TO THE MEETING AT 16 TAYLOR’S ROAD, KILPAUK,
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 1926

1.  Statement of the Aims of the Christo Samaj[2]

(1)  The Samaj expresses no mere critical spirit, but an attempt to make people see the necessity of stripping the present forms of Christianity of all such forms which, without being essential and necessary to a spiritual Christianity, are obstacles in the way of those who are attracted and drawn by Christ but do not find a spiritual home in the present churches and do not look for spiritual guidence (sic) to the expression Christianity hitherto has had in India.  In other words the Christo Samaj emphasises the necessity of a vigorous plea for a spiritual Christianity presented purely to be judged on its merits without social implications and without being compromised by a degrading connection with such features of the so called Christian civilisation as are distinctly unchristian and alien to the true spirit of Christ.  It follows from this that all unfair taking advantage of the position of people belonging to other faiths, all methods of what has been called proselytism, all sorts of ways to persuade people by what is only a subtler form for bribery in whatever blunter or finer features it might come – social prestige, betterment of economic conditions etc. – is considered as alien and antagonistic to the message of Christ.

(2)  Secondly, the Samaj emphasises the need of what has been called the Indianisation of Christianity or an Indian interpretation of Christianity.  We believe that it is a primary and urgent necessity to attempt to relate Christ to the background of our ancient culture and spiritual heritage and to describe the experiences of a life in the mind and spirit of Christ in terms of such expressions that would be known and instinctively recognised by Indians at home with the Indian heritage.

In the editorial notes of the NMS Intelligencer for February 1926 the same two necessities have been stated thus:

 (a)  "Disentangle Him from our bonds of dogma and ecclesiasticism, and place Him in His mysterious power and charm in the midst of the people."

(b)  "The Indian Christian must relearn the spiritual terminology of his race in order to make the declaration of his homage to his king to his own people."

(3)  Let it also be clear that our attitude to the present churches is not one of mere opposition and negative criticism; this attitude we only present to certain proselytising methods and narrow ecclesiasticism or sectarianism.

(4)  As regards our attitude towards Hinduism, we do not want a compromise between Hinduism and Christianity.  We are wholly Christo-centric in our faith and outlook.  But we believe that if Christ is revealed to Hindus whose whole spiritual outlook is formed by the Hindu inheritance, their religion would best be described as the best in Hinduism and Christ added thereto.

2.  Proposal to the Friends

The Samaj has noted with joy the growing number of Hindus who are attached to Christ and also the growing number of Christians in all parts of India who increasingly understand and appreciate what the Christo Samaj for several years has been standing for.[3]

Being also under the impression that only in Madras there is a group of such Christians, loosely connected within the Samaj; but in other parts of India only individuals very often unable to come into touch with like-spirited people and unable to meet for prayer and worship, we have been led to attempt to devise means for coming into living touch with the disconnected individuals and small groups all over India.  For this purpose a meeting has been convened and after a full discussion we have agreed to the following proposal:

We send now and then from our group here in Madras to like-minded and like-spirited friends throughout India a letter containing messages, suggestions or questions in a very free form.  After receiving it each individual friend writes, as often as feels inclined to do so, his response to the suggestions given, his own suggestions or his answer to the questions asked, in as free a form as intimate personal or as theoretically abstract as he likes.  He sends his letter to our group here in Madras, and it will then be included in our next message and thus reaches all the friends in the many places.

In this way we are able to get into living touch with one another through an interchange of thought retaining the tone of a friendly correspondence and at the same time having the advantages of a group mind.

The names and addresses of all the individual friends could be printed in the letters.  Thus fascilitating (sic) and giving opportunities for individuals to get into personal touch with each other through private correspondence or when travelling.

It is strongly urged that each one should try to make his home a centre for small meetings of friends, thus trying to facilitate the cultivation of spirit of friendship and of prayer, meditation, study and worship.

3.  Suggestions and Questions

In this first letter we include the following suggestions and questions, thus inviting the response of as many who feel urged to open their minds on these points.

