Christ Presence
Kings: …Warren’s fundamental stress was on showing respect for people of other faiths, and humility rather than arrogance, in relating to them….(p.123):
Our first task is approaching another people, another culture, another religion, is to take off our shoes, for the place we are approaching is holy. Else we may find ourselves treading on men’s dreams. More serious still, we may forget that God was here before our arrival….
….Warren did stress that ‘God was here before our arrival’ but, at this stage, the phrase ‘Christian presence’ referred to the presence of Christians amidst Islam or African Traditional Religion, rather than to the presence of Christ in the other faith or in the life of the person of another faith. (p.124)
Warren’s use of the phrase also developed. In this series we have seen that he used the word to refer to the Christian being present; in his later thought, influenced by {Raimundo} Panikkar he used the word presence to refer to Christ’s presence….—pp. 123-125 {Italics original}
DB’s Reflection: –Though I too will agree with the concept that God is ‘here before our arrival’. This echoes as one tribal convert told to the second generation Christian Missionaries that ‘your forefathers only brought the gospel here, but God was already here’. (try to give the reference—db). But Warren’s change from ‘Christian presence’ to ‘Christ’s presence’ because of the Panniker’s influence is not acceptable to me. Though this looks very humble and polite, yet this also shows the hegemonic attitude of the missionaries to read everything only from their view.
Trinity is a mystery and we cannot explain it through any human words and terms, I cannot understand how theologically this view can be sustained—though I am not a theologian even to spell it out. Though the co-essence in Trinity is understood, their functions are different. Seeing Christ’s presence in other’s faith and in other people’s life who we contacted through friendship which Hooker later claims (see page 354) will question this different functions of the Triune God. I am not sure whether I can say this using the famous English idiom: putting the cart before the horse? As I said in ‘Witnessing What’, no Hindu will see the presence of their God in the people of other faiths, particularly when involving in dialogue or friendship.-db
One may find some contradiction here in my response as it violates the Trinitarian concept in Muktiveda. For example, one person in response to this comment wrote:
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are saying that it is inappropriate to say that Christ was here before any Christian’s arrival. You say this for two reasons. First, because this may not be Christ’s role or function in the Trinity. Second, because the assertion that one’s god is present in other faiths is not a Hindu perspective. Am I summarizing your thoughts correctly? If so, I am unsure of how this aligns with your first statement – that you agree with the concept that God is here before our arrival. Are you saying God, the Trinitarian Father (and not the Son/Christ)? (personal communication through email)
In response to this comment this is what I wrote:
When Hindus say that there is only one ‘god’, they say it is within the understanding of polytheism and pantheism in which other god’s are accommodated still one’s own personal (or sectarian god like Vishnu or Shiva) is the Supreme god (or that one ‘god’). Though they might welcome to include a ‘Christian’ god in their polytheism and subordinate ‘Christ’ under that one Supreme God, they won’t understand or accept it as the Trinitarian Father. For us who believe in Muktiveda, Muktinath was there before the creation as part of Trinity and naturally this includes his presence in God’s creation. But in his mission as the redeemer, that came later in history after his incarnation. So we can say that according to our view the presence of Trinitarian Father as the Supreme God’s presence was in every culture, but claiming that that presence was ‘Christ’s presence’ is beyond my comprehension because of lack of theological knowledge on the Trinity. –db
Kings: …If we agree that we bear witness to Jesus Christ through our behaviour and the trusting quality of our relationships by our ungrudging service and prayerful responses (as well as by our articulation of the character, message and challenges of Christ), then this unconscious witness does occur even in dialogue meetings which focus on mutual understanding (alone). Warren seemed here to equate evangelism with witness and to limit witness to verbal witness. In dialogue lives and silence speaks volumes.29—p. 128
- So, while Warren’s important distinction between dialogue and evangelism can be sustained, a distinction can equally be sustained between unconscious witness through our lives, and conscious witness through articulation (reserving for the latter the term ‘evangelism’). Perhaps we ought to admit that dialogue and (unconscious) witness to Christ do inevitably take place together (for we are ineluctably social beings and earthed in our bodies) while agreeing that our articulated witness (evangelism) should be limited to other occasions, unless specifically called for.—Notes, 62, p. 128
