, 63

Sauch Gispert 68

Schleiermacher 264

Schweitzer, Albert 116

Sen, Keshub Chunder 44, 46-57, 61, 63-

65, 72, 74

Sen, P.K. 49

Sen, Piari Mohun 47

Shankara 38, 71, 105, 110, 160, 185,

192, 232

Singh, Surjit 88-90, 93, 248, 255

Singh, Maharaja Dulip 77

Slater, T.E. 49

Smith, William 76

St, Gregory of Nyassa 212

St. Francis 270

St. Teresa 270

Stokes, S.E. 97

Streeter, B.H. 106, 113

Subbarao 25, 190

Sudarsanam, A.N. 138

Sugden, Christopher 209

Swami Vivekananda 17, 37, 63-65, 190,

201, 220, 223-231, 235

Swami Akhilananda 190

Tagore, Dwaraknath 42

Takenaka 14

Tertullian 32

Thangasami D.A. 121, 138, 149

Thomas M.M. 26, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61,

158, 169-181, 185-188, 197, 205,

212, 220, 224

Thomas, the Apostle 23

Tilak, Narayan Vaman 76, 106, 249

Tillich, Paul 3, 56, 172, 186, 258

Totapuri 224

Upadhyaya, Brahmabandhab 36, 38, 63-

76, 84, 96, 248, 253

Valmiki 163

Varghese, Paul (see Paulos Mar

Gregorios)

Victoria II 77

Xavier, Francis 23

Zetland, Marquess 49

Ziegenbalg 24

2 8 92 8 8

Melanchthon 258

Melchizedek 157

Miller, William 115, 149

Monchanin, Jules 154

Moses, David G. 90-93

Mozoomdar, P.C. 49, 57-61

Mozoomdar, B. 49

Mueller, Max 49, 78

Naraharidas (Upadhyaya) 74

Narayan, J.P. 18

Nehru, Jawahar Lal 9-11, 138

Newbigin, L. 158

Nicholls, Bruce 255, 264, 269

Niebuhr, Reinhold 171, 172

Nimbarka 160

Nobili, Robert de 23, 24, 67, 69, 75, 154

Otto, Rudolf 106, 248

Panikkar, Raymondo 26, 36, 56, 155,

158, 169, 181-187, 190, 253

Paramahamsa, Ramakrishna 16, 17, 37,

48, 49, 63-65, 137, 190, 223-225,

229

Parananda 64, 84

Parekh, Manilal 25, 49, 190

Paul (the Apostle) 6, 116, 239, 260, 266,

271

Paul, K.T. 142

Pennamma 173

Philip 257, 258

Prabhu 216

Radhakrishnan 17, 25, 89-92, 187, 190,

228, 230-235, 241, 252

Rahner, Karl 56

Rajneesh 18

Ramabai, Pandita 76, 77

Ramana 164

Ramanuja 38, 105, 106, 109, 110, 113,

160, 185, 192, 248