Idolatry
Idolatry and caste are the two burning issues for the evangelicals to criticise and condemn in Hinduism. Sometimes they might even forgive caste discrimination keeping in mind its counterpart ‘racialism’ in Christendom. But their approach to idol worship puts all of Hinduism into one melting pot. So, naturally next to the overall view about Hinduism, is Idolatry.
Kings: In his debates with Hooker concerning idolatry in November and December 1968, and in his book Theology of Attention, Warren was stressing that most of the references in the Old Testament were warnings ‘inwards’ towards the Israelites rather than ‘outwards’ towards the Gentiles….
Here Hooker made a linguistic and hermeneutical point which subtly questioned whether Warren’s thesis fitted the whole of the Old Testament. He pointed out the Hebrew puns21 linking the passages about idolatry amongst the nations {Isaiah 41:5-13} and God’s care for his people Israel (vv. 8-13). This showed that warnings against idolatry were ‘outwards’ towards the gentiles, as well as ‘inwards’ towards Israel. Hooker could not resist making a final missiological jibe at Warren: ‘I cannot help feeling that Second Isaiah, had he lived to-day, would have been a follower of Kramer!’—p. 90 {See above page 87 on Kramer}
21 In the RSV, an effort had been made to translate these puns into English with the words ‘take courage’ and ‘encourage’ (Isaiah 41: 6 and 7).—Notes, 37, p. 90
DB’s Reflection: Regarding idolatry, whatever might be Purvaveda’s view, we have to take both Uttaraveda’s view as well as what the natives (here Hindus) think about it. I have already shared a lot about it. No need to repeat them here. Most of my articles on worship of images are not posted in the blog. But I shared it with others in another forum. Also see my view in my book Understanding Hinduism where I stated: So then what is an idol? In my opinion an idol expresses our limitation of understanding God, who is beyond our human comprehension. The idol as a symbol neither expresses nor interprets God. It is in fact a symbol of our limitations. And those who try to worship God through an idol only manage to communicate their limitations. Though it is a good way to express and accept our limitations, yet it is not necessary either to understand or express that limitation, because it may directly or indirectly restrict our efforts to understand God in our spirit beyond all human limitations.
Hooker: …The other evening when he dropped in we were talking about idolatry. I said that Hindus always told me that what they worship is the symbol behind the idol and not the idol itself. Satya Vir said ‘They will say that to please you, though in their hearts it is possible they really do think the idol is the real thing’. That was a salutary reminder of the fact that so often what we hear in India is what the other man thinks we want to hear. One so easily forgets this. (Hooker to Warren 3 January 1970)—p. 258
DB’s Reflection: Satya Vir is hundred percent correct. But it all depends upon which Hindu he talks. For many Hindus, an idol is definitely a symbol and they can easily discard it when that symbol22 has served its purpose. But this is not true in all cases. For example in Sri Vaishnava sampradaya idol is also called ‘archavatara.’23 For them once the archavatara as idol is consecrated then the very presence of god is dwelling there. This is also true in Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya where it is considered that Govindadevaji is self-manifested (svayam prakat) (see Berti, 2016, p. 261). There are several Hindu temples of all kinds of sects in which the deity is considered as ‘svayambhu’ (self manifested). At the same time, when the image is created for some festivals like Durga puja or Ganpati festival, it is nothing but a mere symbol. There are not only various views among various sampradayas, but even the same Hindu could hold one view one time and another view another time—in festivals, symbols, in temples. Image worship is not easy to understand and explain, not only in Hinduism but also in all other religions including in Christianity. So many grand idols of Hindu deities are erected in so many places in India. But they are only for darshan, just to see but not for worship (puja).
