Gurukulam
[18-12-18]
The following is my response to a question asked by another person. He wrote:
Dr. R…..: I know you have good knowledge about the attempts made from the time of De Nobili to our time by Europeans and Indians. I ask myself why Brahmabandhab Upadhyay failed. Several people, including you, have tried. I have been with Western Christianity and tried my best through the ashram. Is there a possibility of developing an authentic Indian Christianity? Can we develop a national Christianity outside of Colonial Christianity? I plan to spend more time reading about the attempts made in India by individuals who wanted to develop national Christianity. I am sure you can suggest some books for me to read. Please give me your response when you can.
Many thoughts are going through my mind regarding this idea.
**My first question is:** Is it possible to develop one authentic Christianity, or will there be several due to our cultural context and religious pluralism? First, I would like to develop a theological framework based on the Dharma of Christ (moral and spiritual values). The second will be: discipling, not proselytism. The third is: the gathering of disciples and their actions within their community and the larger community outside their own. The fourth will be the transformation of India in the spiritual, mental, physical, and social lives of its people. This is just a dream. I feel that if we take this direction, at least some good will come out of it.
Thank you very much.
17-12-18
**The Road to Authentic Indian Christianity**
I happily take the blame for being unsuccessful in developing an authentic Indian Christianity. Bearing in mind the vast nature of Indian civilization, I think even in a million years, no one can develop an authentic Indian Christian prototype. Furthermore, as long as Christianity in India remains a Western import, now becoming a ‘hybrid Christianity,’ it is totally unattainable.
All the past endeavors by pioneers like Upadhyay ended up creating a hybrid form that remained neither Indian nor Western. That’s why I don’t believe in the so-called ‘contextualization’1 to create more of such hybrid Christianity, while I take responsibility for all my failures as another feather on my non-existent cap—as if I was born to develop one.
In my case, various attempts to make me a Christian didn’t succeed, and from the very beginning, I remained a Hindu bhakta of the Lord. I still don’t believe in increasing the percentage of Christianity in India at all. As I’ve said several times, I understood the gospel as a lay Hindu.
What I wholeheartedly believe is: we should allow the gospel to incarnate in every culture and society to transform them from within and bottom-up, while keeping all their beautiful aspects. Muktinath neither came to fulfill the Vedic quest of Hinduism nor did He become the Crown of Hinduism. Despite this, He should be allowed to become part of Indian civilization. However, as long as Christianity and the church remain in their outer form and inner ways (structure, worship, theology, doctrine, etc.), those who strive for contextualization can create some ‘patch-up form,’ but no authentic Indian Christianity. In fact, genuine Christianity, like a seed, should “fall into the ground and die” for the gospel to incarnate in Indian civilization. Unfortunately, very few catch this vision, and many cannot even comprehend what it truly means. I would go to the extent of saying that unless we make our bhakti another sampradaya within Hinduism, there is no hope! The dynamic of the Indian or even Hindu worldview is that it allows pluralistic exclusivism for each sampradaya to remain part of it without compromising its core theology/philosophy. However, the present Indian Christian circle is not yet ready for that. Thus, currently, there is no point in trying to develop so-called authentic Indian Christianity, which will never happen by educating and encouraging them toward that direction.
If some Christians are happy to remain ‘hybrid,’ we should respect their freedom. Let them be what they want. Earlier, though I came up with ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’ in a way attacking them, I later realized that I shouldn’t have done it. The present Indian Christian generation is not responsible for their current status. They merely inherited it from their ancestors. Their ancestors, who created that kind of Christianity along with the (foreign) missionaries, were also not responsible for it. Both the (then foreign missionaries) and the ‘converts’ did what they thought was correct in their time. Their ways may not be acceptable to us, but we, Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, have no right to criticize or condemn them. They also have every right to follow any tradition in which they are comfortable. If any ‘convert’ wants to join a church, he/she should adapt to the demands of that particular church’s tradition. There is no point in expecting the whole church or community to accommodate the needs or demands of any convert. However, if a convert does not feel comfortable, then he/she should be pointed to the alternative of remaining as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord.
In spite of all the cosmetic changes that a few try to bring in the name of ‘contextualization,’ I fear that Christianity—without real indigenization—will remain totally alien to Indian civilization. That’s why I am happy to remain a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, even if I am left alone to live by other bhaktas of the Lord.
Forming any theological framework is again a ‘Christian agenda’ that one should avoid. Theology should always be centered on Muktiveda according to the needs of the people, which might take a completely different direction, not remaining within a particular theological framework. Once any theological framework is formed, it will unfortunately also try to imprison people within it. Traditionally, theology of any kind (including the so-called Mission theology) was framed in order to protect a particular doctrine of any denominational church.2 However, this practice curbs the spontaneous expansion of the Mandali based on the needs of the bhaktas. Of course, there is always the danger of slipping away from the Muktivedic Foundation. Then again, what actually is that foundation is a big question on which no two bhaktas can agree.