Suggestions as to other subjects and problems that might get the advantage of the enlightenment of a group mind are also invited.

(1)  One of the most pressing needs both from the point of view of the individual whose life has found his centre in Christ and from the evangelistic and Christianising point of view, is the attempt to relate Christ to the background of the Hindu inheritance.  Only such attempt can give unity and continuity in the spiritual life of the individual.  And only such attempts made by those who are so fresh from Hinduism that the Hindu inheritance is still part and parcel of their spiritual nature, are able thus to relate Christ that the appeal to Hinduism as such would be made.  It must be acknowledged that the appeal has not hither to been made because response has only come from those outside the Hindu society or from those that for some reason or other already had loosened their connection with Hindu society.

But Hinduism is vast and varied.  So naturally any one single individual is not able to relate Christ to the whole of Hinduism, but only from that section of it most intimately known to him.

Do you know of any attempts to do so?  Have you any knowledge of books, pamphlets or articles in English or any other vernacular that to your mind is some way or other supplies this need?

(2)  Another important need is a life of Christ in all the vernaculars, written in a fluent language and a homely way, as far as possible describing Christ in that religious terminology which for centuries has been recognised as such here in India.

Do you know of any such attempts in any vernacular?

(3)  The above two points involve the very difficult questions as to how and to which extent Christian principles and teachings can be described in Hindu (vernacular and Sanskrit) terminology.  To attempt to contribute to this problem it is necessary to make a serious study of and to be well versed both in Sanskrit or the respective vernacular and also in Christian theology, in order to know the connotation of the sacred terminology in both religions.  Terminology from the sacred languages of India is increasingly used in Indian Christian literature (words as bhakti, sadhana, mukti, guru, etc.) but often in a rather loose and indefinite way without the implications of such use being clearly thought out.

Still the attempts must be done because if done properly it would go a long way to help us both to relate our Christian thought to the Indian background and also to furnish that appeal to Hindus which is the greatest need for the future of both Christianity and India.

Do you know of any attempts where this has been tried with anything like success?

(4)  It is of great importance to try to get some light on as to which Hindu customs, social functions, semi-religious and semi-social or fully religious ceremonies it is possible for a believer in Christ to partake in.

A full discussion in details of this might be attempted.

What is your general attitude?

(5)  As to what answer is given to the above to a very large extent also depends how far it is possible for a Christian bhakta to live in his Hindu family.  Which is very much desirable whenever possible.

How have you been able in the same way to solve this problem?
 

NOTES
1.  Manilal C. Parekh was a Gujarati disciple of Christ from a Jain family.  One suspects this document is misplaced being in his collection, although it is possible this was his copy.
2.  The Christo Samaj was started in Madras in 1918.  Vengal Chakkarai and P. Chenchiah were the main initiators of the group and the many publications and associations that developed around it.  The Samaj and its eminent founders have been and are honoured in all the books on Indian Christian theology, but this seems a modern way of building tombs to prophets (Mt. 23: 29-31) since the principles these men lived and died for have never taken root in Indian Christian thought and life and are without vital advocacy in Indian Christian think tanks at the present time.
3.  In the manuscript the words ‘growing number’ are crossed out and in a different hand an illegible word is written as a replacement.
4.  Comparison with the original will reveal minor editing at a few points where obvious errors distorted the meaning.

     To Contents...

This is a volume of outstanding merit and one can only hope that it will be widely read. These 29 essays contributed by scholars who have authority in their own respective fields truly amount to a mini encyclopaedia on Hinduism.  Beginning from Vedic times and ending in the present situation this book covers all essential topics on religious Hinduism.

