Antioch Biblical Seminary & College

Introduction to Christian Theologies in Indian

(M.Div. II, I Semester, 3 Credits Hours)
Course Description
This introductory course will discuss the many strands of Indian Christian theology from different
experience, contexts, perspective, tradition and philosophy. The focus will be given on different
Indian thinker, philosopher, figure and character, specially to their insinght, thought,
methodologies and contribution toward the existential context of India. Further, course will relate
into the social context, and its challenges to the theological discipline.
Course Objective
 To enable the students to understand critically the rich diversity of theological reflection
and praxis in India emerged as faith response to particular socio-cultural and religious
challenges.
 To help the students to understand the methodological shifts in the history of Christian
theologies in India with special emphasis on the distinctive perspective on Christology,
trinity, ecclesiology and Christian public witness.
 To challenge the students to engage in the process of contextual reformulation of the
Christian faith and praxis in India, informed by the discernment of the signs of the times.
Pedagogical methods
Lecturers, seminar presentation, group discussion and interactive sessions are pedagogical
methods that can be used in this course.
Course outline
I. Introduction
a. What Is Indian Christian Theology
b. Nature of Indian Christian theology
c. Purpose and Necessity of Indian Christian Theology
II. Methodological Issue in Christian Theologies in India
III. Indian Renascent Engagement with the Gospel of Christ
Raja Rammohan Roy, Kehub C. Sen, Vivekananda, G Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar.
IV. Theological and Praxiological Expressions of Hindu Converts
Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, Nehemiah Goreh, Pandita Ramabai and Krishna Mohan
Banerjee
V. Missionary Constructions of Indian Christian Theology
Robert De Nobili, J.N. Farquar, A.G. Hogg, Lesslie Newbigin and Robin Boyd
VI. Christian Life as Bhakti Marga and Contemplation
Sadhu Sunder Singh, A.J. Apasamy and Sr. Sara Grant

1
 VII. Christian Response to Freedom Movement and Nation Building
S.K. George, K.T. Paul, C.F. Andrews, P.D. Devanandan, P. Chenchiah, V.
Chakkarai and M.M Thomas
VIII. Indian Perspective on Biblical Hermeneutics
Wesley Ariarajah, George Sores-Prabu, Maria Arul Raja, R.S. Sugirthyarajah and
Monica Melanchthon
X. Intra And Inter-Faith Dialogue: Towards A Community of Communities
P.D. Devananda, Abhishiktananda, Raimon Panikkar, S.J. Samartha and K.P Aleaz
XI. Orthodox and Evangelical Perspectives
Paulose Mar Gregoriose, K. M. George, Jacob Kurien, Saphir Athyal and Sunand
Sumithra
XII. Liberation Theology and Christian Social Witness
Sebastian Kappen, Samuel Rayan and Felix Wilfred
XIII. Feminist Theological Reflection and Praxis in Indian
Aruna Gnanadason, Gabriel Dietrich, Prasuna kumar, Evangeline Aderson
Rajkumari, Monica Melanchthon, Lalrinawmi Ralte, and R.L Hnuni
XIV. Dalit theology
A.P. Nirmal, James Massey, V. Devasahayam, Sathianathan Clarke, and
Evangeline Anderson Raj kumar
XV. Adivasi and Tribal Theologies
Nirmal Minz, K. thanzauva, Renthy Kietzar, wati longchar, Lalrinawmi ratle and
R.L. Hnuni.
XVI. Post-Enlightenment Theological Reflection
M. M. Thomas and R.S. Sugirtharajah

Bibliography
Abraham, K. C. Trasformation Vission: Theological Methodological Raradigm Shifts. Tiruvalla:
CSS Books, 2006.
Aleaz, K.P. “Christian Dialogues with Hinduism.” In Interfaith Relations after One Hundred
Years: Christian Mission Among Other Faiths. Edited by Marina Ngursangzeli Behera.
Regnum Edinburgh 2010 Series. Edinburgh: Regnum Books, 2011.
Appasamy, Aj. The Theology of Hindu Bhakti. Madras. CLS, 1970.
Boyd, Robin. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology. Bangalore: ISPCK, 1969.
Clarke, Sathianathan. “Dalit Theology: An Introductory and Interpretive Theological Exposition.”
in Dalit Theology in the Twenty-first Century: Discordant Voices, Discerning
Pathways. Edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala, and Philip Vinod
Peacock. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Felix Wilfred, “Forward.” In Kristbhakta Movement: Hermeneutics of a ReligioCultural
Phenomenon. By Jerome Sylvester. Delhi: ISPCK, 2013.
Gnanadasan, Aruna. “Dalit Women: The Dalit of the Dalit.” In A Reader in Dalit Theology. Edited
by Arvind P. Nirmal and V. Devasahayam. Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological
College and Research Institute, 1980.

2
 Hnuni, R. L, edited. Transforming Theology for Empowering Women: A Theological and
Hermeneutical Reflection in the Context of North East India. Tribal Study Series No.
4. Jorhat: Women Studies Eastern Theological College, 1999.
Job, G.V., D.M. Devashayam and A.N. Sudarisanam, et al. Editors. Rethinking Christianity in
India. Madras: Sudarisanam, 1938.
Keitzar, Renthy (ed). In Search of a Relevant Gospel Message. Guwahati: Christian Literature
Centre, 1995.
Lalpekhlua, L.H. Contextual Christology: A Tribal Perspectives. Noida: ISPCK, 2007.
Longchar, A. Wati “The Need for Doing Tribal Theology,” Tribal Theology: A Reader. Edited by
Shimreingam Shimray. Eastern Theological College, Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre,
2003.
Mar Gregorios, Paulos. The Joy of Freedom: Eastern Worship and Modern Man. Madras: CLS,
1967.
Massey, James. Roots: Concise History of the Dalits. Bangalore: CISRS, 1991.
Minz, Nirmal. “A Theological Interpretation of the Tribal Reality in India.” Readings in Indian
Christian Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves. Delhi:
ISPCK, 1994.
Nirmal, A.P. “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective.” In a Reader in Dalit Theology, Edited by
Arvind P. Nirmal, Madras: Gurukul, 1990.
Rayan, Samuel. “Theology as Art.” In Doing Theology: Indian Christian Reflections on
Theologizing in India Today. Vol. II. Collected Writings of Samuel Rayan, SJ. Edited
by Kurien Kunnumpuram. Delhi: ISPCK, 2013.
Robinson, Rowena and Joseph Marianus Kujur. “Introduction.” In Margins of Faith: Dalit and
Tribal Christianity, Edited by Rowena Robinson and Joseph Marianus Kujur. New
Delhi: SAGE, 2010.
Samartha, Stanley. The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ. Madras/Bangalore: CLS/CISRS,
1974.
Samuel, Prasanna Kumari. Dalit Women’s Experiences: A Theological Imperative for Indian
Feminist Theology. Chennai: Gurukul, 2009.
Sumithra, Sunand. Christians Theologies from An Indian Perspectives. Bangalore: Theological
Book Trust, 1990.
Thomas, M.M. and P.T. Thomas, Towards an Indian Christian Theology: Life and Thought of
some Pioneers. Tiruvala: The New Day Publications of India, 1992.

3
I. Introduction
Indian Christian theology started in 19th century and called as the Thommistic Christians. From
there the Christianity has started, though there are many religions and culture in India. Indian
Christian Theology is on the process of evolving among these religions. This developing
theology has made significant contributions to Indian Christian Theology. It has foundation from
the West and reassembles Christianity in the Cultural context of India. It has focused on the
realization of God with Indian background. Christian theology is to address to the life contexts of
the people and socio-political situations existing in our country. It has
made effort to be contextual in attending to the problems in our society. In this way discovering
God through the suffering and working for their liberation in our context. our early Christian
community converted from Hindu tradition to the Christian culture. Though people converted to
Christianity people brought the caste into Christianity because of that it Was not developed. There
is disciple and guru system in Indian for educational system. The liturgy played vital role to form
the Christianity in the early days. From there foreign missionaries developed the Christian
community by adopting Indian situation to culture and language by promoting Indian Christian
theology.
a. What Is Indian Christian Theology
Indian Christian theology has developed in a number of different directions. As we analyses those
directions, we can detect two main patterns of advance. On the one hand, there is the concern with
inwardness and spirituality, the interiority of the Gospel; on the other hand, there is a concern for
the outward world and its future as the venue of the new creation brought into being by Christ.
Both these concerns have been mirrored in modern Hinduism as it has sought to transmit to modern
India the deep spirituality of classical Indian religion and also to reinterpret Hindu doctrines in the
light of the context of modern India. Śri Rāmakrishna represents the first concern within modern
Hinduism, and Gāndhi represents the other. Indian Christian theology has developed within a
culture wherein a concern for the inwardness of one's own spiritual life and a concern for the
outward development of the nation were both living issues. In ‘contextualizing’ the Gospel in
India, Indian Christians have naturally been influenced by both these concerns. Indian Christians
have made a contribution to total Christian theology in the areas of inwardness and spirituality.
Our particular concern now is to see what they have to say to us on the subject of the humanity of
Christ and the new humanity that he has made possible.
b. Nature of Indian Christian theology
The attempt to reformulate biblical theology in Indian categories of thought, in a manner relevant
to the Indian context. Until recently Western theology has dominated the Indian theological scene,
and Christianity has come under criticism from Hindu thinkers in this regard. The pioneers of
Indian theology were not Christians but enlightened Hindus who came under the strong influence
of Western thought and Christianity. These enlightened nationalists wanted to reform Hinduism
and Indian society, thereby counterbalancing Christian missionary activities. For Indian Christian
leaders, Indian theology is an attempt to meet the criticism that Christianity is a foreign and
dangerous denationalizing force. It represents a search for and an expression of self-identity in

4
India and in the field of Christian theology. It is an attempt to conceptualize the urge for being
Christian and Indian simultaneously. It faces the challenge of renascent Hinduism in its relegation
of Christianity to a subordinate status. Moreover, it stands for the concern of Indian theologians to
communicate the gospel in thought patterns familiar to the Indian mind. It is to present "the water
of life in an Indian cup."
c. Purpose and Necessity of Indian Christian Theology
Indian Christian Theology is on the process of evolving among these religions. This developing
theology has made significant contributions to Indian Christian Theology. It has foundation from
the West and reassembles Christianity in the Cultural context of India. It has focused on the
realization of God with Indian background. Christian theology is to address to the life contexts of
the people and socio-political situations existing in our country. It has
made effort to be contextual in attending to the problems in our society. In this way discovering
God through the suffering and working for their liberation in our context our early Christian
community converted from Hindu tradition to the Christian culture. Though people converted to
Christianity people brought the caste into Christianity because of that it was not developed. There
is disciple and guru system in Indian for educational system. The liturgy played vital role to form
the Christianity in the early days. From there foreign missionaries developed the Christian
community by adopting Indian situation to culture and language by promoting Indian Christian
theology.
1) There are attempts to harmonize Christianity, rather than Christ, with Hinduism. Raam
Mohan Roy (1772 - 1833), the father of modern India, and his successor Keshab Chandra Sen
(1838 - 1884) interpreted Jesus in Indian traditions. Jesus is portrayed as an Asiatic. His ethical
precepts, independent of his person, provide the way to happiness and peace. His "Divine
Humanity" is explained within the framework of Hindu mystic traditions. Jesus Christ and the
"best elements" of Christianity are conveniently accommodated under the wide umbrella of
Hinduism. Because of the universalistic and absorptive features of Hinduism, no tension is
experienced in this.
(2) There is concern for dialogue. Christian theology in India finds itself in the midst of spirited
and influential non-Christian religious systems, especially Hinduism, which claims the allegiance
of eighty four percent of Indians. Hindu religio-cultural factors have, therefore, played a decisive
role in the emergence of several significant issues of Indian theology, for instance, the uniqueness
and finality of Christ and the nature and scope of Christian mission. A viable base has been found
in the NT synthesis of Hebrew and Greek culture for synthesizing Christian and Hindu culture in
India. Hinduism and its scriptures are treated as counterparts to Judaism and the OT in relation to
the gospel. God speaks equally through other religions also. P D Devanandan and Raymond
Panikkar's theologies emerge in this context of religio-cultural pluralism. They advocate letting
Christ reform Hinduism from within and so unveil the Christ who is already present there, though
hidden and unacknowledged.

5
(3) There is frequently a polemic emphasis. God's special revelation is essential for knowing the
truth, and Jesus is this divine special revelation. Without him intuition and inspiration fall short of
"the rock of Christ" in knowing the truth.
(4) There is an apologetic emphasis. Renascent Hinduism stripped Christ and Christianity of
everything that they claim and possess. Christ is made one among those who experienced the
advaitic (monistic) experience. Christianity is treated as one of the earlier stages in the evolution
of religion. The church has been accused of denationalism. The crucial issues reflected in
Brahmabandab Upadhyaya's theology are to be judged in this context. He reformulated the
doctrine of Trinity in which he portrayed Christ as "nothing but the highest." He was a Hindu
Catholic, i.e., at heart a Christian, yet culturally a Hindu.
(5) There is concern for evangelism. Jesus Christ is not a monopoly of the West. He is equally
for India too. There he is to be presented not in Western robes and image, but in terms and thought
- forms intelligible to the Indian mind. Sadhu Sunder Singh's Christocentric theology is a conscious
attempt toward this.
(6) One finds emphasis on relevancy. Indian theologians want to erase the ghetto mentality of
the minority Christians. Their task is to help Christians see themselves as an integral part of the
larger community in India and participate in the common life and experience. The struggles for
socioeconomic development and humanization are seen as "Christ at work today." M. M Thomas
and others contend that Christian theology has to be relevant in this context, and therefore the
context and social dimension of the gospel are primary.
II. Methodological Issue in Christian theologies in India
1960s marked a methodological shift in theology. It is a shift from Theology from above to
Theology from below. In this theological approach the basis of theological reflection is not the
abstract realities used by scholastic theology but rather the realities of human life. Migliore, in his
“Faith seeking understanding” made a clear definition of this approach as follows; “When we
begin “from below” with the “historical Jesus” and his ministry in first century Palestine, we find
ourselves face to face with one who proclaimed the near advent of God’s kingdom of Justice and
freedom, who blessed the poor, forgave sinners, had table fellowship with the outcaste, befriended
women, collided with the self-righteous custodian of the law…if we focus on the concrete
ministry, suffering and death of Jesus, we cannot avoid that the conclusion that the God revealed
and made present by Jesus enters in to solidarity with the poor.” The distinctiveness of this
theological paradigm is the insistence and stress of involvement in the world and in human affairs.
It is this same theology (from below) that has led to such theological movements like liberation
theology and concepts like solidarity with the suffering and preferential option for the poor. Some
of the most creative work in ‘theology from below’ in recent years comes from Latin American
liberation theology. Among its leaders are Gustavo Gutierez, Jon Sobrino, Leonardo Boff, J.M.
Bonino, and Juan Luis Segundo. According to these theologians, Christology cannot be done in a
vacuum. It must attend to the concrete setting, the particular historical situation in which the
Biblical message is read and heard. Therefore, methodology issue is sifting of methodology from
west to Indian context.

6
  Methodology of Indian Christian theology:
A suitable Methodology for developing an Indian Christian theology for India today. This clarity
of vision and practicability of a theological methodology will enable Indian theologians to create
a relevant Indian Christian theology which is praxis oriented, and which can transform India to
make us genuine Indians and authentic Christians. There are eight stages in the methodology:
pramanas, Anubhava, Immersion, Suspicion, Evolution, Action, Collaboration and
Transformation.
1. Pramanas: The term for authority in Hindu philosophy is Pramana, way of valid knowledge
(from Prama, right knowledge, knowledge which cannot be falsified). Each school of Hindu
thought accepted a set of pramanas as the true foundation for right knowledge. Knowledge gained
in ways other than these was not true knowledge it was either inadequate, transitory, and belonged
to the category of falsehood, doubt, illusion, dream, etc., but not true knowledge. The number of
pramanas differs from school to school. To start with, some accepted only two, namely, pratyaksha
(perception which comes through sense experience) and anumana (inference, logic, also called
yukti) Only the atheistic schools, namely Charavaka, Jaina and Bauddha schools, limited the
number of authorities to these two, since they did not want to come under the authority of the
Vedas. The rest of the schools, namely Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimansa and
Vedanta schools, accepted a third pramana Sabda (the word of testimony, either human or divine).
It was the chief contribution of these schools to develop Sabda as the supreme authority, by
limiting it to mean the Vedas, which were assumed to be the superhuman, eternal and creative
Word of God. As such, Vedas were accepted as the true and infallible pramana. So, of all the
literature passed on from time immemorial, the Vedas were carefully distinguished as sruti (that
which is heard the voice of the rishis/gods) and smriti (that which is remembered, by the scholars,
community that is, the tradition). For the theistic schools, it became mandatory to find some kind
of support ultimately in the Vedas.
To these main three pramanas, others had been added at various stages of development of different
schools of thought. The two most common additions are: upamana (analogy/comparison) and
arthapratti (implication other than logical). The lesser known additions were: Tarka
(rationalization), Anupalabdhi (non-apprehension), Sambhava (inclusion) and Aitihya (tradition).
As the English translations of these terms show, the exact meaning and differentiation of these
Hindu pramanas is quite an involved affair. Sometimes some of the latter pramanas are included
in the major ones. But one can certainly conclude that in general the main authorities for entire
Hindu thought were three, Sruti, Anumana, and pratyaksha. Since the last one deals with primary
experience, it became equivalent to anubhava (direct experience or intutional experience), though
often it meant intuitional experience.
It was Bishop A.J. Appasamy (whose thought we will study later) who first called attention to the
primary task of theology: to establish its pramanas, as Hindu thought does. Hindu thought usually
develops in three steps: 1) What do the Vedas say on the point at issue? 2) Can it be logically
demonstrated? 3) Does it tally with human experience?

7
It is most heartening to see that the Indian Christian theologians, all but three, give to the Bible the
first place as authority. One exception is Chenchiah. He gives first place to anubhava (experience).
Though Sadhu Sunder Singh gives great importance of his mystical experiences “a revelation
which I have received in ecstasy is worth more to me than all the traditional Church teaching” —
it is safe to say that he still places all his experiences under the authority of the Bible, though above
the Church tradition. The only other exceptions are Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya and Raymondo
Panikkar, both of whom give first place to the teaching of the Church. But both of them are Roman
Catholics, so their approach is quite understandable
2. Anubhava: one of the most significant and distinctive elements in the Indian theological
enterprise is the place afforded to experience in the construction of Christian theology. In the Hindu
philosophical traditions, anubhava (experience) plays a significant part in epistemology.
Picking up on that significance of experience, Indian theologians have argued for ‘the primacy of
experience based on the story of Jesus Christ and the Indian realities as a source for theology.’
Friedrich Schleiermacher, father of modern Protestant theology, introduced experience as the basis
of theology, while recognizing Scripture, the witness to originating Christian consciousness, as its
source. For him, the salvific work of Christ consists in releasing into the history Christian faith, a
form of God‐consciousness that mediated through the Christian community. P. Chenchiah, an
Indian theologian and the author of The History of Telugu literature, insists on one’s direct
experience of Christ as gaining priority over the Scriptures or tradition. For him, “the central fact
of the Christianity thus consists in the believer coming into a direct experiential touch with Christ;
we must have anubhava of the living Christ.” In Chenchiah’s word: “Jesus is a cosmic fact a crisis
in creation. There can be no Christianity without this fundamental experience.
In the writings of Abhishiktananda, Raymond Panikkar and other Roman Catholic theologians of
India, one can discover the same emphasis on experience based on the Christian story and the
realities. More recently, the idea of experience, in developing a theology for India, is related more
closely with the experience of the poverty, oppression (Dalits), multi‐religious and multicultural
contexts than with the Christian story of Jesus and the Gospel. It is beyond doubt that the
experience of both oppression and hope in the India serves also as a source of theology and the
basis for biblical hermeneutics.
3. Immersion: is the first step in the methodology of developing a theology for India. It means to
live among people in their daily life situation in order to have a first-hand knowledge of their
different aspects of life: social, political, economic and religious. The Asian bishops have
discovered the reality of Asian context that the majority, (80%) live in poverty, in religiously
pluralistic societies and in plurality of cultures. J. Russell Chandran rightly indicates the Indian
reality marked by three factors: cultures, poverty and religious pluralism, and no Indian theology
could afford to ignore any of them. Indian Christian theology is a child of the meeting of the
Christian faith with the cultures, the inhuman situation of poverty and the religious pluralism. If
one immerses in Indian realities, he or she will be challenged with two.

