Importance of Evangelism:
Kings: Butterfield’s phrase ‘the action of God in history’ {Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History (London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd, 1949, p. 111} refers to both God’s general providence in the historical process and to his particular engagement in the lives of humans. The former, as well as the latter, involves God’s personal presence, which in its ‘sympathetic attraction’ is essentially ‘educative’ for it ‘draws out’ the potential which is there in the person.—p. 60
…He {Warren} was wary of any position that implied that the Bible was inspired by God without mediation through the minds of the human authors….—p. 61
…Warren’s way of unveiling the presence of the hidden Christ through friendship, listening, profound attention and open questioning implies mediation through the long terms, patient presence of Christians amongst people of other faiths, rather than direct confrontation. So scriptural, theological and missionary ‘indirect’ mediations were all important to Warren. –p. 61
DB’s Reflection: Though I agree with Warren about ‘direct confrontation’ still I am skeptical about a ‘hidden Christ’ in the life of people of other faiths. No Hindu will see any hidden ‘Rama, Krisha or Siva amongst people of other faiths’. This is nothing but overzealous evangelical urge to view people of other faiths from the prism of one’s own faith. No amount of ‘patient Christian presence’ will bring radical change in the life amongst people of other faiths, unless there is vocal sharing of the gospel through some means. If a bhakta is so convinced about the importance of the gospel, why shy away from sharing with others vocally also? We should not merely depend upon any ‘hidden Christ’ or ‘patient Christian presence.’ Of course, how to communicate without any aggression is very important, and it is true that all are not called to be evangelists or to preach. But there is no substitute for evangelism viz., sharing the gospel verbally and through literature.—db
Kings: …In October 1971 he wrote:
All I want to content for is that we never forget our ultimate object of so presenting Jesus Christ that men and women really meet Him and in that meeting accept or reject Him. How this is to be accomplished in India I have no idea. Probably friendship is the essential way. But we have to be alert lest we lose the ‘persuasiveness’ of Christ….In a word Evangelism – persuading men to give their verdict to Christ, has no single modus operandi. There are innumerable ways of presenting Christ. Each has to find his own way. But let us be ‘persuasive’ people, persuasive precisely because we exert no pressure, but are what we are because Christ lives in us. (Letter 305)
Warren’s emphasis was on a style of evangelism which led to a personal and decisive ‘meeting’ with the living Christ, who was the invisible third party in all evangelism. An existential and crucial encounter with Christ rather a mere ‘hearing about’ him, and rather than just a meeting with the person sharing the good news, was the aim….He expressed a similar thought in December 1974 concerning Christ’s way of persuasion (rather than of pressure), this time concerning his earthly ministry:
His parables and so much of his teaching were designed not to force men’s minds but to open them, so that in freedom they could savour the necessity of choice and do their own choosing. (Letter 465).—p. 95
DB’s Reflection: Yes and tatastu. This is my view also. I too believe in not diluting the gospel. Let us present the Lord in such a way that the listeners will either accept or reject and have a clear understanding of what they are accepting or rejecting. What to present is clear but how to present is left to us—not confrontation but, as Warren has said rightly, through ‘persuasion’. However: ‘I think the idea of being persuasive in a dialogue is wrong. One must be authentic and genuine. It should not be a debate but a sharing. The other might find one’s position persuasive and moving, but that is not my motivation or objective.’ (anonymous)
Kings: The first of Hooker’s three distinctive insights on evangelism found in his correspondence that need to be highlighted, is his distinction between haste and urgency:
Haste means trying to wrest the initiative from the Holy Spirit and take it into our own hands. The results of this are usually disastrous….Urgency means I am (p.95) sensitive to such opportunities as come my way. Hooker letter 10 November 1974)
He was defending himself from the charge that in his patient evangelism through long term friendships the sense of urgency may have been missing. He maintained that this urgency was there, but more in response to the Holy Spirit’s creative work than in his own initiative and activism.
