Scripture in Worship: Part One

Using All Scriptures of Various Faiths in Our Bhakti

In my earlier writings such as Sita and Ravana and Sita’s Anklet, I pointed out how many stories—ones often omitted from the edited and widely accepted versions of Hindu scriptures—are still used by speakers and preachers within Hindu traditions. Unlike religions with a clearly defined canonical structure, Hinduism has no universally sanctioned scripture. Consequently, any story—whether from ancient sources or newly created—is rarely dismissed as unauthentic. Instead, it is often embraced as spiritually valid, whether it aligns with established theology or introduces a new insight.

Interestingly, Christian preachers, including some in evangelical circles, have occasionally used stories and illustrations from other religions in their sermons. However, the inclusion of such texts within formal liturgy has been controversial. There is historical precedent in the early Church, where extracanonical texts were part of worship. After Vatican II, the Catholic Church opened itself to including selected non-Christian scriptures in the liturgy, provided they were thematically relevant and not in contradiction to the biblical reading of the day. But even with this openness, such inclusions remain cautious and highly selective. However, in the early Church, there was “no obvious evidence of the use of non-Christian readings in the Church’s worship” (Abel, p. 272). Although a few Catholic ashrams have incorporated non-Christian scriptures into their worship, it is still unclear whether this practice has been adopted by the Church at large.

In contrast to many evangelical traditions, Hindu philosophical traditions actively encourage engagement with opposing viewpoints—even when they emerge from within the same body of scripture. For instance, differing versions of the Ramayana may be quoted side by side to support or challenge a theological point. This method of debate and analysis, deeply embedded in Hindu scholasticism, is known as Purva Paksha (the opponent’s view) and Uttara Paksha (the respondent’s rebuttal). It reflects a deep-rooted intellectual honesty and flexibility: before articulating one’s own Siddhanta (doctrine), one must first understand and fairly represent the opposing position.

To my knowledge, such a practice is neither taught nor encouraged in most evangelical circles. On the contrary, many evangelicals categorically reject Hindu scriptures as “of the devil.” Once this judgment is made, these texts become entirely unusable—even as cultural references to help contextualize the Gospel. This attitude persists despite the fact that early missionaries, and even some Catholic traditions, recognized the pedagogical and philosophical value of indigenous texts.

In the Indian philosophical tradition, one is not even considered qualified to establish one’s own Siddhanta without a proper—often deep—understanding of the opponent’s position. Yet, many evangelicals not only dismiss non-Christian scriptures as demonic but go on to claim exclusive authority for their own Scripture as the only true Word of God—while simultaneously seeking to preach to others. When confronted by someone who cites from their own Scripture and compares it with another tradition—especially by someone outside their theological framework—they are often unable to respond. This not only exposes a hegemonic attitude but also a lack of respect for the intellectual and spiritual integrity required to teach others.

I had a telling experience of this while teaching a class for Tamil full-time Christian workers, most of whom were Hindu converts. I asked a few questions about Hindu scriptures—out of academic interest and to provoke thoughtful engagement. But they immediately dismissed my questions, saying there was no need to study such things since those texts were the work of the devil. I responded, “If you know nothing about the scriptures of others, then you have no right to go and preach to them.” Needless to say, that wasn’t a welcome comment.

Another story is perhaps even more revealing. Around 1981 or 1982, when I was still new to the evangelical community, I was invited to preach during a worship service. Unaware that quoting non-Christian sources was considered taboo, I shared poems by Hindu bhakti saints—and even quoted a line from a film song—to illustrate my message during the service. While such references might be tolerated when preaching to non-Christians, they are strictly forbidden in the pulpit. That experience taught me a great deal—not just about evangelical norms, but about the boundaries that often go unquestioned within such spaces.

After the service, the leader, himself a Brahmin convert who had given me Deeksha, chuckled and said, “More than preaching a sermon, you gave them a cultural shock. But I’m glad you did. I could never have done that in my position. What you did, though unintended, is the very approach we need—to integrate our heritage to enrich both our bhakti and biblical understanding.”

Later, in a completely opposite experience, I was invited to share at a house church in Delhi led by another a Tamil Hindu convert. After the meeting, he privately admonished me: “Though you have knowledge of Hindu scriptures, the Bible teaches us not to mix the profane with the holy. What you did has no place in Christian worship.” He cited Paul as an example, explaining that even when Paul referenced non-Christian texts, it was only to create contrast that while preaching to non-Christians.

He added that Paul had apostolic authority to quote from other sources—an authority that not every follower of the Lord can claim. If we were all to do the same, he argued, there would be no distinction between the inspired Word of God and our own intellectual words.

