Dear Swamiji,
Suji delivered a baby boy on saturday early morning(Friday Midnight) at 12.02 am. It was a normal delivery. By God’s grace, mercy and faithfulness everything is fine. Thanks for all your prayers.
His name is Gnana Deva Mugil.
I was selected for Ph.d in IIT Kanpur. The programme is for 3 years and I have to go there and stay for 3 years. I may be leaving next year.
I faced tough time treating my relatives during the delivery time. Everyone had complaints on me. I was restricting them about the food and some practices they wanted to do with Suji and baby which was against the medical advice. They wanted to take AARATHI before the baby entered the house and I opposed it and many other things.
Elan & Suji.
Congratulations. God bless the baby and the mother. Happy to hear about your Ph.d in IIT Kanpur. I go there two times every year and I know Prof. John Joseph the head of one of the departments at whose home I stay.
I faced tough time treating my relatives during the delivery time. Everyone had complaints on me. I was restricting them about the food and some practices they wanted to do with … and baby which was against the medical advice. They wanted to take AARATHI before the baby entered the house and I opposed it and many other things.
Dear…
My response [about taking Aarati etc.] is not to irritate you or to challenge. Several times we get irritated by several of other’s activities, which they do without knowing the background or just because of mere custom. But we oppose it, not because of our zeal for the Lord but because of some hidden fear. By objecting to several of other’s superstition, we never witness for the Lord, rather closing their heart and mind to listen us. We have every reason and right to object some (or most) of their blind faiths, but if we sincerely trace the background of them, we can see that most of them are done just as mere custom—even without any particular meaning behind it. Of course several of them have definite meaning and purpose, yet the context in which they do it may different. For example taking Aarati to the new born baby or newly married couple when they enter for the first time in the house is to ward of evil eye (what we call it as ‘drishti’). But in general it is done in both these occasion not just to ward of the evil eye, but as a sing of auspiciousness and blessing on the baby and the couple. So I would better allow them to do certain things, to which I can later explain their blind faith than objecting immediately.
Recently in my talk with Prasad’s mother and grand mother on the occasion of Satran’s move from one zodiac to another (happened on 22nd May, 2003), after listening their view, I gently pointed out how such blind faith register in our sub-conscience mind and even affect not only our thoughts but even health indirectly. Then I explained the four stages of waking, sleeping, dreaming and deep-sleep and how several of our blind faith causes several hidden fear in our mind, which our sub-conscience mind register and affect our nervous system. In that context I told them that if we have real bhakti in God, we will never give room for such blind faith in our life. Otherwise if we still believe in such blind faiths and superstition, we clearly say that we don’t have faith in God, as we don’t want to take risk. True bhakti will even take the risk than giving place for superstition.
But this I could tell only after listening them and allowing them to do certain rituals which have no meaning at all. So better seek every opportunity to explain their superstition in a gentle way than closing their heart and mind even to listen us.
dayanand
@@@
Christianity and Hinduism, Tim Tennent.
2. Doctrine of God
The following are my comments on a few points in this book:
To begin with the word ‘Braahman’ is to be corrected and it should be always ‘Brahman’ not long a.–DB
1. ‘…This thirteenth-century development of Vedaanta [of Madhva known as dvaita] was influenced by the ancient Christian presence in southwest India’.—notes 9, p.40.
–this is an evangelical assumption. Madhava had enough material on his hand from Indian scriptures to refute advaita and establish his doctrine.–DB
2. Brahma Suutras are mentioned as an ‘esoteric commentary on the Upanishads’.—notes no: 14, p.41.
–Suutras are not commentaries (bhasyas) and according to Lipner, ‘… “Suutra” has been derived from the root siv, to sew, and means “thread”, or in our context, a more or less short thread of sounds (a suutra can consist of a single word) conveying meaning in a condensed from….’(Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. p. 81.) And Brahma Suutras is an attempt to present a systematic theology of the Upanishads with an aim to harmonize several contradictions in them.–DB
3. ‘…Ramanuja recommends a form of complete surrender … recalling the moving words of the Bhagavad Gita [18:66].—p.45
–does Ramanuja himself quote this verse to support his concept of total surrender (prapatti)? This I want to know for my personal information.–DB
Religious Roundtable
4. ‘Now that I have set out a brief overview of the complexity of Hindu theism…’—p.46
–In the previous pages the overview doesn’t reflect ‘the complexity of Hindu theism’ in general, but only two major schools of theology.–DB
5. Religious Roundtable.
–The problem with such dialogues is that they are merely academic; monologues that will never help to understand a Hindu who professes her/his faith on a practical level—including the so-called contemporary Vedantin.–DB
6. ‘Chaandogya 6.2.1 … “one without a second”. The phrase serves as the Upanishadic equivalent of the opening words of Genesis … or the opening words of John’s Gospel…–p.47
–can we really call it as an ‘Upanishadic equivalent’?—DB
7. ‘…He [Sankara] was never interested in popularizing Hinduism but in setting forth the … mystery of Brahman’.—p.48.
–Sankara was known for his zeal and interest to spread his Vedantic theology. As there was no ‘Hinduism’ in his time he never attempted to popularize it like our Neo-Vedantins such as Dr. Radhakrishnan or Swami Vivekananda. However we have to remember that ‘Among the gods popularly worshipped the principal ones are Vishnu under various names and in various avatars, Siva in his various forms, Durga, Ganesha and the Sun. The worship of these deities (called pancayatanapuja) is said to have been popularised by the great Sankaracharya….”—Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II, Part. II (1974), pp. 716-17. And every follower of Sankara does worship all these five deities even today. So in a sense Sankara popularized this kind of Hinduism.–DB
8. ‘First, Sankara’s theology does not permit divine revelation…’—p.48
–Because there is no need and place for revelation in his theology. In his theology Brahman has nothing to reveal but only atman has to realize the non-difference from Brahman. So there is no point of raising any objection to a concept (revelation) which is not even thought of or discussed by Sankara. If Sankara is here today, he would tell the author that as there is no need for Brahman to reveal, he rejects the very concept of revelation.
According to Christian theology the revelation of God presupposes the limitation as well the sin of man to reach God. God initiated to reveal Himself, and this is the theology of grace in Christianity. But revelation of God would be the fall of Him according to advaita as it leads to dualism.—DB
However K. Satchidananda Murthy, in his book: Revelation And Reason in Advaita Vedanta [London, Asia Publishing House, (1959), 1961] talks about ‘The Advaita Vedanta Conception of Four-Fold Revelation’—General Revelation, Vedic Revelation, Revelation through Avatara and Revelation in Anubhuti or Saaksatkara, i.e. direct experience of Brahman (pp.6-10). In book two, part two of the same book he writes about: Revelation Implies a Revealer, A Critique of Revelation, Symbolism and Revelation, The Finality of Revelation, Reason and Revelation (pp.241-329).
9. ‘As Julius Lipner has noted, “Language—no less scriptural language—as constituted from words and sentences is intrinsically incapable of making known pure, non-differentiated being, such as Brahman of the advaitins [The Face of Truth, p.27].”’—p. 48
–In Sankara’s theology language, even scriptural language, cannot speak about the reality of Brahman. To use Cloony’s words, ‘Advaita is a tradition of sacred and theological texts and commentaries on them, as well as arguments about texts, and the practice of meditation with texts—all of these making possible and necessary post-textual philosophical claims, and culminating in events of realization to which the hitherto indispensable texts are no longer primary….’- (Francis X. Clooney, S.J , Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, p.1). However Sankara was known as a ‘srutivadin’, viz. who claimed the final authority of sruti (Veda) for any valid knowledge. About this Rambachan says, ‘It is clear to me that, in relation to the gain of brahmajnaana, Sankara saw all other sources of knowledge as subordinate to the sruti and supported his views by well-reasoned arguments centered on the sruti as a logical, fruitful, and adequate source of knowledge’ (Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas, Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995,p.4. Of course we can disagree about the apauruseyatva (literally ‘the case of not having a purusa at its origin.’….1) of the Veda separately. But Sankara too believed in language as the main source of knowledge.
Does Lipner’s quote here agree with Tennent’s objection to Sankara’s theology (God is mute)? Does Lipner say these words to raise his objection against Sankara’s theology or does he merely point to the advaitin’s view? I feel that Lipner’s view agrees with Cloony’s and not with Tennent’s.–DB
10. ‘…His [Sankara’s] theism, however well intended….’—p.48
–In a strict academic and theological sense Sankara’s theology is not ‘theism’. As Ghate says, “No doubt Sankara in order to accommodate such people admitted of a personal God; and popular belief attributes to him the introduction of the worship of the Pancayatana or the five gods together, so as to displease no one. But a god was after all of an illusory and second-rate importance in his system”.— S.Ghate, The Vedanta (A Study of The Brahma-Sutras with the Bhasyas of Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and Vallabha), (3rd ed.), Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1981,p.19—DB
11. ‘…descriptive language not be directed toward nirguna Brahman and why all such language used even to describe Isvara is ultimately misleading and illusory.’—p.50
–Nirguna itself a descriptive term. One disciple approached his guru and requested him tell something about God. The guru remained silent. Again the disciple put the same request for which the guru remained silent. Third time also the disciple asked the same question and after remaining in silence, the guru said, ‘all this time I was telling only about God, but you were not listening’. A Tamil proverb also endorses this story by telling, ‘kandavar vindadillai, vindavar kandadillai’ (whoever has seen God cannot describe him [using human language] and whoever has attempted to describe god [by using human language] has not yet seen Him.–DB
12. ‘Yet, the truths about Jesus Christ and the incarnation are communicated to us through the language of truth statements, that is, propositional statements that are either true or false. To persist in the dichotomy, you would have to assert that the incarnation happened, but you could never say anything positive or reliable about the incarnation. The result would be that, despite the personal intervention of God in Jesus Christ, he remains unknowable because we cannot make any statements about him’.—p.52
–the point here is that all the statements made about Jesus have several limitations, because of human understanding and expression. The statements could be the starting point, but you have to go beyond that statement in our personal encounter with Him. Otherwise we will limit God and we will even captivate that Personal revelation in Jesus to some propositional statements.—DB
13. ‘Sankara’s pessimism about the usefulness of human language is unwarranted’.—p.52
–I think that Sankara’s objection (not pessimism) about the usefulness of human language is about Brahman in its essence. Because God’s revelation both in Person and proposition are an act of grace on His part recognizing our limitation to comprehend Him. So both these revelations (personal and propositional) reveal our limitation and not that of God.
Let me ask in another way: can we claim that we have comprehended all about God even in Jesus and through the written Word? John 1:18 clearly states that Jesus ‘made Him known’. He made Him known only to our level and not all about God in His essence. If human words are enough to understand all about God, then that God is smaller than our mind. Several times our God is too small.
Jesus interpreted God in His Person and the Holy Spirit enabled His bhaktas to make propositional statements about that interpretation. But because of human limitations (both of mind and language), we are unable to comprehend even that personal and propositional revelation in their totality. This being the Truth, both our mind and language can never reveal all about God. For this we have to wait for the Further Shore. Because, we don’t know what we will become. But we know for sure that we will be like the resurrected Lord. So at present we ‘know in part’ (I Cor. 13:12). Even the resurrection of our Lord cannot reveal all about God because of our limitations.
The revelation of God both in the Person of our Lord and in the Word, reveals our limitation—but does not express all about Him. Jesus is not the Ishvara of Sankara. But because of His grace and mercy, He limited Himself in this Ishvarahood of my understanding. I will see His Nirgunatva only after my resurrection in (or for) which I will die not only to my mind but also to my language. There I will know Him as He is where we don’t need any ‘media’ to interpret Him.
By saying this I am not pushing Jesus to a second or subordinate place in the Godhead in Trinity. God forbid. My argument is this: when I cannot even comprehend my Lord in His Sagunatva, how can I talk about His Nirgunatva—particularly using my own words—whichever language that may be?
Disputing with Nirguna of Sankara and trying to talk about the trinity is a futile attempt. Both these concepts lie beyond the reach and scope of any dialogue. Trying to debate on Nirguna of Sankara is like giving a big talk about silence. Even that goes beyond the experience of silence, because the moment you experience or realize that silence, you have already broken it. That’s why Advaitins are right in their position not to get involved in dialogue with Evangelical Christians. Because they know the vanity of the word through which they would debate, as it goes beyond words. Therefore Tennent is not correct to rebuke that ‘the advaitins cannot take refuge in the Eastern Orthodox tradition to demonstrate the compatibility of their thought with Christian theology’(p.53). Why should advaitins take refuge in Eastern Orthodox or in neoorthodox theologians (who ‘argued that revelation can never be limited to information about God expressed in propositional truths in a book; rather, revelation is a dynamic, existential, personal encounter with God in one’s own life. God is not concerned, they argued, with revealing information about himself, but with revealing his own living person in a personal encounter. p.51)? They will neither read them nor will take refuge in them. On the other hand I feel that Tennent has taken refuge in Sankara, involving in a pseudo dialogue in order to refute other Christian theologies with which he cannot agree.
Before closing this section, I would like to point out to the author that every illustration has (severe) limitations to talk about the truth. The allegorical interpretation of the biblical truth (as done by St. Augustine and others) will turn the table against one’s own. Tennent quotes St. Cyril of Jerusalem to support (his) Orthodox thought that, ‘the simplicity of God’s essence is united to the fullness of his attributes’ (p.53):
If someone says that the essence of God is incomprehensible, then why do we speak about him? But is it really true that because I cannot drink the whole river I will not take water from it in moderation for my benefit? Is it really true that because my eyes are not in a condition to take in the whole sun, I am therefore unable to behold as much as is needful for me? If, when going into some great garden, I cannot eat all the fruits, would you wish that I go away from it completely hungry? (p.53)
For this I would say that all our talk only tells about our incomprehensibility about Him. No river flows for you drink it whole. There is a Tamil proverb which says, ‘even if river flows in its full capacity, a dog can only lick to drink the water’. We cannot even behold the sun as much as is needful for us, if we dare to behold it. Because the eyes are not made to behold the sun, but use its light. The same is the truth about eating the fruits in a garden. This shows that even our own illustrations are limited to express our mind. How much more our language to talk about God?
13. Objection#2: Advaitism marginalizes Jesus Christ before dialogue begins.
This is the problem with all such academic, imaginary and one-sided monologue which we attempt to call as dialogue. First of all, how many real dialogues has Tennent conducted with advaitins? If in an academic dialogue like this the author calls Sankara ‘pessimistic’ (in the context of usefulness of human language to talk about nirguna Brahman p.52), then the advaitians will call Jesus as an ‘illusory expression of saguna’(p.53). Regarding the word saguna, I’m not competent enough to discuss as I never studied in depth on this subject—in particular related to Sankara’s theology. But tracing this anxiety about both to understand and use such Indian words in Christian theology, Young says,
As a theist anxious to defend the Christian understanding of God as personal, Mill was apprehensive about the term nirguna (“devoid of qualities”), which he feared—probably falsely—would suggest that his religion inculcates an impersonal monistic principle. By choosing laksana and visesa (“attribute” or “accident”) instead, Mill [William Hodge Mill, 1792-1853] obviously wanted to insure that readers would understand that the Christian God is saguna (“possessed of qualities”), not recognizing—as some Indologists and theologians now do—that saguna is the less suitable of this word-pair, indicating as it does an internally complex Being endowed with attributes which are distinct from its substance.— Richard Fox Young, Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit Sources On Anti-Christian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India, Vienna, 1981 (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi), p.39)
I personally feel that Tennent should come out from his evangelical atmosphere to read and understand about Indian terms in other Christian scholars. Otherwise he too will drown in the sea of saguna.
