Bee without Hive
There’s a well-known saying among Christians: “A Christian without a church is like a bee without a hive.” This analogy holds some truth when understood from the perspective of Muktiveda, where the Church is seen as the body of the Lord. However, when the significance of the Church—as a body of believers growing together in bhakti (devotion)—is interpreted through the lens of Christianity as an organized religion, it can sometimes distort the Muktivedic view.
As I often say, while we may have a personal fellowship with the Lord, there is no such thing as private bhakti. We either sail together or sing together as followers of Muktinath, despite our differences on every level, including theology. This does not mean I am against Christianity as an organized religion or against the Church (especially the physical building) as part of it. Without minimum discipline, rules, and regulations, even normal human life would descend into chaos and confusion. Naturally, any organized religion requires structure, rules, and discipline to function effectively. Therefore, I am not opposed to the Church as part of an institutional religion.
Particularly for Christians born and raised within organized religion, the Church plays a vital role in meeting their social needs, such as birth, marriage, and death. They have every right to maintain their churches (buildings) and even develop a special emotional attachment to them, just as many Hindus have towards their temples, even though the role of temples in their lives is different. However, when the life and teachings of the Lord are twisted to emphasize the importance of church buildings, it raises some concerns.
While I understand why a bishop might emphasize the importance of the Church—since his life, movement, and being are deeply tied to the institution—I take issue when this perspective is used to interpret Muktiveda in a way that distorts its true message. If the bishop refers to being “ecclesiastically-minded” in terms of focusing on the body of the Lord, I can accept that term. But if it refers to church buildings and congregations as part of organized religion, I have to question it.
Fortunately, I found clarity from another Muktivedic scholar who helped me understand the role of the Temple in the life of Muktinath and within Muktiveda. Below are a few points from N.T. Wright that aided my understanding:
Excerpts:
From A. J. Appasamy’s A Bishop’s Story:
_”For this, our authority is the Fourth Gospel. This, the most mystical of the Gospels, places the ministry of Jesus mainly in Jerusalem. No mere ecclesiastical bias leads the writer to lay this emphasis. He mentions many facts which a biased writer would have found it natural and advantageous to suppress. Jesus commends Nathaniel who prays under a fig tree. The cleansing of the Temple, an act which a mere love of ecclesiasticism would have found hard to understand, is placed at the beginning of the ministry, thus going against the Synoptists, who place it at the end. Again, here occurs the great utterance, ‘God is Spirit: and they that worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24). These facts considerably modify the notion that the Evangelist was an ecclesiastically-minded person. The same Jesus who loved solitude, who crossed the Sea of Galilee for quiet, who agonized among the trees on the Mount of Olives, also loved the Temple and prayed in it with others. His ministry finds its center here. He who took such an independent attitude with regard to the interpretation of the Law and the Sabbath could not be said to have prayed in the Temple simply because the Jews were in the habit of doing so. His attendance at the Temple must be as significant as His other acts; it must mean that He puts His sanction on institutional religion as well as on the mystical religion that seeks God in the depths of a forest or a cave.”_
From N. T. Wright’s Paul: A Biography:
_”The Temple in Jerusalem was regarded as the focal point of creation, of heaven and earth coming together….”_
_”Creation as a whole is a Temple, the heaven-and-earth reality in which God wants to dwell, and the mode of his presence in that Temple (as anyone in the ancient world would have known perfectly well) was the ‘image,’ the cult object that would represent the creator to the world and that wider world before the creator. Complicated? Yes, but it only seems that way to us, because our culture has done its best to unlearn this kind of thought. Complex but coherent, a bit like creation itself, in fact, or indeed like a human being.”_
_”Jesus would come from heaven to earth not—as in much popular fantasy—in order to scoop up his people and take them back to ‘heaven,’ but in order to complete the already inaugurated task of colonizing ‘earth,’ the human sphere, with the life of ‘heaven,’ God’s sphere. God’s plan had always been to unite all things in heaven and on earth in Jesus, which meant, from the Jewish point of view, that Jesus was the ultimate Temple, the heaven-and-earth place. This, already accomplished in his person, was now being implemented through his spirit….”_
Conclusion:
As per Prof. Wright, the Temple represents God’s sphere, not necessarily a church building, although the latter remains an essential part of organized religion. The reality of God’s presence, which is “already accomplished in [Muktinath’s] person,” is now being implemented through His Spirit, allowing anyone to be part of the universal mandali (fellowship) as the body of the Lord, without needing to be part of any local church, which belongs to the human sphere.
Though the bishop insists on the importance of the church as part of the institution, I am glad to see that he also acknowledges the sanction of Muktinath for mystical religion, which seeks God in the solitude of forests or caves.
