Prologue: This is merely a ‘cut and paste’ review article on Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017. I am not only quoting verbatim from the book, but also to substantiate my reflections I verbatim quote from other scholars. There is an advantage in such ‘cut and paste’ writing. With my limitation I need not present the scholar’s view in my own words. Though, in general such long quotes from the scholar might irritate any reader, there is no other option for me. First, I need to quote in length from the book, in order to provide a clear context for my reflection. Similarly, the lengthy quotes from other scholars will also help the reader to understand their points in context.
Of course, any ‘cut and paste’ writing looks very dry and artificial. But it matches with the title ‘disconnected Christianity’, as that too looks like a ‘cut and paste’ religion for the Indians neither remaining completely western nor Indian. Rather, it remains a ‘patch work faith’—a kind of hybrid. Though its origin is in Asia, it was introduced by British and Missionaries as part of Western civilization. Unable to fit neatly with the Indian Dharmic civilization (Badrinath),1 and at the same time unable to get liberation from Western Civilization, it became a patch work faith and still remains ‘disconnected’ with Indian civilization. And my reflections on this book further high lights it.
I am not sure whether I can call this as ‘review article’. It runs more than 80 pages. After Introduction, my reflections are arranged on topic wise in the following order:
Hinduism, Idolatry, Hindu Scriptures are from Devil, Dialogue, How far to go, Presence of Muktinath, conversion, community, contextualization, Theological problem, Evangelism, Muktiveda as Foundation, Religions, Cross and evil, Failures of Muktinath; just acts of God; Liberal, Redemptive acts of God, Spirituality and Social responsibility, Worldview, Imperialism, God and history, Jews and the Lord, Reductionism, Work of the Holy Spirit, Mukti, Summary and Bhakti Theology
24-08-2019
Introduction:
Though attempting to universalize, homogenize, textualize, essentialize, dogmatize and finally Christianize Hinduism, Christianity remains disconnected with Hinduism in its approach and understanding. Though both Warren and Hooker were sincere and honest in their approach to understand Hinduism, still they represent such disconnected Christianity. This book by Kings (Christianity Connected….) clearly demonstrates it. Their attempt is similar to that of most of the Hindus who identify Western Civilization with Christian Religion. Hinduism, being part of Indian civilization, should be understood by its dynamic nature accommodating various, even contradicting thoughts and (religious) practices. Any attempt to understand it from any one particular approach—either through texts or through people (known as popular Hinduism)—never will help anyone, including Hindus, to understand Hinduism. And my reflections of selected points from Warren and Hooker will help us to understand this.
This book is both interesting and a bit irritating. It is interesting because both Warren and Hooker were ahead of their time and clearly thought about the need of a new paradigm shift in evangelism and its approach in understanding other faiths. It is irritating because, however thoughtful and engaged they were with people of other faiths (Warren in thought and Hooker in life), still they could not think beyond their Church affiliation and orientation.
At the same time, we have to accept that they cannot do more than this considering their background as strong church people. One has to recognize the honest attempt of Hooker to engage with ordinary people of other faiths and his earnest effort to understand Hinduism by learning not only from texts but also from the people. But again, this is another ‘Christian’ approach both to understand and present the gospel, which Hooker rightly criticizes when he was requested to write about the presence of the Holy Spirit in Hinduism by John V. Taylor (Hooker Letter 23 September 1973, pp. 326-28).
Some of the challenges they faced by taking their vocation seriously throw some serious challenges and questions to the Christian world, particularly to the evangelicals. And those who want to understand and accept those challenges need to read this book.
As a lay Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I found lots of encouragement in their approach. This book also helped me reflect on my bhakti and understanding of Muktiveda; and found lots of materials to learn from them. What I am going to share are my reflections which I began to record while I was reading this book.
This book kept me engaged with both Warren and Hooker, however in several places I found it difficult to understand because of the language barrier. Though I managed to read English and understand the topic in context, several unfamiliar technical terms made it difficult to understand their thoughts in depth. So what I am going to share needs to be understood in the context of my limitation and I stand corrected, if someone points out my lack of understanding of both Warren and Hooker properly.
There are two options before me. First, I can arrange my reflections based on the topic. Second is to share them based on the letters of Warren. But considering the repetition of several points and also the analysis of King, and my limitation of language, it is better for me to share my reflections based on the letters of Warren (and Hooker’s response to them) under various topics. But I will try to avoid the repetitions wherever possible.