22 Modern apologists, embarrassed by idol-worship, have sought to explain the establishment process as a symbolic undertaking, something that ennobled the worshipper so he or she could realize the presence of divine power through the instrument of an image. But this was not the ancient understanding. In Gupta times, the term pratishtha meant “to place a definite power in an object, to endow an object with faculties, etc.”—at least for those who did not subscribe to the Mimamsa school of thought.…{Mimamsakas} took considerable exception to images and their worship. Beyond their ambit, the pratishtha-process made the idol a living entity—a real being entitled to receive offerings and legitimately hold the property assigned to it by its patrons.(Willis, 2009. 143)
23 This is the concept of archavatara, in which the particular deity (mostly in Vaishnav sampradaya) after consecration physically dwells in the idol. This concept gave a great boost to murtipujas. Willis outlined the historical development related to Vedic traditions:
Because there are no fourth-or fifth -century Vaishnava ritual texts in the north, the Vaikhanasa school provides the best evidence by analogy. The usefulness of Vaikhanasa literature is reinforced by the school’s persistent effort to create a religious system that combined Vedism and the worship of Vishnu Narayana. This synthesis was developed theologically and ritually. The Vaikhanasa are indeed convinced that their form of image-worship is nothing but a continuation of the Vedic sacrifice….The school does not reject fire offerings and other forms of Vedic ritual that are “shapeless” or “imageless” (amurta). Rather they combine the two, making the worship of Vishnu-in-an-image obligatory at the close of every domestic fire rite….In the offering of bali to Narayana…the Vaikhanasa Sutra prescribes that the priest should recite the well-known verse, “I shall proclaim the might deeds of Vishnu,” that is Rig Veda 1.154.1, the famous Vishnu sukta { W. Caland, ed. Calcutta, 1927. Vaikhaanasasmaartasuutra (10: 10) and similarly the Visnubali (3: 13), which is also centred on an image.} This effectively fused the Purusha of the old Vedic hymns with Vishnu Narayana as a consecrated image.—Wills. 2009, 118
Hindu Scriptures are from Devil:
For most of the evangelicals, everything in Hinduism is from the Devil. So what one finds in Hooker is the telling rebuke on this view.
Kings: Throughout his intensive study of contemporary Hindi literature, Hooker discerned not only a way of learning about Hinduism and popular culture but, more fundamentally, a way of learning about God. God has not left himself without witness in Indian literature and the tracing of that witness was invigorating….—p. 79
Hooker: …Mere appeals to the heart to the neglect of the head and the mere dismissal of Hinduism as a ‘work of the devil’ simply will not do…. (Hooker Letter 8 May 1977. J. R. Ballntne, Sanskritist and Philosopher at Varanasi Sanskrit University in the 19th Century.).—p. 397
DB’s Reflection: Indian evangelicals will call this blasphemy. When they say the Hindu Scriptures are from devil and that reading them is a mere waste of time to understand Hindus and preach the gospel to them, they will say that the study of any contemporary (Indian) literature is anathema.—db
Dialogue
Dialogue is one of my favourite topics. I find interesting agreement both with Warren and Hooker on this topic.
Kings: … ‘The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue’24 (where he {John V. Taylor} insisted that ‘every religion has its jealousies’ by which he meant ‘those points in every religion concerning which believers are inwardly compelled to claim a universal significance and finality’).—p. 120
24 John V. Taylor, ‘The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue’, International Review of Mission(s), LXVIII (1979), pp. 373-84 and in J. Hick and B. Hebblethwaite, (eds), Christianity and Other Religions (London: Collins, 1980), pp. 212-33. The quotation is from International Review of Mission(s), LXVIII (1979). p. 380—notes, 29, p. 120
DB’s Reflection: Yes. This is true. This ‘universality’ is not only an inward compulsion but strongly propagated by the followers of every major faith. However, interestingly when it comes to dialogue or confrontation, most of the Hindus will say that each one’s religion is good for them and one need not accept the particular ‘universality’ of their tradition by others. They strongly believe that as one is born in a particular religious tradition one need not change it and also need not impose it on others. So even this personal ‘universality’ of their faith is only for them and not for all. Of course, there are exceptions to this also—particularly when one sampradaya tries to woo the followers of others to come to their fold.25 Here the sectarian rivalry is considered an inside competition among various sampradayas within Hinduism but they will oppose it when the same is claimed by other non-Hindu religions. Here the concept of ‘choosing the ishta devata’ (god of personal choice) comes within Hindu fold. There are several instances where few heads of Hindu sects refuse to convert the followers of non-Hindu religions but encouraged them to remain faithful in their own religion in which they were born. At the same time several gurus have huge followers of people from other religions like Christianity, who even become Hindus. This shows how flexible Hinduism is when it accommodates others according to the need of the hour.–db