Secondly, Hooker made a distinction between witnessing and converting. In an extraordinary to letter to John Ward, (Education Secretary of CMS) in November 1975, copied to Warren, he gave an extended, eloquent ‘apologia’ for his missionary work. Included in that was the following:
I am not in India in order to convert Hindus I am here to witness to Christ – a Christ the full range of whose significance I have barely begun to grasp. It is for Hindus to make their own response to Christ. To attempt to manipulate them into making that response would of course be imperialism, but when a Hindu tells me he wants to be baptised and that he has found in Christ a love which he does not find in Hinduism, (and this is a real example), have I any right to forbid him!—96
DB’s Reflection: Though one has to agree with Hooker with such an approach, particularly by an outsider, still I cannot understand what this ‘witnessing’ is? This is my limitation; I, as an Indian, may not understand the full significance of the word “witnesses.” For me mere so called ‘personal witnessing’ is not enough. If we believe in evangelism then we need to articulate our witnessing when the opportunity comes. I understand the limitation of an outsider to do it in India at present. But Indian bhakta cannot do the same in the name of silence witnessing, if she believes in evangelism. Of course how to do it is a different thing but she should be clear on what to do. Here comes the help from Hooker—keep the urgency but not any haste.—db
Kings: Warren’s fourth way, ‘the subtlest,’ as illustrated by the example of his son-in-law and daughter, is worthy of extended comment. He thus located his correspondents in his ‘mapping’ of approaches (and also, interestingly, quietly included himself: ‘…as in a small way I have done myself’). He neatly summarised his interpretation of their vocation in five parts. Firstly, the paradoxical summary, ‘undemanding friendship’, which in their own lives (in terms of time and of hospitality) was in fact very demanding;54 secondly, the creative, visionary praying; thirdly, in that praying, imagining their Hindu and Muslim friends were already in Christ (even though they were unaware of this ‘theological fact’); fourthly, imagining their Hindu and Muslims friends consciously enjoying the presence of Christ at some, unspecific, stage in the future; and fifthly, the general context of expectancy for ‘something new to happen’ to both the Hindu and Muslim friends and to Hookers themselves.
Warren was using eschatological language here (‘already’ and ‘not yet’) which usually refers to the inauguration of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry (‘already’) and its future consummation on the ‘Last Day’ (‘not yet’). He was transferring this corporate and social eschatological language to the personal and individual lives of Hindus and Muslims friends of the Hookers. Thus he implied as a theological fact (‘in the love of Christ’) that they had already ‘entered the kingdom’ (without knowing it) and would one day come to recognise that fact. It is unclear whether Warren expected that ‘day’ to be the eschatological day of ‘the final judgement’.—pp. 136
54 The phrase ‘undemanding friendship’ implies that demands for conversion were not made on the friends.—Notes, 102, p. 136
DB’s Reflection: Very good and clear summary of Warren’s ways in ‘friendship evangelism’. But all these are how the missionaries and their patrons or prayer supporters interpret the life and ministry of missionaries not only in India, but everywhere in the world. They need to find some success in their ministry and life in the Lord while working among the people of other faiths. This is not limited only with Warren or Hooker. I have seen the same with other (South) Indian missionaries evaluating their ministry and life when they go as missionaries among other parts of India. There is nothing wrong in such an approach as that alone will encourage evangelism in the Mission. But the reality is completely different. Most Hindus and Muslims are not even going to remember these missionaries except for those who finally accept the Lordship of Muktinath in their life with personal commitment by becoming his bhakta (or convert to Christianity in majority cases). There might be some exception if long term friendship is further cultivated by the missionaries even after they leave or retire from their service. But out of my own personal experience I can say that this has never happened, unless we keep in touch with them throughout our life. Anyhow such ‘successful stories’ end up in further writings like this. As I already mentioned, I never heard about Hooker and Warren through their writings and Hooker’s life in India, till I got hold of this book. This does not diminish their life and service to the Lord. But behind every successful life of missionaries in the evangelical world, there is lots of exaggeration.–db
Kings: …We need to remember that the context of imagining the Hindu and Muslim friends of Hooker as already ‘in Christ’ was one of prayer. It is arguable that it is valid to imagine in prayer something that is not yet the case and, in the creative act of doing so, pray for it to (p.136) become the case.55 so the fourth step, of imagining the friends consciously enjoying the presence of Christ at some stage in the future, is uncontroversial. However, Warren’s suggestion that they are already in Christ, and the added implication that this is consonant with Pauline usage, are questionable in the light of Paul’s descriptions of the former status of the Gentiles before they were in Christ.56—pp. 136-37
55 In some ways this is the underlying method behind the petition in the Lord’s Prayer ‘your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven’.—Notes, 103, p. 137
56 For example in Romans chapter one.—Notes 104, p. 137
DB’s Reflection: Such explanation is nothing but ironing out the contradiction through our interpretation of the verses of Muktiveda (however they might be favourable for such interpretation). And Kings’ interpretation of prayer and Warren’s suggestion of Hindus ‘already’ being in Christ is one such attempt—though good one. But it won’t solve this contradiction easily. We need to understand Warren’s comments in the context of encouraging Hooker to continue his friendship evangelism rather than trying to explain it theologically based on Muktiveda and comparing it with what Paul has said in his context in Romans. What Sevanand (Paul) wrote to the non-Jewish bhaktas in the mixed mandali in Rome is different from what Warren wrote to Hooker in Varanasi.—db
Kings: It would indeed be patronising to Hindus to say that God was involved in the insights of their philosophy merely in order to help Christians,57 for he reveals himself for the good of all. However, it would preferable to hold a ‘creative’ view of Hindu philosophy, i.e. that God was revealing part of himself and of his character through it and this should be discerned and developed in Christian theology, rather than merely just a ‘functional’ view, i.e. that Christians should make good use of what happens to be available in Hindu philosophy.