However, this overlooks an important point: when Paul quoted those texts, his own writings were not yet part of the canonical scriptures, nor was he necessarily aware that what he was sharing would later be recognized as divinely inspired. That said, Paul did assert that he had the Spirit of God guiding him. Likewise, while we cannot claim that our words are the Word of God, we can still affirm that the same Spirit inspires us to share our insights—albeit through our limited human expression.  Here’s an edited and polished version of your sentence:

Furthermore, the question of who ought to be considered an apostle—and who holds apostolic authority—was a subject of considerable debate in the early Church. (See “Apostolic Authority of the Canon” in Abel, ibid., pp. 276–283.) Numerous scholarly papers have been written exclusively on this topic. He concluded firmly: “Once we follow the Lord, we must leave behind everything from our past—even scriptures and stories that may have helped us begin our search, but ultimately fall short of revealing Him fully.”

His position surprised me further when he confessed, “Since becoming a Christian, I have read nothing but the Bible—not even newspapers, magazines, or Christian commentaries. Nothing else is approved by God. When one lifetime is not enough to study the Bible in depth, why turn elsewhere?” Though I disagreed, I understood his sincerity. Still, it was painful to hear how rigidly he had withdrawn from anything outside the biblical world.

We spoke later about other matters. He recounted how he baptized his father on his deathbed to send him to the Christian heaven. I will share more about this in Witnessing What – Part Four. However, a private conversation with his mother gave me a different perspective—echoing what I’ve heard from other dependent parents of converts.

Notably, he too was a Tamilian. Among Tamil evangelical Christians, one often finds this extreme form of exclusivism. But returning to our topic: whether or not it is possible in evangelical circles, we must still explore what is spiritually beneficial for us as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.

In this regard, Fr. Kees Abel’s scholarly essay, “Non-Christian Revelation and Christian Worship” (in God’s Word Among Men, ed. S.J. Gispert-Sauch, Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973), pp. 257–303, is worth reading. I conclude this section by quoting his thoughtful analysis—not because I need ecclesiastical approval, but to show that there has long been a tradition, even within Christianity, that values the spiritual contributions of non-Christian texts.

Alongside this, Fr. John N.M. Wijngaards’ essay, “Reflections for Liturgical Adaptation” (pp. 247–256 in the same volume), is also valuable. [See Part Two] He argues that even Israelite liturgy had borrowed and adapted elements from surrounding traditions. This affirms that liturgical boundaries have never been completely closed:

This openness toward non-Christian religions is also present in the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. Here is stated that the Church “respects and foster the spiritual adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples. Anything in their way of life that is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact.  Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself as long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.” {Cf. Second Vatican Council, SC n. 37}  In a commentary to this text, J.A. Jungmann refers to the first centuries, when the Church, in a necessary process, adopted Greek and Roman forms for its worship.—[Abel, p. 303]

Of course, I take issue with expressions in these essays such as “bound up with superstition” or the idea that we must approach other traditions only with “sympathetic study.” These phrases, while perhaps well-meaning, still carry a condescending and hegemonic tone, assuming superiority of one tradition over another. This is evident even in Wijngaards’ writing. While I respect the spirit of their work, I do not share their attitude. The act of drawing from multiple traditions is not a condescending act of generosity—it is an honest acknowledgment that God’s voice has never been confined to a single scripture or tradition.

Thus, our task is not to seek validation but to practice spiritual discernment with courage, humility, and rootedness in our bhakti.

Ashram. May 4, 2025

Notes

1. Kees Abel, “Non-Christian Revelation and Christian Worship,” in God’s Word Among Men, ed. S.J. Gispert-Sauch (Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973), pp. 257–303.
2. John N.M. Wijngaards, “Reflections for Liturgical Adaptation,” in God’s Word Among Men, ed. S.J. Gispert-Sauch (Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973), pp. 247–256.
3. J.A. Jungmann, commentary on Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, 1963), as referenced in Abel, op. cit., p. 303.
4. Abel, “Apostolic Authority of the Canon,” in God’s Word Among Men, pp. 276–283.

Bibliography

• Abel, Kees. “Non-Christian Revelation and Christian Worship.” In God’s Word Among Men, edited by S.J. Gispert-Sauch, 257–303. Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973.
• Abel, Kees. “Apostolic Authority of the Canon.” In God’s Word Among Men, edited by S.J. Gispert-Sauch, 276–283. Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973.
• Jungmann, J.A. Commentary on Sacrosanctum Concilium, in reference to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, 1963.
• Wijngaards, John N.M. “Reflections for Liturgical Adaptation.” In God’s Word Among Men, edited by S.J. Gispert-Sauch, 247–256. Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973.