Patchwork Faith

[The title was borrowed from another article by a Christian, in which the author criticized my incarnational approach as ‘Patchwork Faith.’ Using the same title, I pay back in the same coin.]

Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007.

Introduction

This paper is more of a brainstorming exercise than a final, definitive thought. It is based on selected reflections from McDermott’s God’s Rivals. As is my habit, I recorded my reflections on various points while reading. If I were to compile all of them, the result would be a synopsis or review—something unnecessary. This is because, apart from his personal views in the early chapters and conclusion, McDermott also presents the perspectives of the early Church Fathers. A paper based solely on selective reflections would not do full justice to the overall theme of the book. Those who wish to understand McDermott’s perspective must read the book in its entirety.

However, in this paper, I attempt to engage with my own questions on selected points from the book. Unlike Abrahamic faiths, which first establish a theological framework and permit questioning only within its boundaries, most non-Abrahamic faiths—particularly Hinduism—begin by asking questions, seeking answers, and then formulating philosophy based on individual perspectives. While Hinduism has managed to consolidate certain philosophical schools, such as the various forms of Vedanta (from Advaita to Achintya Bheda Abheda), it has never rigidly confined theology within a closed system that disallows thinking beyond it.

Here lies a significant difference: Abrahamic faiths first developed theology and later allowed questions within its framework, whereas non-Abrahamic faiths first posed fundamental questions and then, based on the answers, created various schools of thought.

As a Hindu and a devotee of the Lord, I find a vast gap between these two approaches. Understanding—and perhaps even attempting to reconcile—these differences within a single theological or philosophical framework is a challenge that compels me. Thus, my journey continues, and all my papers remain an ongoing exploration in search of answers to numerous questions rather than settling comfortably within any single theological or philosophical tradition.

Christian Patchwork

Among all the major world religions, Christianity alone well deserves the title ‘Patchwork Faith’. From the beginning, it remained a patchwork faith. Keeping the central fabric of the old Jews’ religious cloth, it added various kinds of fabrics throughout its historical journey—cotton, silk, terry cotton, nylon, cloths made of jute, bamboo, banana threads, etc. The only common thread [Muktinath] that makes this patchwork appear as a single piece is the stitch that connects these various fabrics, remaining hidden yet foundational. Though that thread was made from a single strand [co-essence with God], it easily adopted and adapted to connect various fabrics, as it could incarnate within any culture and tradition.

However, once this patchwork faith is created (yet still remains incomplete—it might be completed when Original and not Hybrid Hindu Muktiveda theology is written), the only condition to keep it intact is that it must not be washed with any theological detergent. Doing so would not only damage individual fabrics—many of which do not match each other—but could ultimately ruin the entire piece. Of course, theological washing might not damage the thread itself, but it would still look odd when some fabrics shrink while others remain unchanged.

Pan-Hindu Mosaic

Christianity, unlike Hinduism, cannot escape this destiny. Though Hinduism is also compared to a mosaic, where various materials are used to create a unified artwork, it never relied on a single material to bind them together, be it God or philosophy. Instead, different substances were used wherever needed—for example, glue for glass pieces, cement or white cement for other parts. Since all these binding materials share a common nature of helping elements adhere to one another, Hinduism gained the flexibility to use various materials rather than relying on a single uniform substance like cement.

However, as any artwork needs some basic element to connect its parts—like the thread [Muktinath] in Christianity—dharma plays that role in Hinduism. Rather than adapting and adopting to meet all needs, it accommodates all kinds of faith and cultural expression, allowing them to maintain their own exclusivism, thereby remaining a pluralistic inclusivism.

The greatest advantage of this approach is that even after being washed—whether metaphorically or philosophically—the structure remains intact and, in fact, gains a new polish with each cleansing. As Lipner aptly used the banyan tree analogy to describe this Hindu phenomenon—often called the Parliament of Religions—it is also the best model for following the Lord as a Hindu bhakta, rather than aligning with a patchwork faith composed of various fabrics.

Reality of Pluralism

Given this reality regarding religion, pluralism is the only true condition of all faiths. However, there are only two types of pluralism: Pluralistic Exclusivism and Pluralistic Inclusivism. Abrahamic religions belong to the former, while most other faiths, particularly Hinduism, represent the latter.  Alongside the Christian trinity of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, we must also include the Hindu Chaturvarga: Universalism, which I will discuss later.

