God and history:
Kings: Warren also marked the following passage by Oman concerning God’s revelation in history:
To revelation, in one sense, there can be no limitation, for, if God deals with all men everywhere as children, everywhere and to all He is revealing himself; and especially all history, as the record of experience, is revelation, being a temple of God’s purpose, not a mere museum of antiquities. {Oman, 1917, p. 147} (Italics original)
Warren would have appreciated at least five aspects of this short quotation. Omnan’s use of the present tense ‘…He is revealing himself’ (revelation is not limited to the past); the universal scope of revelation ‘…everywhere and to all’ (it is not limited to one group of people); the concept of God’s revelation being mediated through history, ‘history, as the record of experience, is revelation’ (it is not limited to the scriptures); this mediation is through universal history ‘…all history….’ (it is not limited to ‘religious history’) and finally that history is purposive ‘…being a temple of God’s purpose….’ (it is not limited to disclosing God’s character but includes the ultimate shape of his desires). These five aspects may be found in many of Warren’s letters (e.g. letter 597)
Oman summed up his belief about grace and personality in a memorable passage marked by Warren:
…grace is never a mere direct line of power, passing through us with impersonal directness, as light through window-glass, but is a curve of patient, personal wisdom, encircling and embracing us and all our concerns. With this curve a true theology is wholly occupied. {Oman, p. 188} (italics original)—p. 62
DB’s Reflection: –Though history is taken seriously in India now, it is more to prove the past glory (of the golden age) and also to address the western criticism of lack of it in the Indian mindset. However the line that divides history from myth is very thin and in several places does not even exist. For example, not only do common people believe in the historicity of epics characters and narratives, but even the government is also spending large sums of money to prove the historic evidence of those epic narratives. For example, I heard that the government of Haryana is spending money to prove the War of Mahabharata at Kurukshetra. And ‘…In a changed political and religious climate we find some Hindus claiming historicity for particular incarnations such as Rama, and decrying myth, thus replicating earlier Western approaches to myth and history’ says Rajah. (2017, p. 102).
Kings: …Warren could not abide any split between sacred and secular history, nor between politics and religion. His books, The Missionary Movement from Britain in Modern History { London: SCM Press, 1965 } and Social History and Christian Mission,{ London: SCM Press, 1967} made this point firmly:
…if, as a Christian, [the interpreter of missionary history] takes seriously the doctrine of the Incarnation and its implications for the understanding of history, he must take all history seriously. {Warren, 1967, p. 11}—p. 64
DB’s Reflection: The divide between secular and sacred is definitely artificial. And Leslie Newbigin points out, ‘one can almost say that the central strand of the Old Testament story is the struggle of the prophet to speak the word of the living God in relation to the secular events of his time, and against the religion of his time’.(Newbigin, 1966, p. 95.)
Warren: …Every nation has a ‘providential history’. I’m sure this is a conviction which marches with (a) a belief in God as the Lord of history and (b) God as not having left himself without a witness anywhere or at any stage of time.(Letter 229 23 July 1969).—p. 243
DB’s Reflection: History is not viewed like this by Hindus. ‘Providential history’ is only a Christian history and not everybody’s history. This places too much emphasis on historicity and wrongly argues that there won’t be any tension once one has faith in the Lord and has accepted all that is documented about him in Muktiveda as historical evidence. For me, though historicity has a pivotal role, pinning the faith only on it alone will deprive the mysticism of our bhakti in the Lord, which transcends rationality. Our bhakti helps us to anchor our faith in the Lord, yet the tension that is created by the various complexities of the recorded text and the theology and doctrine that developed on, together with the historical facts related to the church, is a real one, and one which a bhakta has to learn to live with till the end of her life—provided if she keeps her bhakti alive and is not satisfied with spoon feeding by others.