14. ‘As Vinoth Ramachandra has said so well in The Recovery of Mission, “My respect for another is tested only when there is a genuine clash of basic beliefs and values. A religion that a priori refuses to recognize fundamental disagreements can hardly be called tolerant, for it simply refuses to respect the ‘otherness’ of the other”’.(p.53)
–I don’t know in which context Ramachandra made this comments. However no one needs to give any lecture about Hindu tolerance. The problem is that such attacks in general about ‘any’ Hinduism never address the true issues. Because Hinduism, which is multi-centred pluralistic inclusivism (to say in a sweeping general way) has various basic beliefs and faiths, which often clashed with each other (that too sincerely). But it survived till this day, because it recognized the ‘otherness’ of the other, giving room for mutual co-existence. This kind of tolerance alone helped it to survive all these centuries facing all kinds of invasions (political, theological, racial etc.). Otherwise it would be a past civilization and religion.
15. ‘The third implication of the nirguna-saguna framework for theism is that all possibility of a relationship with God has been foreclosed because Sankara has severed religious experience from true knowledge. Not only has Sankara cut off meaningful theological self-disclosure of God, but he has silenced any genuine worship, because Christian worship can never rise above symbolic pointers. The advaitins have lost all confidence that God can receive or respond to such worship, because Brahman is “inaccessible to all human wants and sympathies” [B. Malkovsky, ‘Personhood of Sankara’s Para Brahman.’] (p.54) ….The advaitins … leave us with a God who is unknown and unknowable’. (p.55)
–The fundamental problem in this dialogue is that Tennent is trying to answer a question which the advaitins never asked. Based on my elementary level of reading, Sankara’s theology is centred on ‘knowledge’—which annihilates the avidya of dualism. Let me take again help from Rambachan, who says, ‘As understood by Sankara, moksa is identical with the nature of the self (aatman), which is free from all limitations. Through ignorance (avidyaa), however, this self is erroneously identified with the finite characteristics of mind and body. A valid source of knowledge is needed, not to create or produce the ever-existent self, but to remove erroneous knowledge and unfold its true nature. Such a source, for Sankara, can be found in the words of the sruti’.(op. cit. p.9).
When Sankara has already pushed Ishvara into the sea of saguna, any genuine dialogue with advaitins should be about ‘knowledge’ and not about God. As there is no place for any religious experience as such in Sankara’s thought, he outright rejected every form of ritual experience. ‘Jnanavihinaha sarvamatena muktim bhajata janmashatena’, says his disciple in Bhajagovindam (all maths [sects?] tell that without knowledge no one attains mukti even if takes hundred births). For him proper enquiry (in and through the text, viz. Veda) alone will help to remove avidya, and not religious ritualism or experience. In Vivekachudamani he says (if we accept the authorship of Sankara for this work), ‘Citasya shudaye karma na tu vastuuplabdhaye; vastusiddhi vicaarena na kincit karma kootibhi.’ (all the karmas (rituals) are performed only for the cleansing of the mind and not to obtain mukti (vastu); Mukti is possible only through proper inquiry, not by doing crores of karma’ (quoted from memory)). Again he insists on this point by saying, ‘na yogena na sankhyena karmanaa no na vidyaya; brahmaatmaikatva bodhena moksha sidhyati nanyatha—neither by Yoga nor by Sankhya (the two darshanas), nor by karma nor by learning, but only by the awakening of the mind that Brahman and atman is one, mukti is possible; not by any other way’. (quoted from memory).
Again, the main problem in this dialogue is that Tennent talks about advaitic theism whereas Sankara talks about monism/non-dualism. Because all wants in human life lead to bondage (see Malkovsky’s words above)—kaamo muulam samsaarasya (desire is the root cause of birth and death cycle)– and the only way for mukti is renunciation. I still remember my father often quoting (he was an advaitin) the Upanishadic mantra, ‘na karmana, na prajaya dhanena thyakenike amratvam ashunutaha’ (neither by karma, nor by son nor by wealth one attains eternal life but only through renunciation—quoted from memory). And in this renunciation one has not only to renounce your wants but even a God2 who is sympathetic towards your wants—as his sympathy will again throw you back into samsara. Sankara never left us with an ‘unknown and unknowable God’. Because he tries to say to us that you should never try even to know any god other than yourself. Actually there is nothing for you even to know. Remove avidya that you are different from Brahman. Then you will be awakened to the self-realization that atman is Brahman.
Before closing this section on Advaita I want to comment on the elephant illustration, where five blind man try to describe it.
Tennent miss the main point in this illustration. As already we have see, every illustration has one central message and if we try to stretch it beyond this limit, then there won’t be any limit. And the worst part in such attempts is that instead of understanding the central message, we will go on multiply our own interpretations about that illustration. The main message of that illustration is that all our attempts to describe reality are like those five blind men. The fact that the sixth man already knows about the elephant only points out the blind men’s futile attempts to describe it partly. Tennent is wrong to say that, ‘the whole analogy is flawed because there are actually six men in the famous parable, not five. The sixth is, obviously, the narrator of the story who objectively observes the five men and who sees the entire elephant and how the men are blindly experiencing only a part of the whole. In Sankara’s scheme, the whole story is quite unintelligible, for there cannot be a sixth man to tell us with any certainty that there even is an elephant nor how each of the five blind men relates to the elephant’. (p.55) Because Tennent himself tells through his advaitin partner in this dialogue, ‘Once there were five blind men from Savatthi who were asked to describe (that is, articulate truth claims about) an elephant’.(my emphasis). The sixth man knows for sure about the elephant and central point of this illustration is not about the sixth man’s experience with the reality but about the futile attempt to describe it partly by the blind men.
Now there were not only six men but seven, no even eight now. Seventh is Tennent and eight is Dayanand. While the sixth man explains, the seventh comments on that explanation and the eighth criticizes the comments of the seventh. And there will come a ninth, tenth and so on, if others dare to read my dialogue with the author. This is the problem in allegorical interpretation.
Notes
1. Madeleine Biardeau, Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilization, (Translated from the French by Richard Nice) ,Oxford University Press, Original edition, Paris, 1981, English edition, 1989, Oxford India Paperbacks 1994, Sixth impression 2002.
notes 4, p.171
2. Tirumular, adhering to the same line of advaita, in his ‘Tirumantiram’ (Tamil) says,
‘Give up desire; give up desire; give up desire even for god;
Only sorrow and misery is the outcome of desire and one will attain bliss by giving up desire’. (quoted from memory)
Rick’s Response:
Dayanandji, thank you for your work on the Tennent chapters which I also found very painful to read; and a friend of mine who knows Islam is upset about his treatment there (he says the Koran is not against the trinity; but what is the use of this when most Muslims and the entire Islamic tradition disagree with him?) I suggest you let me send your comments to Tennent and see if he is in any way appreciative and willing to learn. I suspect he will not be. Or you can send them yourself. I see only one serious problem (I have made a number of minor language changes).
That is, I am sure the Tennent does NOT see only symbolism in Xtn worship; his point is that from what advaita says we would be left with only that, and since this is not acceptable we must reject advaita. I should read the original to be sure of this, but almost certainly that is the case. So (if that is what he meant) two of your paragraphs can just be deleted. I am sending my corrected copy back to you with those two paragraphs set off in
multiple brackets. I suggest that you or I send this to Tennent and then we will give him some weeks to respond to this before posting this on the web site. (He should be looking at the web site.) I need to post my review of Vishal’s book on William Carey as he has had months to respond but has not done so. But if you want to make some further comments on the remaining Tennent material for the web site, then do so when you feel like it again.
By the way, this book by Tennent was rated one of the 15 most important Xtn books for 2002 by Christianity Today magazine. I suppose it is important that an evangelical even tried to write such a book, but how sad that he has no mentors to correct his errors (and seems to think he does not need any?) Our friends like R. Hedlund will praise the book, and Richard Young will keep a polite silence. What to do about such silliness?
RH
Rick,
The following is the full quote from Tennent:
‘The third implication of the nirguna-saguna framework for theism is that all possibility of a relationship with God has been foreclosed because Sankara has severed religious experience from true knowledge. Not only has Sankara cut off meaningful theological self-disclosure of God, but he has silenced any genuine worship, because Christian worship can never rise above symbolic pointers. The advaitins have lost all confidence that God can receive or respond to such worship, because Brahman is “inaccessible to all human wants and sympathies” [B. Malkovsky, ‘Personhood of Sankara’s Para Brahman.’] (p.54)
I think you are correct as I didn’t read his words properly (I think as I was bit irritated by his dialogue, I quickly read those lines without paying any attention. But I didn’t see any kind of multiple brackets in those two paragraphs. So I doubt whether the attachment which you sent is corrected one or not. However I will delit those two paragraphs. I don’t have Tennent’s e-mail address. Better let me sent the comments. I don’t think that you sent the corrected copy to me.
The following is the letter which I thought of writing to Tennent:
Dear Dr. Tim Tennent, Mathigiri, May 20, 2003.
Shanti!
I hope you remember me. We met in Bangalore at Gladwin’s house where you shared about Upadhyaya after a small puja performed by me. As I am interested in (practical) dialogue with several Hindus, I always search for any book written by Christians on Dialogue. One of my friends knows about this and he sent just two chapters from your book: Christianity and Hinduism (2. Doctrine of God and 3. Doctrine of Creation). As I saw the heading, immediately I began to read. But as a lay man, untrained in theology and other academic discipline, I found some of the points in your book created some confusion in my mind. So as I was reading, I began to record my comments side by side.
First I thought of not sending this to you, as your view as an academic person may differ from me. However, I thought without receiving some kind of response to my comments, my conclusion about your dialogue will remain incomplete. So here I am sending my dialogue with you. Please don’t be shocked or disturbed by some of my words. I never hide my feeling when I read any book. So without any personal feeling, I just recorded what I felt. All my comments are objective and I appreciate your effort to communicate the gospel to my own people.
If you have some time, please clear some of my doubts, which I have raised in the form of my comments. Thanks.
I read only up to page 55 ending with your conclusion on Sankara. I will continue my reading and record my comments—which I would like to share with you, after receiving your response to my comments. May God bless you in your endeavor.
Yours at His feet,
Dayanand Bharati
If you think you are irritated by Tennent you can imagine my irritation at losing all my editting work from yesterday. How did I lose all that I did on your paper? Anyway I will do it again now, and will remove those two
paragraphs.
Thanks for quoting that bit from Tennent; it is a horribly unclear paragraph and how an editor could approve such a thing I cannot imagine. It certainly seems to say what you originally took him to be saying; it is only knowing that he is such a staunch evangelical that makes it impossible that this is the right interpretation. [This is his horrible sentence: “Not only has Sankara cut off meaningful theological self-disclosure of God, but he has silenced any genuine worship, because (by his definitions) Christian worship can (could) never rise above symbolic pointers (which is not the case, so Sankara is wrong). What a terrible piece of writing and editing!]
I have finished editing your paper; actually most of it was already corrected and only a few parts were left undone. I don’t know how I saved part and missed part. I will copy my edited one here and also attach it.
RH
Your letter to him is very good. I only wonder if you should make an unconditional promise to send more comments; I would rather say that you will send further comments if he finds your comments helpful and would like to hear more.
@@@
…The epitome of this narrow hearted, sectarian consciousness is a saying which a second-century Christian scribe put into the mouth of the resurrected Savior at the end of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be damned.” No wonder [Thomas] Jefferson [American President said, in 1816] with barely contained indignation,
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. (To William Short, April 13, 1820)
Once the sectarian passages are left out, we can recognize that Jesus speaks in harmony with the supreme teachings of all the great religions: the Upanishads, the Tao TeChing, the Buddhist sutras, the Zen and Sufi and Hasidic Masters. I don’t mean that all these teachings say exactly the same thing. There are many different resonances, emphases, skillful means. But when words arise from the deepest kind of spiritual experience, from a heart pure of doctrines and beliefs, they transcend religious boundaries, and can speak to all people, male and female, bond and free, Greek and Jew.—Stephen Mitchell, The Gospel According to Jesus: A New Translation and Guide To His Essential Teachings For Believers and Unbelievers, New York, 1991Harper Perennial, p.9
A response:
–but in some cases all the sayings or most of the sayings in the scriptures are written in a ‘sectarian’ context. In order to prove the supremacy of their particular point of view (call it doctrine or sectarian view) they have several times condemned other’s faith (or views). So there is no pure ‘spiritual’ experience which alone cab be traced out in any particular ‘religious scripture’. Even the so called ‘spiritual experience’ came from a particular sectarian/doctrinal background.
Of course a selected saying of any scripture or teacher can have a universal appeal. But if one closely research, even those selected sayings came within the frame of a particular sectarian or doctrinal background. There is nothing wrong in compiling any such anthology of ‘great sayings’ of the scriptures/teachers. But is it possible to hijack a particular saying of a scripture or teacher from the religious (sectarian), social or any other context related to that teaching in order to dig out one ‘universal spiritual experience’?
Take for example of the Upanishads; they came in a general context of opposing excessive karmakanda and Purva Mimamsa of Vedic teaching. However one finds any universal spiritual experience in Upanishads (no doubt there are several), yet one cannot understand them without recognizing their antagonistic view regarding the karmakanda of Veda. One can ‘transcend religious boundaries’ to create any universal spirituality, but one cannot transcend the doctrinal (sectarian?) boundaries of a particular scripture while selecting few saying from them for that purpose.
Dayanand Bharati, Mathigiri, January 21, 2003.
An after thought:
We know the so called ‘liberal’ theologians attempt to create a ‘cosmic’ Christ who is either in every other religious faith implicitly or transcends all religious faiths and stands along with every great teachers (not necessarily gods, as in most cases in liberal theology this ‘cosmic’ Christ fit in to the frame of a ‘teacher’ to God). Like wise few sincere Christians like President Jefferson attempted to create a ‘soft’ and ‘gentle’ Christ. For them any harsh or strong statement (condemnation) cannot come from the mouth of a gentle Jesus who is the embodiment of love and love alone. But is it necessary or possible for any soft and gentle person like Jesus to be always ‘loving’ and ‘kind’ to anyone and everyone, closing the eyes against hypocrisy? He is a coward who not only fights for justice and righteousness but tolerate injustice and unrighteousness of every kind and form.
Of course we should give a consensus for those people to express their doubt about every harsh sayings of Jesus. However, anyone who stood for justice and righteousness always fought against injustice and unrighteousness and in such fight they not only condemned the ‘hypocrisy’ as a principle but also hypocritics like Pharisees. Above all those who exploited lay people using their religious (or spiritual) sentiment ought to be condemned openly so that those who take their teachings will be cautioned. This is what we see in most of the condemnation that came from the mouth of Jesus. And those kinds of condemnation should become stronger when any kind of hypocrisy has emerged within sect or faith. Jesus opposed Pharisees as He himself was a Jew. Paul opposed Peter as he saw the hypocrisy in Peter (in Galatians).
So to be gentle and soft does not mean to remain silent and not opposing any kind of injustice that too come from within their own sect, faith or group and become a coward. We can trace several historical examples for this in religious and secular (political etc.)fields.
Mathigiri, January 28, 2003.
@@@
Just I listened Dr. Daivanayagam’s speech in Podigai channel (Tamil, 11.00 pm to 11.15 pm, April 16th, 2007). The gist of his talk is this:
The civilization which prevailed all over India even from Sindu Valley was Dravidians. According to scholars the Sumerian civilization was spread by Dravidians who migrated from (Himalayas) India to settle down in plains (eastwards as per Gen. 11:2), which then spread to Egypt. The bible also endorses this in Genesis 11:1 & 2, which states that in the beginning people spoke only one language. And as the Dravidians, who are none but Tamilians moved from Sindu Valley to Sumeria, it was Tamil that was that one language. Abraham came from ‘Ur’, which equal to ‘Uur’ in Tamil (town or name of any place where people dwell). As the religion of Tamilians was Saivam, which means love, they also spread it wherever they went. The evidence again one could found in the bible, as Abraham’s grandson Jacob worshiped ‘lingam’ at Bethel, which means house of god. Not only Jacob, but the Israelites further worshipped Siva in the form of ling in seven more places.