8
4. Suspicions: a suspicion about the theology of the West and a suspicion about the Indian Cultures
and traditions. This methodology will include a search for information and theological foundation.
The suspicions have enabled us to develop a new method of doing theology in India different from
that of the West. It observes the existing social (Caste system), political (corruption), economic
(inequality) and religious conditions (religious pluralism) in Indian. India is a sub‐continent where
the great majority of people are condemned to the life of poverty, oppression due to the Caste‐
system and destitution. In such a sub‐continent the Word of God to the suffering masses cannot be
anything but liberation and salvation. Unjust social, exploitative economic, dehumanizing political
and oppressive religious contexts are the existing situations that invite Indian theologians to fulfill
a more meaningful and responsible mission of constructing a theology of liberation and salvation
for India.
5. Evolution: Evolution that the Indian theological reflections revolve around two points: First,
the universality of our Christian faith. The second is the different cultural, religious expression of
the faith, and social setting.
6. Action: it is praxis into the context for liberation. Dalit theology, tribal theology, Adivasi
theology etc…or contextual theology.
7. Collaboration: Indian Christian theologians in generally see that there is a growing desire
among other faiths themselves “to break down the traditional barriers of division and hostility, and
to reach out the neighbors of other faiths in a spirit of love, friendship, harmony and used
collaboration method. Pieris says that the world religions can meet at two levels. First is the level
of personal salvation in terms of a Trans phenomenal Beyond (Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, Nirvana,
etc.) The second is preaching one’s faith through “a horizontal relationship (charity, love of
neighbor, brotherhood, ahimsa, metta, etc.) Paul Knitter emphasizes the second level without
denying the importance of the first level since the second level is much neglected today. He further
proposes ‘a global responsibility in saving people’ as the basis for all the religions: The religions
in India collaborate not only with the people of India and of Asia but also with all men and women
of good will in the world.
8. Transformation: Transformation is the goal in developing a theology for India. They see both
the mystery of creation and incarnation as God’s dialogue. To interact with this God of dialogue,
they insist the need of openness and Kenosis “demand a kenosis modeled after that of Jesus.”

9
III. Indian Renascent Engagement with the Gospel of Christ
RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY
Roy was born on May 22, 1772, in a Brahmin family in the village of Radhanagar near
Krishnanagar in Hooghly district (Bengal Presidency). His father, Ramkanta, was a Vaishnavite
and mother, Tarinidevi, hailed from a Shivaite family. He did formal education from his village
'Pathshala', where he learned Bengali, Sanskrit and Persian. He also mastered in-depth knowledge
of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. During his studies, he was influenced by western
culture and education system.
Religious reform: Born in a Hindu family and being a Hindu by faith, he mastered Vedas and
Upanishads. With the influence of foreign religions like Islam and Christianity, he defined religion
with reason and opposed idol-worship and ritualism that existed in Hinduism. He believed that
every religion has truth in it. At the same time, he criticized the ritualism of Christianity and
rejected Christ as the incarnation of God. He always wanted to renovate Hinduism. In 1803, he
published his first book, ‘Tuhfat-ul- Muwahhidin’, in which he argues for monotheism (the
concept of single God). He supported the western concept of reasoning and scientific thought and
tried to apply it in the Indian context. He fought against orthodox Hind and fanatic Christian
missionaries who never agreed to his beliefs.
Social reforms: Roy established the Brahmo Samaj on August 20, 1828, which acted against the
evil practices that existed in the Hindu society, especially, the practice of ‘Sati’, wherein a woman
jumps into the funeral pyre of her husband. Roy's sister was a victim of 'Sati'. His Samaj raised its
voice against polygamy, child marriage, caste system, untouchability, superstitions and use of
intoxicants. Meanwhile, Roy encouraged inter-caste marriages, women's education and widow re-
marriages.
Educational reforms: Roy started many learned societies and educational institutions in Bengal.
He studied English language and the western education system. He also helped Lord Macaulay in
starting schools and colleges in India. The Hindu College and the Vedanta College in Calcutta
were a result of this. His remarkable contributions also reflected in the newspaper and magazine
published by him. Roy also worked as the editor of Bengali newspaper “Sambad Kaumudi” (1821)
and the Persian newspaper “Sambad Kaumudi” (1821) and the Persian newspaper “Mirat-Ul-
Akbar”.
Economic reforms: Even though he hailed from a Zamindar background, he fought for the
liberation of the poor tenants exploited by Zamindars. He continuously fought against the fixed
revenue for the cultivators in Bengal and opposed heavy export duties imposed on Indian
goods. He was the first one to figure out that The East India Company was flowing approximately
three million pounds a year from India to England.
Political reforms: Roy lived in the era of freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Publicly, he never
demanded independence for India, but still, he fought for the civil rights of the Indians and opposed
the racial superiority of Europeans. Roy and his 'Brahmo Samaj' had a vital role in renewing the
Hindu society but it always focused on Bengal. Later, it branched itself to Madras, Punjab and
Uttar Pradesh. Raja Ram Mohan Roy died on September 27, 1833 in Bristol, United Kingdom

10
and was buried at the Arnos Vale Cemetery in England. After the death of Roy, Dwaraka Nath
Tagore led Brahmo Samaj for some time.

Theology
Two Pillars of Human Life
With his personal studies of major religions and involvement in the social and religious turmoil of
his time, he came to the conclusion that the foundation of a noble human life rests on two pillars:
love of God and love of one's fellow humankind. He found his religion not lacking in the first but
devoid of the other. He found the second abounding in the teachings of Christ and acknowledged,
as noted above, that fact. The denominational Christianity, historical and dogmatic questions, he
found, were the stumbling block in seeing the simplicity and beauty of the teachings of Christ, and
he side tracked them to glean that beauty for the benefit of the true seekers. He selected some of
the moral teachings of Christ from the New Testament and published them as a separate booklet
entitled, 'The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness'. With the publication of these
precepts, and the heat it generated thereafter, the concept of seva, service, slowly gain acceptance
in the Karma-dominated Indian society and the service to fellow humans almost became the creed
of the reformers after Roy.
The person of Christ
The personhood of Jesus Christ, as well as his teachings, as found in the Gospels often finds
appreciation and acceptance to any reader; it is the theology that repulses the serious adherent of
other faiths. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was not an exception. His attitude to Christ is one of reverence
as due to a great teacher and messenger of God, but he could not accept the title 'Son of God' if it
implies an attribute to divinity. He quotes many scriptural passages to prove the 'natural inferiority
of the Son to the Father' and holds that Jesus is merely delegated with power from God; he did not
possess this power intrinsically. The unity with Father implied in certain Johannine texts is merely
'a subsisting concord of will and design, such as existing among his apostles and not identity of
being'. He, indeed, accepts the title 'Son of God' and other scriptural titles of Christ, but always in
a qualified sense, implying that each one is special gift conferred by God, rather than his by right.
Jesus, to him is 'the son of God, a term synonymous with that of messiah, the highest of all the
prophets; and his life declares him to have been, as represented in the scriptures, pure as light,
innocent as a lamb, necessary for eternal life as bread for temporal one, and great as the angels of
God, or rather greater than they'. It is not difficult for Roy to accept the doctrine of the Virgin birth,
but he would not like the idea to associate it with the personality of the Holy Spirit. He will not
deny the miracles of Jesus, including resurrection. Both these points are unimportant for the
religious minds of the Indian people. It may be helpful if we take a closer look at Jesus as
understood by Raja Ram Mohan Roy:
The dependent Son: Roy seriously read the Gospels and derived his Christology on the basis of
his own readings and the reasons that satisfied his mind: 'Have we not his own express and often
repeated avowal that all the powers he manifested were committed to him as the son by the father
of the Universe? And does not reason force us to infer that a being who owes to another all his
power and authority, however extensive and high, should be in reality considered inferior to that
other? Surely therefore, those who believe God to be supreme, possessing the perfection of all
attributes, independently of all other beings, must necessarily deny the identity of Christ with God'.

11
And he takes the passages from the Gospel of St. John to substantiate his views. He quotes I
Corinthians 15: 24-28 to indicate the dependency of the son to the Father. Jesus is the Messiah
yes; he is anointed Son of God- yes, he is God himself-no.
Unity of Will, not identity of Being: There is no problem for Roy to accept the unity of God and
Jesus, but he interprets this unity as the unity of will and design, and not an identity of being.
Applying the hermeneutical principle of interpreting scriptures from the internal evidence, he reads
'I and my father are one' (John 10:30) in the light of 'that they may be one as we are one' (John
17:20-23), and concludes the unity of God and Jesus is of the same character as Jesus and his
disciples and offers three choices: 'First as conveying the doctrine that the Supreme Being, the Son
and the Apostles were to be absorbed mutually as drops of water into one whole; which is
comfortable to the doctrine of that sect of Hindu metaphysics who maintain that in the end the
human soul is absorbed into the Godhead, but is quite inconsistent with the faith of all
denominations of Christians. Secondly, as proving an identity of nature, with distinction of person,
between the Father, the Son and the Apostles, a doctrine equally inconsistent with the belief of
every Christian, as multiplying the number of persons of the Godhead far beyond what has ever
been proposed by any sect. Thirdly, as expressing that unity which is said to exist wherever there
are found perfect concord, harmony, love and obedience such as the Son evinced towards the
Father, and taught the disciples in display towards the Divine will. That the language of the Savior
can be understood in this last sense solely, will I trust, be readily be acknowledged by every candid
expounder of the sacred writing, as being the only one alike warranted by the common use of
words, and capable of apprehension by human understanding.'
First Born of Creation: Roy, however, has no difficulty in accepting the pre-existence of Jesus
with God and being the first born of creatures, and supreme above all creatures including the
angels: The Scriptures indeed in several places declare that the Son was superior even to the angels
in heaven living from the beginning of the world to eternity, and that the Father created all things
by him and for him. At the same time, I must, in conformity to those very authorities, believe him
as produced by the Supreme Deity among created Beings (John 5:26; Col.1:5).11 He will go as far
as to accept Jesus as Messiah, in the sense of the supreme messenger of God, a creature but not
Creator as he says: He like Adam lived with God before his coming into his world… and
afterwards was sent to the world in the body of Jesus, for effecting human’s salvation….. this does
not preclude us from rejecting the idea of a two-fold nature of god and man. One can see here the
traces of Pauline doctrine of 'unfallen Adam' incarnate to save the humankind. He is not willing to
accept eternal generation, coexistence with the father. He has no difficulty in admitting that the
Son of god is god in the same way as the son of man is a man, if it does not couple with the
assertion of the coeval existence of the son.
The Work of Christ
Christ accomplished his saving act through his teaching and his death was simply the supreme
illustration of those precepts whose communication was the sole object of his mission. Roy
rejected the ideas of vicarious suffering and sacrificial death; God is impassable and is untouched
by the misery and suffering, and if Jesus suffered in his divine nature this would be highly
inconsistent with the nature of God. Death of God is the dogma, which cannot be accepted by Roy.

12
Vicarious suffering of an innocent for the guilt of others, too does not find favor in his sight; it is
inconsistent with the justice of God. He has no hesitation to accept the suffering of the innocent
Jesus as a lamb, taking it just a 'symbol of innocent subjected to persecution', but he did not find
scriptural support for the attempt 'to represent human blood, or that of God in human form, as an
indispensable atonement for sin'. The plan of salvation for Roy is very simple: 'this do and thou
shalt live' said Jesus, and following his precepts is the 'best and only means of obtaining the
forgiveness of our sins, the favor of God, and strength to overcome our passions and to keep his
commandments'. If we repent, we receive forgiveness and there is no need for an atoning death,
though we are greatly helped by the supreme example of the Cross. If we fail to follow Jesus'
teachings, the solution, for Roy, lies in repentance, which is the most acceptable atonement on our
part to the All merciful, when we have fallen short of that duty. This is the nearest, as Boyd notes,
that Roy approaches to a doctrine of repentance, faith, grace and forgiveness.
The God-head
Jesus Christ has not been a problem for many religiously minded people in this continent, but he
is with the intellectuals and theologians. Where to place him within their own 'theological and
religious circle' is the serious quest of the religious intellectuals influenced by Jesus Christ and his
teachings. Raja Ram Mohan Roy devoted much of his time to a polemic against Hindu polytheism
and idolatry, and he was aware that inclusion of Christ, as well as Holy Spirit, in Godhead, would
be a reversion, amounting to yielding to something primitive and polytheistic. He would stick to
the unitary principle in holding God as the sole object of worship and adoration that he expressed
it so succinctly in the trust deed of the Samaj's place of worship, as noted by Farquhar, that the
building must be used : ''for the worship and adoration of the Eternal Unsearchable and Immutable
Being who is the Author and Preserver of the universe but not under or by any other name,
designation or title particularly used for and applied to any particular being or Beings by any man
or set of men whatever'14. From such a 'theological circle' drawn around him, Jesus cannot be
placed within Godhead, so also the Holy Spirit as a Person within the Trinitarian formulation. Even
then Roy's appreciation for Jesus did not diminish; he regarded Jesus as Son of God or Mediator,
in a certain limited sense though, the messenger who communicates the will of God.
Evaluation
One can agree with Keshub Chunder Sen that Roy's secular approach to religion made him
incapable of appreciating mystic spirituality and bhakti cults in any religion. His deistic Unitarian
faith considered the idea of divine incarnation in any religion as a compromise of monotheism and
as an inevitable source of personal and social demoralization. The later Brahmos, like Sen and
Parekh, tried to correct the course. This brings to another point to ponder, as M. M. Thomas
queries: 'does it mean that a modern man imbibed with rational ethical secular temper like that of
Ram Mohan Roy, cannot apprehend the truth and meaning of Jesus Christ unless they revert a
religious-mystical experience or vision of reality? His 'theological circle' drawn by his
philosophical categories of natural theology of monotheism and rational deism did not allow him
to move beyond this circle, as that will mean the complete breakdown of that circle. If he would
have come out of it and seen the source of morality of God in Love, this would have opened a way
for him to perceive the centrality of cross of Jesus Christ, as symbol of God's self-revelation to
humankind. His methodology of studying religious traditions is worth noting; he studied Hebrew
and Greek to read and understand Christian precepts without any intervention of subjective

13
Christian theological or doctrinal bias. He did the same in search of Islamic tradition, learning
Arabic and Persian for the understanding Holy Quran and Sufi thoughts. He helped in the
translation of Bible and had the linguistic competence in understanding the import of biblical
teachings. He may have his own bias, but his intension and sincerity need to be appreciated. He
was perhaps the first Hindu scholar who studied Christian Scriptures in original languages and
presented his own personal reflections. His missionary zeal was directed for the moral and spiritual
reform of the society in general, but Hindu in particular. His efforts were towards the moral and
ethical regeneration of human kind, and he was willing to learn, use and absorb anything that is
common in the religious traditions of his time for attaining his goal. It was unfortunate that he was
misunderstood by the missionary zealots of his time, and they attacked him and his person,
branding him an ‘atheist’ and ‘idolater’. In their missionary zeal for the establishment of
Christendom with the nomenclature ‘Christians’, some of the missionary failed to recognize the
sincere, perhaps secret, seekers, sympathizers, followers and disciples of Christ. Most of their
attack was on doctrinal and denominational lines in which these new admirers of Christ were not
interest; their interest was only in the “raw fact of Christ’. This continued trend has alienated many
true followers of Christ and the Indian church has shut its door for many of them. A food for
thought for many of us as we conclude this brief study.

KESHUB C. SEN

Keshub Chunder Sen, who flourished as leader of the Brahma Samaj in the latter half of the 19th
century, has occasioned more mutually contradictory responses to his teaching on Christ and the
Trinity than perhaps any other theologian since Christianity began. It is our purpose in this paper
to examine what precisely he did teach on these subjects and, hopefully, to relieve him of the
charge of heresy (if we must use the term) and of commendations falsely grounded. Our primary
data will be that famous lecture of his which represents a mature stage of his thinking and on which
most of the debate has centred, namely, 'That Marvellous Mystery-the Trinity', first delivered in
1882. But first we must make some reference to the positions taken largely in response to this
lecture.
The late R. C. Zaehner (1962) describes Sen as becoming 'an increasingly fervent admirer of
Christ, even accepting his divinity and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit'. Of course 'divinity' is an
ambiguous word, but since Zaehner makes no attempt to qualify it, we must assume that it carries
for him the connotation it bears in 'the doctrine of the Holy Trinity', that is 'essential deity'. Most
recently David L. Gosling (1974-) has remarked that Sen 'believed in the Trinity, which he related
ingeniously to the Upanishadic definition of Brahman as Saccidananda'. Equally sympathetic is
Robin Boyd (1969) who asserts that 'his thought moves steadily in the direction of full acceptance
of the doctrine of the Trinity'.
Admittedly Boyd detects in Sen's lecture 'a tendency towards modalism', but he declines to treat
this as a serious fault on the grounds that the word 'Person' is so misleading anyway in the Indian
context and that 'Sen is perhaps here feeling his way towards a completely new and fully Indian
formulation of the have excused Sen on the grounds that nearly every Western exposition of the
Trinity from Tertullian to Barth barely escapes the charge of modalism, except the Athanasian
Creed which safeguards itself by being not an exposition at all but a bald statement full of the

14
starkest of paradoxes. At any rate Boyd implies that Sen finds a place for Christ within the
Godhead. At the opposite pole is Fr J. B. Chethimattam's view (1969) that Sen took 'Jesus Christ
as a mere man'. Similar is the reaction of Sen's contemporary and one-time disciple,
Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya (1895). In an article, 'Why did not Keshub Chundra Sen accept
Christ?' he asserts categorically that Sen 'was dead opposed to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity'
and that 'he did not believe that Jesus is an eternal Person•.s Then there are mediating responses
of various kinds.
P. J. Sant ram (1964) notices that Sen speaks of Christ 'as the Second Person of ... the Trinity', but
carefully adds that 'he has his own interpretation of the Trinity'. Sen's view of the pre-existence of
Christ in terms of 'an idea' he describes as 'not quite up to the Christian understanding of him', and
he characterizes him generally as coming 'nearly to accept the adoptionist theory'. Marcus
Braybrooke (1971) puts his finger on the real truth of the matter, as we shall realize below, when
he writes that Sen 'does not ... accept the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation ... (yet) he claimed
he made Christ the final authority' and in such a way, feels Bray brooke, as to be acceptable to
'many· a modern missionary'. J. N. Farquhar's response (1914) is very. equivocal. He too notices
that Sen's 'Christ is definitely called the Logos, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity',
but he makes no attempt to discuss what Sen means by these terms except to. express some surprise
that Sen could then go on to 'declare all religions true'. He admits that Sen attempted 'to hold in his
own mind, at the same moment, the essential principles of Hinduism, the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity, and his old theism' hut it is worth noting that he does qualify the Trinitarian doctrine Sen
tries to hold as 'Christian'. Indeed, Farquhar goes as far as to say that Sen was 'driven steadily ...
nearer an adequate account of Christ's lives were fully Christian'. But in the same sentence he adds
(by what logic I find it difficult to infer) that 'he never surrendered himself to Christ as Lord'. Now
Farquhar does draw attention to inconsistency in Sen's thinking, a feature which another one-time
disciple of Sen, Manila! C. Parekh, analyses in much greater detail. Parekh (1926) criticizes Sen's
Trinitarian doctrine for being 'on the whole ... akin to Arianism ... though at times it approached
what is called Semi-Arianism'. Not altogether an exemplar of consistency himself, Parekh
commends Sen's understanding of Christ as the Logos for being 'as broad as that of the most
catholic of the Fathers of the Christian Church', and then goes on to criticize it for serious
inconsistency, for vacillating between impersonal and personal views.
This. seeming inconsistency, he attributes to 'the remnants of that Unitarianism', which Sen's early
association with the Brahma Samaj had instilled into him and which prevented him from seeing
that a full-orbed doctrine of an essential Trinity was necessary for understanding God not as 'a
mere abstraction' but as 'in His essence ... Love'. Nevertheless, Parekh concedes that the lecture
under discussion was a great achievement 'making true Hinduism and true Christianity one thing
in God’, and that 'the Person of Jesus Christ' presented therein was none other than 'the chief
influence of his (sc. Sen's) conscious as well as subconscious life, the very center and source of
his moral and spiritual being'. Greatly indebted to Parekh's analysis is M.M. Thomas' appraisal
(1970) of Sen's Christ and Trinity. Thomas, however, fruitfully shifts the debate from the measure
of Sen's faithfulness to Christian orthodoxy to his 'idea of Christ as divine humanity'. He
appropriately highlights how Sen 'makes the surrender of the human will of Jesus to the will of the

15
Father in love the basis of his transparency for the manifestation of the Divine Sonship'. But
Thomas utters his own word of criticism:
In some of his (sc. Sen's) Christological formulations, especially when dealing with the
universal reality of the Logos and the universal presence of Christ and the universal activity of
the Holy Spirit, one has the suspicion that Keshub had given up the centrality of the historical
Jesus as the Word Incarnate and as the basis and criterion of the Holy Spirit.