Gurukulam
Revised: 27-8-2024
Bee without hive
There is a famous slogan among Christians that: A Christian without Church is bee without a hive. There is some truth in it if it is understood from the Muktivedic point of view that Church is the body of the Lord. But when the importance of Church which means body of the Lord having fellowship with each other to grow in our bhakti is interpreted from the point of Christianity as the Organized religion then it might distort the Muktivedic view. As I often say we might have personal fellowship with the Lord but we don’t have any PRIVATE bhakti. We either sail together or sing together as the followers of Muktinath—in spite of our differences on every level, including theology. This does not mean that I am against Christianity as an Organized Religion or against Church [particularly building] as part of it. Without having minimum discipline, rules and regulation leaving any Organization even normal human life will become mere chaos and confusion. So naturally any Organized religion needs a structure, rules and regulation and discipline to implement them. So I am not against the Church as part of an Institutional religion. And particularly for the Christians who born and grew within that Organized Religion cannot survive it as it meets their social needs like birth, marriage and death. So they have every right to have their Church [buildings] and even to have some kind of special emotional attachment with it as many Hindus have towards their temple structure, though it has completely different role to play in their life. But to emphasis its importance when the life and teaching of the Lord is twisted to endorse such view it bit surprises me. Of course when I read the following points from a Bishop I am not surprised as he lives, moves and his being is with an Institution. But when he wrote that, ‘These facts modify considerably the notion that the Evangelist was an ecclesiastically-minded person,’ I have to register my own reservation against such interpretation of Muktiveda by the process of Text Torturing to emphasize one’s favorite view. If the Bishop means ‘ecclesiastically-minded’ keeping only the body of the Lord, then I will accept that word. But if it means ‘church building and congregation’ in it as part of Organized Religion, then I have to question it.
However, I get proper help from another Muktivedic scholar who helped me to understand the role of Temple both in the life of Muktinath and in Muktiveda. So I am simply giving few points from N.T. Wright who helped me to understand it clearly.
First extract is from A. J. Appasamy, A Bishop’s Story, CLS, Madras, 1969 and next is from N. T. Wright, Paul A Biography, San Francisco: Harper One, 2018,
For this our authority is the Fourth Gospel. This, the most mystical of the Gospels, places the ministry of Jesus mainly in Jerusalem. No mere ecclesiastical bias leads the writer to lay this emphasis. He mentions many facts which a biased writer would have found it natural and advantageous to suppress. Jesus commends Nathaniel who prays under a fig tree. The cleansing of the Temple, an act which a mere love of ecclesiasticism would have found hard to understand, is placed at the beginning of the ministry thus going against the Synoptists, who place it at the end. Again, here occurs the great utterance, ‘God is Spirit: and they that worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24). These facts modify considerably the notion that the Evangelist was an ecclesiastically-minded person. The same Jesus who loved solitude, who passed over the sea of Galilee to the other side for quiet, who agonized among the trees on the slope of the Mount of Olives, also loved the Temple and prayed in it with others. His ministry finds its centre here. He who took such an independent attitude with regard to the interpretation of the Law and the Sabbath could not be said to have prayed in the Temple simply because the Jews were in the habit of doing so. His attendance at the Temple must be as significant as His other acts; it must mean that He puts His sanction on institutional religion as well as on the mystical religion that seeks God in the depths of a forest or a cave.—Bishop A. J. Appasamy p. 39 [Emphasize added.]
…the Temple in Jerusalem was regarded as the focal point of creation, of heaven and earth coming together….—Prof N. T. Wright, p. 224
…Creation as a whole is a Temple, the heaven-and-earthy reality in which God wants to dwell, and the mode of his presence in that Temple (as anyone in the ancient world would have known perfectly well) was the “image,” the cult object that would represent the creator to the world and that wider world before the creator. Complicated? Yes, but it only seems that way to us, because our culture has done its best to unlearn this kind of thought. Complex but coherent, a bit like creation itself, in fact, or indeed like a human being.—ibid. p. 289
…Jesus would come from heaven to earth not—as in much popular fantasy—in order to scoop up his people and take them back to “heaven,” but in order to complete the already inaugurated task of colonizing “earth,” the human sphere, with the life of “heaven,” God’s sphere. God’s plan had always been to unite all things in heaven and on earth in Jesus, which meant, from the Jewish point of view, that Jesus was the ultimate Temple, the heaven-and-earth place. This, already accomplished in his person, was now being implemented through his spirit….—ibid. p. 401
Temple as per Prof. Wright is ‘God’s sphere’ but not definitely any Church building however it is an essential part of an Organized Religion. When this reality which is ‘already accomplished in his [Muktinath] person, was now being implemented through his spirit’, thus giving space for anyone to remain part of the universal mandali as body of the Lord without being part of any local church which belongs to ‘human sphere’. However though Bishop insisted the importance of church as part of Institution I am happy to know that he also endorses the sanction of Muktinath that, ‘He puts His sanction ….on the mystical religion that seeks God in the depths of a forest or a cave.
Gurukulam
Revised 27-8-2024
Leave a Reply