Jews and the Lord
Kings: ‘Salvation history’ was stressed by Barth in his emphasis on the supra-historical-character of the biblical narrative. Here Warren reacts not just to Barth{ 1933) (see above [p.64] but also to Cullman ( 1946) and Lowith, (1949) against any narrowing down, or limiting, of God’s action to the religious sphere.—p. 65
Warren reacted to Lowith’s discussion of the history of Israel with a key theological question: ‘This leaves unsolved the question of what God was doing in Asia and Africa and America. It is very serious to assume that only Israel has a history with meaning.’….{Lowith, 1949. P. 195. Warren notes} ….—p. 66
DB’s Reflection:–Yes. Tatastu. The Jewishness of the Lord is a real challenge for me. Neither can I deny it nor can I digest it. However this question of ‘history with meaning’ is important to consider which glorifies the history of Israel alone. God’s involvement in humanity shows the limitation with which God has to work while dealing with human beings. We become his limitation though God is not limited by anything. This has been proven by the universal nature of the gospel which transcends all human geographical boundaries. While Jewish history created a territorial god, the gospel removed that captivity of God. At the same time, the territorial nature of gods or deities is quite common in Hindu tradition also. While the cosmic and eternal nature of Brahman or God is insisted both in philosophy and bhakti tradition, the so called popular Hinduism also created territorial deities which have jurisdiction and power within the limit of that territory. That is why the concept of ‘kuladevata’ (family deity) is so powerful that even in the elitist Hindu homes on important family events they have to go to their particular ‘kulave temple’ to worship it. In few homes, they won’t even keep the photo of that deity in the family shrine but only visit that temple—at least once in a year. Because some of such deities are very ferocious and need to be worshipped only with animal sacrifice, they cannot be worshipped at home. Even some Brahmins and Vellala families have such deities and they will use the service of the priest to offer such animal sacrifice. Similarly, the village deities (grama devatha) and guardian deities (yellai daivangal) at the edge of a village have only limited power within that area.–db
Warren: I remember years ago Norman Goodall72 telling me that he had been in Israel and had a long talk with Buber( 1967) who had told him that he was a believer in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Norman asked him why he did not become a Christian explicitly. And he gave two answers:
- Seeing how my people have been treated (Auschwits, Belsen etc) I cannot publicly desert them now.
- I cannot see what the Christian Church as an Institution has to do with Jesus Christ. (Letter 292 5 August 1971).—p. 270
72 The General Secretary of the London Mission Society and secretary of the joint committee of the International Missionary Council and World Council of Churches set up to bring about integration.—notes, 296, p. 270
Warren: Now I know that Israel was chosen for one particular purpose – to be the channel for Man’s discovery that God is HOLY LOVE & that that discovery prepared the way for the Incarnation….(p.274) Israel is a Pattern not an Exception in the Purposes of God….(Letter 301 25 September 1971).—p. 274 (italics original)
DB’s Reflection: Though Israel as the chosen people is completely Muktivedic, yet this is a big challenge for me to comprehend, though I cannot set aside easily. This is one thorn with which I have to live with. But Warren’s words that Israel is only a pattern73 not an exception is the only consolation in it.—db
73 There is also an opposite view to retain the indigenous culture while accepting the Christian faith. In this, the Gospel is seen as distinct and separate from the Judaistic, Greek and Roman culture in which it flourished in the Mediterranean world. (Sudhakar, p. 274)
Reductionism
Kings: Universality of Jesus Christ: Jesus’ uniqueness is universal because God is not limited to particular areas of the world. Thus Jesus’ universality is rooted and grounded in his uniquely divine relationship with his Father, who, according to the scriptures, is the God of the whole earth. This uniqueness, then, is extraordinarily good news for all the peoples of the world and it is right that all should have the chance to receive this good news. The missionary enterprise, therefore, matches up to the measures of universality in the Hebrew Scriptures (of God’s just and saving rule). {Hooker’s view}