One may well argue that Hinduism is dharma, not religion in a strict academic sense; but this dharma not only includes religious aspects but is also centered on what in English we call ‘religion’.  Hence while a proper study on Hinduism must include sociological, anthropological, cultural, historical, etc., aspects, a separate study on Hinduism in its religious aspects gives a microcosmic view of the faith and beliefs around which the rest of the life of a Hindu revolves.[1]  So this book by Jesuit scholars will help non-Hindus to understand theoretically about the religious standpoints of various types of Hindus, and Hindus themselves will find it useful to comprehend a ‘theological’ basis for the practical life which is centered on their religious faith.

Having so highly recommended the book, the merits of various essays and approaches will not be listed in detail.  Rather, some weaknesses that are present should be brought to the notice of those who act on the recommendation to read and study the book.  These weaknesses are found both in the overall approach and then in numerous details.

Considering the broad agenda of the book, its stated aim is to ‘help Christian teachers in schools and colleges to understand and rightly appreciate the religious background of their Hindu students’ (p. 23).  This is so that they can teach ethics and basic principles of spiritual life with reference to the religious beliefs and practices of those students.  Yet the aim is not merely ‘to help [italics original] them to deepen their understanding of their ancient tradition and weigh its value in truth, holiness and universality’ (p.24), but also to prepare teachers for dialogue as ‘the essays offered in this book did arise from their authors’ "dialogical" practice…’.  Hence the value of this book increases as each topic ends with a conclusion, which of course is written based on their Catholic faith.

Now the main question that arises is ‘does this book achieve its purpose?’  The editors believe that it has, as they boast that ‘many Christian social workers in daily association with Hindu collaborators have also benefited from this book’ (p. 23).  Above all ‘the dialogical attitude of the authors of Religious Hinduism has already been emulated by many Christian teachers and has also influenced even Hindu university teachers who found this book a great help for their teaching’ (italics added) (p. 24).  In light of this last statement it should be noted that in the present day ideology of religious pluralism the very purpose and even meaning of ‘dialogue’ has undergone various changes, and this is powerfully illustrated in this fourth revised edition.  Here the final chapter (‘The Present Situation’) says absolutely nothing about evangelism, whereas this was a if not the major point of this same chapter in the third edition from 1968.  Hence a cloud covers the aim and understanding of ‘dialogical practice’.[2]  And readers need to be alert to these hazy presuppositions which underlie almost every chapter in the book.

Moving to more specific problems the following points should be noted, starting with errors in interpretation.  In a number of places speculation seems to reign above fact.  For example, in the attempt to trace out some ‘Religious Discoveries’ (chapter 3) of ancient Aryans related to radical questions of life, R. de Smet says that ‘they [Vedic Indians] did not make wild guesses nor opted for simple animistic or naturalistic solutions but thought they should conceive the unknown on the basis of the known’.  He proceeds to suggest that they developed their theology from their own social paradigm based on the jaati (caste) system.  Even if we agree with this speculative theory it must be said that not jaati but only varna was the existing social pattern.

Surely all will agree that this speculative hypothesis is carried too far when it is applied to the question of whether men can help the devaas to maintain the rta (cosmic order) (p.67).   De Smet suggests that

Again the answer was found from what happened in their society.  Just as they fed their servants well and praised them to keep them happy in their service, they would feed (through fire offerings and libations) and praise (through hymns) the cosmic servants.  This would be the yajna, the Vedic sacrifice. (Emphasis in original.)

Our common experience even today shows that no servants are well fed or praised by their masters, particularly in Oriental countries (cf. Lk.17: 7-9).  Above all, comparing the hymns of the Veda with human appreciation (if at all the servants are appreciated) is a poor comparison and an outright degradation of the sacred scriptures of the Hindus.   While the samhitas (hymns) are considered sacred the praise of a master is nothing more than flattery.