Thus, all three approaches which we have considered so far being at the same point: I am looking at other faiths and other men as a Christian and asking how God is at work among them, and so before I start I have already decided what kind of answers I am looking for….The frame of reference within which I move severely limits the range and depth of my enquiry. However, the situation is not entirely hopeless, I can (p.139) broaden the frame of reference in three ways, or adopt a fourth approach which steps outside it altogether.
Having described various problems inherent in each of the three approaches, Hooker then gave a general critique that they were all limited in their Christian perspective or ‘frame of reference’. He continued by describing possible ways out.
First, I can see God at work in much of Hinduism which is of provisional value. The caste system is incompatible with the Gospel, yet it does give society a certain order; order is preferable to chaos and order is of God….
With his phrase ‘provisional value’, Hooker seemed to be making a contrast with issues of ‘ultimate value’. This phrase allowed him to recognise God’s involvement in things which ultimately would be against God’s will but provisionally were useful: e.g. caste. This contrast may well be helpful, but the danger is that it may allow people’s consciences to be dulled, less disturbed and provoked by issues which are indeed ‘incompatible with the Gospel’.58
Second, my own theology is provisional. None of us is omniscient. We are influenced far more than we know by our background and our experience….
He thus applied the concept of provisionality to himself. This implied the freedom from being responsible for having to know everything about everything, which is the prerogative of God alone, and the freedom of recognising that God may well be at work in ways that Hooker could not, and did not have to, discern.
Third, in actual practice I spend a large part of my time trying to understand Hinduism and Hindus for what they are and in their own terms. When I am doing this the question of what God is doing among them – at least in the terms which I have described – gets in the way, it obscures rather than illuminates the situation….
Thus when Hooker reflected on his actual friendships he was encouraged to see that he was not after all locked into only one perspective. Hooker had another, more radical, way forward in his theorising.
Is it possible to step outside this frame of reference altogether? Implicit in all that I have said so far is the unchallengeable uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Since this has always been the lynch-pin of my own theology it was somewhat disconcerting to find it rejected – or at least regarded as inadequate – by Ninian Smart … While I find Smart stimulating I do not find him convincing. Is it in fact possible to start from a position of ‘equality of all religions’? I think one could argue that commitment for a Christian is a pre-condition of openness and not a barrier to it….
Here Hooker considered the ‘lynch-pin’ of his own theology, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The metaphor was well chosen for the lynch-pin is the pin which passes through the end of the axle and which keeps the wheel on: it is of (p.140) essential importance. Ninian Smart is a leading phenomenologist of religion, and was for many years Professor of Religious Studies at Lancaster University. Hooker had recently read his book The Yogi and the Devotee: The Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology.59 He questioned the validity of the starting point of the ‘equality of all religions’, which in fact underlies the whole phenomenological approach to the study of religion, and applied it to his own ministry of open friendship. There he found that his commitment to Christ, rather than so called ‘objective’ detachment, was vital and foundational.
To return to the original argument: is it possible to ask the question of what God is doing among other religions and other men in a way which somehow includes within the question those attitudes and doctrines which, form a Christian stand-point seem to ignore or deny him? Was he at work in Shankara and if so how? And so I end with the question to which I referred in my first paragraph. I am used to functioning with a theology which looks for similarities, yet what I need is a theology which can embrace differences.