Recently, I was talking to one prodigal son who wanted to return to his Hindu roots [gar vapasi]. In our conversation, he said that he wanted to create a ‘syllabus’ to teach the new Hindu ‘converts’ or even ‘Hindu bhaktas,’ as he sees a great need for that. With a smile, I said, ‘Again, you are thinking typically like a theologian or a missionary. Creating a syllabus to teach students both in schools and colleges, and that too, to get a certificate with an aim to get a job, might work for them. But to live our life as a bhakta of the Lord, there is no need for such a syllabus to learn “systematically” with a systematic theological framework. This is one area where every mission, church, and mission has failed around the globe. But laypeople everywhere live their lives not based on the syllabus prepared and taught to them [even based on the sermons that are preached week after week by such syllabus-oriented trained pastors]. This kind of teaching I don’t find anywhere in Muktiveda. It evolved from the ordinary needs of life. Where we find one or two systematic teachings, as in Romans and Hebrews, the context is almost similar but with another need in mind. First, come out of all such Western or Christian systematic theological orientation.’
Both the individual bhakta and the local Mandali should live and grow as transforming agents from within rather than imposing from outside in the name of theology or doctrine. They should not disturb the social fabric of society while rejecting some of its evil systems. Even the evil that is not acceptable to one could be just a cultural or social practice that should be decided by the locals—not outsiders. This is not encouraging the postmodernism of individualism.3 At the same time, we should live with the grand reality that until the end, there will always be some kind of evil in every community and society, which may not be acceptable or removable.
Any gathering of disciples in any form under any name for the sake of ‘guarding a particular doctrine’ will end up becoming an organization. An organization is needed for the smooth functioning of any society. But when it comes to spiritual needs, it will put severe limitations. There should be organic unity, which is also not possible. Organic unity is possible only within the family—not outside it. That is why I say to the Hindu bhaktas that we have neither organizational unity nor organic unity. The unity is only possible in our spirit, having common bhakti in the Lord.
Transformation of India or any other nation or community is nothing but a mere slogan. Can we say that the so-called Christian West actually attained this so-called transformation? Above all, what does this transformation actually mean? Responses to such questions will always vary.
My vision is Muktinath-centered families within communities in every society. Once we aim for this, then we should allow the spontaneous growth of families based on the foundation of Muktiveda. But here comes the contention. What is this Muktivedic Foundation based on Muktiveda? Until we can reach any common agreement on this, such questions and answers will continue.
Revised on 25-8-2024
Gurukulam
[18-12-18]
Notes
1. Historically when the so-called ‘world religions’ have taken root and flourished in various regions they have adapted to different cultures. Inevitably these adaptations have produced tensions between their normative-universal and culturally-particular dimensions. In contemporary terms, world religions have been a ‘globalizing’ force and their cultural adaptations or contextualizations can be characterized as a process (p276) of ‘glocalization’{‘globalization’?}……—Religion and Globalization from the Historical Perspective of Thai Buddhism. Donald K. Swearer. Pp. 273-290, in H.L. Seneviratne, ed. Anthropologist and the Native: Essays for Gnanath Obeyesekare, Delhi, Anthem Press India, 2012, pp. 275-76
2. When C.F. Andrews wanted to appoint a non-Anglican {Baptist} professor to, “’demonstrate to others that ‘among Christians the differences are not so great as those they know among themselves: e.g. Shiahs and Sunnis, or Aryans [sic] and orthodox Hindus.’”29 His SPC supporters were, ‘were more worried by the introduction of a Baptist than by the association with Hindus and Muslims.’—Hugh Tinker, The Ordeal of Love: C.F. Andrews and India, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, [1979] 1998, pp.47- 48. Though now no such apprehensions are among the denominations regarding working with people of other denominations, still for Christians their denominational identity is more important than their identity as a Christian like caste identity among Hindus.
29 ‘Memorandum on BMS Hostel, St Stephen’s’, SPG Archives, n.e., but from internal evidence sent in 1911. Shias and Sunnis are the two main branches of Islam.
3 Swearer helps us to understand post-modernism which is very helpful:
{James} Kurth’s {“Religion and Globalization”. Foreign Policy Research Institute, 7(7) http:www.fpri.org/fpriwire/0707.199905.kurth, religionglobalization.html. 1999} second perspective, the post-modernist, rejects traditional, pre-modern religion but it also rejects the enlightenment values of rationalism, empiricism, and science, a position that he terms, ‘expressive individualism’. He labels this perspective a ‘republic of choice’ in politics and ‘consumer sovereignty’ in economics, an ideology associated with free market global capitalism…..— Donald K. Swearer Religion and Globalization from the Historical Perspective of Thai Buddhism.. Pp. 273-290, in Seneviratne , op. cit. p. 276
Leave a Reply