Truly there is need for critical analysis and constructive criticism of Hindu scriptures and values, and the stated purpose for such is commendable indeed (‘not meant to encourage controversy but to render our Hindu-Christian dialogue fully sincere and truthful’, p. 29).  But when such critical analyses are done based on mere assumption one must protest.  For example, on Hindu ethics, the author (R. Antoine) says, ‘In the context of bhakti, morality seems to acquire more substance.  Yet, even here, the ambiguity is not totally dispelled.’  For this he quotes Gita 18:61-61 and continues,

If in those verses the term maayaa means ‘magical’ rather than ‘wonderful power’, then how am I to be sure that my supreme act of surrender is not the final trick of the divine magician?  For all I know, that supreme act instead of giving full meaning to my life may be as meaningless as all my other actions. (p. 157).

No commentator on the Gita nor any ordinary bhakta who totally surrenders will ever take maayaa as meaning ‘magical trick’ by God, and even if so a sincere bhakta would merely accept it without question.  But the beautiful irony here is that while to this author the words of the Gita are empty ‘magic’, to another they are a source of grace!  (As J. Neuner says in his conclusion, ‘Those who are able to pray in the words of the Gita are certainly touched by the grace of God and have set out, in deep earnestness and resolve, on the path of the greatest deed man can do, his surrender to God.’ (pg. 290))

Genuine dialogue demands mutual respect, however we may disagree with each other.  This seems lacking when Fr. R. Antoine says that the claims of modern Hindu reformers are ‘irritating’ to Christians.  If there is validity in his pointing out an element of ‘self-complacency’ in Hindu reformers’ claims that ‘all the new moral values were in fact contained in the old tradition’, a counter point that irritates Hindus can be made about the triumphalistic Christian claim that all the modern reforms in Hinduism are the result of ‘contact with Christianity, either in its religious form or through the medium of a secularism which offers diluted Christian values’.  Especially objectionable is his conclusion that ‘we can rejoice because the true ethical values are proclaimed and some good is done, even though not in the name of the Gospel’ (p.168).  Not only will this ‘irritate’ the modern Reformers, the Fundamentalists will react strongly to the claim of credit to the gospel for all the ethical values and good works done by modern Hindus.  My objection is theological: the gospel is good news, not ethical values nor good works.  Ethical and moral teachings are universal, present in every religious system.  The gospel is the good news of redemption, not just another social reformation.  It is regeneration bringing new values not just restoration of ethical norms, which are forgotten but always revived again.

True dialogue also requires the acceptance of our own mistakes and failures, especially from those whose Lord spoke as recorded in Mat. 7:3-5.  Yet we have the following statements:  ‘If the untouchables and depressed classes, becoming more conscious of their social importance, decided to leave Hinduism for Christianity or Buddhism, where they would no longer suffer from the disabilities of caste distinctions….In spite of their official and ritualistic integration into Hinduism, the depressed classes have not yet gained religious and social equality with caste-Hindus’ (italics added, p.166).  Wonderful statements and we wish it should become real in practice at least within Christianity (including Roman Catholics).  The terrible fact is that conversion, particularly to Christianity, never gave religious and social equality between low and high caste Christians (yes, even high caste Catholics).  The regular clashes between the Dalit Catholics and caste Catholics during their annual local festivals are common phenomena in Tamilnadu.

Protestant readers will struggle with some distinctly Roman Catholic discussions and comparisons, as in the distinction between doulia (worship of angels and saints) as distinguished by the Catholic Church from latria (worship of adoration reserved to God alone).   This is especially striking in comparing devas and devis (semi-divine subordinate beings) with angels and archangels in the Catholic universe.  And we are told that ‘the life of the Trinity [is] communicated to us and unfolded before our eyes’ not only ‘in the person of Christ’, but also ‘in the lives of Mary and the saints.’ (p. 129).