Then the lingam worshipped was carried by Muslims fixing in a wall constructed for that purpose. The main evidence is in Mecca, where the Muslims from all over the world are worshipping it even along with women, who otherwise were not permitted in a Mosque. Not only this, to worship god, exactly like Abraham, who was a Tamilian, they also wear a white dothi and whit towel on top, without stitched still used by Tamilians. As Hindus shave their head at temple (Tirupadi and Palani), the Muslims also shave their head (but Hindu women too shave their head and he conveniently omits this point as no Muslim woman shaves her head at Mecca).
Then this linga worship become a Temple worship as he came in the form of Nataraja. As he is Hari-haran, there is no different from Saivam and Vaishnavism.
Both Adam and Eve spoke Tamil, as they were the parent for the entire humanity. The other greatness for Tamil is that it is the only language in which one can find scripture for all major religions of the world: Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism. It is Tamilians who said, ‘Yaadum Uure yaavarum kelir’ = All the places are mine and all the people are my relative.
He then spoke of other greatness of Tamil.
I wish I could record his talk. Of course one can get his writing easily, in which he tries to prove that Adam and Eve were Tamilians, the language they spoke was Tamil, Indian civilization was Dravidian civilization, Israelites worshiped only Siva-lingam (Siva =love; linga =mark. Sivalingam means mark of love). Muslims also following their great prophet Abraham continue to worship lingam at Mecca.
Do you want me to share any more to irritate you?
db
I think he might have a website of his own. If any one can find it out, please send important points to me. Dr. Daivanayagam is a Protestant Christian.
@@@
A Conference on the ‘Religion of the Tamils’ (Tamilar Samayam)
organized by the
Archdiocese of Madras – Mylapore
and the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils
- ‘Tamilar Samayam’ (the Religion of the Tamils) plays an indispensable role in the unification of the world religions.’’
- “The crown of ‘Tamilar Samayam’ is the ‘Soulology’ of the Tamils.’’
These two thoughts of the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils are placed before the scholars by the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore to ponder over and to analyze whether there is truth in these statements.
- According to the document of the Vatican Council II “There is God’s Divine light in every religion of the world’’(NA 2). Accepting this thought, the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore has found it as its duty to strive to bring to light the hidden truths in other faiths through inter religious dialogues.
- As every one knows, Mylapore being the burial place of St.Thomas, the name has been included in the name of the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore. The work of evangelization carried out by St. Thomas among the Tamils has been hidden through the ages. Hence the Archdiocese feels the necessity to study the historical background of Tamilar Samayam, which includes the religions that have come up due to the mission of St. Thomas.
Due to these two causes, the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore, has come forward to conduct this conference with the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils that places before the scholars the thoughts on Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils, for further analysis.
This is the ‘First International Conference on ‘Tamilar Samayam’ conducted to introduce Tamilar Samayam to the research scholars of the world. As the objective of this conference is to introduce the new concepts, there are 9 Main Essays that comprise 190 minor essays. These 9 Main Essays will be translated along with the questions and answers, and will be made widely available to the scholars of various languages. Besides 9 main essays other research papers and synopses on 190 topics are welcome.
This conference carries the new concepts and is just the beginning of a long research process. All the themes of these essays of the conference belong to Dr. M. Deivanayagam, founder of the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils and Dr. D. Devakala, the Organizer and the responsibility to clarify the doubts of the scholars also rests with them. The Archdiocese is very pleased to introduce Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils to the world society.
The International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils along with the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore is very glad to place before the world, the fruits of all its research of the past 40 years.
By
Chief Coordinators
The Most Rev. Dr. A.M. Chinnappa SDB., DD., Ph.D. Dr. M.Deivanayagam Ph.D.
The Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore Founder – The International Movement
Catholic Archdiocese. on the Soulology of the Tamils.
The Most Rev. Dr. Lawrence Pius DD., Ph.D. Dr. D. Devakala Ph.D.
The Auxiliarybishop of Madras-Mylapore Organizer – The International Movement
Catholic Archdiocese. on the Soulology of the Tamils.
Principal Committee Convenors
Dr. J. Samuel Savio Ph.D
Rector – Sacred Heart Seminary, Chennai 600056.
Dr. C. Sam Christopher Ph.D.
Dr. G. F. Xavier Raj Ph.D.
Mr. G. Srinivasa Sastriar Ph.D.
Mr. A. John Britto Ph.D.
Mr. Seerkazhi Siva. Chandrasekaran
Fr. G. Nambikkainathan
Poet D. Chandran
Fr. A. Bernard Lawrence
An introduction to the theme of the conference
- Religion of the Tamils and Soulology of the Tamils:
1). The tradition about Konduvana, Lemuria, and Kumari continent, destroyed by deluge and described as the origin of the first human being
2). The tradition about early two Tamil Sangams, destroyed by the engulfing of the ocean
3). The presence of the skeletons of the sea-dwelling creatures at Mount Himalaya
4). The dawn of the Indus Valley civilization after the destruction of Kumari continent.
5). Migration of the people, from the East to Sumeria called Shinar.
“And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech and it came to pass as they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.” (Gen 11:1,2)
The tidings mentioned above and the information in relation to the settlement of Indus Valley Tamils in Sumeria from the east and the biblical statement about the one language that was spoken all over the world, raise a question whether there is any possibility to surmise that the ancient one language refers to Tamil?
The term ‘Tamils’ had been referred in Sanskrit as Dravidians. Researches on Indus Valley civilization ascertained that it is of the Dravidians.
‘Tamilar Samayam’ refers to the common name for the religions of the world, originated by the Indus Valley Tamils who spread all over the world. Soulology of the Tamils is the crown of Tamilar Samayam. This does not confine to any particular religion. It does not depend on the understanding of any one religion. ‘Soulology of the Tamils’ is considered to be the compendium of all the world religions.
2 . What is Soulology?
All the living beings from one sense to five senses have only two entities i.e., Body and Life, but only human beings have the third entity called ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ or ‘Soul’ which differentiates human beings from other creatures. The study of this specific entity i.e., ‘soul’ is known as ‘Soulology’. So far, in the world, at large,
1). the study that pertains to material body is known as ‘Science’.
2). the study that pertains to life is known as ‘Philosophy’ and
3). the study that pertains to God is known as ‘Theology’.
All these three dimensions will not be meaningful unless and until a study on ‘Soul’ or ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ which is the root cause for the sixth sense and for the formation of the said thoughts, is developed. This study has not grown in any other languages of the world except in Tamil. Indeed it is important to note that in Tamil alone the study on Soul is developed sharply and systematically in grammatical form and that too in the form of aphorism.
It is important to note here that the study on the soulology leads to the formation of a society of harmony, love, peace etc., free from discriminations and aversions.
3. The first stage of Soulology:
The Tamil grammar labels the human beings who have ‘Soul’ or ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ which is the root cause for the sixth sense as ‘Uyarthinai’ i.e., superior class of being, denoted by nouns including human being, God, and all other creatures as ‘Agrinai’ i.e., a class of nouns denoting animate and inanimate creatures other than human being. This kind of classification doesn’t occur in any other language of the world except Tamil. This is the first stage in the development of Soulology.
4. The second Stage of Soulology:
1). That which is written is known as a ‘Script’.
2). That which is joined together by written letters is known as a ‘Word’.
3). Each word contains a meaning or a ‘Sense’ (‘porul’).
4). Joining the words together is a sentence, known as ‘Yappu’ (‘prosody’).
5). Every sentence or Yappu has ‘Ani’ (‘a rhetorical embellishment’)
Tamil alone has grammatical explanation for all the above said five rudiments. Apart from Tamil, no other language has systematic grammatical explanation for ‘Porul’ i.e., theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of the people.
In Tamil, theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of human beings (‘porul’) had been grammatically classified as
(1) Subjective Sense that relates to the theme of love (‘Aga porul’)
(2) Objective Sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery etc., (‘Purapporul’)
‘Agapporul’ i.e., the Subjective sense that relates to the theme of love can be understood only through personal experience and is difficult to explain in words, whereas ‘Purapporul’ i.e., objective sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery… can be explained to others.
This subjective sense is known as ‘kathal’ (‘love’), which has two perspectives:
a. The love between two human souls, which fall in love, and the pleasure which they experience for a while is ‘Sitrinbam’ i.e., ‘Momentary pleasure’;
b. The love between human soul (Individual soul), and the Divine Soul (Supreme Soul) and the everlasting pleasure, which the human being experience, is ‘Perinbam’ i.e., ‘Eternal pleasure’.
These two perspectives are grammatically explained as ‘Aga porul’ (subjective sense pertaining to the theme of love) in Tamil. This kind of mystical experience is the second stage in the development of Soulology of the Tamils.
5. The third Stage of Soulology:
Jainism and Buddhism that existed even before Christ as atheistic and agnostic religions were aware of body and life alone and on the basis of this understanding they had the concept of cycle of birth. Theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism had originated and developed in the post – Christ era because of the Bhakthi movement of Tamilnadu.
There had been a doctrinal conflict between atheistic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism and the theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism. Due to this ideological conflicts, there had been a tendency to go beyond religious structures and traditions in Tamilnadu, which led to analyze the fundamental truths of all the major religions of the world such as 1.Body 2.Life 3. Soul 4.God and 5. Egotism, in logical and scientific methods. Because of ideological conflicts, the study on Soulology had developed profoundly in Tamil language, and Sivagnanapotham stands as an incomparable book on Soulology.
Fundamental entities of Tamilar Samayam that developed through the ages such as
1. Pathi (God) 2. Pasu (Soul / Human being) 3. Pasam (bondage)
are the essence of the following five entities
1. Body 2.Life 3.Soul 4.God and 5.Egotism,
which are the essence of the following seven entities
1.Individual Body 2.Universal Body 3.Individual Life 4. Universal Life 5.Individual Soul 6. Universal Soul and 7. Egotism
6. The Historical Background of the development of the Religion of the Tamils:
Atheistic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism were flourishing in India in the pre-Christ era. They were strongly rooted even in Tamil Nadu. Because of the Bhakthi movement of Tamilnadu, theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism originated from Tamilnadu and spread all over India in the post- Christ era. One must consider the historical background of the origin of Bhakthi movement and the emergence of the religions of Bhakthi movement such as Saivism and Vaishnavism.
Worshipping method of the Indus Valley Tamils has been continuing through the ages wherever they had moved and settled and few specifics are hinted as follows for elucidation.
1). Worshipping God by installing a memorial stone, occurs in the Indus Valley civilization.
2). Worshipping God by installing a memorial stone at Bethel, referred in the Bible
3). Worshipping God by fixing a monumental stone on the wall, referred in Quran
4). Worshipping God in a temple in Jerusalem, that was built with many stones, referred in the Bible.
Thus, the worshipping method of the Indus valley Tamils, who experienced the love of God, and worshipped God by installing memorial stones, has been occurring through the ages.
An Analysis of Tamilar Samayam reveals that the Ultimate Reality has been understood in different perspectives in different theistic religions; but a common underlying fact is they are the descriptions of One God in various forms and the following specifics illuminate this perspective.
5). Correlation between the resurrection of Jesus Christ who conquered death and who is referred in the New Testament as the ‘living stone’, and the Saivite tradition of the dance of Siva on ‘Muyalaka’ in the burial ground;
6) .concept of the family of Siva of Saivism and Vaishnavism, which is the
continuation of the worship of the dance of Siva;
7). and Sivagnanapotham, which clarifies that the worship of the family of Siva
is not polytheism but monotheism only,
thus obviously give a picture on the developments of Tamilar Samayam.
7. Development of Soulology in Tamilnadu since the encountering of atheistic and
theistic religions :
Two different dimensions of Tamilar Samayam are religions of atheism and theism and they can further be classified as the religions that developed in India and the religions that grew outside India. History of Tamilar Samayam shows that the reason for the development of the Soulology of the Tamils was due to the encounter between theistic religions (Saivism and Vaishnavism) and the atheistic religions (Jainism and Buddhism).
An analysis of the theistic and atheistic religions, in the perspective of Soulology will put an end to aversion and help one to comprehend their fundamental tenets that promote humanity, unity, fraternity etc., and drive one’s thoughts towards solidarity.
Sivagnanapotham, the grammatical text of Soulology, is the gist of the atheistic religions of India, originated by the Indus Valley Tamils and the theistic religions, originated outside India by the Indus Valley Tamils who crossed Himalaya. It can be understood that Sivagnanapotham is the compendium of the atheistic and theistic religions of the Tamils who spread all over the world.
8. To understand the theme of the forthcoming conference:
To understand the Soulology of the Tamils that explains logically and scientifically about body, life, soul, God and egotism, which are the essence of Tamilar Samayam that includes the world religions, one has to understand Tamilar Samayam as the common name for the religions of the world. In order to understand the Soulology of the Tamils, one must learn to go beyond a particular religion alone but comprehend the fundamental doctrines of the religions of the world.
The religions of the world are not islands but they are interrelated like a chain, and to understand Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils, one has to chronologically understand their correlation.
As a cord that links together the pearls, Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils link the religions of the world. In order to end the religious and communal clashes and to bring harmony and love in the world society, understanding Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils are very essential.
In order to draw the world towards solidarity and harmony, the thoughts of the Tamils such as ‘Every country is my country and all are my kith and kin’, (‘Yadhum Voorae; Yavarum Kelhir’) and ‘Only One Community; Only One God’ (‘Onrae kulam; Oruvanae Thevan’) will be highlighted in the forthcoming conference.
9. Objectives of the International Conference on Tamilar Samayam:
- Disclosing the basic concepts of the religion of the Tamils, such as Love, Sacrifice, Compassion, Concern for others etc., which are also interwoven in the culture of the Tamils to promote Unity and Religious Harmony in the world society.
- Unveiling the basic tenets of the religion of the Tamils, for restoring egalitarian society freed from racial and caste discriminations, which have been justified with religious sanction.
- Promoting the emancipation of the society from religious and communal clashes by highlighting the unifying factors, occurring in the religion of the Tamils.
- Highlighting the vital field of Soulology of the Tamils, that illuminates the uniqueness of the human being among the creatures, which uproots dis criminations and unites the people group of various religions under “One Fold and One Shepherd”- “Onrae Kulam Oruvanae Thevan”.
- Bringing a common understanding without destroying or belittling any particular religious tradition, that converges the society towards ‘Ultimate Reality’
10. Registration:
Registration fee including food and lodging, from 14the evening to 17th afternoon
I. For the participants from Abroad ———————-$100
II. For the participants from India
For food and stay ——————————-Rs. 500/-
For food alone ———————————-Rs. 300/-
Date and Venue
14 -17 August 2008,
Pastoral Centre, No. 25, Rosary Church Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600004
Contact address
Regarding Conference Regarding Tamilar Samayam:
The Secretay Intenational Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils,
Conference on Tamilar Samayam 278.Konnur High Road,
Madras-Maylapore Catholic Archdiocese, Ayanpuram, Chennai – 600023.
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004. ( : 91- 44 -26740457; 26743842; ( : 91- 44 -24641102; 24640833 +91-9444817394; +91-98400003842
@@@
A Conference on the ‘Religion of the Tamils’ (Tamilar Samayam)
organized by the
Archdiocese of Madras – Mylapore
and the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils
- ‘Tamilar Samayam’ (the Religion of the Tamils) plays an indispensable role in the unification of the world religions.’’