We move on now to consider how in some uses of the concept of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ the objectivity of the word can be reduced to, or demoted to, subjectivity i.e. ‘unique’ becomes ‘unique for me’ (‘unique for Christians’). This thus allows some theologians to hold that other people around the world, and in former ages, justifiably have their own saviours who are unique for them. Neither Warren nor Hooker believed in such reductionism….—p. 158
DB’s Reflection: Reductionism is the reality in every faith. At the same time every faith claims universality, as Krishna says: Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I make the faith of that devotee in that form steady. (Ramsukhadas, Gita, Vol. 1. 629 7:21) which is endorsed by Srimad Bhagavatam saying:
Just as the water which falls from the sky goes to the sea,
so the salutations offered to the various gods reach Kesava (Krishna) alone. (Fallon, 1997. P. 118)
The same claim is also made by Shivapurana: …it is enough if Siva alone is worshipped. The root is the most important. When the root is watered, O gods, the branches are well-cared for. (83) O excellent sages, if the branches are taken care of, it does not necessarily mean that the root is cared for. When the deities are propitiated, the same analogy holds good. (84) (p.230)…. O gods, if Shiva is worshipped, all the gods are worshipped. (85)…. (Shastri, 2002, op. Cit. pp. 230-31)
Tamil Shaiva Siddantha says: Whichever deity you think, Shiva alone appears taking that very form (quoted from memory = யாதொரு தெய்வம் கொண்டீர் அத்தெய்வமாகி மாதொரு பாகனே வருவார்)
Work of the Holy Spirit
Kings: Raven’s (1927)} influence (as well as Temple’s, 74) may well lie behind Warren’s constant insistence on the work of the Holy Spirit in the entire historical p…
Mukti
Kings: He showed that the good news is part of the whole story of human redemption: ‘God did not start loving the world at the Incarnation of our Lord’ and more controversially ‘There is deep and profound sense in which we can claim that because what happened at Calvary happened once and for all, all men have been redeemed. The difference between men is that some know it and some do not know it.’76
This sentence shows that Warren believed that not only all people would be saved (ultimately) but that all people were already saved (presently). The difference at the moment was one of cognisance: some knew, while others did not yet know. The phrase ‘once for all’77 usually refers to ‘at one time in the past and for all time’ whereas Warren here used the phrase ‘once and for all’ and seemed to refer it to ‘at one time in the past (Calvary) and for all people’….—p. 126
76 Max Warren, ‘Ecumenical Horizons: The Full Report of the Conference on Ecumenical Principles and the Christian Encounter with Other Faiths, held in Israel, 6-7 March, 1967’. (Roger Hooker Archives, Max Alexander Cunningham Warren/1/1, Ecumenical Horizons, 6-7 Mar. 1967 and also Church Mission Society/Unpublished Papers/Warren Travel Diary Israel 1967).14—Notes, 53, p. 126
77 From the Greek word ‘hapax’ in Hebrews 7.27 and 10.12—Notes, 54p. 126
DB’s Reflection: Though Kings has criticised the ‘implications of this belief’ in sixth chapter section 6.2.2 in this book, I need not say further here. However, to the question about the salvation of other people, my layman’s response is: leave it to God. This might look superficial and evasive not taking a firm stand based on the teaching of Muktiveda. But my response is: I never understood about this even in Muktiveda properly. As I often say, ‘for me mukti is the present reality in this very life and I need not worry about it life after death. As I often say, for some reason even before I became the bhakta of the Lord, I never bothered about both ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’. As Swami Vivekananda said, it is nothing but a child’s play. As I was much influenced by Vivekananda in my College days, I too never took them very seriously. And the mukti that I found in the Lord begins here in this life and if at all there is a life after death, then it would be nothing but an amplified version of what I am experiencing here. I know this contradicts what Sevanand says in Corinthians (I Cor. 15: 19). But such contradictions never affect my personal life in the Lord. As I say all the doctrinal understanding about Muktivedic teaching is to understand the Life and mission of the Lord. If there is an Eternal life with the Lord that is fine; if not, I am not going to miss it, as already I enjoy being here on earth with him.