Before I share my reflections, I have to explain a fundamental understanding about Hinduism that is essential for anyone seeking to engage in it, including common Hindus. According to my understanding, Hinduism cannot be understood with any other religious categories alone, particularly the understanding about religion from a Christian perspective. I too want to say that Hinduism is not a religion but only a way of life as claimed by us at present. But the fact is that it is not merely a way of life. It also has the concept of religion in the sense the word ‘religion’ is used and understood by all (both Hindus and non-Hindus). For me the best way to understand Hinduism is as a civilization (or practice) in which there is a place of ‘religion’. However, the fundamental two tracks on which Hinduism moves are dharma and karma, not God. Even without God, Hinduism still survives, but not without dharma and karma, which do not require any god to sustain them. Of course, when it comes to understanding both dharma and karma and implementing them in life, the role of God is very crucial in bhakti traditions. But it is better to understand Hinduism as a civilization more than as a mere religion.
This is the fundamental failure with the evangelical approach in presenting the gospel to the Hindus. As they tried to understand Hinduism from a religious point of view (that too from their doctrinal orientation), they used only theology as the main criteria rather than sociology and anthropology (though I don’t understand these two properly). Added to this, their missiology (till this day I don’t know what is this) further complicated the matter. At the same time, one cannot approach Hinduism with any spirit of ‘equality of all religions’ (Smart, 1968) which Warren ‘forthrightly criticized’ (p. 141). For me, each religion is ‘unique’ from its perspective and we should try to understand its ‘uniqueness’ rather than compare it with other religions. This is because, according to my layman’s understanding, Hinduism is not merely a religion but a civilization.
My temporary solution in preaching the gospel is to allow it to ‘incarnate’ within this civilization even to the extent of making it part of this civilization which has the capacity to accommodate all kinds of faith, not expecting them(bhaktas) to compromise on their fundamental doctrine. Sharing one’s faith with the conviction that it is the only way and means for salvation is a common trait for most of the sampradayas within Hinduism. ‘Conversion’ from one faith (sampradaya) to another always happened.2 After all, as the origin of the gospel is in Asia, it can more easily incarnate in India rather than in its present western religious form.
I say it is my temporary solution because if others can present any other approach which will respect the religious and other sentiments of Hindus, I am willing to change my view. While sharing the gospel, one should not hurt the religious sentiment of others. Of course, Hindus might still think that this approach is nothing but another cynical evangelical agenda to ‘convert’ Hindus to Christianity in a subtle way. Nobody can blame them for holding such views, as ‘community’ conversion was the only motivation behind the ‘religious’ conversion carried out by Christianity in India, in which, of course, they miserably failed. My response to my fellow Hindus is this: We need not feel threatened by any such approach but see it as a challenge to present and preserve our civilization as it has been thriving all these centuries while withstanding all kinds of attacks and challenges from the outsiders.
Having shared this initial thought, now I would like to go directly to Warren and Hooker and my reflections based on their exchange of letters and analysis of Kings. At the end, I will share more of my other thoughts based on those reflections.
1 …There had never existed in Dharmic India any dichotomy between ‘religion’ and ‘culture’…. One, no sooner did a social institution atomize itself, through its excesses, and ceased to have connection with the life-supporting order, than it was dead. Two, any attempt to convert Dharmic India had to show successfully the essence of Dharmic thinking on human order to be wrong and false, and not merely remove this institution or that. Success in the latter would in itself mean no conversion at all. The attempts to correct the excess of an institution, or to remove it altogether, had been already a part of Dharmic history. If the encounter of western Christianity with Dharmic India had to be vital and meaningful, it had to replace the Dharmic conception of life taken in its totality. For success in(space)putting down one institution or another would have only served to reducing Christianity (p.8) to yet another reforming sect. But Christianity was not a reforming sect any more than the Buddha was a social reformer. The history of Christianity in India is the history almost entirely of the issue stated above. And that was the issue between Christianity and Dharma from the very start….( Badrinath, 2000. pp.8-9)
2 …The image of Hinduism as a tradition that not merely allows but encourages people to stay with their faith community was so successfully propagated by international luminaries such as Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi that its conversionist element especially among bhakti sects has been overlooked { See Arvind Sharma, “Hinduism and Conversion,” in The Oxford Handbook of Conversion, ed. Lewis R. Rambo and Charles Farhadian (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 429-43}. Yet frequently bhaktas have not been content simply to worship their own deity; their devotion compels them to “convert” others to their own community. One amusing story to illustrate this point is told of a Shaiva saint who was so deeply devoted to Shiva and committed to converting people to worshiping him that when Shiva himself came to visit the saint in disguise, the saint insisted that Shiva follow his devotion and become a Shaiva. When the saint’s zeal was to much for Shiva, the latter tried to tell the former who he was: all in vain, for the saint insisted that Shiva convert, so Shiva “was forced on his knees for the baptism of ash.” {Ramanujan, 1973, 29}—Jone, 2017, p. 12}
Leave a Reply