Hooker thus summed up his exploratory essay with three key points: firstly about perspective; secondly about God’s specific involvement in the work of Sankara (traditionally, 788-820), who was the pre-eminent Indian philosopher and proponent of Advaita Vedanta (non-dualist philosophy)….and thirdly about the need for a theology of differences.60 This was a courageous, wide-ranging essay….—pp. 139-141
57-67 Some Jews similarly feel patronised by, and object to, the phrase “old Testament’ rather than ‘Hebrew Scriptures’.—Notes, 111, p. 139
58 Hooker, in his writings, never did really engage with the issue of caste and of other themes which have been highlighted by contemporary ‘Dalit’ theology.—Notes, 112, p. 130
59 Ninian Smart, The Yogi and the Devotee: The Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968). –Notes, 113, p. 141
60 The need for a ‘Theology of Difference’ had been mentioned in Warren’s letters 301 and 317. Hooker developed it in his letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975, p. 209: ‘In terms of the conflict between faith traditions, my hypothesis is that actual religious differences, eschatological or historical, is not a root evil. The material recognition of difference, coupled with the affirmation of diverse religious ends, allows more substantive mutual affirmation among the faiths and a firmer basis for peaceful interaction than other approaches.; (p. 209).—Notes, 114, p. 141
DB’s Response: My honest confession is that I cannot understand this section clearly. This may be a ‘provisional confusion’ rather than an ‘Ultimate one’ as some other person can help me to understand this in perspective. I neither believe in ‘equality of all religions’ or ‘objective’ detachment as if I can live in a no man’s land for some time and then return back when it suits me in one territory of the other (my own or others). I also cannot understand the ‘theology of difference’. It is good if we keep only ‘for peaceful interaction’. But evangelism in whichever form never presupposes any ‘peaceful interaction’. If it is so then it won’t be evangelism. It challenges the faith of another person to reconsider it and come and accept the Lordship of Muktinath. That is why I cannot accept the concept of ‘Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance’. One can acknowledge the goodness of Muktinath or any other person from a distance and appreciate his or her contribution to humanity. But the Lordship of Muktinath, as per my understanding of Muktiveda, is an outright demand of loyalty to his authority and Lordship over a bhakta. This is the case with every faith and every god(s) demands of the same. That is why I would prefer to use the term ‘Uniqueness of every faith’. Each faith is ‘unique’ in its own way. When we recognize the uniqueness of another faith, then we can have peaceful interaction only when we attempt to understand it from ‘provisional theology’ or ‘ultimate theology’. But the moment we believe in evangelism then confrontation is unavoidable—though this confrontation could be spiritual and subtle rather than physical and verbal.
At least in theory our Hindu Worldview gives space for each faith to hold its ‘ultimate theology’ not compromising with its core doctrine. At the same time it never denies the reality of ‘confrontation’ when one involves in ‘mission’ to bring the people of other sampradaya to one’s own. (See above in Dialogue notes no. 25) This is not limited to only those so-called Sanskritized sects like Srivaishnava and Saiva, but even in common religion one can see this ‘mission’ to promote one’s own chosen deity, or a particular temple, or sannyasi, guru etc. One can hear even lay people telling someone who faces some problem in life, ‘take the vow and come and visit this temple (or guru etc.) once and then see what happens’. The recent best example is Sri Sabarimala Ayyappa. Till the recent past its influence was limited only to Tamilnadu and Kerala. But now you can see millions of devotees from other regions (and religions) not only from South India but other parts of India also go there to visit the deity. This being the reality, we need not give reference about the way Ramanuja ‘converted’ the people of other sampradaya to his Sri Vaishnavism and we have plenty of records about Sri Adi Sankara’s ‘digvijaya’ to all parts of India where he engaged in debate with people other faiths and won them for his siddhanta. Sri Velukkudi Krishnan a staunch Sri Vaishnava preacher in one of his talks on Television on April 8, 2007 said: Ramanuja is the only acharya to be followed, and Narayana as the only god to be worshipped after giving a ‘Ten Oaths to Sri Vaishnavites’ he add the eleventh by saying: ‘I will share these oaths with at least ten persons.’ {see. SAMVAD   :: Dialogue of Life at 6/29/2008}. Such conversion from one sect to another is well documented in writings:
…the maharaja of Jaipur at the time, Rama Singh II (1835-1880). After converting to Shaivism, the maharaja tried to pressurize Pradyumna Deo’s ancestor into wearing the Shaiva marks (tripundra) on his body and consequently confiscated Govindadevaji’s temple from him until he agreed to comply {Catherine Clementin-Ojha, Catherine. Le trident sur le palais: Une cabal antivishnouite dans un royaume hindou a l’epoque colonial. Paris: Presses de ‘lEcole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1999}—( Ojha, 2016,p. 264.)