My search for a guru to guide me in my moral crisis ended in Muktinath. For my question ‘why I cannot live a perfect life even for a single day’, I found a convincing answer in Muktiveda. Initially God helped someone to encounter Muktinath. Though I was much impressed by their life, which addressed the immediate human need, I was not impressed by their approach to share the gospel. There I thought if at all there is a God then he should be like the one whom Muktinath and if at all there is a life to live in serving others, that it should imitate what the Lord has done in his life. Though I attended Sunday School and Church service with my Christian friends in my school days, their negative approach by calling my Hindu deities as devil and Jesus Christ as the only true God gave a negative impression in my mind from school days. I used to collect important sayings and quotations from any book which I read. I found that I also took several verses from Uttaraveda in my school days. But when I began to read the Muktiveda when I was reading Romans 7:15 along with the commentary by Rev. John Stott (Men made new, I think), I got that the convincing answer to my question on moral responsibility. It was not my past karma, time (Kali yuga) or even gods but I alone responsible for my failures.
Then my understanding about the atonement and eternal life are later understanding about the teaching of Muktiveda. But my moral dilemma was related to my life on this earth in which I failed even to live up to my own creed. When I got the answer, then I began to learn more about the metaphysical nature of that mukti. But that is not the driving force for me to follow the Lord. It is the human touch, down to earth reality in dealing with the relationship between people that much attracted me to the personality of Muktinath. Particularly I was very much impressed with his verdict on the woman caught in adultery. So as his life and teaching addressed my moral crisis as related to my life on this earth, then I also believed his promise about eternal life in Him. I will narrate this with an illustration. Once the doctor properly diagnosed my disease, which others failed, then I trusted his treatment also. As my Hindu tradition failed (according to my understanding, of course) to address my moral crises (by blaming Karma, time and even gods and not me), as Muktinath and Muktiveda diagnosed it properly then I trusted all other teachings of it. Even if they are not true, I won’t mind and my bhakti in the Lord will continue. So the urgency for me to share the good news with others is to point to the same doctor who can help them to properly diagnose their crisis in life—it could be anything. This does not mean that they should only come to my doctor to get a diagnosis for their disease. If they couldn’t find one so far, then I will request them to consider diagnosing them. But he needs not only to address their metaphysical needs but very well related to this earthly reality—physical, moral, social etc. God meets each one according to her need and level and then helps her to rise above to other levels.
But I have one question for Warren. If he believes in Universal Salvation, then why does he insist upon evangelism and mission?. Maybe he is like our Indian Sankaracharyas who keep ‘paramarthika’ (transcendental) for them and ‘vyavakariha’ (practical) for common people. So personally he believes in Universalism whereas he encourages mission as well.–db
Kings: It may be worth developing and redirecting these terms by coining new ones to illuminate the contested concept of Jesus Christ as savior. Is he a ‘heno-saviour among many other saviours’. ‘Mono-saviour’ would refer to ‘our particular savior among many other saviours’. ‘Mono-saviour’ would refer to the only existing Saviour.—p.158
…The implication of Panikkar’s and Ariarajah’s78 writing is that precisely the opposite should be the case concerning the uniqueness of Jesus Christ i.e. that (to use the above suggested terms) Jesus as the ‘mono-saviour’ should develop into Jesus as a ‘heno-saviour’. It may be suggested that, for the reasons set out above, this would be retrograde development. It would not appear to be consonant with the scriptures and would deny the universality of the good news of god’s just and saving rule.—p. 159
78 S. Weslye Ariarajah, Hindus and Christians: a Century of Protestant Ecumenical Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; The Bible and People of Other Faiths (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1985.—Notes, 31, p. 159
Kings: … The foundational importance of belief in creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) could be argued to show that, if (in the light of the gift of freedom) many will be redeemed rather than all, then those not redeemed will be condemned backwards into the nothingness out of which creation originally came.
…On the last day, when all are raised either to eternal life or eternal death, the condemnation by God of people who tragically, willfully and knowingly reject the Holy Spirit’s drawing towards God’s offer of the gift of eternal life in Christ, may take place once and for all time. Such people may return to the nothingness out of which creation first took place. As in the beginning, with nothingness and suddenness, so it may be in the end.—p. 160
In Paul’s letters three emphases may be traced concerning the one gift of God’s salvation. Salvation is shown to be by Christ, by the cross and by faith. For Paul, there seems to be no other way. Yet in the scriptures there are many examples of Gentiles who are outside the covenant people of God but who clearly did ‘know’ God (e.g. Melchizedek, Jethro, Baalam, rahab, Job, Corneluis)79 It is important to ask how these two aspects of the subject can be integrated.