- “The crown of ‘Tamilar Samayam’ is the ‘Soulology’ of the Tamils.’’
These two thoughts of the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils are placed before the scholars by the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore to ponder over and to analyze whether there is truth in these statements.
- According to the document of the Vatican Council II “There is God’s Divine light in every religion of the world’’(NA 2). Accepting this thought, the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore has found it as its duty to strive to bring to light the hidden truths in other faiths through inter religious dialogues.
- As every one knows, Mylapore being the burial place of St.Thomas, the name has been included in the name of the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore. The work of evangelization carried out by St. Thomas among the Tamils has been hidden through the ages. Hence the Archdiocese feels the necessity to study the historical background of Tamilar Samayam, which includes the religions that have come up due to the mission of St. Thomas.
Due to these two causes, the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore, has come forward to conduct this conference with the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils that places before the scholars the thoughts on Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils, for further analysis.
This is the ‘First International Conference on ‘Tamilar Samayam’ conducted to introduce Tamilar Samayam to the research scholars of the world. As the objective of this conference is to introduce the new concepts, there are 9 Main Essays that comprise 190 minor essays. These 9 Main Essays will be translated along with the questions and answers, and will be made widely available to the scholars of various languages. Besides 9 main essays other research papers and synopses on 190 topics are welcome.
This conference carries the new concepts and is just the beginning of a long research process. All the themes of these essays of the conference belong to Dr. M. Deivanayagam, founder of the International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils and Dr. D. Devakala, the Organizer and the responsibility to clarify the doubts of the scholars also rests with them. The Archdiocese is very pleased to introduce Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils to the world society.
The International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils along with the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore is very glad to place before the world, the fruits of all its research of the past 40 years.
By
Chief Coordinators
The Most Rev. Dr. A.M. Chinnappa SDB., DD., Ph.D. Dr. M.Deivanayagam Ph.D.
The Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore Founder – The International Movement
Catholic Archdiocese. on the Soulology of the Tamils.
The Most Rev. Dr. Lawrence Pius DD., Ph.D. Dr. D. Devakala Ph.D.
The Auxiliarybishop of Madras-Mylapore Organizer – The International Movement
Catholic Archdiocese. on the Soulology of the Tamils.
Principal Committee Convenors
Dr. J. Samuel Savio Ph.D
Rector – Sacred Heart Seminary, Chennai 600056.
Dr. C. Sam Christopher Ph.D.
Dr. G. F. Xavier Raj Ph.D.
Mr. G. Srinivasa Sastriar Ph.D.
Mr. A. John Britto Ph.D.
Mr. Seerkazhi Siva. Chandrasekaran
Fr. G. Nambikkainathan
Poet D. Chandran
Fr. A. Bernard Lawrence
An introduction to the theme of the conference
- Religion of the Tamils and Soulology of the Tamils:
1). The tradition about Konduvana, Lemuria, and Kumari continent, destroyed by deluge and described as the origin of the first human being
2). The tradition about early two Tamil Sangams, destroyed by the engulfing of the ocean
3). The presence of the skeletons of the sea-dwelling creatures at Mount Himalaya
4). The dawn of the Indus Valley civilization after the destruction of Kumari continent.
5). Migration of the people, from the East to Sumeria called Shinar.
“And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech and it came to pass as they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.” (Gen 11:1,2)
The tidings mentioned above and the information in relation to the settlement of Indus Valley Tamils in Sumeria from the east and the biblical statement about the one language that was spoken all over the world, raise a question whether there is any possibility to surmise that the ancient one language refers to Tamil?
The term ‘Tamils’ had been referred in Sanskrit as Dravidians. Researches on Indus Valley civilization ascertained that it is of the Dravidians.
‘Tamilar Samayam’ refers to the common name for the religions of the world, originated by the Indus Valley Tamils who spread all over the world. Soulology of the Tamils is the crown of Tamilar Samayam. This does not confine to any particular religion. It does not depend on the understanding of any one religion. ‘Soulology of the Tamils’ is considered to be the compendium of all the world religions.
2 . What is Soulology?
All the living beings from one sense to five senses have only two entities i.e., Body and Life, but only human beings have the third entity called ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ or ‘Soul’ which differentiates human beings from other creatures. The study of this specific entity i.e., ‘soul’ is known as ‘Soulology’. So far, in the world, at large,
1). the study that pertains to material body is known as ‘Science’.
2). the study that pertains to life is known as ‘Philosophy’ and
3). the study that pertains to God is known as ‘Theology’.
All these three dimensions will not be meaningful unless and until a study on ‘Soul’ or ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ which is the root cause for the sixth sense and for the formation of the said thoughts, is developed. This study has not grown in any other languages of the world except in Tamil. Indeed it is important to note that in Tamil alone the study on Soul is developed sharply and systematically in grammatical form and that too in the form of aphorism.
It is important to note here that the study on the soulology leads to the formation of a society of harmony, love, peace etc., free from discriminations and aversions.
3. The first stage of Soulology:
The Tamil grammar labels the human beings who have ‘Soul’ or ‘Manitham’ or ‘Vulhlham’ which is the root cause for the sixth sense as ‘Uyarthinai’ i.e., superior class of being, denoted by nouns including human being, God, and all other creatures as ‘Agrinai’ i.e., a class of nouns denoting animate and inanimate creatures other than human being. This kind of classification doesn’t occur in any other language of the world except Tamil. This is the first stage in the development of Soulology.
4. The second Stage of Soulology:
1). That which is written is known as a ‘Script’.
2). That which is joined together by written letters is known as a ‘Word’.
3). Each word contains a meaning or a ‘Sense’ (‘porul’).
4). Joining the words together is a sentence, known as ‘Yappu’ (‘prosody’).
5). Every sentence or Yappu has ‘Ani’ (‘a rhetorical embellishment’)
Tamil alone has grammatical explanation for all the above said five rudiments. Apart from Tamil, no other language has systematic grammatical explanation for ‘Porul’ i.e., theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of the people.
In Tamil, theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of human beings (‘porul’) had been grammatically classified as
(1) Subjective Sense that relates to the theme of love (‘Aga porul’)
(2) Objective Sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery etc., (‘Purapporul’)
‘Agapporul’ i.e., the Subjective sense that relates to the theme of love can be understood only through personal experience and is difficult to explain in words, whereas ‘Purapporul’ i.e., objective sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery… can be explained to others.
This subjective sense is known as ‘kathal’ (‘love’), which has two perspectives:
a. The love between two human souls, which fall in love, and the pleasure which they experience for a while is ‘Sitrinbam’ i.e., ‘Momentary pleasure’;
b. The love between human soul (Individual soul), and the Divine Soul (Supreme Soul) and the everlasting pleasure, which the human being experience, is ‘Perinbam’ i.e., ‘Eternal pleasure’.
These two perspectives are grammatically explained as ‘Aga porul’ (subjective sense pertaining to the theme of love) in Tamil. This kind of mystical experience is the second stage in the development of Soulology of the Tamils.
5. The third Stage of Soulology:
Jainism and Buddhism that existed even before Christ as atheistic and agnostic religions were aware of body and life alone and on the basis of this understanding they had the concept of cycle of birth. Theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism had originated and developed in the post – Christ era because of the Bhakthi movement of Tamilnadu.
There had been a doctrinal conflict between atheistic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism and the theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism. Due to this ideological conflicts, there had been a tendency to go beyond religious structures and traditions in Tamilnadu, which led to analyze the fundamental truths of all the major religions of the world such as 1.Body 2.Life 3. Soul 4.God and 5. Egotism, in logical and scientific methods. Because of ideological conflicts, the study on Soulology had developed profoundly in Tamil language, and Sivagnanapotham stands as an incomparable book on Soulology.
Fundamental entities of Tamilar Samayam that developed through the ages such as
1. Pathi (God) 2. Pasu (Soul / Human being) 3. Pasam (bondage)
are the essence of the following five entities
1. Body 2.Life 3.Soul 4.God and 5.Egotism,
which are the essence of the following seven entities
1.Individual Body 2.Universal Body 3.Individual Life 4. Universal Life 5.Individual Soul 6. Universal Soul and 7. Egotism
6. The Historical Background of the development of the Religion of the Tamils:
Atheistic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism were flourishing in India in the pre-Christ era. They were strongly rooted even in Tamil Nadu. Because of the Bhakthi movement of Tamilnadu, theistic religions such as Saivism and Vaishnavism originated from Tamilnadu and spread all over India in the post- Christ era. One must consider the historical background of the origin of Bhakthi movement and the emergence of the religions of Bhakthi movement such as Saivism and Vaishnavism.
Worshipping method of the Indus Valley Tamils has been continuing through the ages wherever they had moved and settled and few specifics are hinted as follows for elucidation.
1). Worshipping God by installing a memorial stone, occurs in the Indus Valley civilization.
2). Worshipping God by installing a memorial stone at Bethel, referred in the Bible
3). Worshipping God by fixing a monumental stone on the wall, referred in Quran
4). Worshipping God in a temple in Jerusalem, that was built with many stones, referred in the Bible.
Thus, the worshipping method of the Indus valley Tamils, who experienced the love of God, and worshipped God by installing memorial stones, has been occurring through the ages.
An Analysis of Tamilar Samayam reveals that the Ultimate Reality has been understood in different perspectives in different theistic religions; but a common underlying fact is they are the descriptions of One God in various forms and the following specifics illuminate this perspective.
5). Correlation between the resurrection of Jesus Christ who conquered death and who is referred in the New Testament as the ‘living stone’, and the Saivite tradition of the dance of Siva on ‘Muyalaka’ in the burial ground;
6) .concept of the family of Siva of Saivism and Vaishnavism, which is the
continuation of the worship of the dance of Siva;
7). and Sivagnanapotham, which clarifies that the worship of the family of Siva
is not polytheism but monotheism only,
thus obviously give a picture on the developments of Tamilar Samayam.
7. Development of Soulology in Tamilnadu since the encountering of atheistic and
theistic religions :
Two different dimensions of Tamilar Samayam are religions of atheism and theism and they can further be classified as the religions that developed in India and the religions that grew outside India. History of Tamilar Samayam shows that the reason for the development of the Soulology of the Tamils was due to the encounter between theistic religions (Saivism and Vaishnavism) and the atheistic religions (Jainism and Buddhism).
An analysis of the theistic and atheistic religions, in the perspective of Soulology will put an end to aversion and help one to comprehend their fundamental tenets that promote humanity, unity, fraternity etc., and drive one’s thoughts towards solidarity.
Sivagnanapotham, the grammatical text of Soulology, is the gist of the atheistic religions of India, originated by the Indus Valley Tamils and the theistic religions, originated outside India by the Indus Valley Tamils who crossed Himalaya. It can be understood that Sivagnanapotham is the compendium of the atheistic and theistic religions of the Tamils who spread all over the world.
8. To understand the theme of the forthcoming conference:
To understand the Soulology of the Tamils that explains logically and scientifically about body, life, soul, God and egotism, which are the essence of Tamilar Samayam that includes the world religions, one has to understand Tamilar Samayam as the common name for the religions of the world. In order to understand the Soulology of the Tamils, one must learn to go beyond a particular religion alone but comprehend the fundamental doctrines of the religions of the world.
The religions of the world are not islands but they are interrelated like a chain, and to understand Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils, one has to chronologically understand their correlation.
As a cord that links together the pearls, Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils link the religions of the world. In order to end the religious and communal clashes and to bring harmony and love in the world society, understanding Tamilar Samayam and Soulology of the Tamils are very essential.
In order to draw the world towards solidarity and harmony, the thoughts of the Tamils such as ‘Every country is my country and all are my kith and kin’, (‘Yadhum Voorae; Yavarum Kelhir’) and ‘Only One Community; Only One God’ (‘Onrae kulam; Oruvanae Thevan’) will be highlighted in the forthcoming conference.
9. Objectives of the International Conference on Tamilar Samayam:
- Disclosing the basic concepts of the religion of the Tamils, such as Love, Sacrifice, Compassion, Concern for others etc., which are also interwoven in the culture of the Tamils to promote Unity and Religious Harmony in the world society.
- Unveiling the basic tenets of the religion of the Tamils, for restoring egalitarian society freed from racial and caste discriminations, which have been justified with religious sanction.
- Promoting the emancipation of the society from religious and communal clashes by highlighting the unifying factors, occurring in the religion of the Tamils.
- Highlighting the vital field of Soulology of the Tamils, that illuminates the uniqueness of the human being among the creatures, which uproots dis criminations and unites the people group of various religions under “One Fold and One Shepherd”- “Onrae Kulam Oruvanae Thevan”.
- Bringing a common understanding without destroying or belittling any particular religious tradition, that converges the society towards ‘Ultimate Reality’
10. Registration:
Registration fee including food and lodging, from 14the evening to 17th afternoon
I. For the participants from Abroad ———————-$100
II. For the participants from India
For food and stay ——————————-Rs. 500/-
For food alone ———————————-Rs. 300/-
Date and Venue
14 -17 August 2008,
Pastoral Centre, No. 25, Rosary Church Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600004
Contact address
Regarding Conference Regarding Tamilar Samayam:
The Secretay Intenational Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils,
Conference on Tamilar Samayam 278.Konnur High Road,
Madras-Maylapore Catholic Archdiocese, Ayanpuram, Chennai – 600023.
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004. ( : 91- 44 -26740457; 26743842; ( : 91- 44 -24641102; 24640833 +91-9444817394; +91-98400003842
@@@
…Hindus—a term that may be used by default to denote its etymological equivalent “Indian.”— The Indian Sciences. Introduction. Frits Staal, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.346
T.H.Tjee’s review on Living Water and my response [edited by Rajesh]
Corrie Ten Boom correctly said (in her book Not Good If Detached) that “our critics are the unpaid guardian of our soul”. So I am thankful to Tjee for his wonderful review of the book ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’. There is no point in my irritating my guardian again by giving further negative criticism since he rightly finds too much of this in the book (several Christians said the same thing to me and I too recognize it). However, while thanking him for his ‘criticism’ of this book, yet in way of response I would like to ask a few questions and also give some answers. In the course of this dialogue he and others may again feel that I begin to criticize. But I feel that once we begin to disagree, even our comments and responses can look like mere criticisms, and this is not my intention. At the same time I humbly accept the fact that there is a natural tone and tune in my language and writing which often gives this impression. Maybe it is in my spirit and I need the prayers of my guardians for God to change it. However, I also feel that criticism is not one way traffic; it depends not only on the way of a critic, but also the way comments are received.
As usual, I am going to write a long response to a concise review. This is because I have to defend my position as well as raise some questions. Those who have neither time nor interest to spend (waste) their precious time are requested to just ignore the following dialogue.
Tjee: The author points out that the name “Hindu” historically comes from the Sanskrit word “Sindu”, the river Indus’s name, which mainly described the Indian people and their civilization (p. 164). The term “Hindu”, however, has undergone changes. Many Hindus would seem to call themselves such because they belong to a certain religious tradition. The author would like to use the term in the original sense but in my opinion that may no longer be possible, as the term “Hindu” does not simply mean “Indian” any longer. It does have a religious connotation. As the author points out, Hinduism comprises religious, cultural and social life (p. 13). A Hindu Christ Bhakta can remain socially and culturally Hindu, but not religiously. Different Hindus may worship different gods, perform different rituals, or even have different theologies, but they all arise from Hindu civilization. The Hindu civilization did not bring about the Gospel of Christ.
My response: Yes, Hindu civilization did not bring about the gospel of Christ. But I would like to know which civilization or even religious tradition brought the Gospel. I think even the Jewish religious tradition did not bring the gospel. As I began the book Living Water, the gospel is both a revelation and an initiation from God—which transcends every civilization and religious tradition.
