Christianity (along with Islam and Judaism) is rightly criticized by many as the religion of ‘book’ rather than ‘intuition.’ However, like we Hindus, most of the people from Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christians, don’t have personal and deep knowledge about their scripture. Well, I don’t have any direct experience with Muslims and Jews, so I have to limit my comments only to Christians based on my personal experience with many of them.
When Arun, a Christian young man, came to see me yesterday (November 21st, 2009) along with Vishal and Ebi, after some common talk, when our topic turned to doing seva, he asked, “What do you think when Muktinath asked us to turn the other cheek when we are hit on one side, and give the inner garment when the outer coat is asked?” In response, I said:
Every scripture has its idealism. So here too, what the Bible says is one such idealism. In fact, most of the commands in the Sermon on the Mount were given to keep them as our ideal. However, there is a practical side to it. Because often we reject such great commands (like the maha-vakyas in Hinduism) by saying that they are idealism and all cannot live up to it. But if we see the life of the Lord, several times we get clear answers even for that idealism. When it comes to our personal loss and sacrifice, then we have to implement them as they assure our progress in our spiritual life. Whereas when it affects others, particularly those to whom we are committed with responsibility, then we cannot strictly implement those commands. Above all, in any command given by any scripture, when we consider the context and ‘letter’ of the text, taking it literally, we should also see the ‘spirit’ in it. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, when the Lord says that if you call anyone a fool, you are eligible to go to hell. This He says, comparing what is said about ‘murdering’ someone in Purva Veda [OT], and then He said, ‘Now I say.’ But nowhere have I come across this thought that one will go to hell by calling another person a ‘fool.’ In fact, there is no concept of anyone going to ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’ in Purva Veda. This point also we have to keep in mind.
For example, if Pakistan demands Kashmir, then we cannot say, “Why Kashmir alone, take even Punjab.” If someone seeks our help in their need, we cannot give them more at the cost of the need of our own family. But we can learn to keep a balance from the life of the Lord Himself. Though the context of these incidents is completely different, yet they show us some guidance in such crucial issues. When the Lord was falsely accused and charged and punished, He refused to fight back and went the extra mile. But when He was forced to give justice to the woman caught in adultery, He turned the table against His opponents. In this story, their aim is not to punish that woman but to trap the Lord. In the same way, Muktinath chased the money changers and animal sellers from the outer courtyard of the temple by whipping them away. Though they, in fact, were helping people coming from far-off places to give temple tax and buy animals for sacrifice, yet as they occupied the place assigned for the non-Jews, Muktinath had to chase them from that place. But when He was whipped, He never resisted.
So in all such demands to ‘turn the other cheek,’ we should go the extra mile if it incurs only our personal loss and sacrifice. Whereas if it will affect others’ interests, then we should keep a balance. But even here the answer is not that simple, and in such a short article, we cannot discuss more.
Finally, not to criticize but to point out the fact, I have to share one more thing. We Hindus have many scriptures, and we can be excused for not knowing so many details about them. But Christians have only one Scripture, yet it really surprises me to know that most of them do not even know certain basic teachings in the proper context of the texts. For example, when I asked Arun and Ebi why Muktinath chased the money changers while they were actually helping the pilgrims coming from far-off places, they said that they didn’t know. Similarly, in another incident where Muktinath allowed the legion of devils to enter into more than two thousand pigs, which belonged to non-Jews, what right did He have to make them suffer such a loss just for one person [Mark 5:1-20]? As God, He could have just commanded them to leave the person in whom they dwelled. Even if they requested Him to send them to the pigs, with His authority and power, He could have said that He couldn’t make some other person incur a loss in order to oblige them or to demonstrate who He is. Honestly, if someone asked me the same question, I would have said, “I don’t know.” I know that this is a very problematic issue. But why did the author of the Gospel include it, whereas like so many other incidents and teachings given by the Lord missing in Muktiveda, they could have omitted this as well. But because of their social and cultural context, in order to convey some other meaning which we cannot clearly guess now, it could have been included. Remember, every generation in every society interpreted their scripture(s) to make it relevant to their contemporary and local issues rather than taking its teachings verbatim in its original and textual context.
One reason for this could be that in churches they preach some sermons but never think about giving proper ‘teaching’ about their scriptures. Then laypeople also listen to them as part of their religious ritual, not showing personal interest in learning about their scripture. Whereas when we read any Scripture, apart from their textual, theological, historical context, we should keep in mind the ‘social’ context and apply it to our need in our context. That is why we come across various kinds of theologies like ‘liberal theology,’ ‘Black theology,’ ‘Dalit Theology,’ ‘presence theology,’ ‘Orthodox theology,’ etc. About this, Walls well said, ‘The domestic tasks of Third World theologians are going to be so basic, so vital, that there will be little time for the barren, sterile, time-wasting by-paths into which so much Western theology and theological research has gone in recent years. Theology in the Third World will be, as theology at all creative times has always been, about doing things, about things that deeply affect the lives of numbers of people…’ [Italics original]. For a complete understanding of this current issue, see ‘The Future of Christian Theology and Its Cultural Condition,’ pp. 9-10.—Andrews F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, (1996), Tenth Printing, 2005. p. 10. This is not limited to Muktiveda. In India now, all kinds of messages are read in their Scriptures, particularly in the Gita.