When we turn to examine what Sen actually did say in his lecture one thing is clear, that those who
criticize him, either mildly or vehemently, for not holding the doctrine of the Trinity are quite
right, if by the doctrine of the Trinity is meant what is usually meant: three eternal distinctions
within one divine essence. Therefore, to say be 'believes in', or 'accepts the doctrine of', the Trinity,
or even that he 'moves steadily in the direction of full acceptance of the doctrine', is misleading.
On the other hand, the corollary is not that he was an Arian, a Semi-Arian, a Unitarian or an
Adoptionist. It is an oversimplification perpetrated by much popular theology that ancient heresies
are still found but decked up in modern dress. Very rarely do ancient heresies exactly repeat
themselves especially where their original cultural context no longer obtains. This observation, of
course, implies that for the same reason the ancient orthodox answers may no longer apply-a view
which I shall be assuming throughout the rest of this paper, but which would be beyond the scope
of the paper to justify. Now part of the trouble has been that Sen's theology has been evaluated by
theologians for whom for the most part the ancient answers are definitive. This is well illustrated
by Parekh:
He (sc. Sen) was never at his best in philosophic speculation. His heart was always in advance of
his head, but the same may be said of the early Christian Church, for it was three centuries before
the Church attempted to formulate a rational explanation of its heart's faith. That this attempt was
in any degree successful was due to the fact that it possessed in Athanasius, a man whose heart and
head were in entire unison ... and whose advocacy more than any other single agency it was that
made the truth expressed in the Nicene Creed, the bed-rock of all Christian speculation.

We will not judge Sen by that 'bed-rock' but rather see in his theology an honest attempt to make
sense of the New Testament data in the light of his own experience of Christ and of the needs of
his contemporaries. We shall be more hesitant than his critics to dub his thinking inconsistent and
his theology unsystematic. Certainly, his lecture under view is a veritable mixture of ontological
language and value language, but if this is recognized his theology can be accorded a large measure
of consistency. Full allowance must be made for his habitually rhetorical way of speaking and for
his extensive use of poetic imagery and language; and one must recognize, as I believe Sen himself
did years before the emergence of the philosophy of linguistic analysis, that theological language
is not the precision-tool which theologians in the past have imagined it to be. In the foregoing
material we have moved to and fro between the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology in a rather
carefree manner. A rigid distinction between the two is of course artificial, but now for the purpose
of clarity of thought some distinction must be made, and we address ourselves first to Sen's
Christology. It is the opposite procedure, starting from his affirmations about the Trinity, that has
misled several of his commentators into treating his theology as virtually orthodox.

16
Doctrine of God
Being a Brahmo, Sen was naturally concerned with the doctrines of the Trinity to start with. It is
to Sen that Indian Christians owe their use of the term, Saccidananda (Sat + cit + ananda = truth +
intelligence + bliss) for the Trinity. Boyd suggests that this term is more adequate than the Nicene
Formula of one substance and three persons, which is still in Greek philosophical categories. It is
to be noticed that more than Roy, Sen accepted this doctrine. In one of his annual lectures he writes,
In this plane figure of three lines you have the solution to a vast problem; The Father, Son, and the
Holy Ghost; the Creator, the Exemplar, the Sanctifier; I am, I love, I save; the still God, the
journeying God, the returning God; Force, Wisdom, Holiness; the True, the Good, the Beautiful;
Sat, Cit, Ananda; Truth, Intelligence, Joy.

Obviously, here Sen is reconciling the Christian Trinity with Hindu Saccidananda and Greek
philosophical virtues. In this attempt, there is a streak of modalism (of God revealing himself in
three modes or times) and thus diluting the distinction of the three persons in the Godhead. In
another lecture, he describes the three persons as the Above, the Below, and the Within. No doubt
these descriptions are helpful — perhaps more helpful than the ontological language of the Greeks.
The crux of the matter in Christian dogma is the precise meaning of the term’s “person” and
“substance” or “essence” lacking this, any adequate clarification of the Nicene formula of one
substance in three persons is fruitless.
Christ
Sen roundly denies that Christ is God in any ontological sense. Certainly, this involves some
misapprehension of the niceties of orthodoxy, for it is against the idea of Christ as an incarnation
of God the Father that he usually militates. 'Never say Christ is the very God of the universe, the
Father of all humankind', he keeps on reiterating. But it is clear that he attributes no essential deity
at all to Christ. Christ shows us neither 'how God can become man nor how man can become God'.
Homage to Christ is 'not the worship of Divinity but the worship of humanity'. Properly 'we
worship the Father' while 'we honor the Son'. Christ is 'not a man-God'-an implied criticism of
Alexandrian Christology and, for that matter·, of the Chalcedonian and every other Christology
that posits only one experiencing subject in Jesus Christ and that the divine. On the contrary Christ
'was the Father's begotten Son, a child, a creature'.
Hence the charge of Arianism (and Semi-Arianism?). But the charge cannot be substantiated. The
concern of Arianism was a thoroughly Greek one-to relieve God himself of any kind of contact
with the world. This was done by envisaging in a place between God and the world a metaphysical
agent of creation and redemption. Nothing could be further from Sen's way of thinking. As we
shall see shortly, for him God himself both creates and redeems. Christ is a creature for Sen
because he treats the word 'Son' as it is normally and primarily treated in both the Old and the New
Testaments, as a relationship to God to which his creature man is called, a relationship Jesus of
Nazareth so perfectly exemplified. And, therefore, it is to the man born of Mary, to the incarnate
Christ only, that Sen applies the term 'Son of God' in any full-blooded personal sense. If the term
'man-God' is excluded, the time-hallowed term 'Godman' is not,40 but Sen interprets it in his own
characteristic way. It is identical in meaning with his other term 'Divine humanity'. 'Here man
remains man', he writes, 'and God is only superadded to his nature. Humanity continues to be

17
humanity, but Divinity is engrafted upon humanity'. Now Christ is Divine because he is the
incarnation not of deity but of 'Sonship'. He is the incarnation of that perfect relationship of love
and obedience to God to which every man is called, and which God is powerful to give according
to the measure of man's openness to him.
In him (sc. Jesus Christ) we see human nature perfected by true affiliation with the Divine nature
(sc. God). And in this affiliation, we see the fullest realization of the purpose of Christ's life and
ministry. He shows us ... how we can exalt our humanity by making it more Divine, how while
retaining our humanity we may still partake more and more of the divine character. It was for this
purpose that Christ came into this world.

Sen does admit that through the Son, Jesus Christ, the Father is manifested to men, but such
statements as this are held in tension with others which suggest that both ancient Judaism and
Hinduism have sufficiently revealed the Father and that what is unique about Christ is his
revelation not of Fatherhood but of Sonship. But the tension is resolved when we came to
appreciate Sen's real concern here, which is rightly to concede that outside the Christian
dispensation there are genuine experiences of the Fatherhood of God and at the same time to
emphasize that God's Fatherhood is nowhere known in detachment from a relationship of sonship
to him; and Sen knows of no example of sonship of such incomparable quality as Christ's one of
'true filial love', of obedience without servitude. Moreover, it is not by contemplation of Christ as
an epiphany of God that we come to know who the Father really is, but solely by appropriating in
our lives Christ's pattern of sonship: 'If you do not go through the Son you have no access to the
Father. If you have wandered away in disobedience, return to obedient sonship, and you are
reconciled to the Father'.
It was this burning concern which I believe drove Sen to set up that 'man of straw', his notion that
Christians treated Christ as an incarnation of the Father. Ostensibly he detected a popular avatarism
among Christians which he seems to have treated as a kind of Sabellianism or Docetism. I doubt
whether he was much troubled by the Serampore missionary Marshman's description of Jesus as
'Jehovah God', nor is the now familiar caveat, 'Jesus does not exhaust the meaning of God', very
appropriate to his pattern of thought. What must have troubled him was the pessimism concerning
man's nature which was prominent in much Protestant theology from the 17th to 19th centuries
and which was represented by many of Sen's missionary opponents. Given man's hopelessly
stubborn nature the most that men could hope for was the Father's forgiveness, and this Christ was
reckoned to have secured at one stroke by his sacrifice on Calvary. Not that Sen on the other hand
minimized in any way what happened on the cross, but the prevailing Protestant emphasis did tend
to make Christ's whole life of servanthood and sonship somewhat redundant.
The Trinity
Only now are we in a position to examine Sen's observations on the Trinity. His oft-quoted
definition runs: The apex (his model is a triangle) is the very God Jehovah, the Supreme Brahma
of the Vedas. Alone in his own eternal glory, he dwells. From him comes down the Son in a direct
line, an emanation from Divinity. Thus, God descends and touches one end of the base of
humanity, then running all along the base permeates the world, and then by the power of the Holy
Spirit drags up degenerated humanity to himself. Divinity coming down to humanity is the Son;

18
Divinity carrying humanity up to heaven is the Holy Ghost. This is the whole philosophy of
salvation. Such is the story of human redemption.
Here it becomes a little difficult to isolate Sen's precise meaning, but we can grasp the general
idea. The Sanskrit name he settles on for God is not Brahman but Brahma. Maybe this is not the
most effective way of engaging Vedantists in dialogue, but it does save Sen from all those
philosophical complications Upadhyaya later struggled so manfully with and which the early
fathers found themselves immersed in in their dialogue with Middle and Neo-Platonists; and Sen's
caution does enable him expressly to identify Brahma with the biblical Jehovah and the Father of
the New Testament Scriptures (if not of much later Trinitarianism.) This Brahma-Jehovah-Father
alone is God in the full sense of the word-not exclusively God Absolute, but also God as he comes
into relations, especially as the Creator and source of all things. But this God stoops down to the
world, as it were, revealing himself decisively in the sonship of Jesus Christ, but also revealing
something of himself (and there, by anticipation, revealing Christ) wherever men enter into a
genuine experience of sonship to God, and, not least, transforming countless men and women of
subsequent generations into the likeness of Christ. But this 'transforming' activity of God in
contradistinction to his revealing activity, Sen calls the Holy Spirit, and he has solid Christian
support for this. The Holy Spirit unites others to Christ, raising them regenerated into God's
presence and making them divine as Christ is divine. Thus, on a previous page he explains:
The Lord of heaven and earth came into this world, and manifested Himself in the Son, that he
might go through the whole length and breadth of humanity, illumining and sanctifying all
generations of mankind with the radiance of Divinity. Behold Christ, Christ, Christ, everywhere,
in all ages and in all nations. Here you see the spread of Divine Sonship, like a sweeping flood of
light and life, carrying all mankind heavenward. Do you know what this is? It is the Holy Spirit.
Yes, after the Son comes the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost drags Christ-life into the hearts and souls
of all men, breaking and annihilating the sins and iniquities of ages, and makes all mankind
partakers of Divine life.

But more needs to be said about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Christ in the context of Sen's
Trinity. It is significant that he calls the Holy Spirit 'Savior', while in the same context he calls the
Son 'Brother' only. The Father is worshipped and prayer can be addressed directly to the Holy
Spirit, while the Son is merely 'honored'. The Father 'manifests' himself in creation, but who is he
who manifests himself in the Son? Again, the Father. We have already seen that what was actually
incarnate in the Son was not Godhead but Sonship, and we have also seen that the secret of Christ's
divinity is the same as the secret of the believer's divinity-the Holy Spirit. In Sen's Trinity the
Father and Spirit hold a special place which is distinguished from the Son's. Father and Spirit are
both categorically 'God', but not so the Son. God manifests himself in the Son (the preposition is
important) but he gives life to humanity as the Holy Spirit. God is the Holy Spirit for Sen and the
Holy Spirit is God. He can go as far as to assert, 'The identity of the Father and the Holy Ghost
few will question'.
Many in fact have done but part of the purpose of this article has been to free Sen from the
judgement of, for instance, the Athanasian Creed. We know precisely what Sen means, that there
is a real continuity between God and his action, between the Person and his Spirit and it makes
little sense today to hypostasize the two. The Father is God both as he is in himself and as he

19
reveals himself in creation, in history and in the Son. The Holy Spirit is God personally and
powerfully at work in Christ the Son and in all who follow Christ. By the criteria of orthodoxy,
we have strictly a Binity of Father and Holy Spirit rather than a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. But such a conclusion only makes sense if we continue to assume that the hallowed
juxtaposition of Father, Son and Holy Spirit must imply a homogeneity between the three persons;
and this is precisely what the New Testament does not assume. Sen includes the Son in his Trinity
because he wants to underline the uniqueness and decisiveness of what the Father and Holy Spirit
have done in and through Jesus, because he believes that no adequate definition can be given of
God without reference to Jesus Christ, his Son. And this seems to me to be the pattern of thinking
behind much New Testament bi-partite and tri-partite confessional formula. It was the same pattern
of thinking which thn:w up in Israel such confessional patterns as one God-one Israel or one God-
one Name-one Israel. Not that Israel was God, but Israel was the Son, the people God had chosen
and the Jew believed that in any definition of Yahweh's nature, even of his unity, you could not
help but refer to the reality of this people of his. This kind of perspective which gives such a
decisive role to the Son, though a creature, in man's experience of God, cannot be confused with
Unitarianism.
Sen rightly recognized that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the dominant symbols' in the New
Testament which point to the reality of God, and therefore he rejoiced in the more inclusive
symbol, 'the Trinity', but he did realize that the three members of this symbol did point to the reality
of God in different ways, and not as sharing the same divine essence. It is in the context of this
rather loose, yet I believe, dynamic understanding of the Trinity that he draws on the term,
Saccidananda, and therefore this piece of pioneering in indigenization must not be made to carry
more than it can bear. It may well be that Upadhyaya, who saw the similarity between the orthodox
understanding of the inner life of the God of the Trinity and the Vedantic understanding of
Saccitumanda, m was more faithful to both traditional Christianity and traditional Hinduism, but
Sen seems to me to have been more faithful to the New Testament witness and his application of
Saccidananda to this has a legitimacy and fruitfulness all of its own:
God coming down and going up-this is creation, this is salvation. In this plain figure of three lines
you have the solution of a vast problem. The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost; the Creator, the
Exemplar, and the Sanctifier; I am, I love, I save; the Still God, the Journeying God, the Returning
God; Force, Wisdom, Holiness; the True, the Good, the Beautiful; Sat, Chit, Ananda; 'Truth,
Intelligence and Joy' ... You have three conditions, three manifestations of Divinity. Yet there is
one God, one Substance, amid three phenomena. Not three Gods but one God. Whether alone or
manifest in the Son, or quickening humanity as the Holy Spirit, it is the same God, the same
identical Deity, whose unity continues amid multiplicity of manifestations. Now He is, now He
moves, now He returns; now in His own glory, now in the Son's glory, now in the glory of the
converted sinner; but it is the same God throughout ... The true Trinity is not three Persons, but
three functions of the same Person.

Unlike the majority of Sen's commentators, I can only stand amazed at the clarity and coherence
with which he treats the subjects of Christ and the Trinity and at the way in which he anticipates
theological perspectives which are being taken for granted by many modern scholars as being basic
to the New Testament witness. It also seems to me that he provides a very open (yet not

20
uncommitted) basis for Christians engaged in inter-religious dialogue, but to follow that up would
demand another paper and a much wider field of data. However, this is not to say that Sen cannot
be faulted. The sectarianism of his Church of the New Dispensation and his own seeming pride
and conceit do nothing to build up one's confidence in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But it must
be borne in mind that it was his theological views and attitudes, long in advance of his time, that
excluded him from the Christian Church 'of his day.
He therefore lacked the special authority and support which members of the historic fellowship
have come to know, as a matter of experience, in their worship, life and service together. He was
bound to seek authority and support elsewhere-in an appeal to the Holy Spirit and especially in a
view of the Spirit which tended to isolate him (sc. the Spirit) from that community which, for all
its faults, we still believe to be his most distinctive locus. Within this community today Sen could
have fruitfully expounded his theology. He could have worshipped Christ even, unashamedly, as
Christians have done down the ages and will want to keep on doing. He would of course have had
to distinguish in his own mind and for other like-minded people the difference between treating
Christ as God ontologically and treating him as having the value of God. Many Christians would
still have hesitated to follow him in opting for the second alternative; but his emphasis on the Son
of God who calls us all 'to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ',
this would have been for all. In his own day such a message was long overdue; it is no less urgent
today.
Doctrine of the Church
Sen saw himself as divinely appointed and commissioned to be “the leader of the New
Dispensation” in which all religions are harmonized and in which all men are summoned to enter
as their spiritual home. He claimed special divine inspiration (Adesha), equal to that of Moses and
Jesus.
In fact, Sen claimed that Moses’ was the first dispensation, Jesus’ and Paul’s the second, and his
the third and the final one, which necessarily supersedes all previous dispensations and revelations.
This was definitely a deliberate attempt on Sen’s part to integrate the Western and Eastern religions
into one heritage. He used the symbols of the cross, the Hindu trishul (three-pronged spear) and
the Islamic half-moon and star as the emblem of his new indigenous Church. As we saw earlier in
the life sketch, he also used the scriptures from these religions on par with the Bible. The goal of
this move was the unification of all mankind in himself.
This new church was more intimately related to the Holy Spirit than was previously the case. But
in claiming his inspiration as final and superseding all others, Sen is in fact monopolizing the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not the Holy Spirit controlling Sen! You see, between heresy and
orthodoxy there is but a thin line of demarcation, which any of us can cross! Look at what Sen
could say under such a misunderstanding of God’s revelation:
Keshub Chunder Sen, a servant of God, called to be an apostle of the Church of the New
Dispensation, which is in the Holy city of Calcutta, the metropolis of Aryavarta, to all the great
nations in the world and to the followers of Moses, of Jesus, of Buddha, of Confucius, of Zoroaster,
of Mahmet, of Nanak and to the various branches of the Hindu Church, to the saints and sages, the

21
 bishops and the elders, the ministers and the missionaries of all these religious bodies: Grace be
unto you and peace everlasting . . .