But this is my question: How should followers of Christ relate to the several religious communities in India today? If my understanding is correct most of the early Church Fathers’ theology and even some of the writing of the Gospel according to John also came from the pagan worldview and civilization and not exclusively from the OT background. If they could use such tools to communicate the gospel (through their mind) to their audience, then which terms should we use to communicate the same gospel to our people? I have no problem in accepting the fact that the term “Hindu” does not simply mean “Indian” any longer. But by calling one as an “Indian Christ Bhatka” or “Tamil Christ Bhakta” are we not simply generalizing the term? Of course there is no wrong even in such a generalization as it gives a correct overall identity with a particular region and nation. But when it becomes the task (or a burden) of a Bhakta of the Lord to reach out to her own people, then which identity should she carry? Paul, who wanted to become all things to all men, did not hesitate to identify himself with his own people both through his words and actions (Romans 10:1 and Acts 21:17f.)
So when we want both to communicate and identify with our own people, are ethnic, cultural and social identity enough? Nowhere in the world have so-called secular, social and cultural views emerged from a vacuum without any religious connotation so that they can easily be assigned to water-tight compartments. Above all, when we want to reach a particular group within a collective group based on language and region, we have only religious values to differentiate the importance of the gospel from cultural, social and secular values. Without identifying with the religious worldview of the people how we are going to communicate the gospel to them? Is there any secular gospel which we can easily share with the various groups in India? So I am not using the word “Hindu” only in its original meaning of geographical identity, but definitely with a religious connotation as well.
While cultural and social aspects provide the natural environment in which people are born and brought up, and from which they must not be displaced, still it is only through religious identity that we can build bridges for the gospel. From time immemorial in every part of the world it is through the religious worldview that the gospel is communicated and theology is formed. (There may be some exceptions like in ‘Peace Child”.)
I understood the gospel as a Hindu, with my own religious background and my religious worldview, and not through my cultural and social views! Ever since the gospel came to India it is mainly through the religious views of the people—both criticizing it or trying to build bridges—that people were ‘converted’ to Christianity. (Like Peace Child, several people groups were converted by using some social and cultural aspects. For example in South Tamil Nadu the gospel liberated people from social suppression (from untouchability, etc.). But once they were converted, it was only through their religious worldviews that they were allowed to grow in the Christian religion (yet they failed to remove the very social suppression from which they were brought, creating again “Christian” social divisions).
Tjee: Practically too, it is very complicated to live as a “Hindu Christ Bhakta”. In fact, one may become so confused trying to come up with some solutions to reconcile the religious part of being a Hindu and his or her devotions to Christ. For example even the author, who has extensive knowledge of Hinduism and has seriously wrestled with the idea, mixes up issues like red dot, new names, marriage and funerals under the title “Hindu religious practices”, although they were earlier defined as purely social. I am afraid it will be too much for most common people to have to resolve the intermingling social, cultural and religious practical aspects of being a pure Hindu yet a devotee of Christ.
My response: I think Tjee misses the context in which the above issues which were earlier defined as purely social were later discussed under ‘Hindu religious practices’. But this explanation cannot justify my mistake of discussing them under religious practices, as this will only support the Christian point of view. However, in order to find out where I had earlier defined them as purely social, using ‘find’ I searched the entire book and as per my search I couldn’t find where I specifically defined them as social. But they are definitely more social oriented, of course sanctioned by religious rituals. Now, as the book is more a brainstorm and not a systematic work, I brought them under Hindu religious practices as they were the main area in which the Christians confront and confuse several ‘converts’ by relating them with mere religious rituals.
It is also true that “it will be too much for most common people to have to resolve the intermingling social, cultural and religious practical aspects of being a pure Hindu yet a devotee of Christ”. (Tjee). But whose privilege or responsibility is to resolve this? Is it the exclusive prerogative of some religious authorities or their representatives (here the so-called missionaries or pastors)? It was in this context that I wrestled with the ideas under discussion (“mixes up issues like red dot, new names, marriage and funerals under the title ‘Hindu religious practices’”).
It is true that ‘Practically too, it is very complicated live as a “Hindu Christ Bhakta”. In fact, one may become so confused trying to come up with some solutions to reconcile the religious part of being a Hindu and his or her devotions to Christ.’ But there are several religious aspects in a Hindu’s life which would help her to grow deeply in her devotion to the Lord. Bhakti is one such. It will take too many words for me to explain this. It is the experience of so many Hindu Christ bhaktas that their religious heritage as a Hindu not only helped them to comprehend the gospel but helped them continue to grow in their faith.
Tjee rightly points out that I have defined several of Hindu cultural aspects and even some rituals as mostly social. But considering Tjee’s question, if it is too much for the common people to resolve all the issues with which they have to wrestle and live, what are we to say about how in the past, in the name of teaching and guarding the faith of the common people, the religious representatives, and particularly missionaries, assumed such authority for themselves? By doing so they did serious damage. Instead of equipping these so-called unqualified common people, these religious authorities took authority in their own hands, forgetting the fact that they too are part of the same “common people”. Sitting on Moses’ throne, they loved to control1 and rather than to serve. Particularly those who serve in cross-cultural situations have no right to decide or even to interfere in issues of the people—including religious matters. What looks to an outsider like a religious issue need not be so to the local people.
Dr. Schmidt at a Pune Rethinking Conference narrated the following incident. When he visited one of the African countries, he was very much disturbed to see that in front of several native believers’ houses there was a small baby hut, in which several things were kept as offerings to departed ancestors. Thinking of these as religious rituals, he confronted the local leader about how he could allow such things. But the sensitive local leader (thank God, he was not an outside missionary) with a smile said to Dr. Schmidt that this is the local way of showing respect to ancestors. ‘In your country, on a death anniversary, even Christians go to the graves of their relatives and friends and put some beautiful bouquet. Do you think that the dead will come and enjoy the sweet fragrance of those flowers’? Of course, here I don’t want to enter into further debate as this illustration could lead beyond its central message (respecting ancestors) to minor details. As long as the common people are not taught to resolve all the issues related to their faith and identity, the church will remain frozen with all its historical mistakes of the past. As our Lord rightly denounced the religious leaders and teachers of his time (Mt. 23), they, in every religion, always love to control by using the ignorance of the people rather than serving them to overcome their ignorance.
Tjee: Since the name “Christian” seems to be the main problem for those who want to be identified as devotees of Christ and since “Hindu” historically means “Indian”, why not call oneself an “Indian Christ Bhakta” or even a “Tamil Christ Bhakta”? For today’s audience there is no religious contradiction in this kind of name. As an “Indian Christ Bhakta” one can have so much freedom in practicing the many social and cultural suggestions in this book. Most relieving is that he or she will also be free to not follow Hindu religious practices as asserted in this book.
My response: I can understand the relieved feeling which an outsider gets once they successfully manage to prevent locals from follow “Hindu religious practices as asserted in this book”. But what about the common people’s feelings, when their life is controlled in every way in the name of safeguarding their faith by an outsider? Forget the Hindu Christ bhaktas, even among many traditional Christians and even after several generations of faith, they still carry on their old religious practices outside the church with full knowledge of their priests, to which the same religious leaders close their eyes in order to survive or to making a living.
Tjee first says, ‘The author would like to use the term in the original sense but in my opinion that may no longer be possible, as the term “Hindu” does not simply mean “Indian” any longer. It does have a religious connotation’. But after one paragraph says, ‘since “Hindu” historically means “Indian”, why not call oneself an “Indian Christ Bhakta”? Such shifting concerns of missionaries irritate people like us—Hindu Mukteswar bhaktas. Whenever it suits their convenience and relieves their feelings they are ready to allow or dictate what kind of labels we can use for our identity. That’s why several times we have to tell such people to ‘leave us alone’.
When we use a common term like ‘Hindu’ ‘American’ ‘German’, it has both its local and wider meaning according to the context. This morning (July 5, 2004) when I heard the BBC news about “Indian” efforts to keep their cultural identity in Canada by creating a website to find a life partner, I thought that it actually is all those Indians who migrated from my country who are doing it. They are now Canadians and not Hindu Indians! Europeans without our permission label others as Indians (Red Indians, West Indians, Native Indians), whereas, considering the global context, it would be better to leave the local people to decide about their identity issues as they have to live and move with their own people.
Tjee: ‘You do not approach Hindus by pointing at their mistakes first. Likewise, you do not approach traditional Christians and missionaries by criticism. Another result of this approach is that the author’s own ideas and valuable suggestions become clouded, scattered throughout the book and hard to identity.’
My response: Accepted. But even in the preface I mentioned that this is not a book but collected essays and brainstorms resulting after wrestling with various issues in different times. However, though I addressed the traditional Christians and missionaries, yet, as Tjee again rightly pointed out, ‘In conclusion this book’s main plea is that devotees of Christ in Hindu communities should think through various cultural and social areas where traditionally the solutions according to western cultures are accepted and practiced without a question’. As he answered his own question I need not elaborate on this point further. This book is indirectly written not only to the Hindu Christ bhaktas but also to my own non-Muktesware bhaktas in Hindu communities.2 Dr. Sangeethamony, a retired professor and a traditional Christian, in a recent discussion after reading this book told me that what is written succintly on several issues (worship, theology, language, etc.) could be developed as separate books. But I am not a gifted writer, able to ‘stick to the well-chosen’ positive title of the book. All the (‘Failures’) chapters and subchapters, which look a ‘contradiction to the positive title of the book’ are a spontaneous expression of my reflections and not a systematic intellectual work. I wish and pray that some gifted writer could collect various spontaneous reflections of several Hindu/Muslim etc. Christ Bhaktas and write them up properly.
Tjee: ‘However, even the suggestions that the author presents must not be followed without question. Every individual, every family, every community must do their homework in studying God’s Word and seeking God’s wisdom, and by faith come up with solutions to live….More mistakes will probably be committed. However, God is sovereign and His purpose can not be thwarted by human errors.
My response: The following is from the preface:
As this is not a single book but collected articles written on personal experience, there will be several repetitions. Though others contributed a lot by their valuable suggestions, yet I am solely responsible for all the mistakes as well as unhealthy criticisms which one will most likely still find in this book. Most of the issues which we are dealing with in this book have a limited context of ‘sharing the gospel among the so called high caste and educated Indians’ and so are not applicable to all. We are not giving any uniform formulae but some basic principles which are needed yet must be contextualised according to the particular situation, keeping the fact in mind that thankfully the Bible never gives us a pattern to follow but principles to adopt. (p.xviii)
Further from the book:
Christians seem always to have a formula for ‘winning’ (a militant and imperialistic term) Hindus for Christ, as if the Hindus have to blindly obey rather than to respond with a proper understanding of the gospel. The basic reason for such a wrong approach is that a uniform formula is imposed in the approach to any and every people group. (p.1)
Each family and society is made up of people with these varying and complex personalities. What gives satisfaction to one need not give the same to the other. So in all our approach we cannot have a uniform theory or policy to reach people. This being the truth, in all our efforts to reach our neighbour proper preparation is needed on our part first to understand them. Though human basic needs in life are almost the same, yet they differ in degree (not necessarily in kind) according to different personalities. So we cannot use the same approach for all.(p.75)
We recommend these new terms out of our personal experience in the ministry in the north. At the same time it can never be insisted that these terms should be uniformly followed everywhere. Each language and social group may have different but specific local terms and they must be properly studied first and used, particularly replacing Greek, Aramaic and western terms like baptism, amen, pastor, etc.(p.93)
But this ignores the fact that I am not imposing my ideas on others and I never expect others to follow blindly. My intention is not to give a uniform formula to be applied everywhere. I share some principles and if it is relevant to your context use it or leave it. But please be careful that while opposing such ‘Hindu or Brahminical imperialism’ do you not continue to impose on converts a continuance of your own ‘western imperialism’ which is inherited in all the churches. Without knowing the cultural, social and religious life of the people among whom they serve, missionaries and evangelists simply impose their own traditions on new believers. They want to use the down south drum in north Bihar instead of using the local musical instruments. Yet even when I point this out they call it Hindu imperialism imposed in the name of indigenisation! (p.95)
Well, again I have to seek the forgiveness and grace of Tjee if this response hurts him in a personal way. When I give a response, I only keep the issue before me and all that comes out from my mind I share without hiding even my resentment. Of course I am not a fool to say that I am only attacking the principle and not the person. Because for me it is very difficult to separate a person from her principle. At the same time, I have no personal ill feeling against any of my critics. We agree to disagree on certain principles. But we can love and serve each other as we share a common faith and love in the Lord. Thanks, Tjee, for the pain and time to articulate your views in a beautiful way. God bless you.
Mathigiri, July 5, 2004.
1. ‘….western concept of teaching, which is often geared to allow people to gain intellectual control over things, and then manipulate them according to their desire, and where the teaching style is usually an address, a professorial monologue geared at students in an academic set-up, removed from real life. In technical terms, the eastern teaching style is kinetic: the topic of discussion literally moves around the table from person to person, and everyone is involved. After such deliberation, a consensus is built, a collective opinion emerges, and corporate action can follow. In the West the style is often static, the classroom approach, the teacher indoctrinating a passive crowd, trying to put a cross his or her points, true to a Greek and Roman concept of scholasticism and intellectualism, where the goal is handing down knowledge through the ages to individuals’.— Wolfgang Simson, Houses That Change the Word: The Return of the House Churches, London, OM Publishing (2001) 2003, p. 85
2. Before closing, a word to my own people in Hindu communities. By chance you may read this book one day. Instead of using this book to attack Christianity, think deeply what made me to follow Christ in spite of all these struggles. If you ever ask me a question, ‘what made you to follow this Jesus, when we have high philosophies and plenty of Gods’, my answer is, ‘it is not my fault. I searched for a guru to lead me from Darkness to Light. But however we try we cannot find the guru, till he himself reaches us. According to our tradition we cannot select a guru but he should both select and accept us as his follower. So when I searched for Him through various means, when my heart and soul was prepared Christ came as that GURU to lead me to His light. I did not choose Him, but He alone sought after me. Then there was one option only left before me, either to surrender to Him or reject. At the end of my search, when I become tired and almost gave up all hope as I did not have any more strength, I gave Him a chance and He neither disappointed me nor disowned me. Because “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him….” (2 Tim. 1:12)’ The same Jesus who came to pave the Way, give the Truth and show the Light, will not disappoint you, either. So do not excuse yourself by pointing to the mistakes made unintentionally by the Christians, but learn from the experience of other Hindu Christ bhaktas and become His bhakta as a Hindu; because He says ‘Whoever comes to me I will never drive away’ (John 6:37). (p.xviii)
Dear Dayanand,
Thank you for sharing your response to the review. You are to be commended for your gracious reply. The struggle in which you are engaged is not yours alone. Among our fellow believers here in America there is a great assumption that the heart and core of our faith is so intertwined with with denominational and American cultural traditions that many have lost sight of Christ’s surprising love. I pray that your message is heard and lived among the Christ Bhaktas and others around them.
In Christ,
Robert Schmidt
@@@
The Integrity of the Gospel and Insider Movements
By Rebecca Lewis
3-27-2010
Concerns have arisen over the emergence across the non-Christian world of “insider movements.” For many of us, it seems that the very nature and integrity of the gospel is at stake in this discussion.
