The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance,
M. M. Thomas, CLS, Madras, 1970, repr. 1991.
reviewed by Dayanand Bharati
Any serious student of Indian Christian Theology will find this book most valuable. Though 25 years have gone since it was written, yet it still speaks with clarity and relevance to our situation today.
M. M. Thomas gives a precise sketch of the development of Indian theology on Christ beginning from the father of modern India, Raja Ram Mohan Roy. In his selection of the leaders of the Indian renaissance Thomas exercises great skill. He gives a chronological development that leads the reader properly to the main themes which are most relevant to form Indian Christian theology.
The way Thomas critiques the renaissance leaders’ weak understanding of Jesus by giving the Indian church leaders’ defence helps the reader to go back to the very days of those men. Thomas keeps a balance by evaluating the views of both the renaissance leaders and their church critics. This majority portion of the book (8 of 10 chapters) is a valuable resource for any student to get all major information without the hectic task of personally locating and reading all the original materials.
Thomas’ ninth chapter gives a systematic sketch of the ‘Theology of National Resistance’, mostly influenced by rising Indian nationalism and Mahatma Gandhi. Particularly those Christians who related closely with Gandhiji were more influenced by his spirit than by the central message of the Bible. As Gandhism is dead along with Gandhiji one must question the relevance of the theology of national resistance to our present situation, although we can clearly learn valuable lessons from it. If the cross is merely ‘”…a perfect historic example” of the victory of love over evil’1 and ‘no truth worth knowing can ever be taught; it can only be lived’2, then one wonders about the relevance of the great commission itself, particularly of the word ‘make disciples…and teach’ (Mt 28:19, 20; cf. Rom. 10:14, 15).
Though nobody can deny the vital role of the ‘aroma of spiritual truth’ that ought to come from a Christ bhakta’s life, yet the whole Bible is a message preached to the people by God and not a mere record of the ‘truth worth knowing’ out of the life of God’s chosen people of the Old Testament and the New Israel of the New Testament. And considering the life of the chosen people in the Old Testament and the problems recorded in the life of the New Testament believers and apostles (e.g. in the Corinthian church and several personal shortcomings in the apostles’ lives), none would have followed Christ in the succeeding generations if this theory were true. The gospel is preached not out of or because of the aroma of spiritual life of a believer, but in spite of his life, because it is a message about what God has done through Christ on the cross.
Thomas’ most significant statement in this book is in his tenth and last chapter, ‘Epilogue: Criteria for an Indian Christian Theology’. Many helpful insights are shared but the major thrust to a theology of ecumenism, cosmic Christ, and universalism is troublesome. I must limit myself to a few points from pages 302 to 310. Thomas rightly points out the inevitability of ‘one-sidedness’ in theology since ‘no theology can do justice to the fulness of the gospel’3.
We can also grant, but with increasing suspicion, that ‘it is not impossible for some new non-Biblical categories to be very meaningful vehicles for the Gospel in certain contemporary situations’4. But Thomas pushes on to radical conclusions about
‘The tremendous significance for the future of theology of patterns of secular humanism which have become worldwide in our generation through the development of science and the impact of technology and ideas of social justice…. The process of secularization…(is a) product of the ferment of the Gospel working on the mythical and metaphysical patterns and transforming them. If this is true, as I believe it is, Bonhoeffer’s idea of the Church speaking of God and Christ in a “secular fashion” and the theologies of “secular Christianity” have a new universality and relevance. We are only at the beginnings of building up a theology of dialogue with the secular mind of our time. Perhaps even here, perhaps here more than elsewhere, it is necessary to emphasize the ancillary (as contrasted with normative) character of understanding in faith’.5
As a Hindu bhakta of Christ one thing surprises me that prevails among Christians. In all the circles, evangelicals, liberals, orthodox, etc., why is so much importance given to secondary issues, with arguments, debates, organised camps and meetings, all at the cost of the core of the Gospel?
The centre of the Christian faith is the cross–not a symbol of love but as an atonement. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ can be understood as well as interpreted only in the unchanging categories of sin, salvation and redemption. Though we can legitimately speak of theology as ‘situational’6, as ‘an act of confessing the faith in the specific contemporary situation’7, yet how far will this ‘secular Christianity’ wherein ‘understanding in faith’ is ‘ancillary’ as contrasted with ‘normative’ be true to the understanding of faith by the apostles of Jesus Christ?
Building a theology in dialogue with the secular mind may be essential as secular humanism becomes world-wide in our generation, and new non-Biblical categories may prove meaningful for communicating the gospel, but will all of this help us understand the FAITH which is GIVEN to the church, viz. the apostolic witness to what God has done on the cross through Jesus Christ?
Contextualisation is not conforming to the image of the world. If secularism as a new un-Biblical criterion becomes the norm and sin-atonement-salvation (as preserved, preached and passed on by the church through all these generations) becomes ancillary, or even unnecessary, then Gandhiji is the Christ incarnated in the Indian secular situation, his violent assassination is the contemporary atonement for secular harmony, and his satyagraha is the highest ethical code which can even replace the Sermon on the Mount. (Even Rajiv Gandhi might fulfill this role–minus the Bofors gun deal.)
No conclusion to this can be more relevant than what David J. Hesselgrave says in his book Today’s Choices for Tomorrow’s Mission, since the denial of this basic Biblical perspective mars Thomas’ otherwise brilliant study:
Two elements…are absolutely essential to authentic contextualization efforts: the supra cultural nature of the biblical gospel and the cultural requirements of meaningful communication.
Of course, the biblical gospel is not acultural. It was given to and through the prophets and apostles–men who received and reported the divine message in linguistic and cultural frames of reference. But the sovereign God ordered the cultural circumstances, the prophetic and apostolic personnel, and the linguistic forms in such a way that in both the revelational and inscripturation processes it was His message that was transmitted. The biblical message, therefore, is unique. The impingements of circumscribed cultures, imperfect authors, and human languages are transcended in such a way as to provide a perfect gospel.’8
NOTES:
1. Thomas, M. M., quoting and summarizing S. K. George, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance, Madras, 1991, pg 220.
2. C. F. Andrews quoted in Ibid., pg 226.
3. Ibid., pg 302.
4. Ibid., pg 308.
5. Ibid., pg 308-9, my italics.
6. Ibid., pg 309.
7. Ibid., pg 310.
8. Hesselgrave, David J., Today’s Choices for Tomorrow’s Mission: An Evangelical Perspective on Trends and Issues in Mission, Zondervan: Academie Books, Michigan, 1988, pp 160-161.
Leave a Reply