Of course the same Hinduism also blames fundamentalism when this ‘ultimate theology’ paves the way for fanaticism, claiming that ‘only my way is the high way’. Though we Indians believe and promote ‘live and let live’ in theory, yet we uphold our own theology or ideology as unique thus making space for ‘confrontation’ on every level—in society (caste) and politics and religion – at the cost of the other. Otherwise we too would have to live in a society where State sponsored fundamentalism would impose uniform ideology for all—as we witness in China.—db
Kings: …the word evangelical was used more narrowly in India than in Britain…Warren insisted that the word ‘evangelical’ did not need qualifying adjectives (such as conservative or liberal)….
…Hooker’s letters from this period are no longer extant, but from these replies from Warren it may be inferred that Hooker had, perhaps, been a ‘literalist’ in his approach to the Bible as a young student61 but had developed in a more liberal direction since then. At the time of the correspondence he was wary of using the word Evangelical of himself, probably due to the fundamentalist associations that word had in India. This hint is backed up by Warren’s letter 395, in which he commented on a letter which the Evangelical Fellowship of India had sent to Hooker and wrote that he would find it difficult identifying with their methods of evangelism.—p. 154
61 Warren’s Letter 85 hints at the content of Hooker’s missing letter and goes on to say that he did not think he (Warren) was ever a ‘very “rigid” literal & verbal inspirationalist’. See Section 4.3.1. for the context of his comment about himself as a young student: ‘[a] brash, over-confident and intolerant conservative Evangelical’. Max Warren, ‘What is Fundamentalism?’, New Fire, 4 (1977) pp. 456-59. In that article he stressed that behind such militancy was not a rigid belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but a deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ and a dedication to evangelism, which was based on a very simple understanding of scripture.—Notes, 23. p. 154
DB’s Response: I too have my reservation about such ‘hit and run’ evangelism by anyone as I call it ‘kabadi kabadi evangelism’.—Indian or non-Indians.–db
Warren: I’m sure that one important way of coping with the paradox [of being western missionaries living in India] besides the practice of the presence of God is reading ‘widely’ outside your subject – that is keeping in regular contact with the (p.175) world outside India. That is not evading identification. It is, I believe, the very practice in our human situation of the incarnate life of Jesus. He lived and taught and worked in Galilee but He was often ‘all night in prayer’ – that is to say he was ‘out of Galilee’ even when in it. One’s wide reading plus prayer is our human approximation to the life of Jesus at this point. I know this is just as true for me here, and all Christians everywhere, as it will be for you and Pat.(Letter 1, 9 Feb. 1965.)—pp. 175-76
DB’s Response: I cannot understand why all our ordinary activities need to be compared with the life of the Lord and Muktiveda. Socialising is the ordinary need of every human being, except those who voluntarily choose a life of recluse. But I understand this tension in the life of missionaries (Indian or Western). Particularly those now living and working in India, any acquaintance with any Indian is considered as ‘keen contact’ and a prayer request is sent for them. In the past success in ministry was calculated according to the number of ‘converts’ but now according to the number of ‘contacts’ who they managed to make. Missionaries who came to convert others to Christianity, finally ended in spreading ‘Christian influence’ among others as clearly demonstrated by A. Mathew, Christian Missions, Education and Nationalism: from Dominance to Compromise, 1870-1930, Delhi, Anamika Prakashan, 1988,–db
Warren: I agree with you about the real danger of the ‘compound mentality’, & the way Indians sense a remoteness & aloofness about the Missionary. Partly, of course, this is the inescapable fact that the missionary has ‘another’ world than India to which he also belongs….(p.196) …You have to be ‘of the Church’ but ‘the church is the only society which exists for those who are not its members’ (William Temple { Nature, Man and God, London: Macmillan, 1934}) you must only be ‘of the Church as it is related to the world’….(Letter 37 29 November 1965)—p. 196-197
DB’s Response: This is not limited to non-Indian missionaries, but even the Indian missionaries as they rarely interact with the regular world as they live always in their (Christian rather evangelical) ‘other’ world.—db
Warren: …It is a deep conviction of mine that I can never approach another person for Christ without being sure that Christ had already met the other person. My going to meet him is itself prompted by Christ. So in the encounter I meet Christ & the other man. (Letter 169 7 July 1968).—p. 218
DB’s Response: Such assumption and motivation is mark of evangelism.—db
Warren: I was interested to note the ‘come back’ to your talk of the presence of Christ in other Faiths – ‘Why bother to preach the Gospel?’ I am sure we have got to find a clear & convincing answer to this….