Finally, some other minor errors can be pointed out, without suggesting that this list is exhaustive.  A few passages from Hindu scriptures are quoted without giving the references on pp. 110, 111 and 118.  At Tanjore Siva is called as ‘Brhadiisvarer’ not as ‘Vrhadiisvar’ (p.119) (south is not like north India where the letter ‘B’ and ‘V’ are always interchangeable, as ‘Vishnu’ is sometimes ‘Bishnu’ and ‘Veerender’ as ‘Beerender’, etc.)  As far as my knowledge goes Jyesthaa (for Sitalaa) is not in Tamilnadu (p. 125).  Sad-mukha is not seven heads (p.142).  Sad in Sanskrit means six and Sad-mukha is called in Tamil as ‘Shanmukam’ which is also ‘Aarumugam’ (Aaru-six; mugam-face) and all these mean six-headed.  Aaruur is not Tiruvallur in the Tanjore district (p. 321) but rather is Tiruvaaruur in that district; Tiruvallur is in Chengalpet district near Chennai.  On page 358 ‘religious dramas’ are called as ‘yaatraa’ which is doubtful as yaatraa means travel or better pilgrimage.  And finally no reference is given for the verse of Vyasa Dharmaad arthas-ca Kaamas-ca so dharmah kim na sevayate: From religion are obtained both wealth and delights, Then why not practice religion since it is such? (p. 400).  And note that the word ‘dharma’ is translated as ‘religion’, of which Vyasa surely would never have approved.

These problems in mind, this remains a book eminently worthy of study.

Notes
1.  This point is well illustrated by the last two topics (on Gandhiji and on the present situation) which give a glimpse of how even a political or social reformation is impossible without a proper appraisal of religious aspects of Hinduism.
2.  Related to this is the fact that this book is not for a ‘proselytizer’ but for an ‘evangelizer’.  Evangelization is defined as including an understanding that ‘for the majority of human beings it is within and through the helps provided by their religions that under God’s grace they live as pilgrims of eternity and reach the blissful intuition of the absolute God which is the end willed by Him for all his rational creatures’ (p. 26, italics original).
 
 

The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm

(by Vinoth Ramachandra, ISPCK, Delhi, 1996)

Rediscovering Mission: Towards a Non-Western Missiological Paradigm

(by Valson Thampu, TRACI, New Delhi, 1995)

reviewed by H. L. Richard

Thampu’s is decidedly the inferior of the two books and can be considered definitively superceded by Ramachandra’s superior study.  Thampu’s incisive critique of liberal theological paradigms for mission is useful, but what he fails to discuss mars considerably the value of what he has done.  There is a lack of balance and clarity to the book; there is neither definition nor discussion of the western mission paradigm that the title speaks of and the whole book implicitly critiques, nor is there any presentation of any non-western alternate paradigm.  The main thrust of the book is that emphasis on holistic mission has been used as an excuse for neglect of evangelism, thereby demonstrating a tragic lack of holism.

Thampu suggests that ‘the need of the hour is to regain our mission morale’ (pg. i).  While mission morale is low indeed in mainline church circles, among evangelicals (especially those involved in A. D. 200 programmes) morale is arguably too high rather than lacking; false triumphalistic optimism needs to be abandoned (rather than pumped up in yet more conferences and consultations) before true biblical hope can be built up.  Mainline church circles have needs far deeper than ‘mission morale’, as this book amply demonstrates.

Worst of all, this book breathes barely a hint of criticism of present evangelical mission paradigms, which are surely the most western of all.  Who will read this book?  Almost certainly only evangelicals; it will not help them to read a book that assumes they are right.  If non-evangelicals read this, it will surely not convince them that there is a better biblical model of mission, even if it succeeds in pointing out some blind spots in their own thinking.

Ramachandra has clear focus in his study of pluralistic paradigms.  In part one, his first three chapters, he considers the theologies of Stanley Samartha, Aloysius Pieris and Raimundo Panikkar.  Part two begins with a critique of the three of them in their common pluralistic position and then moves to an analysis of Lesslie Newbigin, who is seen as a far more reliable guide in seeking to confront the complex phenomena of our modern world.  The third section discusses Jesus and mission, and involves an affirmation of historic Christian truths.  The author calls for a return to the church of the first few centuries to find a viable mission paradigm for today.