Therefore, when discussing the religious trinity of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, there is little point in arguing that:

“…inclusivism does not seem coherent because it assumes there (p. 23) is only one salvation to be pursued by all religions, when in reality, there are many.
Pluralism doesn’t make sense either because it is crypto-inclusivist. It claims to believe in many goals but actually believes in only one….” (pp. 23-24)

But does pluralism claim “many goals”? Pluralism says, “You have your exclusive goal, which might be correct for you, and you have the freedom to follow it,” affirming, “As many souls, so many views.” There is no strict exclusivism. Instead, there exists only Pluralistic Exclusivism and Pluralistic Inclusivism. In one of his videos [https://youtu.be/xvdQtTkiD9s?si=Jq27241JZw_XYzsD], N.T. Wright acknowledges the reality of pluralism within Christian churches and even advocates for it. However, the same courtesy is not extended outside Christianity, where exclusivism is insisted upon. Why?

If Christians claim that their differences in theology, church practices, rituals, and forms reflect their belief in unity rather than uniformity, Hindus would agree. We also affirm the same idea: Unity in Diversity, @both in the approach and expression both in Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.@

Many Salvations

However challenging this view, McDermott says:

“If the typology of pluralism/inclusivism/exclusivism no longer works, now what? Some Christian theologians are proposing a new way to understand how non-Christians can be saved. They argue that religions not only teach different goals or salvations, but that there may actually be different salvations… In other words, Theravāda Buddhists may indeed experience nirvana, and Muslims may indeed find paradise. But they won’t experience the fullness of the triune God…. So, they say, there are three types of religious fulfillment: lostness, imperfect and partial religious fulfillment through a non-Christian religion, and communion with the triune God—the last of which only Christian faith may provide.” (pp. 24-25)

Yes, that is true. What salvation means for one need not be the same for another. Escape from Karma Samsara and attaining Mukti is salvation for a Hindu, not the kind of salvation that Christians believe in. But I don’t even believe in the three types of religious fulfillment. A typical Hindu won’t accept even such a category.

‘Experiencing the fullness of the Triune God’ need not be the only way to salvation for all. For a philosophical Hindu, experiencing that Atman is Brahman alone is salvation. It is better to note that ‘experiencing the fullness of the Triune God’ is one among several ways to experience God and is not the only way to have an ‘experience with God,’ which should not be limited to a Christian Triune God.

In Advaita Vedanta, we are already saved, but due to avidya (ignorance) caused by maya (illusion), we mistakenly perceive a separation between Atman and Brahman and have yet to realize our true nature. Once this avidya is removed through proper study of the Vedas, one attains true knowledge (jnana), and the Atman recognizes itself as none other than Brahman. As a well-known sloka states:

“Jñānavihīnāḥ sarvamate na;
Muktiṁ bhajante janmaśatena.”

“Without knowledge, in every doctrine, one does not attain liberation even in a hundred lifetimes.”

However, according to Shankara, once this knowledge is gained, it must ultimately be transcended to attain direct realization that Atman is Brahman. As he emphasizes in Vivekachudamani, particularly in verses 56 to 61 [See Appendix].

Don’t limit God—if at all there is any need for God—to any scripture, theology, or religion. Thankfully, She or He stands beyond all such efforts to categorize Her or Him. Even the phrase Transcendental Immanence won’t capture who She or He is.

Salvation versus Revelation

It is interesting to note that the same McDermott says:

“…In the greatest act of salvation of the pre-Christian era, God wanted not only to save the Jews but also to reveal who he is to the Gentiles.” — p. 29

If God could ‘save’ ONLY the Jews as per His covenant plan—which was to restore them as the chosen nation, rather than the kind of salvation later Christianity promoted—the same God ‘revealed’ Herself or Himself to those who were outside that covenant relationship.

But even here, a Hindu would say that rather than God revealing Himself to them, they did not even ‘discover’ Him; rather, they found Him when they searched for Him. And those who never found God either invented, discovered, or found their own method of salvation. This being the ‘realistic salvation,’ there cannot and need not be the same salvation for everyone.