…anyone who has found the Christ of the New Testament must want the ‘unknown Christ’ to be fully encountered. This for me is (p.224) the all sufficient ground of Mission. The ‘presence’ of Christ in other religions is a challenge to Christians to take part in the unveiling, which is mission. (Letter 181 16 September 1968)—pp. 224-225
DB’s Response: Warren who believes in Universalism also believes in mission. But I think we should understand Universalism as his thinking and mission as his passion.–db
Warren: So I see it. What still remains, & is perhaps the ultimately irresolvable problem, is that there is no escape for the Christian Missionary in claiming an ‘Ultimate’, a ‘uniqueness’, in Jesus Christ which must deny the ‘Ultimate’ to any other. The agony is to know how to so present Christ as not to give any hint at all of being the possessor of some kind of spiritual superiority. And the clue, as I see it, is that the real challenge is to the Christian community, the Christian group, the Christian family, to be so demonstrably a community, group, family, of LOVE that others will want to belong with us & will so come to confess Jesus as Saviour & Lord….(Letter 16 September 1968)—p. 225
DB’s Response: too idealistic. If this is the criteria no one can come to the Lord. God may use individual Christians or groups to demonstrate this LOVE, but when they move closely they will demonstrate that they are in no way different from any other people. ‘Show me that you are saved and I will believe in your Saviour’ is the constant challenge to the Christians as a group and individual. For me our LOVE plus grace of God is not the gospel, but only the grace of God in spite of our weakness.—db
Hooker: …It seems to me as it obviously does to you that the church has traditionally thought almost exclusively in terms of redemption, i.e. of what a man in Christ must become, and of what a man ‘outside Christ’ is not. I had never previously thought of this approach in the historical context of assumed western superiority. You seem to be stressing instead what man already is in Christ by creation. Ultimately I am sure that the doctrines of redemption and creation cannot be separated, but clearly if we take creation seriously and take it first, as you insist that we must, then our understanding of redemption is going to profoundly modified….(Hooker Letter to Warren 23 November 1968)—p. 226
DB’s Response: Though I completely agree with this from an evangelical and Muktivedic perspective, when a Hindu reads statements such as ‘man “outside Christ”’ and ‘man already in Christ by creation’ it will be irritated. She will think, why are Christians always thinking about others only from their religious perspective of ‘redemption’ and ‘conversion’? She never views people of other faiths like this. In evangelism what one thinks alone is not important but what others who listen to such evangelism think about such thought by the evangelicals and how they might respond also is important.—db
Warren: …God by his spirit has been at work challenging men in other Faiths. BUT to say this in no way diminishes the uniqueness of his challenge in Jesus Christ, nor does it deny that he is the Saviour of all men. It is the relation of (I) God’s redemptive purpose for all man (II) God’s revelation in Christ (III) God’s concern for all men through his Logos (IV) God’s using of the Old & New Israel, which in the question we have to solve. How do we relate these 4? I think most of us are going [to have] to have a viable theology of Evangelism other than ‘I’m right, you’re wrong. Repent and think like me’!! That is traditional. But is it true? (Letter 195 8 December 1968)—p. 227
DB’s Response: Very genuine question. But I cannot understand whether Warren asks this question (‘”Repent and think like me”! That is traditional. But is it true?’) To other evangelicals who think like this or to the people of other faiths. If Warren says that the traditional slogan of ‘repent and think like me’ is wrong, then he is correct and such an approach won’t succeed. And Jones points out such tradition:
…In the Western Christian (p.206) tradition, the overarching problem that religion and theology address is human guilt that arises from a life characterized by culpable sin. If human beings are not convinced of their sin and thereby not possessed by feelings of guilt, it is the aim of the religion to arouse within people a sense of their sin and thus create in them a sense of guilt….Without a sense of guilt arising from sin, the whole structure of Western Christian theology is rendered irrelevant. (Jones, 2017, Jones, pp. 206-07)
Warren: …And there have been men & women of real holiness of life in Islam. We have to recognise this & thank God for it. If we attribute it to the ‘unknown Christ of Islam’ we make an act of faith….—p. 236 (Letter 215 4 May 1960).—p. 236
Db’s Response:-As I repeatedly say, viewing the bhakti and faith of the people of other faiths only from one’s own religious perspective is the limitation of the evangelicals. People of other faiths never do this.—db.