25 …The girl who is authorised in Saivite rites by her father shall be given in marriage only to a devotee of Siva and not to a non-devotee. If inadvertently she is given in marriage to a non-devotee, she shall try to convince her husband about the Saivite faith. If she is unable to do so she shall leave him off and perform holy rites mentally. (J. L. Shastri, 2002, p.1970)
O Krsna, a low born, a base or a fool, or a fallen man, if he resorts to Siva is worthy of being worshipped by the gods and Asuras.—ibid. op cit. p.2011
The verse is indicative of the proselytizing attempts of the Saivite Acaryas to allure the laity to their fold….—ibid. notes 286, p.2011
Kings: He thus outlined the basic attitude needed for genuine learning together about other faiths, profound listening to the other person with alert attention.26 He developed this theme with reference to Christ:
When you and I venture to listen to another person ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’, there is an unseen listener present, Jesus himself. We have to listen to him listening. We have to know Jesus and be ready to learn all his meanings too. And in the context of this listening it may be that he will have something new to say, something we have never heard before. And if we listen very carefully, with concentrated attention, it is likely that we will hear him speaking through the lips of a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, a man or woman of some tribal religion – or perhaps a Marxist or humanist. Jesus, now as always, is very full of surprises. {Warren, 1971, p. 1}
This concept of the presence of a third ‘listener’, Jesus himself, is perceptive and moving. Warren elucidated it with insight. We are to listen firstly to Jesus himself listening and then secondly to Jesus himself speaking.27 Thirdly what (p.129) Jesus has to say may well involve something new and fourthly, he is likely to speak through the lips of the other believers. It is this final step that needs the highest level of ‘attention’ and throughout there will, typically, be surprises from Jesus. Each of these steps will be analysed in more detail.
The first and second steps are full of insight and are not particularly controversial. In the third step, it is not clear whether what Jesus may say is new specifically to the Christian involved (i.e. something that was known about Christ already to others and not appreciated by that particular person) or is a radically new revelation of Christ which had not been given before in the history of the Church. It seems that Warren inferred the former, and that that is consonant with the New Testament witness to Christ. The latter is more dangerous and could lead to esoteric new Gnostic movements, which Warren would not have advocated. The fourth step is radically invigorating: Jesus speaks not just through their lives but through their lips. This insight certainly seems to fit the pattern of God speaking wisely and prophetically to his people Israel through Gentiles who were ‘outside the Mosaic covenant’ e.g. Jethro (Exodus chapter 18) and Balaam (Numbers chapters 22-24) and the Syrophoenceian woman (Mark chapter 7).—pp. 129-30
26 ‘Mutual listening’ referred to each listening to the other, but it would have been interesting if he had gone on to make the point that ‘mutual listening’ also involves trying to listen to oneself speaking (as one imagines one may be heard by the other).—Notes, 68, p. 129
27 It is noticeable in this scenario that Jesus himself listens before speaking, and this is a model for his (p.129) followers. It may be interesting to compare this concept of the ‘third party’ to the presence of Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24.—notes, 70, p. 129
DB’s Reflection: Warren’s statement that ‘Jesus speaking through the lips of people of other faiths which will reveal new surprises of him’ is neatly interpreted by King for our understanding. And limiting this interpretation within the frame of Muktiveda Kings also warns about the ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’. If we keep Muktiveda as the normative for us to understand God, then Kings warning is correct. But as God cannot be limited within the frame of Muktiveda alone, my understanding of Warren’s emphasis of listening to others is to interpret Muktinath’s life and teaching through the worldview of others. It is not a compromise to the core of Muktiveda. For example, for me bhakti is the new way of understanding faith. Prayaschitta, avatara, though not perfect words or concepts to interpret atonement and incarnation, still might help them to understand within our worldviews. Of course, there is always the danger of ‘esoteric new Gnostic movements’ when one tries to build outside the foundation of Muktiveda. Dialogue alone does not prevent or provide this danger, as the early church history clearly showed. If Warren would not have advocated any Gnostic movements considering his strong faith in Muktiveda, then ‘the new surprises of Muktinath’ also should be understood in the same way. Though we should be thankful to Kings for giving this neat interpretation of Warren, this is also the danger of interpreting about other’s convictions based only on such statements which were written in the context of dialogue. Because later we read Warren’s opposition to such dialogue in strong words (see below)