DB’s Reflection: –What Kings says about dialogue again is from a western missionary perspective. But when Hindu elitists are called for any dialogue by Christian intellectuals, the former clearly understand the agenda behind it. So they come well prepared—however politely they might applaud such efforts by the Christians to understand Hinduism and are open to re-think about their approach to Hinduism, as well as glorify the teaching and life of Muktinath, they never think that Christians are doing any ‘unconscious witness’ either through their life or evangelism. As someone well said that all such (costly) dialogues that are arranged by the church and mission are nothing but luxurious holiday trips (that too in business class air tickets) and A.C. accommodation or in cool hill resorts at the expenses of missions.30 Such luxury never reflects the simplicity of the gospel. I believe in dialogue in the sense that we are ready to listen to each other. But when it is arranged or imagined as if providing any unconscious witness then I doubt.—db
30 …In all dialogues in India, the initiative has been with the Christians. Hindus do not ask for dialogue with Christians. They are so confident that the essence of all religions is same and that truth is expressed in many forms, that they see in the Christian’s desire for dialogue, not only a retreat of the church from her conviction on the categorical imperatives of the Gospel and the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ, but also a victory of the Hindu view of comprehensiveness and relativeness…. (Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 266
Kings: In considering ‘dialogue’ and ‘evangelism’ above we noted Warren’s concern to suspend evangelistic witness to facilitate authentic dialogue. Here he went further back and suggested suspending ‘dialogue’ to enable the basic grounding of ‘friendship.’ While agreeing that the general chronology of ‘friendship’, ‘dialogue’ and then ‘evangelistic witness’ is usually appropriate,31 it may be questioned whether one may fully disengage from the facts of religious identity while delighting in making friends.—pp. 132
31 This is not to imply that in every case friendship should lead to dialogue and dialogue should lead to evangelistic witness. Clearly relationships do differ and for some this ‘leading on’ would be inappropriate.—Notes, 85, p. 132
DB’s Reflection: –this is the problem of any systemization not only in theology but also in even one’s thought which was shared in different ways in different contexts. However such systematic presentations might help us to understand the overall mind of an author or scholar (here Warren and Hooker), these correspondences were written in various contexts. And building up a systematic approach: friendship first, dialogue next and evangelical witnessing third is not the way one can live her everyday life and interaction with people of other faiths. Of course, a missionary like Hooker who came to India only for that purpose can interpret all the activities of his life only from this systemization. But one need not and cannot ‘engage’ her religious ‘identity’ while ‘delighting in making friends’. Such a life would be a mess and artificial and possible only in such writings and not possible in real life—at least in India. In secular world nobody carries her religious identity on her sleeves.—db
Kings: Warren linked the Catholic writer on Hinduism, Panikkar, with the Anglican writer on Islam, Cragg. By ‘discerning the Christ incognito’, Warren was referring to Panikkar’s book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism in which the emphasis was not on bringing Christ into Hinduism but of ‘bringing him forth’ or ‘unveiling him’ already there. Warren conceded that a main problem with this approach was that Hindus and Muslims denied its validity. Hooker’s Hindu friend, Deshpande, was keen on Panikkar’s work because he had unearthed some new meaning in the Vedas32, not because he had recognised Christ in them.
(3) there are many levels of spiritual awareness. And for the vast majority the way in which Christ is found is not primarily cerebral at all. It is a matter of will and bears directly on the moral challenges of life. In this case, marturia is testimony and an invitation to accept Christ. We might call this a very direct form of evangelism….I do recognise that it is possible to have such a feeling of love for Christ (I know almost nothing of this myself) that it overflows into the life of those to whom he is traduced. The sheer attraction of Christ by life and testimony and invitation is persuasive.—p. 135
32 This refers to Vedic Experience by Pannikar {The Vedic Experience – Mantramanjari, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1977} and not The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. I don’t think there is any reference in this book about Hooker giving The Unknown Christ of Hinduism to his Hindu friends in India. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964); revised and enlarged, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1981.—db
DB’s Reflection: –I also endorse with Warren that such an approach by Panikkars was that Hindus and Muslims denied its validity. However I think Warren found useful clues both in Panikkar and Cragg in approaching the people of other faiths. But for me all such approaches of ‘Crown of Hinduism (J. N. Farquhar); Unknown Christ; Cosmic Christ and Universal Christ only increases the resistance of people of other faiths, rather than finding such Christ in other faiths. One can certainly find in Hinduism values and attitudes that are similar to those espoused by Christ. However, that is not finding Christ. I think one could say it is finding the hand of God, Who is at work in all things for good. It is like common grace from God to all.
