After reading about salvation, judgment, exclusivism, inclusivism, and the salvation of people of other faiths explained in the book *Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims, and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker* by Graham Kings (New Delhi, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017), I reflected on the numerous terms that play a crucial role in explaining the theology of Warren and Hooker. The only thought that came to me was about God. As I live with the conviction that we cannot truly know God, however much we try to explain Her through words, I wrote this song 977.
“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 saviors who are unique to them. Neither Warren nor Hooker believed in such reductionism….”
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-savior among many other saviors’? ‘Mono-savior’ would refer to ‘our particular savior among many other saviors’. ‘Mono-savior’ would refer to the only existing Savior. (p. 158)
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. (p. 161)
In this understanding, the wider hope of salvation is centered on Jesus Christ for those who respond in faith to the proclaimed Christ and for those who respond in faith to ‘God’ as they know Him. Judgment into eternal nothingness is expected for those who reject the proclaimed Christ or ‘God’ as they know Him. (p. 163)
The author of this study, Graham Kings, could be placed in the ‘wider hope’ position. Maybe Hooker would also have felt at home here, though he probably would have objected to such a scheme as being too tidy: he did not like to be categorized. (p. 163)
Warren would have felt most at home with the ‘cosmic promise’ (p. 163). In this understanding, universal salvation is effected for all, centered on Christ, for those who respond in faith to the proclaimed Christ, for those who respond in faith to ‘God’ as they know Him, and for those who reject the proclaimed Christ or ‘God’ as they know Him. There is judgment in time (in this life), but no eternal judgment. (p. 162)
Warren was more Pauline (with his rigorous, multi-directional energy all rooted in Christ and his highly situational combination of metaphors and themes), and Hooker was more Johannine (with his contemplative narrative and profound insight into the love of God in friendship). (p. 153)
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. (p. 160) — *Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims, and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker*, Graham Kings, New Delhi, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017. Italics are original in the book.
My response to such views about the salvation of other people (based on one’s understanding of God and Muktinath) is this: I don’t know. All other explanations are merely rationalizations of our own doubts expressed in theological terms. I found some kind of systemization in such an approach, which, according to my limited understanding, is not very systematic even in Muktiveda, particularly in Uttara Veda (New Testament). Just the two terms ‘Pauline’ and ‘Johannine’ are enough to prove this, as each author develops her own theology based on such categorization.
This book is beyond my level of understanding as so many English words, which look simple, have their own complex theological-missiological understanding and interpretation, about which I am not familiar. Above all, my quotes mentioned above are limited to my context of writing this poem. Unless one reads the book by herself, she cannot fully understand them in their given context.
For me, I don’t know who God is, and I don’t want to even know about Her. My entire search for a guru ended in Muktinath. So, following my Indian (or Hindu) tradition, that guru becomes my God. Beyond this, I don’t know who God is. I know very well that such a simple statement won’t represent the Muktivedic view in its totality. However, my tradition helped me not to limit God within the frame of Scripture(s).
“The one who cannot be described by this one belongs to this attribute, or this is the one who is (இந்நிறத்தான் இவ்வண்ணத்தான் இவன் இறைவன் என்றே எழுதிக்காட ஒன்னாணை).” — says Thevaram. (Quoted from memory and freely translated by me)
Reductionism is the reality in every faith. At the same time, every faith claims universality. As Krishna says, “Whoever worships whichever god in any form, they are worshipping only me alone” (Gita), which is endorsed by Srimad Bhagavatam, saying: “All the worship finally reaches only Keshava (Vishnu) as the water falling from the sky reaches, in the end (through various rivers), only the ocean.” The same claim is also made by Saivism: “Whichever deity you have, only Siva, taking that form alone, comes to you.” See Bhakti Theology Song 973 for references or visit [See on Reductionism](https://dayanandbharati.in/reductionism/).