And later on, the message claims an exclusive revelation to Keshub Sen, and ends with the plea:
Let Asia, Europe, Africa and America with divine instruments praise the New Dispensation, and
sing the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

In spite of the opposition from the contemporary bishops Anglican and Roman Catholic Sen
continued to stand by his claims, and towards the end of his life there was an element even of
irrationality in his thought. Needless to say, this new dispensation church died shortly after its
founder’s death the usual story of all human enterprises! But God’s work will continue, not only
in spite of man’s obedience, but because of his disobedience!
VIVEKANANDA
Swami Vivekananda 12 January 1863– 4 July 1902), born Narendranath Dattav (Bengali: was
an Indian Hindu monk, a chief disciple of the 19th-century Indian mystic Ramakrishna. [4][5] He
was a key figure in the introduction of the Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western
world and is credited with raising interfaith awareness, bringing Hinduism to the status of a major
world religion during the late 19th century. He was a major force in the revival of Hinduism in
India, and contributed to the concept of nationalism in colonial India. Vivekananda founded
the Ramakrishna Math and the Ramakrishna Mission. He is perhaps best known for his speech
which began with the words – “Sisters and brothers of America ...,” in which he introduced
Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893.
Born into an aristocratic Bengali Kayastha family of Calcutta, Vivekananda was inclined towards
spirituality. He was influenced by his guru, Ramakrishna, from whom he learnt that all living
beings were an embodiment of the divine self; therefore, service to God could be rendered by
service to humankind. After Ramakrishna's death, Vivekananda toured the Indian
subcontinent extensively and acquired first-hand knowledge of the conditions prevailing in British
India. He later travelled to the United States, representing India at the 1893 Parliament of the
World's Religions. Vivekananda conducted hundreds of public and private lectures and classes,
disseminating tenets of Hindu philosophy in the United States, England and Europe. In India,
Vivekananda is regarded as a patriotic saint, and his birthday is celebrated as National Youth Day.
Philosophy
Vivekananda propagated that the essence of Hinduism was best expressed in Adim
Shankara's Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Nevertheless, following Ramakrishna, and in contrast to
Advaita Vedanta, Vivekananda believed that the Absolute is both immanent and
transcendent. According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita “reconciles Dvaita or
dualism and Advaita or non-dualism.” Vivekananda summarized the Vedanta as follows, giving it
a modern and Universalistic interpretation:
Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this Divinity within by controlling nature,
external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or mental discipline, or philosophy by
one, or more, or all of these and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or
22
rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details. The first governor-general of
independent India, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, said "Vivekananda saved Hinduism, saved
India". According to Subhas Chandra Bose, a proponent of armed struggle for Indian
independence, Vivekananda was "the maker of modern India"; for Gandhi, Vivekananda's
influence increased Gandhi's "love for his country a thousandfold". Vivekananda influenced
India's independence movement; his writings inspired independence activists such as Netaji
Subhas Chandra Bose, Aurobindo Ghose, Bal Gangadhar Tilakand Bagha Jatin and intellectuals
such as Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Romain Rolland. Many years after Vivekananda's
death Rabindranath Tagore told French Nobel laureate Romain Rolland, [185]"If you want to know
India, study Vivekananda. In him everything is positive and nothing negative". Rolland wrote,
"His words are great music, phrases in the style of Beethoven, stirring rhythms like the march of
Händel choruses. I cannot touch these sayings of his, scattered as they are through the pages of
books, at thirty years' distance, without receiving a thrill through my body like an electric shock.
And what shocks, what transports, must have been produced when in burning words they issued
from the lips of the hero!"
Nationalism was a prominent theme in Vivekananda's thought. He believed that a country's future
depends on its people, and his teachings focused on human development. He wanted "to set in
motion a machinery which will bring noblest ideas to the doorstep of even the poorest and the
meanest". Vivekananda linked morality with control of the mind, seeing truth, purity and
unselfishness as traits which strengthened it. He advised his followers to be holy, unselfish and to
have shraddhā (faith). Vivekananda supported brahmacharya, believing it the source of his
physical and mental stamina and eloquence. He emphasized that success was an outcome of
focused thought and action; in his lectures on Raja Yoga he said, "Take up one idea. Make that
one idea your life thinks of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every
part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to
success, that is the way great spiritual giants are produced"
Vivekananda and Advaita
Advaita was in the air as the hottest subject of philosophical debates in India, and being a fully
patriotic Hindu, Vivekananda identified himself at once with the movement of Advaitism. Thus,
it is true to say that Vivekananda added Advaita to Ramakrishna’s other teachings. For
Vivekananda, Vedanta is the true and universal religion, and mother of all religions. The reason
for this universality, as against Christianity for example, is that while Christianity rests upon a
person as its basis, Vedanta’s foundation is purely principle:
It is in vain we try to gather all peoples of the world around a single personality. It is
difficult to make them gather together even round external and universal principles. If it
ever becomes possible to bring the largest portion of humanity to one way of thinking in
regard to religion, mark you, it must be always through principles and never through
persons.
But this does not mean that every human being must follow the same religion. He advocated
Ramakrishna’s concept of Ishta Devata, one’s personal God according to one’s liking. A person

23
can at best provide one of the paths but never be universal, for there are ever so many persons to
follow and Christ is only one among them. Vivekananda defined the concept of Ishta Devata thus:
Your way is good for you, but not for me. My way is good for me, but not for you. My way is
called in Sanskrit my Ishta. Mind you, we have no quarrel with any religion in the world. We have
each our Ishta.

This idea of Ishta stubbornly rejects any corporate religion! For here religion is purely a private
affair an echo of what Ramakrishna taught.
Influence and legacy
Vivekananda was one of the main representatives of Neo-Vedanta, a modern interpretation of
selected aspects of Hinduism in line with western esoteric traditions,
especially Transcendentalism, New Thought and Theosophy. His reinterpretation was, and is,
very successful, creating a new understanding and appreciation of Hinduism within and outside
India, and was the principal reason for the enthusiastic reception of yoga, transcendental
meditation and other forms of Indian spiritual self-improvement in the West. Agehananda
Bharati explained, “...modern Hindus derive their knowledge of Hinduism from Vivekananda,
directly or indirectly.” Vivekananda espoused the idea that all sects within Hinduism (and all
religions) are different paths to the same goal. However, this view has been criticized as an
oversimplification of Hinduism.
In the background of emerging nationalism in British-ruled India, Vivekananda crystallised the
nationalistic ideal. In the words of social reformer Charles Freer Andrews, "The Swami's intrepid
patriotism gave a new colour to the national movement throughout India. More than any other
single individual of that period Vivekananda had made his contribution to the new awakening of
India". Vivekananda drew attention to the extent of poverty in the country, and maintained that
addressing such poverty was a prerequisite for national awakening. His nationalistic ideas
influenced many Indian thinkers and leaders. Sri Aurobindo regarded Vivekananda as the one who
awakened India spiritually. Mahatma Gandhi counted him among the few Hindu reformers "who
have maintained this Hindu religion in a state of splendor by cutting down the dead wood of
tradition".
The first governor-general of independent India, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, said "Vivekananda
saved Hinduism, saved India". According to Subhas Chandra Bose, a proponent of armed struggle
for Indian independence, Vivekananda was "the maker of modern India"; for Gandhi,
Vivekananda's influence increased Gandhi's "love for his country a thousand fold". Vivekananda
influenced India's independence movement; his writings inspired independence activists such
as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Aurobindo Ghose, Bal Gangadhar Tilakand Bagha Jatin and
intellectuals such as Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Romain Rolland. Many years after
Vivekananda's death Rabindranath Tagore told French Nobel laureate Romain Rolland, "If you
want to know India, study Vivekananda. In him everything is positive and nothing negative".
Rolland wrote, "His words are great music, phrases in the style of Beethoven, stirring rhythms like
the march of Händel choruses. I cannot touch these sayings of his, scattered as they are through
the pages of books, at thirty years' distance, without receiving a thrill through my body like an

24
electric shock. And what shocks, what transports, must have been produced when in burning words
they issued from the lips of the hero!”
Advaita and Christianity
With this basis of Vedanta as the universal religion, he interprets Christ and Christianity in Hindu
terms. Christ is a Vedantin for Vivekananda. Buddha is the greatest character the world has ever
seen, and Christ is next only to him but both are representations of the principle of Christhood and
Buddhahood. Each of us too can attain this state of Buddha- or Christ-hood:
Jesus had our nature; he became Christ; so, can we and so must we. Christ and Buddha were the
names of a state to be attained. Jesus and Gautama were the persons to manifest it.

Thus, Jesus is unimportant, except as an instrument for the manifestation of the Christhood. But
the significance of Jesus as an incarnation of God is to be seen in three aspects:
1) he was a yogi who has realized jivanmukta. This Jesus achieved by complete self-renunciation.
In renunciation, the man within dies and only God remains thus the Vedantic goal is realized.
2) Christ was God “If I as an Oriental have to worship Jesus of Nazareth there is only one way left
for me, that is to worship him as God and nothing else.” Here the Advaitic idea of “I am God” is
clear. For, in the same breath when he acknowledged Jesus as God in the above quotation
Vivekananda continues, that he also worships all criminals and murderers and everyone else as
God!
3) Jesus realized his identity with Brahman and taught this at three different levels. To the common
people, Jesus taught, “Our Father...” To a higher circle he gave a more elevated teaching, “I am in
my Father and he in me, and I in you...” But his final and most advanced teaching was Advaitic “I
and my father are one”.
These are the three Christian Mahavakyas. It is of course easy to see all the Dvaitic,
vishishtadvaitic and Advaitic teachings.
From this it is clear that there can be no real significance of the Cross and hence of atonement.
“Christ was God incarnate; they could not kill him. That which was crucified was only a
semblance, a mirage.” We are “saved” by imitating Jesus and hosts of others like him; as noted
earlier, Vivekananda does not use Christian categories.
Again, as an Advaitin, it is impossible for Vivekananda to have any sympathy towards the
Christian concept of sin: He says,
The greatest error is to call a man a weak and miserable sinner. Every time a person thinks in this
mistaken manner, he reverts one more link in the chain of avidya that binds him, adds one more
layer of ‘self-hypnotism’ that lies heavy over his mind.

The fact that Jesus cannot be separated from Christ is the problem of Christianity. Having a circular
view of history, Vivekananda affirms that nothing happens in history only once, and therefore all
historical personalities and events are accidents for him only the principles are eternal and
universal. Close to the foregoing is another essential Advaitic element in Vivekananda’s teaching:
God cannot create anything, be it even ex nihilo, but only evolves himself. As such man is not

25
created and so cannot be identified with the essential conditions of this history. There is not much
of Vivekananda’s understanding concerning other aspects Christian faith to be learned. But the
above sample suffices to show that he stoutly interprets for the first time Christ in terms of Hindu
goals. This was a line which Radhakrishnan developed more fully in his Polemics Against
Christianity.
Theology
God and Avatar
Vivekananda gives a completely different view on God and Avatar. He does not have any problem
in accepting the incarnation of Christ, but he rejected the unique claim of Christ as the only Avatar.
Therefore, this section mainly deals with understanding on God and Avatar which serve as the
background for constructing his Christological assertions. It must be noted that Jesus is considered
alongside others and regarded as one among the many. It has been pointed out that to swami
Vivekananda the first five verses of the fourth Gospel contain whole essence of Christianity.
According to him, it is the word of God, not God Himself that manifested itself in Jesus Christ
through the power of God. This power, he observed, is what the Hindus call maya. Jesus Christ,
according to to Vivekananda, showed the way to become perfect, by showing us our true nature
which in its essence is divine. He said that to attain Moksha or mukti or release or salvation is to
become perfect, to become divine, to reach God and see God, and becoming perfect, even as the
father in heaven is perfect. He went on to say that ‘God became Christ to show man his true nature,
that we are too are God. We are human covering over the divine, but as the divine man, Christ and
we are one. The teaching that every human being is capable of attaining the divine status is
accepted by Vivekananda.
Samaj for his religious Christ
Recent research has shown that Swami Vivekananda was much more indebted to the Brahmo
awakening than is commonly realized. It is from this contact that his warm appreciation of Christ
is to be traced. It is significant that Swami Vivekananda inaugurated the Ramakrishna Mission.
Vivekananda's interpretation of Christ we note three things. First, his approach to Christ was not
that of a seeker but that of one who found satisfaction in philosophical-mystical Hinduism. Second,
he is influenced by a certain historical skepticism, due apparently to being influenced by the Christ-
myth speculation of the late nineteenth century. Third, he viewed everything at all times from the
angle of Advaita Vedanta. He said, 'the Vedanta, and Vedanta alone that can become the universal
religion of human no other is fitted for that role. He felt that 'Christianity with all its boasted
civilization. is but a collection of little bits of Indian thought? Ours is the religion of which
Buddhism, with all its greatness, is a rebel child, and. of which. Christianity is a very, patchy
imitation.
Interpretation of Christ
Vivekananda was truth seekers who studied Christianity and delivered a lecture Christ the
messenger’ in los Angles in California in 1990. His interpretation of Christ is mostly derived from
this lecture. Vivekananda is also the one who followed the Advaitic tradition. His idea of Christ is
mostly derived from his lectures in California on the title “Christ the messenger.” Before going in
depth into his interpretation of Christ, it is imperative to know on Christ what basis he builds his
knowledge about Christ. He used Vedantic principles to interpret Christ. Vivekananda selected
certain texts such as I and my father are one’ (Jon 10:30) the Kingdom of God is within you (Luk
26
17:21) and Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28) and from these he tries to drive
the Vedantic principle of the mystical identification of the individual soul and the ultimate
Brahman. His assumption is that Christ experienced absorption in the Absolute. Brahman and
similarly the same absorption can be obtained by all human being.
He maintained that the highest teaching of Jesus Christ is on the essential unity of the soul with
God. True religion is the realization of the inner divinity of man through the disciple of
renunciation. He felt that belief in a person God is on a lower level than belief in God who is
beyond personality. Theism therefore is simply a stage in man’s pilgrimage to the realization of
the essential divinity. Through ‘our father in heaven’ lies the way to ‘I and my father One’. Jesus
Christ is regarded as the great Advaitin not only because he actually realized this unity. This saying
I and My father are one’ is relatedly interpreted in the sense of non-dualistic identity and is equated
with the Mahavakyas (the great sayings) of the Upanishad: Aham Brahmasmi (I am the Brahma)
that Tat Tvam Asi.
G MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Hindustani 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was
an Indian activist who was the leader of the Indian independence movement against British
colonial rule. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and
inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.
The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: “high-souled”, “venerable”) was applied to him first in 1914 in
South Africa is now used worldwide. In India, he was also called Bapu, a term that he
preferred (Gujarati: endearment for father, papa) and Gandhi ji, and is known as the Father of the
Nation.
Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat, India, and trained in law at
the Inner Temple, London, Gandhi first employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate
lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community's struggle for civil rights. After his return
to India in 1915, he set about organizing peasants, farmers, and urban laborer’s to protest against
excessive land-tax and discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in
1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for various social causes and for achieving Swaraj or self-
rule. Gandhi led Indians in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km
(250 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942. He
was imprisoned for many years, upon many occasions, in both South Africa and India. He lived
modestly in a self-sufficient residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhoti and
shawl, woven with yarn hand-spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian food, and
also undertook long fasts as a means of both self-purification and political protest.
Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early
1940s by a new Muslim nationalism which was demanding a separate Muslim homeland carved
out of India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire
was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. As
many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence
broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Eschewing the official celebration of
independence in Delhi, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to provide solace. In the

27
months following, he undertook several fasts unto death to stop religious violence. The last of
these, undertaken on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the indirect goal of pressuring
India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan. Some Indians thought Gandhi was too
accommodating. Among them was Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist, who assassinated
Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest. Captured along with many of his
co-conspirators and collaborators, Godse and his co-conspirator Narayan Apte were tried,
convicted and executed while many of their other accomplices were given prison sentences.
Influences
Gandhi grew up in a Hindu and Jain religious atmosphere in his native Gujarat, which were his
primary influences, but he was also influenced by his personal reflections and literature of Hindu
Bhakti saints, Advaita Vedanta, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and thinkers such
as Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thoreau. At age 57 he declared himself to be Advaitist Hindu in his
religious persuasion, but added that he supported Dvaitist viewpoints and religious pluralism.
Gandhi was influenced by his devout Vaishnava Hindu mother, the regional Hindu temples
and saint tradition which co-existed with Jain tradition in Gujarat. Historian R.B. Cribb states that
Gandhi's thought evolved over time, with his early ideas becoming the core or scaffolding for his
mature philosophy. He committed himself early to truthfulness, temperance, chastity, and
vegetarianism. Gandhi's London lifestyle incorporated the values he had grown up with. When he
returned to India in 1891, his outlook was parochial and he could not make a living as a lawyer.
This challenged his belief that practicality and morality necessarily coincided. By moving in 1893
to South Africa he found a solution to this problem and developed the central concepts of his
mature philosophy.
According to Bhikhu Parekh, three books that influenced Gandhi most in South Africa
were William Salter's Ethical Religion (1889); Henry David Thoreau's On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience (1849); and Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894). Ruskin
inspired his decision to live an austere life on a commune, at first on the Phoenix Farm in Natal
and then on the Tolstoy Farm just outside Johannesburg, South Africa. The most profound
influence on Gandhi were those from Hinduism, Christianity and Jainism, states Parekh, with his
thoughts "in harmony with the classical Indian traditions, specially the Advaita or monistic
tradition". According to Indira Carr and others, Gandhi was influenced by Vaishnavism, Jainism
and Advaita Vedanta. Balkrishna Gokhale states that Gandhi was influenced by Hinduism and
Jainism, and his studies of Sermon on the Mount of Christianity, Ruskin and Tolstoy.
Additional theories of possible influences on Gandhi have been proposed. For example, in 1935,
N. A. Toothi stated that Gandhi was influenced by the reforms and teachings of
the Swaminarayan tradition of Hinduism. According to Raymond Williams, Toothi may have
overlooked the influence of the Jain community, and adds close parallels do exist in programs of
social reform in the Swaminarayan tradition and those of Gandhi, based on "nonviolence, truth-
telling, cleanliness, temperance and upliftment of the masses." Historian Howard states the culture
of Gujarat influenced Gandhi and his methods.

28
Shrimad Rajchandra
Gandhi credited Shrimad Rajchandra, a poet and Jain philosopher, as his influential counsellor.
In Modern Review, June 1930, Gandhi wrote about their first encounter in 1891 at Dr. P.J. Mehta's
residence in Bombay. Gandhi exchanged letters with Rajchandra when he was in South Africa,
referring to him as Kavi (literally, "poet"). In 1930, Gandhi wrote, "Such was the man who
captivated my heart in religious matters as no other man ever has till now." 'I have said elsewhere
that in moulding my inner life Tolstoy and Ruskin vied with Kavi. But Kavi's influence was
undoubtedly deeper if only because I had come in closest personal touch with him.' Gandhi, in his
autobiography, called Rajchandra his "guide and helper" and his "refuge in moments of spiritual
crisis". He had advised Gandhi to be patient and to study Hinduism deeply.
Religious texts
During his stay in South Africa, along with scriptures and philosophical texts of Hinduism and
other Indian religions, Gandhi read translated texts of Christianity such as the Bible, and Islam
such as the Quran. A Quaker mission in South Africa attempted to convert him to Christianity.
Gandhi joined them in their prayers and debated Christian theology with them, but refused
conversion stating he did not accept the theology therein or that Christ was the only son of God.
His comparative studies of religions and interaction with scholars, led him to respect all religions
as well as become concerned about imperfections in all of them and frequent misinterpretations.
Gandhi grew fond of Hinduism, and referred to the Bhagavad Gita as his spiritual dictionary and
greatest single influence on his life.
Gandhian Philosophy (Epistemology)
Gandhi's ways of knowing, so thoroughly demonstrated in his autobiography, is through
experiments and experiences at personal level; it is Perceptual Epistemology. Knowing, for him,
is a process gained experientially through trial and error method. Christians, for example, led him
to Christianity and Bible, which, in turn to a discovery of Christ. As he recalls: 'Even when I was,
I came in touch with good Christians in London. Before that I had come in touch with what I then
used to call 'beef and beer-bottle Christianity', for these were regarded as the indispensable criteria
of a man becoming a Christian, with also a third thing, namely, adoption of a European style of
dress…I came across good Christian there who place Bible in my hands…I have since grown to
this belief that Christianity is as good and as true a religion as my own'. As such, it is subject to
changes and revisions, making it difficult to say, with certain amount of surety, what would have
been his final conclusion and definite views on certain subjects, even if they were clearly stated.
It is prudent, therefore, to guard oneself from claiming any finality on the Gandhian thought. This
open-ness of Gandhi, however, is a blessing in disguise for the Gandhians, for they can go on
experimenting with the truth, thus, making it contemporary and contextual. There are, however, a
few views that reflect his convictions, and they can be considered as ultimate criteria of his
judgment in life and knowledge. What is arrived at with his experimentation and experience is
Truth. This truth, therefore, is the core of Gandhi's epistemology. Moreover, Truth, for Gandhi, is
absolute and ultimate criterion of everything, and he un-waveringly asserts its supremacy in no
uncertain way: 'Truth is superior to everything, and I reject what conflicts with it'. We will have to
look into it from different perspectives- epistemological, theological, philosophical, and moral, to
mention a few, in order to gain some insights into the complex mind of Gandhi.