Limiting God

My point is that, according to McDermott, God granted salvation only to the Jews but revealed who He is to the non-Jews. If that is the case, do Christians also acknowledge that their triune God has done the same outside of Christianity—limiting both God and salvation to their own perspective?

This leads to another question regarding McDermott’s statement: If God has revealed Himself to the Gentiles so they may know who He is—i.e., according to McDermott, the “true” God—is there any indication that this revelation was intended to save them, as He saved the Jews?

If this revelation to non-Jews was only to make them aware of God’s identity—His power and authority as the sole Creator—does this not imply that God could also grant such revelation outside Christianity? And apart from displaying His power and authority, could He not also grant salvation that is not ‘known’ or ‘recognized’ by Christians in other faiths?

If so, then why do Christians insist that salvation is now available only through their God? I know that the salvation Christians understand and preach is available only through Jesus (forgiveness of sin, redemption, and eternal communion with God). However, salvation (mukti) as addressing the felt need of anyone—be it physical, mental, moral, social, ritual, or spiritual—could also be possible through their respective faiths.

This being the reality, there actually exist ‘different salvations.’ (More on this in the Appendix.)

True God

Regarding the concept of the ‘true’ God, for me, there exists no ‘true’ and ‘false’ God. God remains God. He becomes true or false according to your understanding, and there are not two kinds of gods—one true and another false. A Christian can say that others’ understanding of God, rather than their Triune God, is false. People of other faiths could also say the same. But no Hindu would say this—except the followers of Abrahamic faiths. Here comes the difference between exclusivism and pluralism.

Universalism

Finally, regarding the so-called faceless, formless Universalism, as promoted by Tagore [more on this see: Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian Culture, History and Identity, Penguin Books, NY, first published in 2005], it is like a smoke-screen painting one tries to create. One can see some kind of painting in the smoke, as we often find in clouds. But in reality, it doesn’t exist—just like Swami Vivekananda’s Vedanta, which is seen as the culmination of all religions, helping them evolve from ‘myth’ to ‘religion.’

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, universalism is possible only through nationalism. There exists only one universalism—the biological needs of living beings. Even in fulfilling that need, they never have a uniform approach. However, the only difference between humans and other living beings is that beyond our biological needs, we search for the needs of our mind, which could also lead to the need of Atman, provided one believes in it. Even here, only pluralism works, not exclusivism.

Why Many Religions

To answer this question, McDermott says—both his personal view and that of early Church Fathers like Justin—that God first allowed other religions to have their own territorial gods but kept the Jews only for Him (Deut. 29:25-26, p. 47). Then, He gave the saving knowledge (pp. 3-34) only to the Jews but revealed Himself to others to show who He actually is—His power and authority (p. 29). However, though fallen angels tricked human beings to prevent them from knowing the true God so they could maintain their authority over them (pp. 89-91, 97), still, ‘somehow,’ God allowed this so that all non-Jews wouldn’t be permanently lost and, when the right time comes, they too would be saved (p. 159). Similarly, He also used other religions and philosophies to help Christians understand their own God and doctrine more clearly (p. 34). However generous God might be in allowing people of other faiths to have their own religions, salvation—first given to the Jews and then to Christians—is possible for others only if they accept that they can know the only true Christian God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Of course, this oversimplified summary of McDermott’s argument doesn’t do full justice to his presentation, as I might be quoting several of his points out of context. Similarly, since he presents more of the views of early Church Fathers than his own, I cannot claim that all these thoughts are his personal views. However, whether among contemporary evangelicals or early/later Church Fathers and theologians, the same kind of thought is upheld—if not verbatim, then almost identically.

So, while Christians have the fundamental right to uphold such exclusivism, they must still understand—if not accept—that not everyone needs to understand or accept such exclusivism, which only ‘tolerate’ the reality of other faiths but never accept as pluralism does.