Hooker: …The universalist, it seems to me, says this: ‘In the end God’s love must triumph over all sin and evil or he will not be God, therefore in the end all men will be saved’. Yet there is surely another statement that one must make with equal force. ‘The only response which Holy love wants from man is one freely and willing given, only if I am free to reject God can I also be free to accept him. Only if this is true can man be truly man’. I feel one has got to hold on to both of these…. (Hooker to Warren 9 October 1971)—p. 277
…Margaret Burness indicated in her letter that dialogue and evangelism could and were both happening at the same time in Nigeria, but this is not so here. My own feeling is that we must go in for dialogue for a long time before we can find the language in which to preach the Gospel to Hindus and Muslims. It thus seems to me to be a necessary preliminary, rather than a complement, to evangelism. Yet the conversations do and will provide opportunities of witness which one must take.(Hooker to Warren9 October 1971)—p. 278
DB’s Response: There is some truth in it, yet the ‘long time’ could be subjected to the measure of one’s ability and interest to learn that language of communication. But, though it is necessary and important, yet one cannot eternally wait to master it. God works in spite of our limitations. Gospel works in spite of the situation of the people. It is like saying ‘first reform and then preach’. But the kind of reform or regeneration will begin once we start to share the gospel with our own limitations. But that limitation should not be an excuse to continue to carry that limitation. Learning from any kind of limitation (language, culture, religion, tradition etc.) one should make progress in the art of communication and be ready to address the questions and issues that will come from such sharing. For example one cannot wait to end slavery, poverty, suppression etc., among the people before sharing the gospel. But in spite of human condition and situation, the gospel must be allowed to incarnate in that situation. Mere so called ‘silence’ witnessing in any conversation is against evangelism in its spirit and aim.—db (I am not sure whether I understood Hooker properly about his statement in page 278—db)
Warren: …Here I am not suggesting that all Hindu philosophy is a ‘veiling’. I expect some of it is as perverse in leading to nihilism as is much western philosophy. In deed with you I would expect that ‘Bhakti’ Hinduism and even the sheer animistic superstition of the unlettered conceal more of the real Christ than the elegant sophistication of learned minds. It has always taken ‘the childlike in heart’ to know God in a vital way. (Letter 305 17 October 1971)—p. 279
DB’s Response: Though there is some truth in this about any kind of philosophy (Indian or Western), this cynicism about philosophy begins when it tries to ‘un-veil’ the so-called ‘Unknown Christ’ in Hinduism. When we begin to search for ‘un-veil’ any concept which is not even there in another philosophy or religious tradition, will end up leading to nihilism. Of course ‘child like heart’ is vital to know God. But for some even a sophisticated philosophy also could help like the case of Nehemiah Ghore. (See Robin Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, Delhi, ISPCK, (1969), Reprint 2002,)
Warren: …In all my scribbling, even those published in India, have been primarily addressed to our Western confusion. Here dialogue, i.e. listening and understanding, is mutual exercise which may, in given circumstances permit of witness but not proclamation, at least not until a tremendously deep level of dialogue has been reached. But here in the west, Evangelism is only marginally concerned with open air preaching and distributing tracts – the two traditional methods in India. (Letter 305 17 October 1971)—p. 279
DB’s Response: see my above response to Hooker’s letter dt. 9 October 1971, p. 278. Thankfully now open air preaching and distributing the tracts do not work in India. Environmentalists will oppose such waste of paper in tract distribution and noise pollution in open air preaching.—db
To return to the subject of understanding Hinduism. Yes, in one very important sense you could only absorb ‘Hinduism’ by living in the heart of the City {Varanasi}. But in another sense this isn’t so much true as irrelevant. The goal is not to become a Hindu, but to understand this or that Hindu or Muslim to the point where you can, to quote Ian Ramsey{Religious Language, London: SCM Press, 1967} , use the ‘model’, ‘qualifier’ or ‘story’ which may allow the Light to Dawn – may help the Unknown Christ to be recognized. What the ‘once recognized Christ’ may do with that individual is Christ’s business and not ours. Here surely is the fundamental newness of the Christian approach today, an approach which matches the task of our day, without demanding of us that we criticize or condemn the approach of others in their day. (Letter 373 12 November 1972).—p. 304
DB’s Reflection: Another typical missionary approach. Of course Warren is correct that those who take new approaches in evangelism always criticize the previous failures and consider the present one is relevant to the present time.–db
Warren: This went the deepest of all, as it was bound to do.