29
In this section, we shall limit ourselves to the epistemological foundation of Gandhian
theology/philosophy of religion. Gandhi proposes three criteria upon which truth is founded, and
he sees no difficulty in examining any truth-claims made on behalf of religions. They are reason,
non-violence and faith. Reason is a criterion upon which truth of any matter has to be judged: 'And,
on matters which can be reasoned out, that which conflicts with reason must also be rejected'. Non-
Violence is another criterion of truth, as he asserts: '…that which is in conflict with nonviolence
should be rejected'. One can note that Gandhi includes an ethical principle as a criterion of truth.
This inclusion is in consistence with his understanding of Truth, which is a philosophical-ethical
principle. Faith is a surprise addition to the rational and ethical criteria of truth to give credence to
those matters, which cannot be reasoned out. This faith is transcendental and can be grasped only
through sixth sense: '…there are subjects where reason cannot take us far and we have to accept
things on faith. Faith then does not contradict reason, but transcends it. Faith is a kind of sixth
sense which works in cases which are without the purview of reason.
Hermeneutics
As a bible interpreter Gandhi differed from the Christians. First because he read it with a critical
lens and sufficiently filtered every word he read, unlike most of the Christians who took the Bible
literally. Second Gandhi not only read it critically but also read it in the Hindu context. Gandhi has
often claimed to have gained a better understanding of the Bhagvat Gita after reading scriptures
like The Holy Bible he has also said that he could relate to it better and therefore felt that he became
a better Hindu.
Critical theory of inspiration of the scriptures is the option Gandhi chooses while rejecting the
inspiration theory of the scriptures as a whole; '…I do not regard every word of the Bible as the
inspired word of God, even as I do not regard every word of the Vedas or the Quran as inspired'.
He would, rather, have it qualified: 'the sum total of each of these books is certainly inspired, but
I miss that inspiration in many of the things taken individually'. He is, thus, providing support to a
liberal and critical approach to the scriptures at a time when orthodoxy was gaining some ground
in the Indian religious scene of the time. Principle of Literalism in interpretation will be the one
Gandhi would like to stick with. Any material interpretation of the words, phrases or concepts, he
would reject, though he is not averse to figurative and metaphorical interpretation. Rejecting the
Christological title, 'only begotten Son of God' and interpreting it in his own way, he points out
that 'Metaphorically, we are all begotten sons of God, but for each of us there may be different
begotten sons of God in a special sense'. It is the application of this principle of literal
interpretation, in the context of the phrase 'only begotten son of God' that he remarks: 'That epithet,
in its material interpretation, is quite unacceptable'. Principle of Doctrinal Bias also plays an
important part in the hermeneutics of Gandhi. He however, would not mind to give allowance to
the personal doctrinal bias to certain interpretation of the scriptures. One such case is the issue of
violence and non-violence. He holds fast his faith in non-violence, which he derives from the Gita,
while acknowledging that others can find support for violence in the same Gita. The same, he
observes, may be true with the interpretations of the Bible and the Quran where one can settle the
issue either way, but he would go along with the supporters of the non-violence.
He is aware that some may still have the freedom to opt for the non-violence on the basis of their
interpretation of the scriptures; yet, he would not opt for that interpretation. On the specific of

30
prescription of violence in the Quran, he is firm on his resolve: 'But if the worst come to the worst,
and if I came to the conclusion that the Quran teaches violence, I would still reject violence…'.
Principle of Autonomy has an important role to play in Gandhi's ways of interpretation to the
scriptures. He falls back to this principle whenever he fees that there are contradictions, and
differences, in interpretation of certain scriptural texts or concepts. The principle of doctrinal bias,
which he proposes, is not helpful in settling the issue; in fact, it encourages more discords, and has
to be based on firmer rational ground. This firmer rational ground is the principle of autonomy,
and he makes it independent of scriptures. He claims that autonomy to non-violence, as he asserts:
'It is enough that my non-violence is independent of the sanction of scriptures'.
Theology
Theology of Religion
The world of plurality, of difference, of numerous shapes and forms, is a fact of life that is easily
recognized and accepted by Gandhi. The same is true with religion: 'If we search, we may find as
many religions as there are men'. There should not be any difficulty in accepting this proposition
as this is the fact of our situation and context, but difficulty arises when one happens to claim
superiority over others and absoluteness of his religion, branding others relative and false. In the
emotional and communal attachment to one's own religious tradition, one tends to forget that
'Differences in the world there have been and will be', and unnecessarily becomes judgmental.
Gandhi tries to be rational and appeals to common-sense.
It is from this pluralistic point of world-view that Gandhi looks at other religions and expresses
his reservations against those, like Christianity, who claim themselves to be the true religions: 'I
would also dispute the claim that Christianity is the only true religion. It is also a true religion, a
noble religion, and along with other religions it has contributed to raise the moral height of
mankind'. This, 'as good and true a religion as my own', as noted in the previous section, led him
to further enquiry and he, in the course of his own struggles, developed his own theology of
religion, one of whose foundation is expressed in this statement: '…there was no such thing as only
one true religion and every other false. There is no religion that is absolutely perfect. All are
equally imperfect or, more or less, perfect’. The equality of religions with respect to perfection
and imperfection, truth and falsehood is the cornerstone of his theology of religion, as he himself
asserts and explains: 'All religions are true and equal. That, however, is not to say that they are
equally true in religious terms or are absolutely true. Another man's religion is true for him, as
mine is for me. I cannot be a judge of his religion. That is my fundamental position'. It is on this
principle, and 'fundamental position', that he disputes the claim of any religion as the only true
religion, and resists the temptation of becoming a judge in the disputes. His theology of religion is
guided by three criteria: equality in truth claims, validity of one's own religion and relativity of
judgment. One can see the influence of Jain epistemology, with its insistence on principle of
relativity (Anekantavada), evolving as the criteria upon which Gandhi worked out inter-religion
relationships. Gandhi, therefore, naturally approves a belief in the relativity of Truth (God and
Truth, as we see later, are synonymous in Gandhian thought). His argument is simple: 'Hundreds
of men are merely striving to know the truth.
They will put the Truth in their own way. No two men will put it in identical terms…If I am a
seeker of Truth, it is quite sufficient for me. I cannot say that because I have seen God in this way,

31
the whole world must see Him in that way'. The relativity of religions is almost a creed for Gandhi.
Principle of relativity, as applied to religions, does not encourage the negative attitude that is
associated with the comparative study of religions as developed in some of the western theological
schools of thought. Gandhi himself was a keen student of religions, but he distastes comparative
approach that casts aspersion to one or the other religion, sits on judgment over others, and claims
superiority/ inferiority on behalf of his/other religion. Studies of religions brings forth the fact that
we lack complete historical data to rely upon in cases of religions, ancient as well as modern, apart
from the fact to find a suitable person to judge and arbitrate between the conflicting claims on
behalf of a particular religion or a particular religious personality. Doctrinal superiority that can
be a corollary to his principle of autonomy is rejected by it profounder, if so applied in the case of
religions: 'But if the worst come to the worst, and if I came to the conclusion that the Quran teaches
violence, I would still reject violence; but I would not, therefore, say that the Bible is superior to
Quran or that Mohammed is inferior to Jesus. It is not my function to judge Mohammed and Jesus'.
Scripture
Old Testament
Gandhi didn’t honor the Old Testament as he honored the New Testament; according to him the
Old Testament consisted of “blood and thunder” and propagated the doctrine of “an eye for an
eye”. He felt an unmistakable difference between the god of the Hebrews and the god of Jesus
Christ. Nevertheless, he imbibed a lot from the Old Testament as well; he read nine books in all
including, Genesis, Exodus, I Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel and Jonah. The book
of Daniel appealed to him, in particular chapter 6 where Daniel is thrown into a pit of lions because
he disobeyed the laws of the Medes and Persians and prayed thrice a day. Gandhi’s interpretation
to this verse is quite different; he sees it as the purest form of Satyagraha, a portrayal of active
resistance. Gandhi often referred to Daniel as the epitome of passive resistance, he drew immense
amount of inspiration from him.
New Testament
Bapu was however more drawn to the New Testament; he felt that one’s life would be incomplete
if one doesn’t incorporate the teachings of Jesus in his or her ways of life. He referred to Christ as
one of the greatest teacher’s humanity has seen and followed his path of righteousness.
The Gospel of Matthew: What attracted Gandhi was the Sermon on the Mount he called himself
the “Sermon on the Mount Christian” and advised people to follow it to attain true happiness and
to end misery. Both Matthew and Gandhian principles say that one who bears suffering, poverty,
renounces the materialistic world and worldly rewards, is rewarded in the kingdom of god. With
the help of Book of Matthew, the Mahatma learnt to distinguish between passive resistance and
non-violent resistance and observed that the Europeans mistook Christ’s bold resistance to be
passive resistance as he saw no passivity or weakness in Christ after reading the gospels. One will
find references in the bible where in Jesus Christ tells his disciples that fasting shouldn’t be done
to show the public but should be done to please your lord. Here Gandhi differed by publicly fasting
because it was necessary to bring about change in the then prevailing political scenario.

32
Jesus Christ
Gandhi considered Christ to be the greatest teachers of all times however there were certain things
he refused to believe. He never believed that Christ rose from the dead. According to him there
are two aspects of Christianity, perspective, refers to worship and descriptive refers to abiding by
Christ’s teachings. He claimed that the perspective aspect was ancillary to the descriptive aspect.
Interestingly, as mentioned before, he interpreted the bible and Christ’s life in the Hindu context.
Example: The Book of Matthew talks about how Jesus was put to test in the wilderness after fasting
for forty days and forty nights. The devil tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread to satiate his hunger,
and then he asks Jesus to jump off a cliff to test the word of God and also offers Jesus, wealthy
kingdoms to induce him into worshipping him. Gandhi believed that by conquering the first
temptation of hunger, one gains mastery over his senses, and in turn gains strength, which in itself
is a temptation to vanquish. Once one gains mastery over his strength then he attains siddhis, which
are miracle powers and these siddhis are considered to be the third temptation. Gandhi admired
Jesus and often related to him, one such instance would be when he began the Dandi March in
1930, where he drew a parallel between his march and the march led by Jesus in Jerusalem.
Incarnation, cross and resurrection: Incarnation brings God among human, and it is a belief that
is natural to Indian mind, as natural as Gandhi' assertion that 'he appears in many shapes and forms'.
Incarnation, thus, is the limitation wrought upon himself by God, making death, on account of
flesh body relational ship, natural to him: 'when he descends to earth, He, of His own accord, limits
Himself. Jesus died on the cross because he was limited by the flesh'. It is theologians who propose
so many theories with fancy ideas to impute their limitation to God, make him to copy humans
and bring Him into their frame of time. The moment we say that God is incarnated in this or that
historical concrete instance, the purity of God is defiled because he is now subject to the limitation
of matter, time and space. In incarnation, history, imagination and truth get so inextricably mixed
up that it is next to impossible to disentangle it. Gandhi made a distinction between the Jesus of
history and Jesus whom Christian believe: In as much as God is omnipresent, he dwells within
every human being: all may, therefore, be said to be incarnations of him. Rama and Krishna are
called the incarnations of God because we attribute divine qualities to them. In truth they are
creations of man's imagination. The truth is that God is a living force. He is the essence of life. He
is pure and undefiled consciousness. He is eternal. Gandhi maintained that there is a difference
between the name and reality of God.
According to his interpretation, Jesus, whose title was Christ, could not be experienced by a
believer. It is Christ as the name for God that could be experienced. This Christ, which is the name
or symbol for God, is closer to the conception or imagination of man than the historical, concrete
Jesus of Christianity. Gandhi interpreted the cross and resurrection in symbolic and metaphoric
language. He held that, as birth is an eternal event, so is the cross an eternal event in our stormy
life. One dare not think of birth without death on the cross. The living Christ means the living
cross. Without the cross, life is a living death: Person of Jesus is a living reality in the sense of
other prophets and teachers. They affect us because they are still living. Jesus, thus, is not living
in a special sense of the word, distinguished from others. He proposes that the claim of Christians
that Jesus lives and rules their life can be understood in this sense: ‘It is not Jesus of history who
really rules the lives of Christians; it is the Jesus of their imagination who does so. The God of my
imagination rules my life and not the God of your imagination.
33
Miracles: Unlike masses that ascribe divinity to anyone who performs miracles, Gandhi refuses
to accept 'miracles' as the criteria of divinity. They, he argues, may be illusions created by a
magician, and no one would accept anyone who is a magician as savior of the world. Miracles,
moreover, are contrary to natural laws; hence, it is irrational to accept them: 'the Laws of Nature
are changeless, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature's
laws'. The Indian religious tradition and belief, on the other hand, recognizes that humans can
have, or can attain miraculous powers through austerity, and as a gift of God. Gandhi, therefore,
has no objection in accepting Jesus a Yogi with psychic powers and the one who was filled with
the love for humanity. One can clearly see that Gandhi is taking the position of Advaitin in
propounding his theory. But he is not an 'Advaitin' of Samkara's mould.
Jesus the Christ, the Prince of all Satyagrahis
Mahatma Gandhi considered Jesus Christ as the Prince of all satyagrahis and often referred to
satyagraha as to the 'Way of the Cross'. It is in this context, one should look upon his understanding
of Jesus as Christ. Concept of truth, as it is noted, is the key to understand life and works of
Mahatma Gandhi. He has subtitled his autobiography as an experiment with truth and had tried to
live according to its dictate at whatever cost he had to pay, including the bullet of an assassin. By
truth, he meant God, and he described his religion, and his God, as Truth: 'I often described my
religion as Truth. Of late, instead of saying God is Truth, I have been saying Truth is God in order
more fully to define my religion'. This identification of Truth with God made to assert: 'to me, God
is Truth and Love, God is ethics and morality, God is fearlessness. God is the source of light and
life and yet He is beyond all these: God is conscience'. Truth is not a personal notion; it does not
have any a personal reference; it is universal, and as such, has universal reference: it is not my
truth, but is also your truth. By this identification of God of religion with the truth of philosophy
and epistemology, morality and ethics, Gandhi broke the ice with those seekers of truth who do
not wish to identify themselves with any religion of the world; with those who are agnostics,
atheists and do not wish to identify themselves with a particular and organized religion. Truth is
antithesis of asatya, Untruth, falsehood; asat means "non-existent"; and satya means "that which
is". Therefore, 'If untruth does not so much as exist, its victory is out of the question. And Truth
being "that which is" can never be destroyed'. Hence, he decided to cling to it whatever may befall
on him. This insistence upon Truth is Satyagraha. Gandhi coined the term, 'styagraha, to explain
his method of fighting injustices by soul-force. Any fight will involve violence, more so fighting
with the injustices and the structures of injustices. To rule out such a possibility, he included
'ahimsa', non-violence as the essential part of satyagraha. His ahimsa is not passive, limited to
mere abstinence from harming others in thought word and deed of their own, or through others; it
is a way of life, expressing love and concern for others, even to enemies.
Satyagraha is the force of the soul; it is the moral force of a person who is established in Truth and
loving concerns for the protection of life of others. As such, it cannot be associated with a week
and cowardice. Not killing a tiger to protect the helpless old, women and children is not ahimsa,
but to fight and kill the tiger is force of the soul; not to send an old cow to the slaughter house and
let her die of natural death is ahimsa, but to provide protection and feed is the moral force. It is
this principle that gave him a legitimate and effective weapon to use against the injust structures
of political, social and religious life of the country. Satya and Ahimsa are great principles for one
to regulate his life, but they are mere ideals if they cannot be practiced in life. One often seeks to
34
find someone who has really lived a life in perfect harmony with these principles. Mahatma found
that person in Jesus Christ, and his teachings as found in the Sermon of the Mount: ' the spirit of
the Sermon on the Mount competes, almost on equal terms, with the Bhagavad-Gita for the
domination of my heart. It is that sermon which has endeared Jesus to me. The gentle figure of
Christ, so, patient, so kind, so loving, so full of forgiveness that he taught his followers not to
retaliate when abused or struck but to turn the other cheek it was a beautiful example, I thought,
of the perfect man.'
Jesus in the words of Gandhi
My regard for the life of Jesus is indeed very great. His ethical teaching, his common sense, his
sacrifice, commands my reverence. But I do not accept the orthodox teaching that Jesus was or is
God incarnate in the accepted sense, or that he was or is the only Son of God. I do not believe in
the doctrine of appropriation of another's merit. His sacrifice is a type and an example for us. Every
one of us has to be crucified for salvation. My interpretation in other words is that Jesus' own life
is the key of his nearness to God; that he expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God.
It is in this sense that I see Him and recognize Him as the Son of God… But I do believe that
something of this spirit that Jesus exemplified in the highest measure, in the most profound human
sense, does exist an example of this flowering (of the spark of divinity in man) may be found in
the figure and in the life of Jesus. I refuse to believe that there now exists or has ever existed a
person that has not made use of this example to lessen his sin, even though he may have done so
without realizing it. The lives of all have, in some greater or lesser degree, been charged by his
presence, his actions, and the words spoken by his divine voice. And because the life of Jesus has
significance and transcendency, to which I have alluded, I believe that he belongs, not only to
Christianity, but to entire world, to all races and people; it matters little under what flag, name, or
doctrine they may work, profess a faith, or worship a god inherited from their ancestors.

B.R. AMBEDKAR
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), popularly known as Babasaheb
Ambedkar, was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer who inspired the Dalit
Buddhist movement and campaigned against social discrimination towards
the untouchables (Dalits), while also supporting the rights of women and labor. He was
independent India's first law and justice minister, the architect of the Constitution of India, and a
founding father of the Republic of India. In India and elsewhere, he was often called Babasaheb,
meaning "respected father" in Marathi and Hindi.
Ambedkar was a prolific student earning doctorates in economics from both Columbia
University and the London School of Economics and gained a reputation as a scholar for his
research in law, economics, and political science. In his early career he was an economist,
professor, and lawyer. His later life was marked by his political activities; he became involved in
campaigning and negotiations for India's independence, publishing journals, advocating political
rights and social freedom for Dalits, and contributing significantly to the establishment of the state
of India. In 1956, he converted to Buddhism initiating mass conversions of Dalits. In 1990,
the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, was posthumously conferred upon Ambedkar.
Ambedkar's legacy includes numerous memorials and depictions in popular culture.

35
Influence and legacy
Ambedkar's legacy as a socio-political reformer, had a deep effect on modern India. In post-
Independence India, his socio-political thought is respected across the political spectrum. His
initiatives have influenced various spheres of life and transformed the way India today looks at
socio-economic policies, education and affirmative action through socio-economic and legal
incentives. His reputation as a scholar led to his appointment as free India's first law minister, and
chairman of the committee for drafting the constitution. He passionately believed in individual
freedom and criticized caste society. His accusations of Hinduism as being the foundation of the
caste system made him controversial and unpopular among conventional Hindus. His conversion
to Buddhism sparked a revival in interest in Buddhist philosophy in India and abroad.
Ambedkar's political philosophy has given rise to a large number of political parties, publications
and workers' unions that remain active across India, especially in Maharashtra. His promotion of
Buddhism has rejuvenated interest in Buddhist philosophy among sections of population in India.
Mass conversion ceremonies have been organized in modern times, emulating Ambedkar's Nagpur
ceremony of 1956. Followers of the Dalit Buddhist Movement regard him as a bodhisattva,
the Maitreya, although he never claimed it himself. Outside India, during the late 1990s, some
Hungarian Romani people drew parallels between their own situation and that of the downtrodden
people in India and converted to Buddhism. Japan's Burakumin community leaders are spreading
the Ambedkar's philosophy to the Burakumin people.
For his actions towards the salvation and equality of mankind, his followers and the Indian people
started respectfully addressing him as "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar", since sometime between
September–October 1927. "Babasaheb" is a Marathi phrase which roughly translates, literally as
"Father-Sir" (baba: father; and saheb: Sir) or "Respected Father" because millions of Indians
consider him a "great liberator". Ambedkar is also known as "Bhim". This name is used for many
things like Bhim Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Bhim), Bhim Jayanti (birthday of Bhim), Jai
Bhim (victory to Bhim), Bhim Stambh (Bhim pillar), Bhim Geet (Bhim song), Bhim flag, Bhim
Army, Bhim Nagar, BHIM, Bhim Sainik (Bhim soldier), Bhim Garjana etc. Jai Bhim is a greeting
used by Ambedkarites, followers of Ambedkarism.
Statues and monument commemorating Ambedkar are widespread throughout India, as well as
existing elsewhere. Many public institutions are named in his honor, such as the Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar International Airport in Nagpur, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology,
Jalandhar, and Ambedkar University Delhi. A large official portrait of Ambedkar is on display in
the Indian Parliament building.
Philosophy
Philosophy has been explained in various ways, however, it is difficult to define it. At the most, it
may be described as the ‘synoptic view of things’ as Plato saw it long ago. Pringle Pattison wrote:
“It is an attempt to see things to keep all the main features of the world in view, and to grasp them in
their relation to one another as parts of one whole”

Philosophy explains the nature of the universe and man’s positions and prospects in it. For Karl
Marx, the main object of Philosophy is not only to explain ‘the nature of the world, but also to
change it’, and to Ambedkar, ‘Philosophy is nothing but a standard to measure the conduct of

36
man’. He also took philosophy as ‘human experience’, which studies and explains the world
process and the world-ground with regard to man, and thus, he agreed with Pattison. Pringle
Pattison when he said that
“philosophy is an analysis and interpretation of the experience in question in its bearing upon our view
of man and the world in which he lives”.