One way forward may be to note that within the covenant people of God, Abraham was justified by faith before Christ died and without even knowing about him. Paul insists that Abraham’s faith in God illustrates, and is equated with, our faith in God and in his Christ (Romans 4). Since Abraham is saved by God, then according to Paul’s three emphases, this must have been accomplished ‘by Christ’, ‘by the cross’ and ‘by faith’. Here, then, may be an example of someone who is declared by God to be saved and who did not know of Christ, nor the message of the cross, nor had ‘specific faith’ in Christ (though he did have faith in God). By extension, we may suggest that there are many people of other faiths in the world today, and in past ages, who may be in the position of the patriarchs and died before hearing about the good news of Christ, and whose faith in ‘God’ may be equivalent to our faith in God and in his Christ.
As a stone dropped into a pond causes ripples in all directions, so the cross of Christ, at the epicenter of history, may have effects backwards to the patriarchs as well as forwards to us and outwards to people of other faiths who have not yet fully heard of Christ, but are open to God as they know him.
Jesus’ parables of the kingdom brought an eschatological crisis into the lives of his hearers and people divided in their response to him. For some, the parables brought to the surface of their lives something deep within, which was either turned towards God or against him. When people of other faiths ‘hear’ the good news of Christ in an authentic (rather than in a caricatured) way, they may also experience their own eschatological crisis. Again, what is deep within may be brought to the surface (over a period of time) and people may divide in their response. If they die before experiencing this good news (as most people in the history of the world have done), then they may still be saved by God. Salvation by faith (not by religious observances), by Christ (even if unknown) and by the cross (which challenges all claims on God) seem to be Three themes in one’ that bring the promise of God’s hope.—p.161
79 In Acts 10:34 Peter declared: ‘Truly, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him’.—Notes, 46, p. 161
DB’s Reflection: Though I understand the theological view of these people (Warren, Hooker, Kings), as they belong to a particular church denomination and tradition, I feel relief in my spirit that as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord not bound by any one particular church tradition and any doctrine affiliated with it, I can say that ‘hidden things belongs to God’ (Deu. 29.29). Here hidden means those doctrines which are not clear to me or not acceptable to me. The simple answer to the salvation of other people for me is: I don’t know. All other explanations are nothing but mere rationalization of our own doubt in clever words. All the reference about the salvation of people of other faiths in Muktiveda are, according to my understanding, context specific and I cannot bring any clear systematic presentation about it.–db
Kings: At the beginning of the twenty-first century the real focus of debate on this issue of eternal salvation and people of other faith seems to be between those who follow the line developed by Hick and others and those who, like Warren and Hooker, hold to the finality, ultimacy, distinctiveness or uniqueness of Christ.80—p. 162
80 John Hick and Paul Knitter (eds), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. The case against this so called ‘pluralism’ has been set out in Gavin D’Costa (ed.), Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, and, from a more conservative position, in Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm.—Notes, 47, p. 162
DB’s Reflection: Pluralism is the reality in every area of life. Those who claim that ‘my way is high way’ can claim and this is not new in this world. For me the only difference between Hinduism and Christianity is that while the former upholds ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ the latter upholds ‘pluralistic exclusivism’. As long as each denomination in Christianity claims that they alone hold the true doctrine of Muktiveda, they have no right to question any pluralism. The denominations are the telling rebuke to Christianity. No ecumenical movement can solve this problem81 and we all need to live with this reality, however we wish it to brush it under the concept of criticising pluralism.—db
81…It is ironic that when the Church of England eventually recognised the new united Church of North India, it also rejected the Anglican Methodist scheme for union in Britain.—Kings, p. 173
For the summary of this review article see ‘My Bhakti Theology’ in my blog.
Leave a Reply