However, can we compare Muktinath’s listening as the ‘third party’ on the road to Emmaus in Luke chapter 24 with any dialogue as interpreted by Kings? This is only an innocent question from me (to Warren)
Warren: Yes, I’m sure that ‘the comparative study of Religion’ is invaluable in the scheme of showing me the way into an understanding of another man’s faith, provided one is not concerned with drawing comparisons! One cannot study the other man’s religion enough. One must go on studying it but primarily to understand what makes the other man tick the way he does not primarily to see when he differs from you, where you are right & he is wrong. That will emerge. But the study of the other man’s religion ought to be the study of the other man, a study based on a desire to know & love him, not to convert him! That sounds shattering….(p.199)There are two levels at which one has to approach the other man – first to understand him (& his religion), second & in quite a different way to introduce him to Jesus Christ & see what happens. (Letter 55 19 April 1966)—pp. 199-200
DB’s Reflection: I too believe that study of another faith should be done not to compare with one’s own. Because according to my understanding each religious faith is unique in its own right and one cannot be easily compared with another. However, to study it only to see where ‘one is right and the other is wrong’ will force only to see the wrong things in another religion according to one’s understanding based on her religious view. Sometimes that kind of study also could show where one is wrong and the other is right. Introducing Muktinath will come naturally and spontaneously if one is evangelical. But the comparative study of religion will enable one to do it with much humility and respect for the other person and her views. Otherwise without having any knowledge about the faith of another person, one will end up only propagating one’s own religion rather than introducing Muktinath to her.—db
Warren: When I said that in dialogue ‘I do not seek to persuade’, I am not meaning that I do not want my presentation of Christ to be persuasive. Of course, I do. But it is Christ who must do the persuading. If I’m too much in evidence Christ will not get a chance. If I think of myself doing the persuading I am at the centre of the picture of what is happening.
Now all this is terribly difficult to put on paper. For at bottom it is a mood, not an argument, a temper not a debate.
You say that you want to share your experience of Christ & this is ‘surely an attempt to persuade’. Yes, in one deep sense it is, in so far as you want Christ to be persuasive. But this need not involve you being persuasive, otherwise then it is (p. 225) the Church in you who does the persuading. This sounds like a play of words. But I don’t think it is.
There comes a moment in one’s touch with another person when one is tempted to force the issue. I think this is the moment of danger. Only the Holy Spirit can guide me then. Sometimes it is right to force the issue. The other man may be needing the moral challenge to decide. But often if one forces the issue one wins the argument & loses the man. There is an acute spiritual dilemma here, & we need to pray continuously for such a sensitiveness to the Holy spirit that we’ll be guided at this point. Somewhere in the phrase ‘being persuasive without trying to persuade’, there is a clue but I think one has got to ‘feel’ it. No logic will get one there. (Letter 185 13 October 1968)—pp. 225-26
DB’s Reflection: –True.—db
Hooker: Dialogue implies a distinction between I and Thou. Where that distinction is not recognised, is dialogue possible? Can we meet if we are merged?
Now I know that according to my understanding of what is happening dialogue is possible and is happening, but I do not think this is true of his side of the conversation, indeed because he is a Hindu, it cannot be. (Hooker to Warren 21 October 1971).—p. 280
DB’s Reflection: Finally Hooker understood the reality that a Hindu cannot understand the conversation of a Christian. The same is with the so-called ‘witnessing’ which a Christian partner thinks that she is doing in such a dialogue or in real life even. But this is not a rule and there are few exceptions.—db
Warren: …Surely the similarities are real bridges, evidence of the community of man’s religious experience, while the dissimilarities point towards a fresh appraisal of wherein lies the meaning of the ‘uniqueness’ of God’s revelation in Christ – a uniqueness which is not exclusive of other insights but interpretative of them. It is not so much the ‘unknown Christ of Hinduism’ but the unknown self of the Christian in learning more about Christ from what the Hindu discovers in his meeting. That remains a stage a long way ahead I think and poses the real challenge of this kind of genuine ‘dialogue.’ (Letter 331 18 March 1972).—p 289
DB’s Reflection: This happens when one share’s her bhakti about the Lord with others in a dialogue or even in evangelism. The more one shares about the Lord the more one finds her bhakti/faith goes deeper. Someone well said that unshared faith soon gets rusty. The same deepening of bhakti happens when one engages in deep study of other religions as it provides fresh insights to expand one’s personal faith in new ways and means.