In a nutshell, philosophy is an evaluation of human conduct and experience so as to make man’s

life worth-living in the spheres of empirical nature.
Religion
Religion, too, has been explained in various ways; and like philosophy, it is difficult to define
religion. However, it may be described as “man’s faith in a power beyond himself”, or “a belief in
an Everlasting God”, who manages the affairs in the world, and gives reward or punishment to
human beings according to their acts (karmas). It is also said to be “a fantastic reflection in people’s
minds of external forces dominating over them in everyday life, a reflection in which earthly forces
assume non-earthly forms. Ambedkar took “Religion to mean the propounding of an ideal scheme
of divine governance the aim and object of which is to make the social order in which men live a
moral order”. Bettany has defined “religion broadly is man’s attitude produced on his conduct or
on his relations to fellow-men”. In brief, religion, as assumed to be emanated from ‘divine
authority’, has become a social force embedded in institutions of worship prayers, rituals and
ceremonies of sacred and infallible nature.
Philosophy of Religion
It may be asserted that philosophy of religion is neither philosophy nor is it religion or theology.
The philosophy of religion is something different from them. It involves the language which is
related to religious discussion, religious thinking, which may also be anti-religion. Philosophy of
religion is not a religious experience, nor is it connected with any faith, worship and ritualism. It
is an examination of what religion or theology stands for like the belief in the existence of God,
life beyond the empirical world, rituals and ceremonies emerged in the long process of social
development, divine authority over moral standards, infallibility of sacred book, immortality of
soul and its transmigration. Philosophy of religion is not an appendage to any religion. It is an
evaluation of religious life of a particular community in view of the existing conditions of man
and society. Philosophy of religion, in fact, involves a ‘critical reason’ with regard to the
presuppositions, ideals and practices, rituals and behavior-patterns of the existing religions. While
evaluating them, it sees human interest at large. The main subject of philosophy of religion is an
examination of the relevance of a particular religions’ social and moral norms.
Here it may be emphasized that Ambedkar took the work ‘philosophy’ in its two-fold original
sense, that is it meant teachings as it did when people spoke of the philosophy of Socrates or the
philosophy of Plato, and in another sense, it meant critical reason used in passing judgments upon
things and events. On this basis, he said,
“philosophy of Religion is to me not merely a descriptive science. I regard it as being both
descriptive as well as normative. In so far as it deals with the teachings of a Religion, philosophy
of Religion becomes a descriptive science. In so far as it involves the use of critical reason for
passing judgments on those teachings, the philosophy of religion becomes a normative science”.

37
According to Ambedkar, the philosophy of religion involves the determination of three
dimensions, the first being religion to mean theology, both of which deal with the highest meta-
physical abstractions and divine revelations. The second dimension of the philosophy of religion
is to know the ideal scheme for which a religion stands and justifies it. The third dimension of the
philosophy of religion is to adopt the criterion for judging the value of the ideal scheme of divine
governance. From time to time, a religion must be put on its trial. “By what criterion shall it be
judged?”. The criterion, for him, was some sort of revolution which took place in the field of
science, philosophy of religion. In fact, a revolution could change the authority and contents of a
relation. The revolutions of scientific nature during the Middle Ages diminished the divinity of
religion and the authority of church. There was a time when religion had covered almost the entire
field of knowledge such as Biology, Psychology, Geology and Medicine. Religion claimed
infallibility over whatever it taught. But bit by bit, the vast empire of religion was destroyed
because of religious revolution that had taken place in the history of some religions. For examples,
the Copernicas Revolution freed Astronomy from the domination of religions and the Darwinian
A religious revolution at times becomes a great blessing, for it establishes ‘freedom of thought’,
and it enables society to assume control of itself dispelling most of the fears and superstitions that
people used to face earlier. From among the revolutions of various kinds, Ambedkar considered
‘Religious Revolution’ to be the most significant and immense one, because
“that revolution touches to nature and content of ruling conceptions of the relations of God to man,
of society to man and of man to man... that it has brought about a complete transformation in the
nature of religions as it is to be taken by savage society and by civilized society although very few
seem to be aware of it”.

Revolution freed Biology and Geology from the trammels of religion. In other words, the religious
revolution results in far-reaching changes, because it is always a revolution in the norms of the
socio-moral life of the people as Ambedkar considered it to be. Now let us come exactly to the
main subject, namely: what does Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion encompass in its study and
how does it examine all that through the means of ‘critical reason’? Ambedkar’s philosophy of
religion, in my opinion, encompasses and examines the following ideas:
(i) That all religions are true and equally good; (ii) That God is an essential element of a religion;
(iii) That religion must necessarily nourish a scheme of divine governance, an ideal for society to
follow; (iv) That infallibility of religious books as divine authority must be maintained; (v) That
the sole aim of an individual’s life is the salvation of soul (Moksha); (vi) That the relation of
morality to God and religion is necessary; (vii) That the tests of justice and social utility to judge
the relevance of a religion must be applied; and (viii) That whether or not a religion should be
based on rules or principles.
Hermeneutics
In Ambedkar’s interpretation, Hindu philosophy served neither social utility nor justice for the
individual. But he began his critique of Hinduism saying that the Hindu was not prepared to face
inquiry. ‘He either argues that religion is no importance or he takes shelter behind the view fostered
by the study of comparative religion that all religions are good.’ Ambedkar said, both these views
were mistaken and untenable. Firstly, religion was a social force. Those who denied the importance

38
of religion failed to realize how great was the potency and sanction that lay behind a religious
ideal, as compared with a purely secular ideal. A religious ideal had a hold on mankind which
transcended considerations of earthly gain. This could not be said of a purely secular ideal.
Therefore, to ignore religion was to ignore a live wire. Secondly, to argue that all religions were
good was, according to Ambedkar, a false notion. Everything depended upon what social ideal a
given religion held out as a divine scheme of governance.
As far as Hinduism is concerned his whole discussion is a diatribe against its denial of the concepts
of individual dignity and justice. Quoting extensively from the Manusmriti, Ambedkar showed
that social and religious inequality were deep-rooted in Hinduism. Manu did not stop at a non-
recognition of individual human worth, he advocated a debasement of it. This, Ambedkar said,
was clear from Manu’s explanation of the origin of various castes and his condemnation of even
the innocent practice of a low-caste child being given high-sounding names. Hinduism, he said,
did not recognize human liberty, since there could be no liberty without social equality, economic
security or access to knowledge, all of which Hinduism was opposed to. Hinduism did not even
recognize fraternity though it said that the divine spirit dwelt in all human beings because fraternity
could only be born of fellow-feeling and Hinduism with its unending process of splitting social
life into smaller and smaller community-based fragments and its emphasis on a secular as well as
religious hierarchy, discouraged the emergence of fellow-feeling. He concluded his analysis saying
that on the criterion of ‘justice’ Hinduism was found wanting, in so far as it was inimical to
equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to fraternity. Thus, if Hinduism were to lay a claim
to ‘justice’, it could only be in the purely legal not moral sense. For, in the legal sense, whatever
was in conformity with law was just. In the moral sense, justice involved a recognition of human
equality. So far as Hinduism was concerned:
“Inequality is the Soul of Hinduism. The morality of Hinduism is only social. It is immoral
and inhuman to say the least.”
Ambedkar then examined whether Hinduism served the interest of utility if not of justice. Again,
he concluded in the negative. Caste in Hinduism dissociated work from interest by making
occupation hereditary. It disconnected intelligence from manual labor by denying the laborer
access to knowledge. It denied him the right to cultivate vital interests and, in the modern context,
caste obstructed the mobilization of workers. He concluded that caste was not merely a division of
labor but also of laborers.
Since Ambedkar’s discussion up to this point was based primarily on the Manu smriti, it could be
said that his conclusions were based on Hindu law rather than Hindu philosophy. Ambedkar
prompted this contention, saying that in Hinduism there was no distinction between legal and
moral philosophy. Hindu morality did not stand at the level of individual conscience, and in this
sense a Hindu was a ‘social’ but not a ‘moral’ being. He admitted that he had not discussed the
Upanishads, but argued that while the Upanishads might contain Hindu philosophy, the latter had
no link with Hindu religion. His examination was focused primarily on the philosophy of Hindu
religion. But even in Upanishadic philosophy, Ambedkar found nothing to recommend. Following
Thomas Huxley, he condemned it as a philosophy of withdrawal from the struggle for existence.
He also quoted Lala Hardayal in support of his criticism of Upanishadic philosophy.

39
The points of departure for almost all of Ambedkar’s writings on religion, philosophy or society
are the values of individual freedom, social equality and fraternity. These are the values which,
with the addition of rationality, form the core of the liberal value framework. Ambedkar subscribed
to it whole-heartedly. While, as a leader of the untouchables, he quite naturally returned again and
again to the problems surrounding the achievement of equality, his concern for individual freedom
and fraternity was equally strong. His criticism that the Hindu had no ‘conscience’ may seem
harsh, but within the context of his discussion he was making a specific point, viz., that the Hindu
was brought up more to conform to his caste practice than to face problems of individual
conscience. In his undelivered address to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore (1936), Ambedkar
had said:
“To put it in plain language, what Hindus call Religion is really Law or at best legalised class-
ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this code of ordinances, as Religion.”

He felt that it deprived moral life of freedom and spontaneity and reduce it to conformity or
externally imposed rules. He wanted such a religion to be abolished. Yet, Ambedkar said that there
was a perennial need for religion. He agreed with Edmund Burke that true religion is the foundation
of society, the basis on which all true civil government rests. Traditionally defined practice, and
conformity to it, seemed to signify righteous conduct to a Hindu. Caste, he said, mediated
simultaneously on issues of religious-moral correctness and secular justice. To that extent the
individual who conformed to his caste behavior escaped questions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
The problem however is that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ cannot be decided except with reference to a
given value framework. Ambedkar’s critique that individual freedom and equality were not the
values on which the Hindu social order was based is valid. When, therefore, one examines a given
system of deciding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the light of a different, a newer system of values, the
inadequacy of the premises on which the earlier practices were based becomes obvious. This was
in fact what had become evident to all the other social and religious reformers of the nineteenth
century, beginning with Rammohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Phule, Renade, Bhandarkar and
others. But they had limited success in their endeavors, limited primarily to the urban middle class
and among them again limited to the level of ratiocination, and not extended to practice. What
Ambedkar wanted was clear. To his audience in Lahore he had planned to say:
“Whether you do or do not [follow my suggestions for reform] you must give a new doctrinal basis
to your Religion a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short,
Democracy”.

Ambedkar felt that it was this indifference and absence of a genuine morality that often passed of
a Hindu’s capacity for tolerance. He had, in his address, listed four points which according to him
needed earnest consideration by the Hindus: 1. Hindus must decide whether or not to adopt a new
morality which would be practiced universally within the nation, because the type of morality a
nation adopted was critically important for its survival. 2. Hindus must decide what part of their
heritage was worth preserving and what part needed to be given up. The fact of its having survived
over the ages was no guarantee that a practice was healthy for society. 3. They must stop looking
upon the past as a supplier of ideas for the present. 4. They must accept that nothing is permanent,
nothing sanatan.

40
In brief Ambedkar wanted that Hindus should adopt reason based moral principles, applicable to
all segments of society, and consistent with the needs and dominant values of the present. In his
mind, justifiably, caste was equated with Hindu religion, and he considered caste not only an
anachronism but unjust and therefore unethical. To Ambedkar, religion should above all be a set
of moral principles that would sustain society. Caste did not provide these principles. In fact, it
negated them in every way. In his emphasis on the role of moral values as different from spiritual
values one sees what made Buddhism a natural choice for him at a later stage.
It may be argued that the picture that Ambedkar painted of a morally insensitive, rule-bound,
stultified Hindu society was an exaggeration, and that through the dialogues in the Upanishads,
the tales of the epics, the teachings of saints, the values attached to truthfulness, kindliness and fair
play which were considered essential for one’s spiritual progress through successive births,
Hinduism did seek to keep alive a native and spontaneous sense of morality. Brought up as he was
on the teachings of Kabir, Ambedkar might not have totally denied this, but his point was that even
the practice of morality was caste bound. The individual accepted the obligation to abide by these
universal moral norms only for interaction within his caste, but not equally between castes. In fact,
he quotes chapter and verse from the scriptures to show how the acceptance of moral, as different
from legal, obligation was often limited to caste strata which led to the fragmentation of society.
Hindu society was an amalgam of castes, which stood in a hierarchical relationship to one another
and did not really form a unified, and cohesive society.
Ambedkar was not against the existence of groups in society, but he was against the exclusivism
of groups. A society is not to be condemned as a body because there are groups in it. It is to be
condemned if the groups are isolated, each leading an exclusive life of its own. Because it is this
isolation which produces the antisocial spirit which makes co-operative effort so impossible of
achievement. Ambedkar held Brahmanism responsible for this state of Hindu society, and since
according to him Hinduism was but Brahmanism, he found little that was defensible or
praiseworthy in it. As Rege points out, Ambedkar was more radical than earlier reformers. Instead
of seeking to reform Hinduism, he rejected it. Rege argues that Ambedkar rejected ‘religion’ itself
and sought to replace it by Dhamma. He explains ‘Dhamma is morality conceived as sacred and
universal’. In this sense, Ambedkar’s concept of morality was different from morality as preached
in most religions. Ambedkar considered such a universal morality scared, in the sense of being
inviolable.
For Ambedkar, religion came to have a specific meaning. In a speech delivered in Bombay (1955)
on the foundation of Buddhism, he said that which promises equal opportunity to all is the true
religion. The rest are all false religions.’ Later, in the same lecture, he quoted Buddha’s advice to
his followers. After me religion itself will be your law-giver. If you do not observe religion what
use of is it? Religion accepted in the purity of mind will be your law.’ For Ambedkar, religion had
significance only in so far as it helped to establish a moral order characterized by equality, freedom
and fraternity. And he was categorical that Buddhism alone could create a climate favorable to
Human equality. On the issue of a belief in the transcendental, it would appear that there was
possibly a certain change in Ambedkar’s thinking between the 1930s and the 1950s. In a speech
delivered on 4 March, 1933 in Bombay, he had said to his audience,

41
 “You have no reason to worry about whether or not there is a God in this world. On the other hand,
it is certain that all events that transpire are the result of human action.

When he used the word ‘spiritual’ as he did in his 1936 speech at the Mahar conference, he was
not referring to any transcendental experience or transcendental reality. He said that just as there
were material reasons for his wanting to convert out of Hinduism, there were also ‘spiritual’
reasons. The spiritual reason that he gave were his dissatisfaction with the kind of society that
Hindu religion sustained. It was not a religion that helped an individual seek the growth of his
potential. He also spoke of the fact that Hinduism did not teach one compassion, equality among
human beings or respect for individual freedom. While Ambedkar rejected Hinduism, it would not
be true to say that he rejected religion itself. In fact, in his essay on the philosophy of Hinduism,
he insisted:
“Religion is a social force. As I have pointed out religion stands for a scheme of divine governance.
The scheme becomes an ideal for society to follow. The ideal may be non-existent in the sense that
it is something which is constructed. But although non-existent, it is real. For an ideal it has full
operative force which is inherent in every ideal. Those who deny the importance of religion not
only forget this, they also forget to realize how great is the potency and sanction that lies behind a
religious ideal as compared with that of a purely secular ideal.... A religious ideal has a hold on
mankind, irrespective of an earthly gain.

This can never be said of a purely secular ideal.... A religious ideal never fails to work so long as
there is faith in that ideal....” This underlines simultaneously the significance that Ambedkar
attached to a religion-inspired moral order and in the context of his rejection of Hinduism the
legitimacy of his desire to belong to a religion that incorporated the moral values that he cherished.
Theology
Theology is not religion as such, but a subject which signifies “a discourse or doctrine concerning
divine things”. “It is now generally understood to mean the system of doctrines which concern the
person, attributes and works of God”. It is, however, related to religion as Ambedkar saw it.
Although there are different kinds of theology such as mythical theology, civil theology, natural
theology, revealed theology; yet in Ambedkar’s view, theology stands for three fundamental ideas,
namely: (i) “The existence of God; (ii) God’s providential government of the universe; and (iii)
God’s moral government of mankind”
Religion
Are All the Religions True and Equally Good?
The idea that all religions are true and equally good and there was an essential unity among them,
was expounded by orthodox philosophers like Bhagwan Dass, an author of the Essential Unity of
all Religions. But to Ambedkar, it was positively and demonstratively a wrong belief. The study
of comparative religions had broken the claim and arrogance of revealed religions as being the
only true and good religions. He observed:
“While it is true that comparative religion had abrogated the capricious distinction between true
and false religions based on purely arbitrary and a prior consideration, it has brought in its wake
some false notions about religion. The harmful one, is the one I have mentioned, namely, that all
religions are equally good and that there is no necessity of discriminating between them. Nothing

42
 can be a greater error than this religion is an institution or an influence like all social influences and
institutions it may help or it may harm a society which is in its grip.”

This view may well be supported by the results each religion has produced in its social and national
life. A religion can form or disrupt nations, create inhuman institutions and barbarous customs,
cause wars, prosecutions, rebellions and revolutions; but it can also bring freedom, peace and
happiness to millions of people. A religion may be foe to progress, science and art; but also, a
friend to innovation and good civilization or cultural heritage. All this can be testified after reading
the histories of world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity as to what extent
they have done good or harm to the mankind. One may agree or not with what Bertrand Russel
had observed:
“All religions are not only untrue but also harmful”; yet there is some iota of fact in this assertion.

According to Ambedkar, religions could produce strange contradictory results. How can, then,
they be true and equally good? Every religion has given its own divine scheme of social
governance and moral ideals which have produced different models of conduct. The study of
comparative religion has not given any heed to this aspect of religions. Moreover, all religions are
not theistic; some are non-theistic; and with regard to the nature of soul, God, worship, prayer,
rituals and ceremonies, there are basic differences between religions. Although religions are many;
but to say they are equally true and good, is the most pernicious idea, and that is why Ambedkar
did not entertain it in his philosophy of religion.
Theistic Concept of God
It is generally held by theistic religions that God is an essential element of a religion; but to
Ambedkar, it is not. In his view, the religion of the savage society had no idea of God, in the savage
society there was religion without God. How, then, God became fused in religion? He observed:
“It may be that the idea of God had its origin in the worship of the Great man in society, the Hero giving
rise to theism with its faith in its living God. It may be that the idea of God came into existence as result
of the purely philosophical speculation upon the problem as to who created life giving rise to Deism
with its God as Architect of the Universe. In any case, the idea of God is not integral to Religion.”

A religious revolution is of two kinds internal and external. The internal religious revolution brings
some changes in religion itself; but the external religious revolution is not really a religious
revolution. It is, in fact, a revolution in science against the extraterritorial jurisdiction assumed by
religion over a field which did not belong to it. However, the revolutions like the French
Revolution and the Russian Revolution alter, amend and reconstitute the scheme of ‘divine
governance’. The internal religious revolution from time to time brings some fundamental changes
in the structural and functional areas of religions. Ambedkar declared:
“By this Revolution God has ceased to be a member of a community... man has ceased to be a blind
worshipper of God doing nothing but obeying his commands... By this Revolution God has ceased to
be the mere protector of Society and social interests in gross have ceased to be the center of the divine
order. Society and man have changed places as centers of this divine order. It is man who has become
the center of it.”