We have been led into this debate by the need to respond to developments on the field. Individuals, families and communities are claiming to know and submit to Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but refusing to identify themselves as “Christians” in the common sense of the word. Some of these people are Muslims, who claim to have found that Jesus Himself is the “straight path” that they have pleaded with God to show them five times each day. Others are Hindu or Buddhist, seeking a personal relationship with Jesus in the midst of cultures similar to the idolatrous pantheon of the Greco-Roman world or the stoic philosophers of the first century. Though most people in these insider movements believe in the supreme authority of the Bible and the absolute lordship of Jesus Christ, they are remaining members of their communities, including most aspects of their religious culture. If these were just a few people, they could be overlooked. However, when movements to faith in Christ of this nature develop, with followers numbering in the hundreds or thousands, some assessment is necessary.
Are these movements to Christ from God or not? Do they advance His Kingdom on earth or do they hinder it? Will they bring the power of the gospel into these cultures like yeast in the dough? Or will the gospel be diluted or contaminated to the point of ineffectiveness, overwhelmed by religious and cultural syncretism? Should we pray for, protect, and emulate these fledgling movements? Or, should we warn, correct, and if necessary, disown them?
I believe there is ultimately only one thing that matters at the heart of this debate, and it is not contextualization. The core issue is this: Is the very nature and integrity of the gospel being revealed and upheld, or is “a different gospel” being preached and believed, as Paul warns?
To answer this question, we must turn to the Bible as the authority for our faith and practice, especially to the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul.
What do I mean by the integrity of the gospel?
As Paul sought to fulfill his calling, we see two important facets in his defense of the gospel for the Gentiles. I believe that both facets are required for the integrity of the gospel to be maintained.[1]
1) First, Paul emphasized the unchanging content of the gospel message. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the living God was reconciling the world to Himself. Adam and Eve brought upon all mankind the curse of sin and death by rejecting God’s command out of desire to become like gods. Jesus, the second Adam, turned this upside down, and “though being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). Instead he walked Adam’s path without sin, yet paying the price of sin, thereby establishing by grace a means for us to know and enjoy the living God forever. This is the unchanging message we proclaim in all contexts.
Christians who are supportive of insider movements are concerned that this message not be altered by adding additional requirements such as adherence to Christian religious traditions, thereby clouding or encumbering the gospel. Others, however, are concerned that without requiring adherence to traditional practices and theological formulations, this central truth cannot be preserved. Bothsidesare concerned that the gospel message is getting lost.
2) The second facet of the gospel that Paul emphasized is the unchanging scope of God’s plan—the power of the gospel itself to penetrate and transform families within all cultures. Today we believe that God will fulfill His plan to “bless all the families of the earth.” But, like the first century believers, we are not in agreement about how this is going to happen. Again, the integrity of the gospel is at stake.
Maintaining the Integrity of the Gospel When It Moved from the Jewish to the Greek World
From the time God first proclaimed the gospel to Abraham, He made it clear that His plan was to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham’s descendents (Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8). But what did this mean? Did this mean that they were to go out and make proselytes, cultural and religious converts, of all peoples? Did it mean that “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven” would hear and believe the Good News, then take it back home with them, as happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:5)?
In the book of Acts we read that the apostles began proclaiming the gospel with the assumption that it was only for the Jews. Evidently, they thought that by doing so they were maintaining the integrity of the gospel. Since circumcision was the sign of the covenant God had made with Abraham, and Pentecost was the celebration of the giving of the law on stone tablets to Moses, the gospel as a new covenant, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, were the fulfillment, not the abrogation, of all God’s promises in the Hebrew Scriptures. So, it would have made sense to the disciples that those coming into the Kingdom of God would be Jews, saved by faith in Christ and discipled through the God-given Jewish religious framework within which all the disciples lived.
Therefore, the disciples began to confidently spread the message of Christ inside the Jewish religious community. They preached in the Temple and synagogues–even though their own religious leaders repudiated Jesus as the Messiah, actively persecuted them and other followers of “the Way,” and forbade them to preach. They believed their religious tradition to be the right one, and the only one acceptable to God. The result, as Acts 6 reveals, was that Hebraic Jews, Hellenized Jews, converts to Judaism and “a large number of priests” of the Jews were coming to faith, but no Gentiles. These Jewish believers remained in their Jewish communities, or fled to other Jewish communities when persecuted, taking their faith with them.[2]
But what happened when non-Jews started to come to faith?
The first non-Jews to turn to Christ in large numbers were the Samaritans. Jesus had given Samaritan believers the freedom to worship “in spirit and truth” without requiring them to become proselytes or to come to the Jewish Temple or synagogues (John 4), where Jewish believers were congregating. Jesus affirms this non-Jewish version of faith in himself as “the kind of worshippers the Father seeks” (v. 24). The Samaritans themselves grasped both key aspects of the gospel, exclaiming, “We know that this man really is the Savior of the world!” (v. 42).
Jesus revealed both the power and the scope of the gospel by saving the Samaritan villagers, without requiring Samaritan believers to enter the Jewish religious framework. The disciples seemed to accept this inclusion of the Samaritans into God’s kingdom, even though the Samaritans followed a “heretical” version of the Jewish religion. When Philip won many Samaritans to faith in Christ, Peter and John came to pray that they would receive the Holy Spirit. Then they preached the gospel in many Samaritan villages on their way back to Jerusalem. These Samaritan believers remained in their Samaritan villages, as they would not have been welcomed into Jewish villages, but they were accepted as fellow believers by the Jewish believers and the apostles, who visited them. Perhaps it was easy for the Jewish believers to accept these Samaritans believers following Jesus, apart from becoming Jewish proselytes, because the Samaritans were circumcised, tried to follow the God of Abraham in the Torah, and had similar religious laws.
Can the gospel transform pagans without the framework of the Jewish laws?
Unlike the easy acceptance of Samaritan believers, a heated theological debate arose over the very nature of the gospel itself when pagan Romans and Greeks began to come to faith in Christ. The message of the gospel was not in question, but the scope of its application was a matter of contention. Did the gospel message bring grace only to those who join the family of faith as it was then construed (the circumcised believers who kept Mosaic Law) or could the gospel bring salvation to all, regardless of their social and religious context? Two events brought this question to a head:
1) God showed Peter the power of His gospel to save the Gentiles, apart from adopting Jewish identity, by introducing Peter to the Roman centurion Cornelius, and his household. Before Peter could even finish his presentation of the gospel, God’s Holy Spirit came on all of them, much to Peter’s shock. Though other Jewish believers criticized Peter for associating with Romans, upon hearing that the Holy Spirit had come upon Cornelius and his family, they exclaimed, “So then, God has granted even unto the Gentiles the repentance unto life!!” (Acts 11:18). They were beginning to understand that there are two necessary facets of the gospel, both the message and its ability to save people in all cultures and contexts. Until then, their understanding of the gospel had been incomplete.
2) Greeks were coming to faith as well. In Antioch the Greek believers were called “Christians”[3] (Acts 11:26). Although these Greek believers did not convert to the Jewish form of faith in Christ, they nevertheless felt a sense of unity with the Jewish believers and sent a benevolent donation for needy Jewish believers to the elders in Jerusalem through Barnabas and Saul. The Jewish believers seem to have tolerated a few pagans who had become believers in Christ without accepting their religious framework, but they were alarmed when it became a movement.[4]
The Greek believers must have seemed pagan and syncretistic to the Jewish believers whose religious traditions had been practiced by Jesus and the apostles and had their roots in over a thousand years of scripture and tradition. So some Jewish believers argued that the Greek believers must adopt circumcision, which was the distinctive mark of the covenant between God and His people, as well as the religious traditions given through Moses, which were followed by the Jewish believers.
How did the Jerusalem council maintain the integrity of the gospel?
By Acts 15, a sharp dispute broke out between Paul and Barnabas and some Jewish believers from Judea who came to Antioch and began teaching the Greek believers (the “Christians”) that their salvation was not yet complete. Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to resolve the matter under debate: Is conversion to the identity and religious traditions of the Jewish believers necessary for salvation for those coming out of Greek pagan background? At this juncture, it was not the content, or message, of the gospel that was under debate.[5] What was under debate was the scope and nature of the gospel: Did the message of Jesus Christ only have the power to save those who also accepted the religious framework in which Christ himself was incarnated, or could the gospel save those in an alien context as well?
By defending the power of the gospel to save believers who retain their Gentile culture and identity, Peter sought to preserve the integrity of the gospel. He made a plea to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem on behalf of the Gentiles, saying: “God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them [the Gentiles] by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for He purified their hearts by faith. Now why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the [Greek] disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe that it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are,” (Acts 15:8-11).
The apostles and elders agreed that the Scriptures had predicted that God’s salvation was for all peoples, not just Jews and proselytes. They also agreed that God had shown His acceptance of the Gentile believers by giving them His Holy Spirit. So, using these two criteria to justify their decision, they decided “not to make it difficult for the Gentiles turning to God” (Acts 15:19) by adding on to their faith in Christ a requirement of conversionto the Jewish religious forms. In order to promote a peaceful co-existence between Jewish and Greek believers, the council asked the Gentiles to follow a few laws given in Leviticus[6] to outsiders residing among the Jews: no eating of blood, strangled meat, or food polluted by idols, nor any practice of sexual immorality. However, all of these laws, except the last one, were removed before the end of the New Testament by Paul,[7] who reduced them to a matter of conscience (Romans 14).
Paul Persisted in Fighting for the Integrity of the Gospel
Paul’s battle for the gospel seemed over, but it was not. The apostles had made a pivotal decision: the movement to Christ among the Greeks was from God and the Greek “Christians” should not be required to adopt the religious traditions of the church in Jerusalem. However, the written pronouncement from the Jerusalem apostles was clearly not the end of the issue. In his subsequent letters, Paul had to argue repeatedly that the gospel must move into the Gentile people groups unhindered by external religious expectations. The integrity of the gospel was at stake.
Paul was not ashamed of the gospel message precisely because he had seen its power to save, apart from religious traditions, not just the Jew but also the Gentile (Romans 1:16-17). As a result, Paul could confidently proclaim that the gospel has revealed a righteousness that is by faith alone. So he hammered this point in through several chapters of Romans, a letter written to believers in Rome where faith in Christ was still seen as a sect of Judaism (Acts 28:22): “God does not show favoritism.” (Romans 2:11) “Circumcision is not merely outward and physical… a man is not a Jew if he is merely one outwardly. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the spirit, not by a written code.” (2:28-29) “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” (3:9)Before circumcision and before the giving of the Law, Abraham was made righteous by faith alone, so “he is the father of all those who believe but have not been circumcised” (4:11).
Paul had changed the mark of the covenant from an external mark (circumcision, Genesis 17:13) to an internal mark (“circumcision of the heart by the Spirit not a written code,” Romans 2:29). What a shock this teaching must have been to Jewish believers! What? Abraham is the father of uncircumcised believers (Romans 4:11)? Abraham is the father of Gentiles refusing to adopt the Abrahamic sign of the covenant and the Laws given through Moses? Paul had declared that the mark of belonging to God’s people was not external but internal—a changed heart.
Paul explained that God had demonstrated that all those who have Abraham’s faith are Abraham’s children, apart from any outward religious requirements. God had revealed this truth by calling Abraham “father of many nations” and by crediting to Abraham righteousness on the basis of his faith alone (Romans 4:16-18).
This message of inclusion in God’s family on the basis of faith alone was good news to the Gentiles, but it was disturbing to many Jewish believers who felt Paul was dismantling their religious traditions. These Jewish believers did not understand why God would want Gentile believers to set aside the religious framework He had established for the Jews.
Likewise, it is disturbing today for Christians who value their religious traditions, to see believers arising in other cultural contexts set these aside as optional or inappropriate for their context. The message of inclusion is good news to us also as long as we are the Gentiles getting included. It starts to get more difficult to accept when we recognize that we are now in the position of those Jewish believers, with 2000 years of our own valuable teachings and traditions that we want everyone to build on.
We doubt that God would bypass the collective wisdom of our religious writings and traditions, building his church afresh in new cultures as he did among the first century Greeks. Are the foundations of the Bible and the Holy Spirit sufficient for God to build His church without going through traditional Christianity as we know it? Could it be that God is once again starting movements of true faith in Jesus Christ, making new people groups into “children of Abraham,” by faith in the gospel alone?
These are questions we would rather not ask. Why would God bypass traditional Christianity? Perhaps because it would astonish the world, revealing the true power of the gospel. Perhaps because the integrity of the gospel itself is at stake.
Will a simple gospel result in immature disciples?
A valid concern about insider movements today is that a simple faith like Abraham’s, a faith in Christ and the Bible without a religious framework drawn from historical Christianity, will not give these new groups of believers enough guidance for mature discipleship. Paul spoke to this concern himself. Having shown that the gospel is powerful enough to save anyone, regardless of their religious context, Paul went on to prove that Gentile believers would be transformed even if they did not have the benefit of the Mosaic Law and the existing discipleship system of the Jews.
First, Paul showed that the religious traditions of Jewish believers had not delivered them from their sinful nature (Ephesians 2:3), nor from bondage to demonic forces (Galatians 4:3). Therefore, neither would these traditions deliver the Gentiles from sin, and could merely lead to a new type of bondage (Galatians 4:9). Second, Paul delineated in Romans, chapters 6-15, that it is the gospel that is the transformative power in the life of a believer. The believer’s “old self was crucified with Christ” (6:6), so he is “freed from sin” (6:7), and now he is “alive to God in Jesus Christ” (6:11), the benefit reaped “leads to holiness and the result is eternal life,” (6:22), so that “…those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (8:14). Third, Paul summarized the result, or fruit, of having the Holy Spirit in ones life in Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These characteristics are unique signs of the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life in any culture or context.[8]
Paul concluded that it is the Holy Spirit that delivers believers from their sinful nature so that the moral law of God is fulfilled–holiness without legalism. Paul was teaching that the Holy Spirit will accomplish in the life of a believer something no religious tradition or institution can ever accomplish.
What does the “mystery of the gospel” mean for today?
In his letter to the Romans, Paul systematically demonstrated that it is the gospel itself, apart from all the God-given traditions of the Jews, that brings the transformation of obedient faith into the life of believers from any background. He recognized that God was doing something significantly different in his day, calling it a “mystery hidden in God who created all things” (Ephesians 3:9).
When moving the gospel into the Greek world, God did not overturn His Word, but He did overturn the religious traditions His people had built upon it. The mystery He revealed to Paul was that the Greeks did not have to adopt the religious form of the Jewish believers to become joint heirs and “children of the promise” with them. Paul said: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6). Some take this to mean that the Greek believers and the Jewish believers had homogenized or fused together into a new “Christian” culture. They assume the first century believers neither had the Torah-abiding forms of the Jewish apostles, nor the cultural forms of the Greek believers so prominent in later Christianity (statues, mosaics, and endless discussions of philosophical/theological nuances).
It is more accurate to recognize that in the first century there were in existence at least two radically different religions based on Jesus Christ. There was the Jewish version, breathing life into the Laws of Moses and Jewish ritual holy days, and there was the Greco-Roman version, turning their philosophy-loving hearts into theology-loving hearts, that explored the nuances of the Trinity and the incarnation. Today people of many different cultures are becoming followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are claiming their biblical right to live out their faith in diverse ways that are nevertheless grounded on the supreme authority of the Bible. Are we ready to accept them as joint heirs with us if they belong to Muslim or Hindu cultures and do not adopt the religious forms and traditions we have constructed over time and do not even take on a “Christian” identity?
Paul affirmed that in spite of their different cultural and religious practices, these Jewish and Greek believers were all made one, joint heirs in Christ. The gospel had destroyed the “dividing wall of hostility” that is, their prejudice and enmity toward one another (Ephesians 2:14,16). It did not destroy their respective cultures. Having recognized that they were received by God equally, without merit, they had no right to boast over one another, or to consider their own religious expression of faith in Christ to be more salvific than the other. Therefore, we can likewise expect today that allowing radically different expressions of faith in Christ will breakdown walls of hostility while preserving distinct cultural identities. This humility and freedom of expression of faith are integral to maintaining the integrity of the gospel, so that the power of salvation is always clearly by faith and not by outward works.