- 1 par 3 ‘…only if I am different, only if I am holy, can I exercise a Christian presence which is healing and redemptive.’
Here you have given real theological depth to the criticism of ‘identification’ which treats this as ‘identity’. So much talk of ‘identification’ makes no reference to holiness at all.
Oh! What a vast subject you have raised here! It could be a major contribution to current Missiology.—(Letter 389 2 March 1973).—p. 313
DB’s Reflection–‘The Christian presence which is healing and redemptive’ is only an ideal missiology not a ground reality, at least in India.–db
…You have set yourself to understand Hindus and Muslims though the medium of the best in their tradition, hoping that in and through such understanding you may bring some of them to understand Jesus and want to become his disciples. I doubt very much if the brothers of the E F I {Evangelical Fellowship of India} are in the least bit interested in understanding Hinduism and Islam. What further worries me about their efforts is that they stir up a few people and then disappear. They aren’t rooted in the local situation and don’t pretend to know it….(Letter 395 17 April 1973).—p. 317
DB’s Reflection: Stirring up a few people and then disappearing often happens in every kind of evangelism both by outsiders and natives. Such ‘hit and run’ evangelism continues in different forms in India.—db
Hooker: Within the context of personal friendship I think it is possible to build up an area of mutual trust in which one can say things which would be impossible in the superficial atmosphere of a conference, indeed I am coming to feel that conferences are a menace in this field. It is possible to have genuine friendship and a meeting of hearts even when at the intellectual level we cannot (yet) meet. I feel that it is at this informal personal level that real progress can be made.
I think that criticism faces another difficulty because we Christians have so much to live down. As you will know, Christian attitudes have long been and all too often still are governed by ignorance, arrogance and fear. Hindus have a deep, and to some extent legitimate, sense of wounded pride because of this. Any criticism made outside the context of personal friendship is assumed to spring from the same old prejudice and misunderstanding. I find the only way I can criticise is by first accepting criticism myself – at the moral rather than the intellectual level. For instance, Christians have often in the past applied the prophetic critique of idolatry direct to Hindus, and of course this implicitly puts Christians in the right. Yet when I am prepared to admit my own idolatries – my worship of something less than God – I can ask the Hindu to face his own. I am putting myself in the wrong by his side, rather than putting myself in the right over against him. This too helps to take the debate away from a barren dispute over doctrines. (Hooker Letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975).—p. 354
Db’s Reflection: I even question such ‘genuine friendship’? Every friendship in evangelism is only an agenda and not genuine friendship. Of course there are few exceptions but otherwise, what the evangelicals call ‘as true friends’ are none but mere contacts. Some, particularly non-Indians even went to the extent of calling their ‘contacts’ as part of their family. But they don’t understand; what does it mean to be part of their family? When they pack and walk, they have to desert these ‘Indian family members’ back here. Mere slogans and emotional expression won’t reflect the ground reality.–db
Warren: Propositional – Here is the root of the issue. We want people, all people to meet Jesus. And if possible we want people to meet him as a Person in his own right and not in terms of some Theological definition. It may be as Isa in the Qur’an: it may be as the Master of the art of telling stories: it may be as a paradigm of self-sacrificing love (as Tolstoy and Gandhi saw him); it may be, most miraculous of all, if he is seen in us and we are asked to introduce him.
Surely we are not primarily concerned with any propositions, but with the Person of Jesus. Experience will demand verbalisation, but all verbalisations are of strictly limited value. If you can’t, how on earth can you expect to verbalise what the eternal Christ means to you? The fetishes of propositional religion have been the bane of mankind directly they are treated as adequate descriptions of reality.
So, as I see it, this attitude towards propositions needs to be attacked root and branch. Agreed? (Letter 581 9 January 1977)—p. 388
–Yes. Tatastu.—db
Leave a Reply