43
The religious revolutions as brought about by Mahavira and Buddha influenced people’s minds
far and wide in India and elsewhere, and it was emphasized that the belief in Ishwara (God) was
not essentially an integral part of their religion. Ambedkar took this view as true in the form of the
Buddha’s Dhamma, because nobody had seen God, God was unknown, a mere metaphysical
speculation. Nobody could prove that God had created the Universe, though it was generally held
to be true. The Universe had evolved, and was not created by any God or Cosmic Being. The belief
in God had only ended in creating superstitions and therefore, for Ambedkar, a religion, if based
on God, was not worth-having for man
Divine Scheme of Social Governance
A religion generally prescribes a divine scheme of social governance as we find in Vedic religion
or what it was later on called as Hinduism. It gave us the divine social order in the form of Varna-
Vyavastha consisting of four major Castes the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the
Shudras. It was created by Prajapati, God of the world, for the well-being of mankind. Such a
scheme became an ideal for society to follow. Although it was non-existent, yet it was real,
divinely ordained as claimed by the so-called sacred books of Hinduism. Ambedkar did not accept
the divine social governance under the Chaturya-Varna, because in it, there was no choice of free
avocation, no economic independence and no economic security. It had developed a hierarchical
order of different castes resulting in inequalities of severe nature. In fact, this order devitalized
men, particularly the Shudras. It was a process of sterilization. It denied wealth, education and
arms to its people. It did not fulfil the test of social utility. This divine social governance dissected
society in fragments, dissociated work from interest, disconnected intelligence from labor,
expropriated the rights of man to interests vital to life. It also prevented society from mobilizing
resources for common action in the hour of danger. Can it satisfy the test of social utility? asked
Ambedkar. No, not at all. Therefore, he rejected the divine social order (Chaturya-Varna) on the
basis of its denial of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The idea of infallibility of religious texts as the source of divine authority was also rejected by
Ambedkar on the ground that it prevented people from using the method of free inquiry and
examination of the efficacy of religious beliefs and practices. When Ambedkar saw that the Hindus
under the sanctions of Varna System hesitated in matters of inter-dining and inter-caste marriages,
he found its main reason in the infallibility of the Hindu Shastras. For the Shastras prescribed such
rules as to prevent the Hindus from inter-dining and inter-caste marriages. The people were afraid
of divine wrath if they tried to override the divinity and sanctity of the Shastras. The infallibility
of the Shastras did not permit the use of critical reason in social matters. Therefore, Ambedkar
emphasized.
“The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras...... Make every man and woman
free from the thralldom of the Shastras, cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on the
Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and intermarry....”

In other words, for Ambedkar, nothing was infallible, and everything must be subject to
examination or to critical reason, even the Vedas on the point of authority and divinity were not
final to him. It was really a riddle how the Vedas or the Hindu Shastras were considered and
declared to be ‘Infallible.’

44
The Salvation of the Soul
It is generally accepted in theistic religions like Hinduism that the sole aim of an individual’s life
is to attain Moksha, i.e., the salvation of the soul. Did Ambedkar believe in this thesis? No, he did
not believe in it, because, as Buddhist, he ruled out the existence of any ‘Eternal Soul’, the main
doctrine of Hinduism. The idea is that the eternal soul goes from life to life because of its Karmas.
The soul transmigrates from one birth to another till attains Moksha. The triangular theory of soul,
Karma and transmigration, has become the main thesis of Hinduism. Ambedkar did not accept this
view, because he believed in the theory of ‘anatta’ (no Soul) of Buddhism. Everything is
impermanent. How can there be permanent soul then? Moreover, the Hindu idea of soul is based
on the retributive theory of Karma, which he rejected as an iniquitous doctrine.
The only purpose of the Retributive Theory of Karma as propounded by the Hindu Shastras was
to enable the state or the society to escape responsibility for the bad condition of the poor and the
lowly. How could Ambedkar believe in such an inhuman and absurd doctrine while having faith
in the test of justice for religion? Ambedkar rejected the metaphysical entities like soul and its
transmigration. Agreeing with the Buddhist analysis, Ambedkar believed in human mind which is
quite different from the soul. Mind functions but soul does not function. The belief in eternal soul
is unprofitable, and it only ends in creating superstitions. The entire structure of Brahmani religion
is based on Atman, which Ambedkar rejected as unknown and unseen. The belief in the permanent
soul did not satisfy the intellect of Ambedkar. Since, for him, God is not an essential element of a
religion, so is the case with the soul. Therefore, the question did not arise that an individual’s aim
of life must be to seek the salvation of soul through the grace of God, as some Indian philosophers
like Ramanujam and others thought.
Relation of Morality to God and Religion
With regard to the relation of morality to God and religion, Ambedkar had his own view, and he
did not agree with the idea that morality was an outcome of the belief in God or it was an integral
part of religion. According to him, though the relation between God and morality was not quite
integral, the relation between religion and morality was as a matter of truth; morality has no place
in religion, because today religion in general has come to connect nothing but belief in God, belief
in soul, worship of God, curing of erring soul, propitiating God by prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices
etc. In fact, morality in theistic religions is not effective, for the main things in them are the prayers,
worship, rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices. From another viewpoint, as Ambedkar observed:
“Both religion and morality are connected with the same elemental facts of human existence namely
life, death, birth and marriage. Religion concentrates these life process while morality furnishes rules
for their preservation. Religion in consecrating the elemental facts and processes of life came to
consecrate also the rules laid down by society for their preservation. Looked at from this point, it is
easily explained why the bond between Religion and Morality took place. It was more intimate and
more natural than the bond between Religion and God.”

In Ambedkar’s view, morality comes in the only wherein man comes in relation to man, and if a
religion does not believe in the existence of God, morality takes its place as we see in the Buddha’s
Dhamma. In Dhamma, there is no place for prayers pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices.
Morality is the essence of Dhamma. Without it, there is no Dhamma. Morality in Dhamma arises
from the direct necessity for man to love man. It does not require the sanction of God. It is not to
please God that man has to be moral. It is for his own good that man has to love man. It is evident
45
that Ambedkar linked no-theistic religion like Buddhism with morality as an integral part of it. In
his view, every theistic religion preaches morality; but morality is not the root of it. It only teaches
to be good to your neighbor, because you are both children of God or the men of Allah or Ishwara.
IV. Theological and Praxiological Expressions of Hindu Converts
BRAHMABANDHAV UPADHYAYA
He was born in Khanyan, a small village in the district of Hooghly in southern Bengal on 11
February 1861. He received his education in institutions such as Scottish Mission School, Hooghly
Collegiate School, Metropolitan Institution (now Vidyasagar College), and the General
Assembly's Institution (now Scottish Church College in Calcutta. In the General Assembly's
Institution, his classmate was Narendranath Dutta, the future Swami Vivekananda.
When he was in the high school, Upadhyay became inclined towards the Indian nationalist
movement for freedom, and during his college education, he plunged into the freedom movement.
It is regrettable that despite his active participation in the freedom struggle Upadhyay has not been
given the due recognition that he deserves. His biographer, Julius Lipner, says that Upadhyay
"made a significant contribution to the shaping of the new India whose identity began to emerge
from the first half of the nineteenth century". He was contemporary to and friend of the
poet Rabindranath Tagore and Vivekananda. According to Lipner, “Vivekananda lit the sacrificial
flame or revolution, Brahmabandhab in fueling it, safeguarded and fanned the sacrifice.
Theological Method
Before going on to study in detail Brahmabandhav’s theology it is necessary here to analyze two
aspects of his methodology.
a) As it comes clearly in his biography, his whole theological thinking was motivated by his very
genuine concern for indigenous expression of Christian faith and life, as Russell Chandran
properly evaluates. Chandran says that there are four aspects in which this indigenization comes
to the fore: (1) Integration of the social structure of India into Christian way of life; (2) The
establishment of an Indian Christian monastic order; (3) The employment of Vedanta for the
expression of Christian theology; and (4) The recognition of the Vedas as the Indian Old
Testament. Scholars are divided as to whether Brahmabandhav took to the Vedas or the Vedantic
philosophy but that need not stop us at this juncture.
b) Brahmabandhav also had a very concrete method as how this indigenization of Christian
message in India should take place.
He says it is a three-fold task:
First to eradicate from the minds of the Indian people the erroneous and mischievous doctrines
(pantheism and transmigration); Secondly, to lay the basis of Theism by the help of the Vedas; and
Thirdly, to build Christianity on that foundation.

Thus, the discussion concerning ‘pre-understanding’ and ‘indigenization’ which are now
occupying the efforts of the theologians seem to be anticipated by Brahmabandhav by several
decades. And obviously these two aspects of his approach also show us what kind of content his
theology has.
46
Theology
Christianity And Other Religions
Unquestionably, Brahmabandhav’s basis for all his thinking is the distinction made by the
medieval theologian, Thomas Aquinas, between nature and supernature (or grace). Very
paradoxically, though he builds all his theological thought on this Roman Catholic basis, yet he
rejects it in order to replace it by the Vedantic type of thinking. By now we should be able to say
why this contradiction arises. The credit of applying Thomism (the theology of Thomas Aquinas)
to Indian interpretation must go to Brahmabandhav not even did de Nobili do this. Why does he
do so? His understanding of Protestant missionaries was that they approached Hinduism primarily
to find fault with the Hindu thinking, hoping that by this demolition of Hinduism Hindus will be
converted to Christ. He felt this was too negative an attitude towards Hinduism. On the other hand,
Catholicism, with its distinction between nature and super nature, gave room for natural theology
built on human reason on which the supernatural.
grace or the theology of revelation can be built. This was definitely a more positive attitude towards
to Hinduism, and appealed to the nationalistic spirit of the time. Hence, he describes the basis of
the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity as follows:
“It is on account of the close connection between the natural and the supernatural that we have
taken ourselves the task of expounding the Hindu scripture systematically and of fishing out the
theistic truths from the deluge of pantheism, idolatry and anthropomorphism and thus glorify him
who enlightens every man who cometh into the world.”

He is also clear as to the implications of this principle: The light which lighted every man who
cometh into the world (Justin Martyr’s logos spermatikos) is brightest in the thought of the Vedas
perhaps with the possible exception of ancient Greece. Thus, it is the pure Hinduism of the Vedas
which is the nearest to the gospels, but the later Hinduism has been polluted by two developments,
the doctrine of reincarnation and transmigration on the one hand, and the Advaita philosophy on
the other. Further he says,
we consider these two doctrines the two greatest enemies of mankind . . . we accept as our own the
primitive Theistic truth taught in her shastras.

It is for this reason that Brahmabandhav attacks the Advaitic philosophies of Arya Samaj and
Brahmo Samaj, who accept these two dangerous doctrines in one form or another. Thus, his main
aim was to lead Hinduism back to its original form and thereby pave the way for the Christian
faith, as Baago affirms:
(i) Not only is Hinduism not perfect but even Christianity is not perfect. Thanks to the
Logos Spermatikos idea, he finds that Christianity can come to its fullness only in
contact with the natural theologies around the world, and especially the pure
Vedantic Hinduism. “The development of the Christian religion has not come to an
end. It will grow, blossom and fructify till the end of time”.
(ii) He also finds it is rather the western form of Christianity which is misleading and
ought to be got rid of.

47
Thus, following the Thomistic distinction Brahmabandhav says that Christianity should not come
as the destroyer of Hinduism, but as it is fulfillment. “The primitive (Hinduism) and the new
(Christianity) are linked together as root trunk base and structure, as outline and filling.” Since
root is a first and then is the trunk, foundation is first and then the superstructure so also nature is
first and super nature is later. Brahmabandhav strives to make Hinduism the foundation on which
the superstructure of Christianity can be built. This is what he calls Vedic Christian theology.
It is also in this connection that Brahmabandhav dwelt on the parallels between the Old Testament
and the Vedas. But since the Vedas contain the Old Testament understanding of God and nature
only spasmodically here and there, he was not really able to build successfully an adequate Vedic
Christian Theology. Perhaps this is the reason why Brahmabandhav shifted his emphasis. This
does not mean that he rejected the Vedas but simply for the sake of the clarity he resorted to
Vedanta, which can be linked to the Old Testament. Kaj Baago’s comment that in 1898 there was
a decisive turning point in Brahmabandhav, in his shift from the Vedas to Vedanta, must therefore
be qualified.
The main obstacle for Brahmabandhav in accepting Shankara’s Vedanta was the latter’s
interpretation of Maya to mean that it is unreal. But later he interpreted maya to mean not illusion
or unreal existence but a dependent existence that all things created are depending on God. Then
he was ready to accept the Vedanta as his foundation for Christianity. Before we leave his theology
of religions one more aspect must be noted. It was again Brahmabandhav who was the first to
differentiate between Hinduism as culture and Christianity as religion. In his own words:
By birth we are Hindus and shall remain Hindus till death, but as dwija (twice born), by virtue of
our sacramental rebirth, we are Catholics, we are members of the indefectible communion
embracing all ages and climes.

That means: in customs, manners and social relationships we are Hindus, in our faith we are not
Hindus but universal or catholic. To quote him once again: Our dharma has two branches samaj
dharma and sadhana dharma. Our Hinduism is preserved by the strength of samaj dharma while
the sadhana dharma is of the individual. Its object is sadhana and mukti (salvation). Boyd
penetratingly observes here that Brahmabandhav is advocating that Christians accept cultural
Hinduism without accepting it as a religion. Or in other words, just as earlier Christianity was
married to Greek culture, the Indian Christianity must be married to Hindu culture. That is what is
meant by Christian Hindu. This is the reason why Brahmabandhav is called the Indian Clement,
since he understands Hinduism as a tutor to Christ as Clement of Alexandria understood Greek
philosophy as a tutor to Christ. This brings us to his Christology.
God and Christ
Once Brahmabandhav understands Maya to mean dependent existence or second reality, he is at
pains to portray the God whom Christians worship to be beyond this level of Maya. Otherwise
such a God would not appeal to Him and specially the Vedantins. So, for him God is not Ishwara
but the very highest Brahman or Para Brahman not Saguna Brahman as some have tried to
understand. Brahmabandhav is keen to understand god as Nirguna Brahman. Here Boyd’s apt
phrase that Brahmabandhav “gives nothing but the highest honour” summarizes his Christology

48
beautifully. In fact, he calls himself not just a ‘theophilus’ but in his thinking, even higher than
that ‘Brahmabandhav’.
But if Christians should understand God as Nirguna Brahman, i.e. attribute less, relation less and
impersonal, then should they also call God neti neti (not this not that, i.e., agnostic)? Does not then
God become, as in the case of Shankara’s Vedanta, unknowable? We find that Brahmabandhav
reconciles this contradiction by resorting to K.C. Sen’s concept of God as saccidananda. If
Shankara, in spite of belonging to natural theology, found it necessary to understand Nirguna
Brahman as saccidananda, then Brahmabandhav contends, how much more can a Christian
understanding of saccidananda show the true nature of God. Therefore, Brahmabandhav’s concept
of God is basically Trinitarian. He knows that this is a mystery, which can be known only through
the revelation in Christ.5 Two key concepts helped Brahmabandhav overcome this contradiction.
One is the understanding of Christ as cit, or the revelation of God’s inner being. As cit Christ’s
uniqueness lies in “his unfolding the mystery of God’s inner life”. This is also Christ’s claim to
His divinity. Here Brahmabandhav also gives his understanding of atonement and sin. For him sin
is the bondage which cannot be undone by Karma, because it is alienation from God.
By choosing the finite (anatma) as our goal we incur spiritual death and darken our understanding
. . . sin leads to bondage and darkness from which there can be no escape, not withstanding the
hardest struggle on our part. Thus, the only way we can find salvation is God compassionately
accepting upon himself sorrow and suffering for our transgressions.

Another concept is that of Maya. For Brahmabandhav Maya is not a quality of being dependent, it
is also a divine overflow of energy which results in the existence of creatures.
Maya is a mysterious divine operation. It is neither real nor unreal. We cannot explain how the
phenomenal multiplicity results from the immutable unity, how being is communicated to the finite
. . . Maya is neither real nor necessary nor unreal but contingent. By it non-being (asat) is made
being (sat) . . . by it that which is nothingness by itself filled with the riches of being.

Here Brahmabandhav resorts to Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of creatio passiva (passive

creation) and equates that with Maya. Thus, Maya is defined as the habitude of having being. Here
Brahmabandhav is philosophical as both Thomas and the Hindus. The point to note here is this: In
Vedanta ultimately, there are no individuals. For Brahmabandhav individuals do not exist, of
course, by necessity, but God has given each soul eternally existing state. And it is through the
power of Maya that these souls are kept from dwindling into nothingness. Thus, Brahmabandhav
comes to the conclusion that therefore the spirit of man will not merge with the divine in such a
way that his individuality is lost, but to know God and to like him. It is a communion and not a
union. We have already seen that Brahmabandhav does not use the term Avatara for Christ. This
is deliberate. For him Avatara of the Hindu deities is qualitatively different from the incarnation
of Christ. His details are interesting. He holds that the human is, according to Vedanta, composed
of five sheaths: animate, vital, mental, intellectual to spiritual. While in human beings these five
sheaths are controlled by personality (aham), in the incarnate Son they are activated by the Logos
or the cit of the Trinity.
Hence, they are very different from the Avataras, of the Hindu puranas. For this reason, Upadhyaya
calls Christ often as narahari (nara = man, hari is the proper name for Vishnu) God-Man. Many

49
Christians took offense at his use of Krishna’s name for Christ. His pen name is also Narahari Das
(the slave of Narahari, the slave of Christ). Following Sen, Brahmabandhav also rejects the lie of
Christian Avatarism, for incarnation is far higher than the Avatara of Hindus. Why then did
Brahmabandhav advocate the worship of Hindu deities such as Saraswati and Krishna? Scholars
give a two-fold answer: one, being caught up in the nationalistic spirit of the Indian freedom
movement, it was necessary for him to appeal to the Hindu heritage; secondly, having assured
Christ’s uniqueness by calling him Brahman, he does not see any harm being done in calling other
deities at a lower level of Avatara or ishwara. For him therefore these deities are just historical
figures or moral leaders but not to the level of Christ. In any case, such a position of worship of
Gods by Brahmabandhav is a very dangerous one.
The Church and Indigenization
As we have seen, Brahmabandhav was disillusioned by the church structures. [Boyd mentions that
he even encouraged others on occasions to use the Church in the court]. But he did recognize the
need for a visible organized institution for the regular ministry of the Word and the sacraments.
Yet towards his mature age, because of his almost entire involvement in politics, he seems to have
abandoned the church. Also, because he died suddenly, he was cremated by the Hindus and not by
the church. To some this means that he died a Hindu.
But he was quite strong in condemning the Europeanness of the Indian Church. He was right in
saying that the Hindu brethren cannot see the subtlety and sanctity of Christian religion because
of the cloak of Europeanism, of trousers and hat, spoon and fork, meat and wine. So, he says an
Indian can be both Hindu and Christian at the same time. This understanding led Brahmabandhav
also to found what he called a Hindu Catholic Sanyas Ashram. Of course, such attempt was
preceded by De Nobili and followed by Sunder Singh. In all this Brahmabandhav was far ahead
of his time. Perhaps more than any other Indian thinker he raised the credibility of the Christian
message before the Indian philosophy to its highest level.
NEHEMIAH GOREH
Like Narayan Vaman Tilak and Pandita Ramabai, Goreh was of Chitpavan Konkanasth Brahman
descent, a very aggressive, fanatically orthodox Hindu background. He was born in Kasipura (near
Jhansi), but went in his early childhood to Benares studying Sanskrit and Hindu philosophy. As
such, he naturally learnt to despise Christianity, because for Chitpavans Christianity was the
religion of the Mlechchhas (pagans). He read extensively works written against Christianity, and
engaged in heated arguments with missionaries. He got hold of the Bible and began to read it. As
he came to the Sermon on the Mount, he exclaimed, who is this teacher who speaks in this manner?
No mere man, however holy, can preach this sort of sermon. Surely the author must be divine!
This was his turning point. After a few discussions with the missionary William Smith, and with
his own relatives (giving them a last chance to argue him out of his new-found faith), he finally
took baptism in 1848 with the name Nehemiah instead of Nilakanth. He was commonly known as
father Goreh, after his ordination into the Anglican ministry. His first wife of childhood marriage
had already died, so he married a second time. His daughter was the well-known hymn writer,
Lakshmi Goreh, the author of “In the secret of his presence how my soul delights to hide”. Both
his family and he had to suffer persecution on account of Christian