Warren: …I have a terrible fear that all too soon you’ll begin getting invitations to high level seminars in Bangkok or Cyprus or Baghdad there to meet with top brass representatives of the different religions. I have very little faith in the value of these excursions. They are all ‘up in the air’, and nothing that happens at them is communicated at ground level…. (Letter 379 30 December 1972).—p. 309
DB’s Reflection: Yes. I call such conferences ‘evangelical entertainment’ and ‘recreation’. If they want a break from their boredom then they will attend such ‘up in the air’ conferences which are never communicated at ground level. Though the context is about the Mission conference, this is also applicable for any dialogue meetings arranged by the Mission.
Warren: …I don’t want to see you sidetracked into the imaginary world of ‘Dialogue’ as that is understood at Geneva…. (Letter 379 30 December 1972).—p. 309
DB’s Reflection: –I too never believe in such dialogues.—db
Hooker: Over the week-end the RCs are organising a massive ‘dialogue’ session to which about for people, Hindus and Christians have been invited, myself among them. {took place in Varanasi} Some of the more perceptive Romans say this has been organised by the bishops who feel they ought to be seen doing something about dialogue. While these Romans rejoice that some light is at last penetrating high places, they have grave doubts as to the value of getting so many people together at once. So do I. I have been asked to take the opening act of devotion for this session. (Hooker Letter 23 February 1973).—p. 311
DB’s Reflection: Another dialogue entertainment this time by the RCs. Sometimes in the late 1990s or early 2000s, I too received an invitation for some kind of ‘ashram fellowship’ arranged somewhere in the North (Rishikesh or Varanasi I don’t remember). But I never responded to it, in which several ashram heads of both Christians and Hindus were invited. I have to hunt for the information either in my emails back in that time or in my Computer.–db
Warren: …But these big ‘get togethers’ are a waste of time. I hope that isn’t too harsh a judgement – The value to you was, of course, the making of new contacts, which is, by and large, the only value of any conference! (Letter 391 18 March 1973).—p. 315
DB’s Reflection: –a telling but real rebuke on such dialogue by Warren. I completely agree with him. But ‘making new contacts’ sometimes becomes (now called as networking) a headache and nuisance as we too become such contacts to others which drains up our time and energy. I became one such contact to a Christian who met me with another Hindu bhakta. Later he wasted my time and even began to misuse his contact with me by posting my pictures along with him in his face book. When I requested him not to do this he even began to abuse me. Finally I have to sever contact with him by not responding his emails anymore.—db
Hooker: …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 precondition of openness and not a barrier to it…Yet this is a very tentative judgement. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 323
DB’s Reflection: –I would prefer for ‘uniqueness of all religions’ as all religion cannot be equal as the followers of every religion has her own commitment for her faith.—db
Hooker: There is another point which inhibits, or rather prevents what is commonly called dialogue. Most of what is written on this subject totally ignores the question of language. Set-piece dialogues (pundits meeting for a weekend) all, apparently, happen in English. Yet every language is based (p.327) on (or does it produce?) a weltenschaung. Can one use a language without entering into its world-view, its mythology. A Hindu who is at home in English has stepped outside his own mythology, at least temporarily. This means that when he goes back into it and say, talks in Hindi with his family, his own world-view can no longer be quite what it was to him before.
I have not put that very clearly, let me offer an illustration. I could in English explain to a Hindu who knew a little about Christianity, something of what we mean by the Holy Spirit and ask him directly if there was anything like this within Hinduism. In Hindi or Sanskrit however I would be totally at a loss. One simply cannot translate the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ into either of those languages in a way that is even remotely intelligible….
I hope that what I have written is not too remote from what you are after to be of any use. I ought to add that most of my experience has been and still is among people who are not at home in English, and who are still living within their own tradition…. (Hooker’s Reply to John V. Taylor’s letter, 23 September 1973).—pp. 327-28
DB’s Reflection: –very realistic and down to earth.—db
Warren: …To talk about the ‘equality of all religions’ is quite frankly a construct without meaning. To whom are they all equal? (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331
DB’s Reflection: –Yes. That is why I prefer ‘uniqueness of every religions’.—db
Warren: …These stratospheric meetings of pundits exchanging ideas is bordering on a non–event. They meet in artificial circumstances. They are polite. They may well be absolutely genuine in their courteous respect for one another. They may have all the right ideas about how to pay attention, how to listen, how to accept the unacceptable, but the situation is artificial…. (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331
DB’s Reflection: –excellent summary of every kind of religious dialogue. I too have the same view.—db
Warren: …Put the two together and the Holy Spirit in his own time and way will produce the spark. What results from the spark may not be Baptism may not be what we call conversion, but may be a sudden awareness of ‘the something more’ – even ‘the someone more’ which is a real meeting with Christ, albeit largely incognito BUT with the possibility that he will not be incognito because he has been recognised in you, in the kind of person you are, in the quality of personality of which you are totally unconscious. ‘I come in the little things’ saith the Lord.