But for me all such approaches of ‘Crown of Hinduism; Unknown Christ; Cosmic Christ and Universal Christ’ exposes the evangelical tension to the resistance of people of other faiths, rather than finding such Christ in other faiths. What I say here is that ‘Christ as the crown of Hinduism’ or finding a ‘cosmic etc. Christ’ only exposes the tension of the evangelicals by digging such thought in order to counter the resistance by Hindus. It is not going to increase any tension to the Hindus as they generally ignore all such claims.
Warren: Much more important is the fact that we are all moving into a secularized world in which 75% or more of the categories of traditional Christian philosophy & theology are going to be unintelligible….(Letter 21 16 July 1965).—p. 189
DB’s Reflection: –now also unavailable. Unlike the past, the Christian influence in secular world has also come down considerably.—db
Hooker: I may adopt a more narrow, ethical approach (which though different from is not necessarily contradictory to the first). Here I start by claiming that Christ is God’s ideal pattern for humanity, therefore wherever I find Christ-like qualities there God is at work, even though the Christ of orthodox Christianity may be unknown, misunderstood or rejected. For example, many people who knew Gandhi-ji recognised Christ-like qualities in him. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ {Matthew 7:20}. (Hooker Letter 14 August 1971)—p. 138.
DB’s Reflection: –Here I would like to correct Hooker’s statement ‘many people who knew Gandhiji recognised Christ-like qualities in him.’ To ‘many Christians or missionaries (alone) who knew Gandhiji recognised Christ-like qualities in him’. Our P.M. Modi in his clean Indian campaign only found the quality of hygiene in Gandhiji, not even Ram Raj. Indians will find whatever they want in their leaders that will serve their purpose and politicians are expert in it. Only during their birth and death days and other events related to them, the (past) National Leaders are remembered for a few hours on that day. –db
Conversion
Warren; I must quote a paragraph from a letter just in from Stephen Neill. I had written to him about my analysis of the [current British theological] situation and here is the quote.
….And we do desperately need a study of conversion in the third world, very few converts say what according to these friends they ought to say – to nearly all of them the old world was a dark world, out of which they have been delivered by Christ, and not a bright world to which Christ has added just a little more brightness.
Stephen has a point here, though it does not fairly cover all the ground. I know of converts from Islam who found Christ in the Qur’an and followed him out of it. But they do not dismiss Islam as just darkness because in fact they first found (p.384) the light of Christ in the Qur’an! But Stephen does point to a very large amount of experience in the 3rd world. It partly explains why so many Asians and Africans are so un-responsive to much that we westerners call ‘indigenization’. (Letter 574 30 November 1976)—pp. 384-85
DB’s Reflection: –To whom did these converts say this? To their western patrons? Though Neill had a ‘large amount of experience in the 3rd world’ with whom did he have this large amount of experience? Only with Christian converts and traditional Christians? It is nothing but over exaggeration to say that ‘all of them’ viz., converts said that the ‘old world was a dark world’. Again this shows how the evangelicals and missionaries talk in such a way when they interact with each other about their converts and work.33 Note the telling rebuke of Sudhakar about this:
The nature of Hinduism is such that no Hindu can truly be representative of Hinduism. A convert’s view of Hinduism is therefore partial so on the basis of a Hindu embracing Christianity, it will not prove that his testimony of conversion can be used to attract all Hindus (p.186) to Christ. Hindus will object if the church or the converts were to pose as the sole interpreters of Hinduism. Testimonies therefore should be given in humility and love.(pp. 186-87).
…Despite Indianisation and independence, the image of Christianity is still political due to its monoliths of institutions, heavily depending on Western aid, the theological institutions looking westward for inspiration, and evangelistic methods copying uncritically the crusade methods of the western church. Words like crusades, strategy, tactics, and winning people for Christ have strong military and triumphic connotations. Conversion in this context appears to be a conquest, and that of an alien forcing its sway on its subjects….(Sudhakar, op. Cit. p. 271)
33 The vast majority of converts to Christianity have come from the Dalits and tribals. In the case of the Dalits, they rebelled against the centuries of social oppression in Hinduism. In the case of the tribals, they left the fear of spirits and superstitions. For these converts, it was leaving a dark world. These populations were lumped together with Hindus, though they are very different from the life and practices of the caste Hindus. When missionaries talked about Hinduism back home, they typically portrayed it as the Dalits and tribals had experienced it. Indeed, it was an effective tack for generating funds to support the work.(anonymous)
Leave a Reply