Why does Paul forbid them to change religious expressions of their faith?
It is difficult to understand Paul’s teaching on these issues. It is easy to accept that he was trying to gain a freedom for the gospel to move unhindered into new cultures. That seems compassionate. But why would he get upset if some of the new Greek believers wanted to become Jewish proselyte believers? That seems harsh. After all, conversion to Judaism had been going on for centuries. What would it matter if the Greek believers wanted to take the full step into joining the Jewish apostles in their version of faith in Christ?
Again, Paul’s main concern was clearly for the integrity of the gospel. He did not want it to appear that there is more merit with God to be a believer within the religious stream of Israel than to be a believer within any other context. Therefore, Paul emphasized the importance of the gospel not being linked to changing cultures, even religious cultures. He said, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. What counts is faith expressing itself in love.” (Galatians 5:6) “Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches: Was a man already circumcised when he was called? [already a Jew or a convert to Judaism] He should not become uncircumcised. [throw off the Jewish law and culture] Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? [a non-Jew] He should not be circumcised. [He should not convert to the Jewish religion as part of his faith in Christ] Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation he was in when God called him.” (I Corinthians 7:17-20)
At first it appears that Paul was saying that the Lord has assigned to each of us the family and people group we are born into,[9] and when He calls us to Himself, He also calls us to reach out to those around us in that community and not remove ourselves from that situation.[10]
However, the crux of Paul’s argument is actually that no one should consider one religious form of faith in Christ to be superior to another. “What counts,” Paul emphasized, is “faith expressing itself in love,” “keeping God’s commands,” and becoming “a new creation.” As believers we need to be able to look past differences in religious culture and see the Holy Spirit working in the lives of our fellow citizens of the Kingdom.
Paul considered this point so crucial to the integrity of the gospel that he laid it down as a rule for all the churches (I Corinthians 7:17). He said it even more forcefully in Galatians, “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised [i.e. convert to the Jewish form of faith in Christ]. The only reason they want to do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.[11] Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh.[12] May I never boast except in the cross of Jesus Christ…Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God,” (Galatians 6:11-16). Paul considered this rule so important, he gave his signature to it, saying: “See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!”
Paul stood at a very crucial juncture in history—a critical point when the gospel could have easily become locked within the Jewish community. So Paul spoke very forcefully to ensure that the gospel was not limited to Jews, and their proselytes. He called any “gospel” that denies the power of Christ to save those from every people group, without proselytism,“a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all.” He warned that those trying to add to faith in Christ a conversion to specific religious forms were “throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel” (Galatians 1: 6-7). In Galatians 5:2 Paul became even more vehement: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves become circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all…. You who are trying to be justified by law [outward religious expressions] have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Wow!
Why was Paul so upset and so insistent that the very integrity of the gospel was at stake? Because the Judaizers[13] were not preaching a gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Instead they were adding the requirement of religious conversion (change of outward forms and religious identity) to the inner transformation, implying that the work of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient by itself.
Is this discussion about missiology or the integrity of the gospel?
When people start turning to Christ in large numbers but refusing to identify with traditional Christianity, we should be cautious. It is important to analyze these Jesus movements just as carefully as the apostles and elders in Jerusalem analyzed the Greek movement to Christ.
We should not trivialize this discussion as a new radical contextualization[14] or a new missiological strategy designed to make it easy for Muslims to come to Christ.[15] Something much more profound is at stake: the integrity of the gospel itself.
Can we apply Paul’s insights from God about Gentile believers to today’s insider movements? God revealed to Paul that His promise of salvation by faith in Christ alone extends to all people. Grasping this “mystery,” Paul advocated for a Greek movement to God through Christ, spreading inside Greek culture, just as the Jewish movement to Christ was spreading inside the Jewish networks. He saw that the marvel of the gospel is that it has the power to save and transform people within any socio-religious context. That power brings far more glory to God than would be the case if God could only transform believers within a single religious construct.
Rather than simply presenting a missiological strategy, Paul was setting a template for how the gospel penetrates radically different cultures. Today we have the opportunity to reaffirm the power of the gospel to move into other cultures and other religious frameworks, and transform them from the inside out. But if we demand that all believers adopt our own religious traditions and identity[16] then we are actually undermining the integrity of the gospel. We are subtly communicating that Jesus Christ cannot save people and gather them into His Kingdom without using other religious traditions and institutions of godly men who have gone before. We are saying that the gospel alone is not powerful enough to save to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:24-25 KJV).
Today God is granting faith in Jesus Christ to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in increasing numbers. They are believing in His death and resurrection on their behalf, receiving Him as their Lord and Savior, accepting the supreme authority of the Bible, and being transformed by the Holy Spirit. But they are not becoming “Christians” in name or adopting traditional Christian religious forms or identity. Could the gospel, stripped of 2000 years of godly writings and traditions, really be that powerful?
I hope we can make the same decision that the apostles did in Acts 15. They welcomed Greek pagans as followers of Christ without requiring the Greek believers to adopt their own religious expression of that faith, opening the way of faith for all non-Jewish people groups. Let us boldly affirm that apostolic decision and say: “God who knows the heart shows that he accepts Muslim and Hindu believers by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them for He purified their heart by faith…We believe that it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are…therefore, we should not make it difficult for people in other religious cultures who are turning to Christ.”
@@@
Thomas’s Christianity and Bhakti Marg
Dear Dr. Ramaswamy,
Shanti!
I got the paper on St. Thomas’ Christianity’s influence on the followers of Bhakti Marg sent by you. I think this paper is prepared by Dr. Daivanayagam & co. After reading the first page, I have decided not to waste my time with such articles. Anyone can write anything based on hypothetical assumption. To begin with I don’t believe in the so called St. Thomas’ Christianity and all the myth based on it. And the worst part in it is the line: ‘Thomas came to India with a ministry to make know about Jesus to India where the religions of atheism existed. Even if we assume that Sramanas (Jainism and Buddhism) are atheist religions (one can include Charavakas also), yet when Thomas came (which I don’t accept) to South India and according to that myth even converted Brahmins, where comes the question of he confronted atheist religion?
Next is the point that Peter become the leader to the Jews Christians, which grew later. After he was martyred, on his grave a Cathedral rose which still attracts the entire world. But Jews Christianity died and the early church grew mostly (or only) among the non-Jews (whom they called gentiles). Well, let me not invest my time on this point.
But the worst part for me is the interpretation for ‘witness’ as ‘noble’. Let me translate the actual sentence: ‘Sachigal’ (witness) in good Tamil called as ‘Saandror’ (noble). Therefore the Thomasic Christians in Tamilnadu were called as ‘Saandror’ (noble) which we learn from the poems of Sanga Tamil literature and also from Tirukkural.’
To prove this point one line from Puranaanuru and one Kural from Tirukkural was quoted.
Where in Tamil literature or grammar the word ‘witness’ (sachigal) is mentioned as ‘noble’ (saandror). When Tamil scriptures use the word ‘saandror’ (noble) it always means ‘good people with noble moral characters’. But super imposing such wrong meaning on one Tamil word with another word, for which no proof is given, I really got upset and kept the paper away. Once superimposed the meaning of ‘noble’ on ‘witness’, then all the words ‘noble’ in Tamil (Sangam and other) literatures are interpreted talking about Tomasic Christian? What a strange and funny concept. There is a Tamil proverb: ‘Mudalum koonal; muttrum koonal’ [when the beginning is wrong, the entire things will be wrong]. This alone will be truth with such an article.
Now tell me, do you think any sober minded people would like to spent time to read such articles. Others may, but I am not interested in such writings and sorry to say that I am not going to read further this paper or give my comments.
Dayanand
Gurukulam, August 30, 2009.
@@@
Dear Muktanand
Loving Greetings in His name, Your newsletter was such an encouragement and my mom enjoyed reading it very much too!
Sarah and I have wanted to ask you for some time about this question of identity that Dayanand (i am ccing this to him for his comments as well) talks about when he makes the difference between the red tikka and the sandal wood paste tikka, the red one indicating worship of the goddess and the sandal wood simply indicating one is a religious person,
we have been noticing others also with this red tikka, even Sikhs, and it seems also to mean ‘welcome’ like putting it on at the airport to welcome your arriving family members, or in Nepal it seems to be used at weddings and in many circumstances. Does it necessarily have to mean goddess worship?
Also, what does the red band around the wrist that you and others wear mean in the Hindu context, and is there a difference between that and the red tikka. From my understanding its original use in Varanasi is to indicate a follower of Devi, but that you wear to indicate that you have been saved by the blood of Christ. now for example, would you not wear the red tikka for some reason but feel free to wear the band for some other reason or would it be possible to redefine the red tikka as well?
It would be great to hear your thoughts on this,
Much love
Chris and sarah
Dear Chris and Sarah,
Shanti!
Regarding the red tikka, I think I never said or mentioned that it is uniformly related with any worship of the goddess. Red tikka (sindur or kunkum) taken as prasad in a temple is related with the worship of goddess, but if the same is used before a mirror by a woman it is related with cosmetic. The same is the case in welcoming anyone at airport and use of rice and red powder mixed and applied on the forehead is both a blessing and also related to goddess worship in some particular context.
See the attachment for more on tikka.
Db
@@@
Dear Swamiji:
Ava and I will pray for a resolution to your water situation.
On another note, a friend just sent me something that got me thinking. I’ll pass it along to you.
Jim
The Airwaves of Enlightenment
India’s Gurus Take to Television to Spread Their Message
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, December 15, 2003; Page A26
NEW DELHI — In the plush, heavily marbled living room of his 8,000-square-foot mansion, the wealthy industrialist sat raptly in front of the television at 7 a.m., a cup of tea in his hand and a contented smile on his face.
On the screen in front of him, Yashpal Sudhanshu, one of India’s best-known gurus, chanted a prayer in Sanskrit before launching into a soothing, feel-good lecture on how to cope with stress. “Begin each day with a pure thought,” he advised. “When you do breathing exercises, when you control your anger, when you laugh, you’re actually prolonging your life.”
The industrialist, Rajiv Malhotra, said he was deeply grateful for such guidance. Listening to a guru each morning helps him “get peace out of this mechanical life,” he said. “People have become very conscious about material things.”
Malhotra, 44, is not alone. As Indians move to the cities and leave behind traditional, village-level forms of Hindu worship, they increasingly are turning to the airwaves in search of spiritual sustenance. As a result, religious programming is booming, making celebrities out of gurus whose satellite-assisted reach now extends to many parts of the globe.
“Spirituality was always part of the Indian psyche, but now it has just found a new vehicle, 24-hour television,” said Madhav Kant Mishra, executive director of the seven-month-old Sadhna religious channel. “Indians had started disbelieving their own traditional knowledge systems. The TV channels aim to reestablish that system with modern analysis and in a modern context.”
The audience for such programs cuts across social classes in India, where cable television costs as little as $1.50 a month, and cable and satellite services reach an estimated 42 million of 191 million households nationwide. By all accounts, however, some of the most ardent viewers are educated middle-class and wealthy Indians, who tend to live in larger towns and cities and rely on their daily dose of Hindu folk wisdom, prayers and counseling as a powerful antidote to urban angst.
“You walk through any neighborhood in Delhi at 6 or 7 a.m. and you will hear the sound of religious TV coming out of most homes,” Mishra said. “People have gotten addicted to it.”
Hinduism is deeply embedded in the fabric of everyday life in India, where tens of thousands travel the roads on yearly pilgrimages and makeshift shrines grace the corners of the even the humblest dirt-floored homes.
But the pressures of economic growth and modernization — manifest in a steady flow of people from the countryside to the cities — have taken their toll on religious tradition as observed by Hindus as well as the country’s Muslim and Christian minorities.
“Indian religions are very locality-specific,” said Ashis Nandy, one of India’s leading social scientists. “You have family priests, family gurus, personal gods, village gods and goddesses — this is what living Hinduism is — and that is truly in decline in urban areas. Therefore you begin to search for substitutes.”
One consequence, he said, is a more homogenized and generic form of Hinduism. Another is the rise of Hindu nationalism, whose politicians have made enormous gains over the last decade in part by trying to “exploit this sense of void” among the increasingly transient urban masses, Nandy said.
But most of India’s best-known gurus are determinedly apolitical — cultivating followers in secular parties as well as the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party at the head of India’s governing coalition.
The trend has set off fierce competition for airtime among gurus who regard television as key to enhancing their profile — and bringing in the financial contributions that sustain their ashrams and lifestyles. Some of the programming can be found on mainstream, India-based cable channels such as Zee TV, which claims a worldwide audience of 225 million, and Star Plus of the Murdoch media empire. But the trend is most visible in the emergence since 2000 of four 24-hour cable channels whose content consists largely of gurus singing prayer songs (bajhans) or delivering sermons.
“The religious business in India is very lucrative,” said an executive of a religious channel who asked not to be identified. So fierce is the competition for media exposure, the executive added, that lesser-known gurus typically pay religious channels for airtime; some have been known to record their sermons in private, “then insert shots of a crowd from elsewhere and send us the tapes. Some of them are such novices that they need teleprompters and written scripts to give discourses. It’s a big commercial game.”
Sudhanshu, however, is so popular that he does not pay for airtime — and commands a worldwide following of 3 million on several channels, aides say.
A Sanskrit scholar from the foothills of the Himalayas, Sudhanshu, 48, is the founder and head of the Universal Awakening Mission, which operates 20 ashrams and a network of charitable hospitals and schools across India; it also has overseas branches in Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere.
During an interview at his New Delhi temple recently, Sudhanshu said one of his principal goals is to enhance the “aura” — a halo of colored light — that surrounds each human being at a distance of three to six inches.
“That aura protects you from negative forces,” he said as he sat in the lotus position with bajhans playing softly in the background. “When that aura weakens, other people’s words and actions have a negative impact. My message is to strengthen that aura around you by meditation, introspection and worship, so you create heaven around you.”
The organization’s prosperity was evident during a visit to its main ashram, which occupies 17 acres in a farming area outside New Delhi. A kind of religious theme park, the ashram features ornamental ponds stocked with swans, a fire temple, a seminary for Hindu missionaries and a 60-foot high artificial mountain — complete with cascading waterfall — ornamented with statues of Hindu gods.
It also has an old-age home and a charitable hospital whose treatment regimes range from state-of-the-art laser eye surgery to chromotherapy, which involves directing bands of colored light on patients suffering from mental conditions.
Taking a visitor on a tour recently, an executive of the ashram acknowledged that for all the guru’s divinely inspired wisdom, he also had help from another source in building his spiritual empire. “Television has created this,” the executive said.
Special correspondent Rama Lakshmi contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A97-2003Dec14.html
Dear Swamiji:
Our next door neighbor told us that a family member used to refer to her as “Pap”, and in jest “Papi”. She told us that in Sanskrit, “Pap” means baby, but that Papi means sinner, and/or one whom everyone could cast their sins upon.
Can you comment on this?
They are Iyengars who come from Tamilnad.
Praying for water,
Jim
Dear Ava and Jim,
Shanti!
Thanks for sending the Television Guru’s teaching. There are two or three regular TV channels in India (Sanskar, Aasta), in which 24 hours spiritual discourses, bhajans etc. are coming. So Hindus cannot remain back to use electronic media and several people watch those programme sincerely and regularly.