My Personal Journey

Acknowledging pluralism as an integral part of life, do I still believe in the exclusivism of Muktiveda? Yes—but with the spirit of “pluralistic inclusivism.” Having found my Guru in Muktinath, I embrace the exclusivism within Muktiveda, for if one seeks exclusivism alone, that is all one will perceive. However, I do not claim that this is the only way to know the True God or that this form of salvation is universally applicable to all. As I have expressed elsewhere, for me, salvation is not about reaching heaven but experiencing the presence of God in this life, here on earth. If there is life after death, so be it—God will take care of it. My only dharma is to know Him and make Him known to others.

But if I do not subscribe to exclusivism, why then should I share my faith with others? Simply because, like followers of every faith, I consider it my dharma and obligation to share what I have found. For those seeking answers, this knowledge might provide insight. However, I do not impose my beliefs or claim that my path is the only way. If someone chooses to reject my message, I respect their decision and say, “Well and good—continue on your chosen path.” Yet, if at any point they feel the need to explore this good news—whether to seek new answers or to deepen their understanding of the truths they already hold—I invite them to reconsider.

If an evangelical like McDermott can claim that God used other faiths to help His people gain a deeper understanding of Him, then that same God can also help followers of other traditions refine their own understanding of the solutions they have found within their faiths. We may not always agree, but that does not change the reality that pluralism alone sustains life—even as I personally hold my exclusivism as my own truth.

I conclude with the words of Paul Sudhakar:
“The Bible is the Word of God, but the Bible alone is not the Word of God.”

Likewise, my God and my understanding of salvation are true—but they alone are not the whole truth.

Varanasi,

20-2-2025

Appendix

Revelation and Salavtion

The Question of Divine Revelation and Salvation Beyond Christianity

The idea of divine revelation has been central to religious thought throughout history. Many traditions claim that God has made Himself known to humanity, yet they differ on whether such revelation leads to salvation. Christianity, in particular, asserts that salvation comes exclusively through Christ. But does this stance align with the broader narrative of divine revelation? If God revealed Himself beyond the Jewish people before Christ, could He not continue revealing Himself beyond Christianity today?

Revelation vs. Salvation: A Fundamental Distinction

A crucial question arises: Does divine revelation always lead to salvation, or can people recognize God without necessarily being saved? Christian theology often emphasizes that merely knowing about God is not enough; one must also accept Christ for salvation. To put it another way, unless one accepts Christ, one cannot truly “know” God for who He is. However, the Bible itself suggests that God has revealed Himself universally without necessarily granting salvation to all who recognize Him.

For instance, Romans 1:19-20 states, “What may be known about God is plain to them… since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities… have been clearly seen.” This implies that divine revelation is not limited to a single religious tradition. Similarly, figures such as Pharaoh in the Old Testament acknowledged God’s power yet remained outside His covenant. If revelation does not necessarily equate to salvation, then why should Christianity assert that those who receive revelation outside its faith must convert to attain salvation in the Christian sense?

Is Christianity Restricting God’s Sovereignty?

A key issue with exclusivist Christian theology is whether it imposes human-made boundaries on divine action. If God could reveal Himself beyond Judaism before Christ, what justifies the claim that He now operates solely within Christianity? By insisting that salvation is now limited to the Christian faith, does this theology place unnecessary constraints on God’s work?

Theological exclusivism suggests that divine revelation outside Christianity lacks salvific power. Yet this raises an important contradiction: If God’s revelation before Christ did not always lead to salvation, why must post-Christ revelation necessarily require Christian conversion? This question challenges the assumption that God’s work is confined within one religious framework.

The Mission of Christianity: Evangelism or Enforced Exclusivity?

Another critical issue is the role of Christian evangelism. If God has already revealed Himself to people of other faiths, why should Christians insist that salvation is possible only through their doctrine?

Christian missionaries argue that salvation is found exclusively in Christ, often citing John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” However, if God’s revelation has historically extended beyond a single religious tradition, does this justify imposing an exclusivist claim on salvation? Could it be that divine revelation continues to occur in ways that do not fit within Christian theology?

This paradox invites reflection: Is Christian evangelism about sharing divine truth, or about enforcing a theological boundary that limits God’s ability to work beyond Christianity?

A Call for Theological Consistency

The question of divine revelation and salvation is more than a doctrinal debate; it is a call for theological consistency. If Christianity acknowledges that God revealed Himself beyond Judaism before Christ, it must also consider the possibility that He continues to reveal Himself beyond Christianity today.