I’m sure you have to search for a theology which embraces differences. This is the vital need not only between Christians and men of other faiths, but between Christians of different ‘persuasions. Only so can there be any kind of peace or reconciliation in a world in which God has with such extravagance made men so different! (Letter 425 25 October 1973)—p. 331
DB’s Reflection: –very true–db
Warren: You say at one point that you find ‘much contemporary inter religious dialogue phoney….’ as you know, so do I. But I think it is also important to see in every attempt at dialogue however superficial and however shallow in its lack of awareness of what is involved, yet a genuine attempt to escape from the attitude of polemic and mere argument and trying to get the better of the other man which was for so long part of the Missionary approach to other religions. Dialogue even in its feeblest form is an attempt to make amends.
The other point which occurs is your use of the phrase ‘intellectual level’. Towards the bottom of p. 1 you say ‘…even when at the intellectual level we cannot (yet?) meet’. Is there not a danger that the word intellectual can too early be given a derogatory meaning in the sense that the other man is not my intellectual equal. I know you don’t mean that and the next page of the letter amply meets this by your emphasis on a common sinfulness. Yet, nevertheless I’m inclined to think you’d be on stronger ground if you paraphrased the word intellectual with its subtle overtones, by some such phrase as ‘our minds seem to work differently and mind so often can’t meet mind’. That is what you mean by not having ‘a set of common assumptions at the intellectual level’. But a paraphrase avoids even a hint that the other fellow’s intellect, as such, is defective. (Letter 493 9 June 1975).—p. 355
DB’s Reflection: –Very wise and nice advice. Here the humility of Warren is displayed at its best.-db
Hooker: Raper believes that there must be an epoch28 in the dialogue. I disagreed, for if I am to talk with integrity I must bring the whole of what I am to the meeting, I cannot chop bits off myself beforehand. This raises the whole question of commitment and openness. I said that if I am committed to a system or to a set of doctrines then patently I cannot be open, but if I am committed to a person who is himself utterly vulnerable, it is a very different matter. Commitment to Christ demands openness. It does not preclude it. He further agreed that the church had too much presented the uniqueness of Christ in exclusive terms, instead of in inclusive ones.( —Hooker Letter: Discussion with David Raper Feeding into Warren’s ‘I Believe in the Great Commission’ 14 September 1975).—p. 363 {Raper a Philosopher of religion—p. 68}
28 Greek word for ‘stoppage’ or, in this context, ‘suspension of belief’.—Notes, 546, p. 363
DB’s Reflection: I like the way Hooker distinguishes between ‘commitment to a set of doctrines and committed to a person (Muktinath) who is himself utterly vulnerable’. But in dialogue one has to face such problems. Whether any Christian comes without any ‘commitment to a set of doctrines’ or not, it is what his/her Hindu partner finds in such dialogues. As dialogues are always initiated by the Christians to a Hindu, who has had no such dialogue with other faiths in her life, easily assumes that her Christian partner in that dialogue has a pre-commitment to a set of doctrines. Listen what Sudhakar says about it:
The bewildering polytheism of Hinduism and the bold assertions of the advaita is bound to shake the Christian off his feet if he has no (p.268) theological charity in entering into dialogue. Yet an honest dialogue is possible only with a willingness to abandon a theological position once it is found to be inadequate. If Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Lord, as the New Testament declares, and as the church has affirmed, then how is that to be proved to the Hindu? The usual and traditional method is to quote the passages of the Bible in support of the claim. If scriptures are the church’s sources of authority, it will then be projecting Christian scriptures before the Hindu. Hinduism also has its scriptures in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita. The Christian approach to Hindus therefore is influenced by the Christian’s attitude to Hindu scriptures. Hinduism and its scriptures interpreted by its adherents must be accepted in all sincerity, and the Christian must scrupulously avoid the temptation of interpreting Hindu Scriptures to suit his own conclusions. (Sudhakar, op. Cit. pp. 267-68)
Hooker: …I am (p.365) convinced that there is real experience of God to be found in other tradition and we have to face this humbly and seriously….(Hooker Letter 29 November 1975: Letter to John Ward: An ‘Apologia’ For His Missionary Work.) –pp 365-66.{John Ward was Education Secretary of Church Mission Society}
DB’s Reflection: God cannot be confined with any one religious tradition. We can introduce the gospel to the people of others faiths, but not God—particularly Hindus, however Christians might disagree with a Hindus’ understanding about God.—db
How far to go: Though I gave different title to this section, this is a continuation with Dialogue.