Regarding the word ‘pap’ (actually paap with a long a) both in common Hindi and Sanskrit means ‘sin’. But I am not a Sanskritist to challenge others knowledge in this language. However based on my practical knowledge I would say ‘papi’ is definitely sinner but I am doubtful whether it could also mean ‘one whom everyone could cast their sins upon.’ However ‘papa’ is common Tamil name to address baby girls but it is pronounced as ‘paapa’ (with a long a first and short a in the end) and ‘paapa’ is nearest translation for ‘baby’. There are several people (most non-Brahmins) having ‘paapati’ as their name and some time Brahmin women are sarcastically called by others ‘paapati’, it is like calling a Muslim as ‘miya’ (which is bad way of addressing them).
However there are few other strange Tamil (also in other Indian languages) names which parents give to their children in order to ward of evil eye (because of their beauty and other talents).
Dayanand
@@@
Dear Dayanand,
When I was in India and met you at Pune, I rejoiced that you had the freedom to be Christ’s Bhaktas unfettered from the institutional, often foreign-made churches. Now I am wondering if some of us Christians might learn from you how to be Christ’s church also in America and other places in the West.
My own denomination has serious problems in governance, divisions, and loss of membership. It is not alone. Most of the denominations here are having similar problems. Following Roland Allen, I have been a great advocate of letting each family or gathering call it own leaders to teach and do worship. However, the question always arises, “will such small groups be isolated?” How might they be connected to share their insights and teaching?
My question to you is how are the individuals, families, and groups connected among those Bhaktas with whom you work? In the New Testament, there was no institution but there was a network of teachers like Timothy, Titus, Apollos, and others. There was also an exchange of letters. What are your connections among the Christ Bhaktas with whom you are in contact. I would like to learn how this might be done as our institutions crumble.
Robert Schmidt
Dear Guruji
Shanti!
Thanks guruji for your sharing and also the problem that you face. In India too the family is getting shattered for various reasons. But in most cases, the relatives and the large extended family still provide a link when people need some one to relate and fulfill all their social and other needs. As American situation is different from you, God alone could provide alternatives which will serve your purpose there. I thank god for your ministry and pray for your good health to serve many in your congregation. God bless you.
Thanks for your mail. I am on tour and so I will share briefly to your question. We encourage bhaktas of the Lord to meet as often as possible for fellowship and worship. But we never have any fixed date or day. Each group will decide and do according to their local convenience and need. For example, recently at Chennai one bhakta of the Lord faced some serious family problem and he immediately contacted another senior bhakta in the night. The senior one, immediately took his wife and rushed to his place and was with him to help in every way. This is also a kind of fellowship for us. At Bangalore, they will come to my place once in month and we will have regular scriptural study, worship and fellowship. But we have a wider e-mail net work in which most of the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord are connected with each other. They share their problem, blessings and prayer needs. Apart from this I have my own website in which I share some thoughts. We all share main bible teaching, our group discussion with each other. When one girl who lost her father immediately contacted me from America and sought some consoling words. Then I wrote her back. I also visit those in India when time permits.
For us fellowship is what our birth family provides us immediately for all our social need. As we always depend upon the ‘natural’ leaders who are recognized and accepted by the mandali (local fellowship group), the relationship among the bhaktas further strengthened. We don’t appoint any one as the leader and there is no paid workers in our group. This helps us to come out from unnecessary administrative burden. Above all, as all are new bhaktas, they always keep that their life is a witness for their other family members who are not the followers of the Lord. This helps them to accept personal responsibility in spiritual and moral areas.
We also make it clear to every bhakta that there exists no ‘private’ faith and we are responsible and answerable and accountable to each other. This gives both the privilege and responsibility. Finally I insist that each family should focus on worship and bring their own children in the Lord. This is their responsibility and not that of any Sunday school teacher or youth group leader or a pastor. So cultivate family centered fellowship and worship at first and then connect each other through personal fellowship through gathering or through email group and phone.
Hope this gives some answer to your question. I had wonderful time both at Varanasi and Rewa area. I will share about it later. Now I am in Kanpur and will leave for Chandigarh on 24th. I will travel till April 30th. Pray for me.
db
Kanpur, March 21, 2009.
After I wrote the previous one, when this morning I got up by 2.30 am (due to mosquito problem) and began to pray around 3.00 am (after a cup of tea), I deeply thought about your question and also the answer that I gave. Though I shared what we are actually doing, we too struggle a lot on several areas. I think bhakti in the Lord is not going to be a smooth walk as we often imagine. Apart from our human weakness, the reality of the evil one who is equally active to disturb our faith should be recognized. When I deeply thought your word, ‘institutions crumble’, this morning, then I found one good thing with our bhaktas movement. We never try to organize our bhakti as an institution with all its administrative complications. I may be wrong, but as I observed the Indian church, I realized how they depend upon their ‘institutional skills’ to ‘manage’ the life of their member in every area. But those who are ‘appointed’ to do all the management are ‘paid’ workers who do their job as any other professionals. Whereas in our Hindu community, the entire life of every Hindu is not ‘institutionally managed’ by any outsider of that particular family or community. People from the birth family and community are involved with others life events, including their spiritual and religious life.
The church should learn this from us. If you could share this vision at least with few families in your church, however it is strange and new to their worldview, then there will be some hope when the institutions fail. Fellowship should never be an idealism. When we make it as an ideal, then we use all sophisticated methods to achieve it. After initial success, soon people will become familiar with such artificial idealism and will loose interest. However as this idealism demands some kind of commitment from the members of that fellowship, then several people began to participate to honor their commitment. And such commitment some times creates a kind of guilty conscience in the mind of some sensitive people and they began to attend to get rid of it. But, fellowship in a family is not an idealism. It is part of their natural life. And we don’t need any outside (technical) help to keep that alive among the members. Each member of the family, before enjoying and demanding the privilege of that fellowship also understands their responsibility. Of course here everything is not going to function smoothly. But however friction comes, yet as everything is managed by the family itself, the problem is also solved easily with give and take spirit.
This is I try to induce among Christ bhaktas. I always make it clear to them that the family should first provide spiritual fellowship to each other to grow in the Lord. All other kind of fellowship is our contribution to other families.
Having said this, as I mentioned above, this fellowship among the bhaktas remains a challenge. Long time before I wrote, ‘instant satisfaction is the curse of this age’ (I think I borrowed this quote from some one else). But what this instant satisfaction have now done in this technical age is that no one has time for other–even within the family. And it is frustrating to see that some members in our group really miss several important meetings which will help them a lot. Of course they have their genuine reasons and even excuses, but what they miss is much more greater compare to what they gained by avoiding such fellowship. For example in his recent visit to Gurukulam we enjoyed a deep bible study with Rick. As a gifted bible teacher he brought gentle shower to our parched land. But few really missed and however they could justify their absence, I feel sorry for them as they don’t know what they actually lost. Rick is not going to come often. Even though he became very tired after his long flight from USA, we extracted as many class as possible from him. Though I have summarized some of his classes, yet I can never ‘communicate’ what he actually taught. All those who participated in that two days (not even two full days) will agree with me on this point. But those who few who could not make, but missed were the losers and I am worried about them. Because what they gained by not attending that one and half day classes could be easily replaced by working some extra hours later, but they can never gain the spirit of that bible study with Rick in its original form. Well, as we all learn from our mistakes, hope they too will understand the value of such fellowship and take decision to participate in future.
I several time tell them that they should come for such fellowship meeting not for their personal benefit but for the sake of others who will be benefited by their contribution. They can afford to loose their personal gain, but in the Lord they have no right to deny others right to enjoy their fellowship and contribution for their life. When we began to impart this teaching that by going to fellowship we are ‘serving’ others than served by them, they will realize the value of such family based fellowship. Finally, as Jim Eliot well said in a different context (of salvation): ‘He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot loose’ should be reminded to the members of a fellowship.
Db
Kanpur, March 22, 2009.
Dear Dayanand,
Thank you so much for this message. It is truly filled with the wisdom that comes only from experience and the Spirit. The two points you made are very true also in my experience. Church people do indeed trust too much in the institution and then get hurt when the institution falters. In that way the natural setting of families and their settings is much to be preferred.
Your second point is also excellent. This is to avoid setting up an ideal which then becomes a new pattern to which people must adjust. Having tried that several times in my career, I recognize the problems that follow.
What is troubling in America is that the family setting you speak about in India, is not always present in America. I fear that it may also erode in India over time. Whether one blames capitalism or modernity, families in America have been forced apart when children leave home to live where their work takes them. This is often far removed from where their parents live. For example, I have two children. My son teaches at a University a thousand miles away. My daughter is married to a physician who teaches at another university and they are 1200 miles away in a different direction.
Replacing the family, in some ways, is the local congregation. We have a number of widows who do not have any family living near them. As a result. the local congregation has become their family. It is also the chief place where they can relate to children and young people. Now, if the local congregation cannot afford a pastor, the people feel lost because their “family” is being threatened.
If we simply follow the “natural” way of relating to people we can do it in those families that have not separated very much. Yet to understand and be sensitive to those who relate to the local congregation as their family, it seems like we should also know how to provide some leadership that does not cost money to keep these congregations alive. I am trying to do that a little in my local congregation. It is getting smaller. While they are seeking to get a new pastor I am serving as their pastor but without taking any money. I am trying in a little way to serve like the elders, who served in the New Testament congregations, as Roland Allen pointed out.
Thank you again for writing. I really appreciate your insights.
Robert Schmidt
March 24, 2009.
[1] Let me explicitly state that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the sole authority for our faith is the canonized Bible, and the body of Christ consists of all who put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
[2] At the very end of Acts ( 28:17-29), Paul is in Rome talking to non-believing Jews who still view faith in Jesus as the Messiah to be a sect of Judaism.
[3] Craig S. Keener in the IVP Bible Background Commentary on this verse notes that the term “Christian” was used not in a religious sense but a political one: “ ‘Christians’ occurs here as a nickname given by outsiders, and in 1 Peter 4:16, as something like a legal charge. The title is formed on the analogy of adherents to a political party: the ‘Caesarians,’ the ‘Herodians,’ the ‘Pompeianians’ and so forth.” (See reference under listing for Acts 11:26.)
[4] The term “Christians” was not a widespread term for Greek/Roman followers of Christ in the early centuries, with Roman historians often referring to believers as “atheists” because they did not believe in the Greek gods or the Emperor as a god. There is no indication that the term “Christians” was applied to the Jewish believers during the first century.
[5] Paul may have seen that the content of the gospel of grace could not be preserved apart from the scope being preserved. In his letter to the Romans (chapter 14), Paul speaks of the “weak in faith” as those who trust in God plus dietary and festival laws, or who lean on observance of particular customs and not on God alone. In other words, those who demanded Jewish customs and identity from non-Jewish followers of Christ were making Jewish religious rites and traditions as a condition of God’s acceptance, thus “nullifying the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21; see also Gal. 3:17).
[6] Fitzmeyer in his commentary on Acts notes that the rules James proposed “seek only a modus vivendi of Gentile among Jewish Christians and imply no salvific purpose in them. The four things that James would impose are derived from part of the Holiness Code in Lev 17-18, which proscribed certain things not only for “anyone of the house of Israel,” but also for “the aliens that sojourn among them” Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Yale University Press, 1998, p.557. These four laws were required in the Old Testament Law for those foreigners living among the Sons of Israel. It seems that James believed that only a few Gentiles would join the community of faith, and would be subsumed under and live among the Jewish community.
[7] (Romans 14, I Corinthians 8, and 10:23-11:1) The rules concerning kosher food were necessary if Greek believers wanted to eat with Jewish believers; however, they would likewise hinder Greek believers from eating with their non-believing relatives, so Paul makes it a matter of doing what least offends the conscience of the person you are eating with, noting that idols are nothing and therefore meat offered to them is not significant either. It seems clear that Paul does not consider it “syncretistic” to adapt in this way.
[8] Jonathan Edwards argued that all religions demonstrate characteristics like mystical experiences, miracles, speaking in tongues, rules for pious behavior, etc. He pointed out that the fruit of the Spirit, in particular the ability to love your enemy, is the only religious experience that Christ alone can produce (see his works: Treatise on Religious Affections, and The Nature of True Virtue). Neither “right doctrine” nor “right practice,” apart from the rebirth through the Holy Spirit, are transformative.
[9] Does this mean people born into bad situations must remain there? No, because Paul makes clear that a slave should take the opportunity to become free. Today people group barriers are breaking down, and some people have lived in multiple cultures and are descended from many people groups, so the rule to remain in ones situation must be viewed in that context.
[10] There are exceptions, Paul himself taking on the missionary call to incarnate in another culture. Missionaries adapt to the language and culture they are entering so that those they are witnessing can understand without knowing the missionary’s language or culture. Paul became like the Greeks culturally in order to reach them. He did not spend his time denouncing the goddess Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus, the center for worship of her. Instead he lifted up Christ. Paul did not ask the Greek believers to take on any of his religious forms or culture. He knew that the power for salvation lay in the gospel message itself. The transformed life came from the power of the Holy Spirit in ones life, which was dependent on hearing and believing the truth (Romans 15:17-21). Everything else was a distraction at best, “a different gospel” at worst.
[11] Non-Jewish Christians were being more heavily persecuted in the Roman Empire than Jewish believers, who had an imperial exemption from emperor worship. Also Jewish believers experienced less persecution from fellow non-believing Jews if their sect was leading Gentiles to convert to Judaism.
[12] The Judaizers wanted to be able to boast about conversions to their version of faith in Christ as if it were better, though they were not even practicing their own rules very well. Longenecker notes regarding this verse: “Probably, therefore, what Paul means here in 6:13 is that despite the loftiness of their assertions and their rigid theology, the Judaizers, at least in Paul’s eyes, fell short of keeping all the law scrupulously themselves.” Longenecker, Richard N.: Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. electronic ed. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 1998 (Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary 41), S. 293
[13] The term “Judaizers” was used only to refer to Jewish believers who added on to the gospel that conversion to Jewish religious forms and a Jewish religious identity was a requirement for salvation. Some today similarly teach that a conversion to Christ also requires a conversion to “Christian” religious forms and identity is a requirement for salvation.
[14] The existing Jewish believers were focused on contextualization issues while Paul was trying to uphold the integrity of the gospel. The Jewish believers found it hard to accept it as a gospel issue. They wanted to add things on, like becoming kosher or getting circumcised, to ensure the Greeks were become true believers in their Messiah. It was hard for them to see how being better believers would undermine the gospel. They wanted to make sure that when the gospel went into the Greek culture it did not become syncretistic. They did not understand how that concern showed a lack of faith that gospel itself by itself, through faith alone, was sufficient to not just save but transform those who believed it–to circumcise their hearts. Paul spends far more time warning believers about syncretism with their own perceived ideas of what “righteousness” looks like, a righteousness from any source other than faith in Jesus alone, than he spends warning about syncretism with pagan practices or beliefs. Why? Perhaps because it is this kind of ethnocentric syncretism that makes us unable to recognize and to receive as brothers those who are believing in Jesus, but staying significantly distinct from us.
[15] This is exactly the charge Paul faced in Galatia. Longenecker notes: “Evidently the Judaizers were claiming that Paul only presented half a gospel in his evangelistic mission in Galatia, purposely trimming his message so as to gain a more favorable response.” Op. cit., S. 18
[16] All through history the church has tended to slip into the mode of thinking that new people groups coming to Christ need to end up joining our form of the faith and looking like us. The Reformation broke the gospel loose from the Catholic stranglehold on the religious form of faith in Christ, much to their shock. Now we Protestants run the risk of being equally convinced that all new believers must follow Jesus the way we do, be “Christians” like us. Paul essentially said to the Jewish believers, “Let’s be honest, we are not even that good at our own version of the faith.” Let’s be humble and acknowledge that even our own evangelical Protestant forms of Christianity are not free from syncretism with our cultural values. And yet Christ is able to save us in the midst of it through our faith in Him.
Leave a Reply