If divine revelation is truly universal, then salvation should not be confined to a single religious tradition. Or, the definition of salvation should not be limited to a particular theological understanding. Instead of assuming that God’s grace operates solely through Christianity, should theology not embrace the idea that divine revelation—and possibly salvation—can manifest in ways beyond human expectations?

By addressing these questions, we are not undermining faith but seeking a deeper understanding of the nature of God’s work in the world. If God is truly sovereign, then no religious framework should claim exclusive ownership over His grace and salvation, recognizing the reality that pluralism is an undeniable fact—not just in religion and theology, but within faith traditions themselves.

Varanasi

20-2-2025

Vivekachudamani Verses 56-61

Vivekachudamani – Knowledge of the Self-Its Beauty – Verses 56-61   «   »

न योगेन न सांख्येन कर्मणा नो न विद्यया ।
ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वबोधेन मोक्षः सिध्यति नान्यथा ॥ ५६ ॥

na yogena na sāṃkhyena karmaṇā no na vidyayā |
brahmātmaikatvabodhena mokṣaḥ sidhyati nānyathā || 56 ||

56. Neither by Yoga, nor by Sānkhya, nor by work, nor by learning, but by the realisation of one’s identity with Brahman is Liberation possible, and by no other means.

वीणाया रूपसौन्दर्यं तन्त्रीवादनसौष्ठवम् ।
प्रजारञ्ज्जनमात्रं तन्न साम्राज्याय कल्पते ॥ ५७ ॥

vīṇāyā rūpasaundaryaṃ tantrīvādanasauṣṭhavam |
prajārañjjanamātraṃ tanna sāmrājyāya kalpate || 57 ||

57. The beauty of a guitar’s form and the skill of playing on its chords serve merely to please a few persons; they do not suffice to confer sovereignty.

वाग्वैखरी शब्दझरी शास्त्रव्याख्यानकौशलम् ।
वैदुष्यं विदुषां तद्वद्भुक्तये न तु मुक्तये ॥ ५८ ॥

vāgvaikharī śabdajharī śāstravyākhyānakauśalam |
vaiduṣyaṃ viduṣāṃ tadvadbhuktaye na tu muktaye || 58 ||

58. Loud speech consisting of a shower of words, the skill in expounding the Scriptures, and likewise erudition – these merely bring on a little personal enjoyment to the scholar, but are no good for Liberation.

अविज्ञाते परे तत्त्वे शास्त्राधीतिस्तु निष्फला ।
विज्ञातेऽपि परे तत्त्वे शास्त्राधीतिस्तु निष्फला ॥ ५९ ॥

avijñāte pare tattve śāstrādhītistu niṣphalā |
vijñāte’pi pare tattve śāstrādhītistu niṣphalā || 59 ||

59. The study of the Scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth is unknown, and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has already been known.

शब्दजालं महारण्यं चित्तभ्रमणकारणम् ।
अतः प्रयत्नाज्ज्ञातव्यं तत्त्वज्ञैस्तत्त्वमात्मनः ॥ ६0 ॥

śabdajālaṃ mahāraṇyaṃ cittabhramaṇakāraṇam |
ataḥ prayatnājjñātavyaṃ tattvajñaistattvamātmanaḥ || 60 ||

60. The Scriptures consisting of many words are a dense forest which merely causes the mind to ramble. Hence men of wisdom should earnestly set about knowing the true nature of the Self.

अज्ञानसर्पदष्टस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानौषधं विना ।
किमु वेदैश्च शास्त्रैश्च किमु मन्त्रैः किमौषधैः ॥ ६१ ॥

ajñānasarpadaṣṭasya brahmajñānauṣadhaṃ vinā |
kimu vedaiśca śāstraiśca kimu mantraiḥ kimauṣadhaiḥ || 61 ||

61. For one who has been bitten by the serpent of Ignorance, the only remedy is the knowledge of Brahman. Of what avail are the Vedas and Scriptures, Mantras and medicines to such a one?

–accessed from https://shlokam.org/texts/vivekachudamani-56-61/on 20-2-2-25, 7.00 pm.