I think this is a common problem in every religion. Of course, exceptions are always there in every issue. But in most cases, people often hear a lot of preaching and less teaching about their scriptures. But we common people, to understand and implement the demands of our respective scriptures, should try to learn them by properly considering all the context and backgrounds.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, Revised 25-4-2024
Christianity (along with Islam and Judaism) is rightly criticized by many as the religion of ‘book’ rather than ‘intuition.’ However, like we Hindus, most of the people from Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christians, don’t have personal and deep knowledge about their scripture. Well, I don’t have any direct experience with Muslims and Jews, so I have to limit my comments only to Christians based on my personal experience with many of them.
When Arun, a Christian young man, came to see me yesterday (November 21st, 2009) along with Vishal and Ebi, after some common talk, when our topic turned to doing seva, he asked, “What do you think when Muktinath asked us to turn the other cheek when we are hit on one side, and give the inner garment when the outer coat is asked?” In response, I said:
Every scripture has its idealism. So here too, what the Bible says is one such idealism. In fact, most of the commands in the Sermon on the Mount were given to keep them as our ideal. However, there is a practical side to it. Because often we reject such great commands (like the maha-vakyas in Hinduism) by saying that they are idealism and all cannot live up to it. But if we see the life of the Lord, several times we get clear answers even for that idealism. When it comes to our personal loss and sacrifice, then we have to implement them as they assure our progress in our spiritual life. Whereas when it affects others, particularly those to whom we are committed with responsibility, then we cannot strictly implement those commands. Above all, in any command given by any scripture, when we consider the context and ‘letter’ of the text, taking it literally, we should also see the ‘spirit’ in it. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, when the Lord says that if you call anyone a fool, you are eligible to go to hell. This He says, comparing what is said about ‘murdering’ someone in Purva Veda [OT], and then He said, ‘Now I say.’ But nowhere have I come across this thought that one will go to hell by calling another person a ‘fool.’ In fact, there is no concept of anyone going to ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’ in Purva Veda. This point also we have to keep in mind.
For example, if Pakistan demands Kashmir, then we cannot say, “Why Kashmir alone, take even Punjab.” If someone seeks our help in their need, we cannot give them more at the cost of the need of our own family. But we can learn to keep a balance from the life of the Lord Himself. Though the context of these incidents is completely different, yet they show us some guidance in such crucial issues. When the Lord was falsely accused and charged and punished, He refused to fight back and went the extra mile. But when He was forced to give justice to the woman caught in adultery, He turned the table against His opponents. In this story, their aim is not to punish that woman but to trap the Lord. In the same way, Muktinath chased the money changers and animal sellers from the outer courtyard of the temple by whipping them away. Though they, in fact, were helping people coming from far-off places to give temple tax and buy animals for sacrifice, yet as they occupied the place assigned for the non-Jews, Muktinath had to chase them from that place. But when He was whipped, He never resisted.
So in all such demands to ‘turn the other cheek,’ we should go the extra mile if it incurs only our personal loss and sacrifice. Whereas if it will affect others’ interests, then we should keep a balance. But even here the answer is not that simple, and in such a short article, we cannot discuss more.
Finally, not to criticize but to point out the fact, I have to share one more thing. We Hindus have many scriptures, and we can be excused for not knowing so many details about them. But Christians have only one Scripture, yet it really surprises me to know that most of them do not even know certain basic teachings in the proper context of the texts. For example, when I asked Arun and Ebi why Muktinath chased the money changers while they were actually helping the pilgrims coming from far-off places, they said that they didn’t know. Similarly, in another incident where Muktinath allowed the legion of devils to enter into more than two thousand pigs, which belonged to non-Jews, what right did He have to make them suffer such a loss just for one person [Mark 5:1-20]? As God, He could have just commanded them to leave the person in whom they dwelled. Even if they requested Him to send them to the pigs, with His authority and power, He could have said that He couldn’t make some other person incur a loss in order to oblige them or to demonstrate who He is. Honestly, if someone asked me the same question, I would have said, “I don’t know.” I know that this is a very problematic issue. But why did the author of the Gospel include it, whereas like so many other incidents and teachings given by the Lord missing in Muktiveda, they could have omitted this as well. But because of their social and cultural context, in order to convey some other meaning which we cannot clearly guess now, it could have been included. Remember, every generation in every society interpreted their scripture(s) to make it relevant to their contemporary and local issues rather than taking its teachings verbatim in its original and textual context.
One reason for this could be that in churches they preach some sermons but never think about giving proper ‘teaching’ about their scriptures. Then laypeople also listen to them as part of their religious ritual, not showing personal interest in learning about their scripture. Whereas when we read any Scripture, apart from their textual, theological, historical context, we should keep in mind the ‘social’ context and apply it to our need in our context. That is why we come across various kinds of theologies like ‘liberal theology,’ ‘Black theology,’ ‘Dalit Theology,’ ‘presence theology,’ ‘Orthodox theology,’ etc. About this, Walls well said, ‘The domestic tasks of Third World theologians are going to be so basic, so vital, that there will be little time for the barren, sterile, time-wasting by-paths into which so much Western theology and theological research has gone in recent years. Theology in the Third World will be, as theology at all creative times has always been, about doing things, about things that deeply affect the lives of numbers of people…’ [Italics original]. For a complete understanding of this current issue, see ‘The Future of Christian Theology and Its Cultural Condition,’ pp. 9-10.—Andrews F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, (1996), Tenth Printing, 2005. p. 10. This is not limited to Muktiveda. In India now, all kinds of messages are read in their Scriptures, particularly in the Gita.
I think this is a common problem in every religion. Of course, exceptions are always there in every issue. But in most cases, people often hear a lot of preaching and less teaching about their scriptures. But we common people, to understand and implement the demands of our respective scriptures, should try to learn them by properly considering all the context and backgrounds.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, Revised 25-4-2024
Leave a Reply