Kings: The final ‘guise’ of Christ as Leader brought the powerful challenge:
How far can anyone as set in his ways as I am, as encumbered with the experiences that God has given me, really break loose, hear the ‘follow me’ & go out into the (p.91) unknown? I wish I thought I could. Every now & then one comes across folk who’ve managed it. But it is a rare thing. So this was very sobering. (Letter 21)
Here we see Warren’s humility and vulnerability as he faces his Leader. He admits he is now set in his ways and finds it difficult to hear the radical call of his Cambridge. Perhaps he feels too ‘comfortable’ at Westminster Abbey and wonders if he has missed a further, more radical, missionary call.—pp. 91-92
DB’s Reflection: –though I understand what ‘missionary call’ is for people like Warren viz., leaving their country and going to other parts of the world, yet one need not be a ‘missionary’ to ‘go out into the unknown’. Though it is very difficult, yet leaving our own ‘theological comfort zones’ if we can manage to step in the shoes of people of other faiths to understand them, then we can have the same experience of ‘unknown’. In one Rethinking Conference (at Chennai I think it was 2010), when the topic of ‘how far one should go’ to reach out the Hindus, in my response I said, ‘you should go even to the extent of losing your faith in the Lord. Because this is what you expect a Hindu to do when you preach the gospel. Then alone you will understand her struggle. ’. See my paper: Where to Draw the line.–db
Hooker: …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. This does not mean, as is sometimes claimed, that I have to ‘put my Christian faith in brackets’. Indeed it is my Christian faith which makes me want to understand the other man, and which demands of me (though it rarely gets!) an openness and vulnerability which takes the other man with the utmost seriousness however threatening to my own convictions his words may be…. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 322
DB’s Reflection: –an honest struggle. But do not the evangelicals do the same to the Hindus? When they (evangelicals) expect a Hindu to take the gospel with utmost seriousness which demands ‘openness and vulnerability’ which threatens her conviction in her faith, then they too should be ready for the same vulnerability and threat to understand the people of other faiths. –db
Hooker: I said that in the contemporary western mood there are three important factors which anyone trying either to reform an old philosophy or to create a new one must take into consideration. These were
- The rejection of anything imposed from above, e.g. one country imposing its culture on another, teachers imposing themselves on the children at the cost of the latter’s development, a holy book dictated by God and therefore imposed on men.
- A growing awareness of the unity of the human race, especially among the young. Many of us are now seeing that we must no longer try to conquer other faiths but understand them and learn from them instead. This meant coming down from our high horse of western superiority.
- The vast increase in the range of human knowledge, and the many new disciplines which have been developed to interpret it make all previous systems, including theological ones, seem superficial and provincial.
I went on to say that these three trends have together caused the dethronement of the clergy from their position of authority. Those who resent or fear this new situation have nothing to contribute, but the situation can and should be welcomed, e.g. a God who had merely dictated the bible would be unworthy of our worship. If God is God he surely wants the freedom and development of his creatures.(Hooker Letter 8 May 1976. Talk on Christianity to the Follow Up Meeting on New Philosophies in India.)—p. 374
DB’s Reflection: –I welcome such an approach about understanding other faiths by Hooker. All kinds of unchecked authorities create problems for people. In the area of religion, this becomes more dangerous as many submit to this kind of religious authority & never allow people to think. And we need to challenge such religious authority in any form in any religion. For this those who exercise such authority should be ready to go to the second mile to understand the need of lay people.—db
Leave a Reply