Only in the closing chapter does the theory touch harsh reality.  The author advertises that this chapter ‘seeks to expose some of the blind spots of both traditional and liberal approaches to mission, and to describe some of the features of an evangelistic praxis that is truly consistent with the content of the gospel message’ (preface, pg. xi-xii).  How miserably he fails, as so much of this chapter is itself blind spots.

True, there are acknowledgements that the church is not quite what it should be; perhaps even some prophetic rebukes.  We are told that "many Christians in the older churches of the Indian subcontinent wear their Christianity as simply a sociological label, with little, if any, biblical shaping of their outlook and behaviour" (pg. 272).  Yet two paragraphs later we are told that "the Christian is a forgiven sinner among other sinners".  Even the first statement is lacking; a still bigger problem is that even disciples of Christ who allow the Bible to shape their outlook and behaviour (including Ramachandra himself) also simultaneously accept the "sociological label" understanding of Christianity.  The second statement certainly does not communicate any appropriate content in the pluralistic world of communalised religion that modern India is.

"Christianity in Asia" and similar expressions occur throughout the book without ever an attempt at clear distinctions and definitions in terms of faith, community, reality, etc.  One suspects the author’s Anglican ecclesiology lies behind the fuzziness in this area.  Certainly his total commitment to think and work in terms of the present institutional church is a handicap that limits and skews his discussion.  Can the debate never move beyond the existing church?

Ramachandra has an impressive bibliography, but again what is missing is as important as what is present.  No "Rethinking Christianity in India", no Chenchiah, no Chakkarai, no Manilal Parekh, no R. C. Das, no Narayan Vaman Tilak, not even an A. J. Appasamy or a Stanley Jones (Klostermaier’s brilliant "Hindu and Christian in Vrindavan" is listed in a rare exception to the non-Indian trend).  The entire discussion is dominated by western minds discussing a western agenda, and it is hard to conclude other than that this book is a harmful induction to western theology that India can and should do without.

Writing negative reviews is not pleasurable, and this reviewer sincerely hopes that the clearly gifted and burdened and visionary authors of these two books will take the criticisms above as a challenge to a deeper and clearer rethinking of Christianity in India and of mission paradigms, that they might get to roots of evangelical problems instead merely exposing liberal inadequacies.  After all, our Lord exhorts that planks in our own eye be dealt with rather than specks of sawdust in others’.
 
 

(translated by Malcolm Nazareth, from Reverend Narayan Vaman Tilak: An Interreligious Exploration, UMI Dissertation Service, Ann Arbor, 1998, pg. 567, 568)

Abhang 177

Tell me, where is Christianity?
Don’t be upset.  I beg you,
I beg you, please go and ask Christ.
Don’t get fooled by vain things;
Don’t be misled, don’t mislead others.
Delusion has never been of use to anybody.
This is no Christian religion – this is a full yoga
That has come down into this world!
Father-God, Christ, and you, and we –
We’re gracing this house of samadhi.
Say that we’re Christian if you will, or don’t say that –
We know no discrimination.
Says Dasa, my Guru is the Lord of yoga;
This summary by itself is enough!

Abhang 182

Sin, irreligious behaviour, religion, very pious deed –
Call it what you will!  I’ll let you in on the big mystery.
I don’t wish to remain Hindu, or Christian,
I’ve gone beyond castes, religions all!
To gradually be turned into Christ myself,
This indeed is the purpose – His and mine!
What more is there left to say?
How much does the mind grasp by telling this?
Dasa says, O Christ, as you’ve asked me to,
I’ve put this life into your keeping.
 

Abhang 168

Perhaps religions are all similar,
Or perhaps they are strangers to each other.
Not for us this vain matter of dispute,
Ever beyond it are we!
O God, we’ve benefited from your reign!
In this are all religions encompassed.
With Christ we’ve died, we’ve been born,
In you we’ve been living!
O God, your sons, the sons of men,
Are everywhere our very own!
Dasa says, Father, look after us
Weak ones, whom you’ve saved.
 
 

To Contents. . . .

---

Home                  Mars Hill