A Dialogue on Double Whammy Theology

Exclusivism Across Traditions

Every faith tradition (sampradāya) carries its own form of exclusivism. Each claims to offer the only sure path to God, heaven, or mukti/moksha. Whether it is the pluralistic inclusivism of Hinduism or the pluralistic exclusivism of Christianity, this is the reality. What one sampradāya asserts as its exclusive siddhānta is mirrored by the many denominational doctrines of other religions, which also debate inclusivism, exclusivism, universalism, or divine perseverance¹. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

When One Tradition Universalises Its Categories

Difficulties arise when one tradition tries to universalise its own categories. In interfaith dialogue each tradition ought to respect the other’s view as equally valid for its adherents. Yet many Christian theologians attempt to universalise their particular dogma of salvation. For example, many claim that every good thing in every faith since the beginning of human history has been a gift from the Spirit of Christ². Even before the incarnation, they argue, the divine presence of Christ was active in all religions, and those who obeyed the “law written on the heart” were, unknowingly, obeying the hidden Christ. In this scheme, people who never heard the gospel may nevertheless be saved and welcomed into a Christian heaven to enjoy fellowship with Christ the Son of God³. This is a form of Christian universalism⁴.

I have no objection to Christians holding such a view. But if, for example, a Śrī Vaiṣṇavite lives according to the siddhānta of his tradition and the universalist Christian sees that merely as preparation for the Christian heaven, why may he not remain a Śrī Vaiṣṇavite even after death? Why assume that thanks to the Cosmic Christ he will become a Christian in the afterlife and end up in a Christian heaven rather than in Vaikuṇṭha, eternally in the presence of Viṣṇu?

To put it differently: while alive he may remain a Hindu and a Śrī Vaiṣṇavite, but after death he must be absorbed into a Christian heaven—why? If a universalist Christian were to speak frankly to such a devotee, would he say, “I respect and accept your faith in Nārāyaṇa, but after death you are sure to meet me in my Christian heaven and have fellowship with the Son of God”?

Reversing the Claim: Vaikuṇṭha vs. Christian Heaven

What if we reverse this? Suppose the Śrī Vaiṣṇavite responds:

“Yes, I too strongly believe this, but instead of a Christian heaven we both will have fellowship in our Vaikuṇṭha. According to the Gītā, whichever deity one worships, one ultimately worships Viṣṇu alone. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam also says, ‘As all the rivers finally flow and merge with the ocean, all forms of worship in every faith finally reach only to Nārāyaṇa’ (ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ yathā gacchati sāgaram / sarva-deva-namaskāraḥ keśavaṃ prati gacchati)⁵. The very word Viṣṇu means ‘all-pervading’—the expanding divine presence, even within Christianity.”

Would that universalist Christian be happy to go to Vaikuṇṭha rather than to his Christian heaven?

Heaven, Hell and Mukti

A staunch exclusivist at least speaks clearly: unless the Śrī Vaiṣṇavite confesses Jesus alone as Lord and Saviour, he will end up in hell⁶. But then what kind of hell is this? A “Christian” hell or a “Hindu” hell? If Christians speak of “the Hindu God” as they do “the Christian God”⁷, does this not imply the possibility of multiple heavens and hells?

In conversation a former evangelical exclusivist once told me, “There may be many gods on earth, but there can be only one heaven and one hell; there cannot be a separate heaven and hell for each faith.” But what about those who desire neither heaven nor hell, but seek mukti—the Advaitic goal of liberation from karma and saṃsāra, a final break from the chain of birth and death? For a Hindu, heaven and hell are at most temporary states on the way to moksha⁸. Would he prefer his temporary Hindu heaven or hell, or a permanent Christian heaven or hell?

There is no point in selectively universalising only those concepts—like heaven and hell—when that serves one’s own purpose, while at the same time quoting “unity not uniformity” to justify conflicting theologies (we need not even mention the denominational differences).

My Approach: Bhakti Without Slogans

My point is simple: if one truly believes that without knowing and confessing Christ a person will end up in hell, then hold to that belief consistently. But do not simultaneously grant concessions that allow people to live out their own traditions—Śaivite, Vaiṣṇavite, Buddhist, Muslim—and then, after death, send them only to a Christian heaven or hell. To others this appears nonsensical, because they do not share that framework.

As for me, I follow Muktināth—as a Hindu and as His bhakta, accepting Him as my Guru. Like other Christians I feel a moral obligation to share my bhakti, as is common even among sampradāyas where devotees change their iṣṭa-devatā or guru⁹. But instead of presenting an evangelical formula based on systematic theology—sin → salvation → eternal heaven or hell—I begin by listening and addressing a person’s immediate need, whether healing, encouragement, or support. I will never exploit someone’s vulnerability to push a salvation slogan. Even thanks I do not expect. I simply say, “My Guru taught me this value; as I received it from Him, so I serve you.” Only if a person shows interest do I gently suggest that he too may learn from the One who transformed my life—without demanding that he change his social or religious identity. I do not find in the Bible the formulaic evangelical burden to preach “in season and out of season” to save everyone from eternal hell. And even if such a text exists, I read it first in its textual, historical, and sociological context before turning it into a formula of systematic theology.

Notes

1. Based on the range of views (restrictivism, inclusivism, divine perseverance, universalism) outlined in Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard.
2. Sanders’ description of “Spirit of Christ” active before the incarnation.
3. The model in which obedience to conscience brings salvation through Christ’s work.
4. Universalism as defined in Christian theology.
5. Citation of Gītā and Bhāgavatam on all worship reaching Viṣṇu.
6. Restrictivist position that explicit confession of Jesus is necessary for salvation. [See: Sanders, What About Those…]
7. Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001. This title itself shows their acceptance that each faith has its own God.
8. Hindu view of temporary heavens/hells on the path to moksha.
9. Common practice of shifting iṣṭa-devatā or guru within Hindu sampradāyas.
10. Algondavilli Govindacharya, Three Lectures on Inspiration, Intrusion, and Ecstasy (Wesleyan Mission Press, 1897, quoted by Francis X. Clooney, SJ, The Future of Hindu-Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry, New York, Routledge, 2017. p. 54).