Gurukulam
7-6-2024
After reading about salvation, judgment, exclusivism, inclusivism, and the salvation of people of other faiths explained in the book *Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims, and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker* by Graham Kings (New Delhi, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017), I reflected on the numerous terms that play a crucial role in explaining the theology of Warren and Hooker. The only thought that came to me was about God. As I live with the conviction that we cannot truly know God, however much we try to explain Her through words, I wrote this song 977.
“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 saviors who are unique to them. Neither Warren nor Hooker believed in such reductionism….”
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-savior among many other saviors’? ‘Mono-savior’ would refer to ‘our particular savior among many other saviors’. ‘Mono-savior’ would refer to the only existing Savior. (p. 158)
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. (p. 161)
In this understanding, the wider hope of salvation is centered on Jesus Christ for those who respond in faith to the proclaimed Christ and for those who respond in faith to ‘God’ as they know Him. Judgment into eternal nothingness is expected for those who reject the proclaimed Christ or ‘God’ as they know Him. (p. 163)
The author of this study, Graham Kings, could be placed in the ‘wider hope’ position. Maybe Hooker would also have felt at home here, though he probably would have objected to such a scheme as being too tidy: he did not like to be categorized. (p. 163)
Warren would have felt most at home with the ‘cosmic promise’ (p. 163). In this understanding, universal salvation is effected for all, centered on Christ, for those who respond in faith to the proclaimed Christ, for those who respond in faith to ‘God’ as they know Him, and for those who reject the proclaimed Christ or ‘God’ as they know Him. There is judgment in time (in this life), but no eternal judgment. (p. 162)
Warren was more Pauline (with his rigorous, multi-directional energy all rooted in Christ and his highly situational combination of metaphors and themes), and Hooker was more Johannine (with his contemplative narrative and profound insight into the love of God in friendship). (p. 153)
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. (p. 160) — *Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims, and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker*, Graham Kings, New Delhi, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017. Italics are original in the book.
My response to such views about the salvation of other people (based on one’s understanding of God and Muktinath) is this: I don’t know. All other explanations are merely rationalizations of our own doubts expressed in theological terms. I found some kind of systemization in such an approach, which, according to my limited understanding, is not very systematic even in Muktiveda, particularly in Uttara Veda (New Testament). Just the two terms ‘Pauline’ and ‘Johannine’ are enough to prove this, as each author develops her own theology based on such categorization.
This book is beyond my level of understanding as so many English words, which look simple, have their own complex theological-missiological understanding and interpretation, about which I am not familiar. Above all, my quotes mentioned above are limited to my context of writing this poem. Unless one reads the book by herself, she cannot fully understand them in their given context.
For me, I don’t know who God is, and I don’t want to even know about Her. My entire search for a guru ended in Muktinath. So, following my Indian (or Hindu) tradition, that guru becomes my God. Beyond this, I don’t know who God is. I know very well that such a simple statement won’t represent the Muktivedic view in its totality. However, my tradition helped me not to limit God within the frame of Scripture(s).
“The one who cannot be described by this one belongs to this attribute, or this is the one who is (இந்நிறத்தான் இவ்வண்ணத்தான் இவன் இறைவன் என்றே எழுதிக்காட ஒன்னாணை).” — says Thevaram. (Quoted from memory and freely translated by me)
Reductionism is the reality in every faith. At the same time, every faith claims universality. As Krishna says, “Whoever worships whichever god in any form, they are worshipping only me alone” (Gita), which is endorsed by Srimad Bhagavatam, saying: “All the worship finally reaches only Keshava (Vishnu) as the water falling from the sky reaches, in the end (through various rivers), only the ocean.” The same claim is also made by Saivism: “Whichever deity you have, only Siva, taking that form alone, comes to you.” See Bhakti Theology Song 973 for references or visit [See on Reductionism](https://dayanandbharati.in/reductionism/).
Gurukulam
7-6-2024
Leave a Reply