50
faith the wife being drugged and kidnapped. Eventually she died after receiving baptism by her
husband. He visited England twice (1854 & 76), as the pundit for Maharaja Dulip Singh, and met
queen Victoria II. This Indian apologist of the Christian faith was very welcome there and on his
return from the first trip he was ordained as a priest and worked in Indore, Panchoudh, Mhow,
Chanda, Bombay and Pandarapur. Later he settled down in Pune, a stronghold of aggressive
Hindus, in order to witness to them about Christ. In 1876 he was accepted as a novice of the Society
of St. John the evangelist, also called the Gowley Fathers. He remained a novice till his death in
1895. Father Goreh led many significant personalities to Christ including the Ranthonji Navaroji
of the CMS of Aurangabad, Khasim Bhai of Satara, Shahu Daji Kukade and others. But the most
prominent was Pandita Ramabai. At a time when she had decided to reject Christianity, there came
an unexpected letter from father Goreh, which seems to have answered the queries of Ramabai at
the time and so accepted Christ on that basis. Later on, she writes that none else could have caused
to change her mind except father Goreh.
Religion, new trends and theology
Goreh’ thought can be summarized as Church-in-witness-and-defense theology. His primary
mission was to give an apologetic against reformed Hinduism such as Brahmo Samaj and
Prarthana Samaj, though not the militant Arya Samaj. Thus, Goreh comes in direct confrontation
with Max Muller, the liberal orientalist who was infatuated with anything Hindu.
In his apologetic Goreh finds the doctrine of creation ex nihilo as the most important for theology.
In all the Hindu philosophies, the world has both existed from the eternity as well it has an ultimate
material cause. As such none of them really understands Brahman or God as omnipotent; only the
biblical account of creation out of noting makes God totally sovereign. If the world is an illusion,
then God’s power and authority are less real! The final reference of Hindu system is a dilemma: if
only Brahman is real, then to make the world of false and illusion and at the same time to say the
world is Brahman is a logical inconsistency. Therefore, it must be rejected by thinking persons.
Goreh’s rigorous logic is also applied to the concept of Brahman: the Nirguna-Brahman, as he/it
is quality less, it is in fact Zero! (Saguna Brahman, being a part of world of maya, is in any case
no more than nothing, illusion). Brahman is unknowable, because he is not! But as for the personal
God of the Bible, being the world’s creator, support and end, nothing higher than him is
imaginable. Goreh’s logical method is best illustrated in his dealing with the vedantic assertion
that Atman is Brahman.
Goreh’s own answer to Hindu anthropology is a biblical one: Man (sic) is only a part of God but
also of maya. More than any other thinker he emphasized the Fall and the fact of sin with utmost
seriousness. He approves that “the frightful nature of sin deserves a punishment whose severity is
beyond the reach of conception.” But such punishments are not just for good but primarily to
satisfy the justice of God – it is God’s due. Sin is a positive evil force not just privative good. The
Hindu concept of karma making both virtue and vice lead to bondage lacks such serious
understanding of sin. For Goreh, sin is serious but it is on this account that he turned to Christianity.
His idea of salvation is also impeccably orthodox. For him salvation from this terrible power of
sin over man from wrath to come is purely by God’s grace through Christ’s atoning death,
appropriated by faith. Christ as a lamb of God was sacrificed once for all for our sake, as a penal

51
substitution in our place. It is through the death of Christ that we are made partakers of God’s
nature as Church – and not like Vedantic identification of Atman with Brahman. He dares to ask
whether such identification was really a misunderstanding, though preparatio evangelica. This
brings to us another vital theme Goreh dealt in his writings the relation of Hinduism with
Christianity. Though Goreh attacked Hindu philosophy mercilessly, like all eminent Indian
thinkers he too was wholly indigenous in his approach and in content. He rejected western lifestyle
in all its varieties. “The western trappings of the church repelled him”. He felt himself wholly
Indian, and believed that in a hidden manner God is preparing them through Hinduism to respond
positively to Christ.
He finds this preparatio evangelica in the Gita’s teaching of Ananyabhakti(undivided
devotion), Vairagya (renunciation of the world), Namratha (humility),Kshma (forgiveness) and
the like. On the higher level, incarnation (as avatara) miracles are also a foreshadowing of the
Christian gospel. Anticipating Farquhar, Goreh says that Christ is the fulfillment of Hindu
longings; this is the divine light which was to light every man who cometh into the world, namely,
the light of reason and logic. To logic he turned heavily in his defense of the gospel.
The Intra- and Inter-Religious Conversions of Nehemiah Nilakantha Goreh
The life of Nilakantha Goreh contains a wealth of inter-religious and cross-cultural encounters, yet
surprisingly little has been written about him. Goreh (1825-1895) was a tra1iitionally educated
Chitpavan Brahmin, growing up outside the pale of British education and British-influenced Hindu
reform movements. His name is best known now for how his initially staunch and public
opposition to Christianity slowly gave way until he finally was baptized in 1848. What little
scholarship there is on Goreh has tended to either focus on or view his whole life in light of his
inter-religious conversion. Although Goreh's interreligious conversion was undeniably crucial and
worthy of attention, it was neither an isolated, aoristic incident in his life nor a dramatic life-climax
followed by forty years of denouement. Attending narrowly to his inter-religious conversion risks
highlighting only disjunction in the event and neglecting continuities that ran throughout his life.
This essay attempts to redress this neglect by proposing a more holistic view of Goreh's religious
life. I also hope this discussion might lift up Goreh further as a fascinating figure in the history of
Hindu Christian encounter who merits, further attention. Three trends arise consistently in the
course of Goreh's religious life: 1) obsession with locating religious orthodoxy, 2) spiritual
restlessness and doubt, and 3) a sense of "holiness" or ascetic saintliness. These three trends
connected and clarify the important religious changes in Goreh's life. In recognizing these trends,
one can better appreciate the motivations that provoked Goreh's institutional itinerancy more than
if Goreh's inter-religious conversion is seen only as an overriding disjunction in his life. Before
entering into an analysis of the trends, some cursory knowledge of Goreh's life is necessary.

52
PANDITA RAMABAI
Pandita Ramabai’s Life and Work (1858-1922) Ramabai Dongre Medhavi (her full married name)
came from a devout Brahmin family, and learned the Hindu way of devotion (Bhakti Marga) from
both her parents. The spiritual, religious and cultural qualities she imbibed from them during her
wandering childhood influenced the whole of her life. Having seen both her parents die from
starvation, she arrived in Calcutta in 1878, where her prodigious knowledge of Sanskrit and the
Hindu sacred texts gained her the titles, “Pandita” and “Saraswati”. When, soon after this, her
husband died, she and her daughter Manorama (Mano), began a geographical, social, cultural and
spiritual journey of discovery. Though she had close contact with the Brahmo Samaj, one of the
strongest influences on her decision to follow Christ was Nehemiah Goreh (1825-1895). In
England Ramabai and Mano stayed at the Community of Sisters of St Mary the Virgin in Wantage
and they were baptised in the local Anglican Church. Ramabai then studied at the Cheltenham
Ladies College, led by Dorothea Beale. She was a friend of Professor Max Mueller and engaged
in lively theological debate, both in person and by means of correspondence, with Sister Geraldine
at CSMV, Dr Gore and Prof Westcott. In the USA she studied the educational philosophy of
Friedrich Froebel, and wrote six grades of textbooks based on his method in Marathi. She decided
to found a practical Indian model of education and residential community for child widows.
American supporters (American Ramabai Association) provided the “seed-corn” for this venture.
The result was a “Sharada Sadan” (home of learning) established first in Bombay, and then Poona.
It was forced to move to the village of Khedgaon, where it became known as Mukti (salvation).
It latterly became a refuge where starving and oppressed women could find acceptance, a new
way of living, and education that empowered them to serve Jesus Christ in families, professions
and evangelism. Although supported by Christians and moderate Indian reformers, this radical
project was harshly criticized from both quarters. Narayan Tilak (1861-1919) provided songs and
psalms for culturally Indian worship in the chapel. Among the significant events associated with
Mukti was the 1905-7 “revival”. Mukti exists to this day (Pandita Ramabai Mukti Mission) as an
interdenominational ecclesial community comprising schools and kindergarten, hospital,
workshops, farm and chapel, serving as a non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal model of living.
Ramabai also translated the Bible into Marathi that was printed on Mukti presses, and devised a
method of Bible translation applicable to any language; forged indigenous forms of community,
worship and education; and wrote several books (including, The Duties of Women, A Testimony,
the High-Class Hindu Woman, and Conditions of Life in the United States) incorporating radical
theological and social insights. She was an Indian reformer, advocating Hindi as a national
language, and the first woman to address the Indian Social Congress. Intellectually brilliant,
linguistically gifted, spiritually aware, and intuitively perceptive and sensitive, Ramabai followed
Jesus as her guru to the end. Given all this, her recognition in Indian and in church history is
comparatively slight. One possible explanation is that as a devout female Indian Christian living
in community, a writer, educator, theologian, single mother, friend of orphans, campaigner for
women’s rights and founder of an ecumenical ecclesial community, she transcends existing
categories.

53
Philosophy
Although she did not use the vocabulary of twentieth century philosophers and sociologists (like
Kuhn, Marx, Gramsci, Foucault, Greer and so on) there is no doubt that Ramabai understood the
way in which power relations functioned at every area of life, personal and public, local and (inter)
national. Her detailed knowledge of Indian religion and culture, institutionalized and structured by
patriarchy, class and power, was matched by a corresponding interest in Western ideological
history with particular reference to the practice of burning or drowning witches in Europe, and the
oppression of slaves and Indians in North America.
(a) It comes as no surprise in the light of this that Ramabai should offer such clearsighted critiques
of prevailing educational policies and systems, while at the same time offering radical new models
for their transformation. It is one of the tragedies of Indian history that her educational model was
suppressed under the British Raj, and that it remains unrecognized and unclaimed to the present
day. Ramabai studied various educational systems as well as trying more than one for herself (for
example the gurukul in India, and Cheltenham Ladies College in England), and lighted upon the
philosophy of Friedrich Froebel after much reading and thought. One of the contemporary
objections to Froebel’s system was his emphasis on play, movement, music and dance as integral
to the learning process. This did not fit neatly with the emerging Protestant ethic and notion of
“school-work” “homework” and the like. It was also possible outside traditional settings such as
school buildings, and preferred natural settings as well as valuing the role of mothers in the whole
process. It may well be that in accepting and accommodating conventional methods and systems
of education (whether in theological seminaries or Sunday Schools) Christians have swallowed a
camel while being concerned with straining out gnats from the details of the system (concern with
Creationism, curriculum design, streaming and the like). Ramabai felt it was worth devoting much
of her life to an alternative system. It is now becoming clear that radicals such as Jerome Berryman
with his Godly Play have much more in common with her underlying philosophy than the
prevailing ethos. The circle replaces the lines of desks; dance and story are at the heart rather than
rote learning; movement rather than categories of thought and discipline are the key to the process.
(b) As a challenge to the idea of an autonomous individual Ramabai established a community in
which everyone was respected and played their age-appropriate part. And like Froebel she saw
that the respect for a child depended on an underlying philosophy or belief system in which each
child has a proper place, where there is a perceived unity within creation and in which unity and
its appropriate relationships a child is seen as giving and receiving (rather than deserving of rights
or seen primarily as a consumer whether of information or materials). The fact that the learning
process always took place in the context of a living community is of great significance. The
teachers shared this life-space and modelled respect and humility guided by reverence for the
Creator God and a sense of the unity of the whole universe. The purpose of education was not to
produce autonomous individuals who would become a certain type of adult, but to connect the soul
of each child and groups of children with the whole universe.
(c) Any philosophy of learning presupposes a view of the overarching worldviews or meta-
narratives. The education of children is not a discrete and self-contained entity. In Ramabai’s time
there was a major contestation between world-views: the excitement of the Enlightenment as it
reached India (first in Bengal); the dominance of the British Raj; the rise of Swaraj; conservative

54
Hinduism, Christianity, and so on. She carefully considered the merits and demerits of each, and
steered her own course, reflected in the life and worship at Mukti, and her own writings. Just at
CT throws light on prevailing systems from the perspective of a child and young people; so
Ramabai contemplated the social and political world from her commitment to girls and young
women. Mukti stands, at least in its latent form, as a radical alternative way of living. It is sui
generis, not partisan. It is non-denominational; welcomes the contributions of people from
different cultures and backgrounds; celebrates Marathi culture, but seeks the best from other
cultures; promotes excellence, but does not lapse into elitism, and so on. Ramabai was shot at from
different sides as she pursued a line deriving from her determination to follow the life, teaching,
example and death of Jesus as her model: never married to the spirit of her age.
(d) Ramabai pioneered radical new forms of relationship and challenged existing institutions all
through her life. This included her out-caste marriage; her refusal to accept conventional
widowhood; the lifelong commitment to her daughter Mano as a single mother; her sisterhood that
included several American women; but especially the Sharada Sadans and Mukti. The latter places
were determined and calculated attempts to create new forms of social space, and specifically to
model these forms so that they could be read, adapted and then transferred throughout India. CT,
as we have seen, challenges conventional understandings of social organizations including
concepts such as status and hierarchy whether in church or state. Ramabai therefore provides a
living example of how this might be done in context with children placed by Jesus in the midst.
Despite the all too cursory nature of this exploration hopefully it becomes clear how Ramabai’s
life and work might provide insights into the nature and process of CT that are culturally and
theologically aware.
Theology, Church and Mission
(I). Beginning with the Kingdom of Heaven (that is God’s way of doing things in our personal,
family, community and societal worlds), Ramabai saw that because this “reign” had been
pioneered and inaugurated by Jesus Christ, the door was open for this way to be modelled in her
time and culture. Thus, she was instrumental in establishing a community that responded to the
practical and concrete realities of her age, but that transcended the ideologies and hegemonies of
that age influencing or dominating the spheres of both social, and religious, power relations. Her
personal testimony written not only in the book of that name, but in her letters and the community
that she founded, shows how she sought in her personal life, revealed and hidden, a determination
to do things God’s way as revealed in the life and death of Christ. But this commitment meant that
she needed to examine every Christian doctrine and creed from this committed standpoint as an
Indian woman in the light of the Scriptures. In so doing she became engaged in serious and
sustained theological discussion with some of the leading theologians of her day, including Dr
Charles Gore and Professor Westcott.
In so doing she challenged the gender and ethnic assumptions of her time, and thus contextualized
the theological discourse. She was not prepared to dismiss Hindu beliefs and traditions per se, but
as with Christian traditions and beliefs she sought to test them against the Scriptures without
quenching their spirit. She was alert to textual issues (as befits one who translated the whole Bible
herself), and biblical and systematic expositions with particular reference to gender,
denominational and ethnic biases. A survey of the major theological issues discussed by Indian

55
theologians since shows that she anticipated many of their discoveries and concerns. Her lifelong
commitment to the alleviation of the oppression and suffering of child widows is an essential and
critical part of that process. She did not accept a divide between the academic and reasoned
apologetics of a religion, and the practical implementation of belief. Her theology is revealed by
her action as well as her words. As Mahatma Ghandi commented: “A life of service and uttermost
simplicity is the best preaching. A rose does not need to preach. It simply spreads its fragrance.
The fragrance is its own sermon.” The Kingdom of Heaven is about the way things are done and
said as much as about what is done and said. It looks with hope to the future “Not yet” drawing
from it encouragement and inspiration for practical steps towards that future reign in the here and
now. Children, particularly girls were at the core of this endeavor throughout Ramabai’s life.
(ii) The whole of Ramabai’s work and teaching was derived from Froebel, Jesus and others who
stressed the agency of the students or pupils in the learning process. The teacher was not there to
impart truths or list data, so much as to create the context in which the students by active
exploration were able to discover truths and process information for themselves. This was put to
the test in a remarkable and seminal way when some of her pupils in the Sharada Sadan in Poona
asked if they could be baptized. If Ramabai agreed to their request her whole work would be put
in jeopardy, but in the final analysis their agency was the determining factor. She pointed out to
them how hard it would be and then supported their decision. It was the resulting storm that
precipitated her move from Poona. In her schools the pupils of some grades became the teachers
of others. In the revival at Mukti it was the experiences of the girls themselves that shaped the
agenda as much, if not more than her personal views and intentions.
(iii) The work on a Bible was, as the work of R.S. Sugirtharajah argues, a radical attempt to
empower the girls (and then women) by giving them a tool that freed them to live for Christ in
every conceivable area of life without allegiance to institutions and groups other than Jesus and
the Bible’s own teaching. It is significant that wherever possible Ramabai placed a Bible or whole
book of the Bible in the hands of the girls at Mukti. She was also willing (controversially for her
time among both Christians and Hindus) for the Bible to be placed alongside Hindu sacred texts.
She was prepared for the students to come to their own conclusions about the truth, and to support
them in whatever conclusions they arrived at.
(iv) Mukti is a living ecclesial community that still gives testimony to the intentions and vision of
the founder, Ramabai. It is conceived as a kindergarten (literally a children’s garden) where an
extensive range of human activities are nurtured. In the middle of that place there is a building that
is used for many activities notably services. The whole of Mukti is “church”, not just the place and
the occasions when the residents gather to sing or pray. It is a place where varied denominational
insights are welcomed and integrated into the whole within partisanship, and where the whole of
life is seen as “worship”, not just religious ceremonies or services. No superior status is given to
religious activities or formally ordained ministers over the rest of life or the lay members of this
women’s community. As people today explore new ways of “being church” where children have
their proper place as modelled by the pivotal role of children in Jewish worship and teaching,
Mukti provides a contextualized model that has been tested over time, resilient and enduring.

56
(v) Ramabai was from the outset concerned that Mukti should be indigenous in its culture, clothing,
way of life, worship, movement and relationships. The fact that it was here that the sitar was used
for Sunday worship, and that the great Christina Marathi poet, Narayan Tilak was instrumental in
providing Indian settings of the Psalms as well as some of his own Christian songs is remarkable
given that the period in question begins in the last decade of the nineteenth century while Queen
Victoria was Empress of India and Western missions were at the height of their endeavors
including their tendency to despise culturally located and rooted music, genres and lyrics. Given
that this was accompanied by deep explorations of Christian thought and theology, and was
nonpartisan, in that it sought only the best from each and every culture, with personnel welcomed
from a variety of nations, it becomes clear that Ramabai offers a living experiment for CT as CT
seeks to engage with cultures and traditions around the world with children in the midst.
Child Theology Child
Theology is a way of studying the Bible and doing theology that takes as its starting point the
example of Jesus when he placed a little child in the midst of his disciples (Matthew 18). It may
be useful as a way of understanding its nature to compare it with Liberation, Women’s, and
Indigenous theologies. There are similarities and differences, but they have in common a desire to
shed fresh light on the whole of theology, church and mission by using the lens of a particular
group or perspective. In the case of Child Theology, it begins with Jesus and taking what he did
and said very seriously. The disciples were having a (theological) discussion about who was
greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus introduced a child as a vital clue to what the
Kingdom of Heaven is really like.
This was a great surprise to them, and they do not seem to have grasped what he was trying to say
until after Pentecost. Since then the child placed by Jesus in the midst has generally not been paid
much attention in the course of biblical and theological studies to this present day. Starting in this
way has led a growing number of theologians, pastors and Christians working alongside children,
to read the Bible, and understand Jesus and his teaching with fresh understanding. The significance
of children and children’s ministry in God’s sight has become clearer, and there is much to inform,
challenge and encourage children’s workers, parents and teachers. But there are wider implications
to the process: the way church and mission have developed and been understood has often been
done without more than a passing reference to children. Now Child Theology is enabling biblical
and theological reflection on every aspect of church and mission using as a hermeneutic principle
the “child placed by Jesus in the midst”. So, Child Theology (CT) is of vital importance to all who
take Jesus seriously and seek to make him Lord of their lives, whether practitioners alongside
children (including parents), or pastors, church leaders, seminary teachers and ordinary Christians.
This means that the process of doing Child Theology involves all of these as a matter of principle.
The “Child Theology Movement” is committed to nurturing and facilitating this process
worldwide, with particular reference to the experiences of real children and young people, and the
cultural and social and Christian traditions of each area where consultations are held.

57
Issues arising from Child Theology
Four the purposes of clarity and argument these are clustered around two focal points: theological
and ideological. It should not be implied from this however that the two are to be taken as separate
or unrelated.
Theology, Church and Mission
(i) CT begins with a particular theological matter: the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, and from
this starting point it finds it is identifying an increasing range of theological issues that challenge
existing textual, biblical and systematic (thematic) work and theologies. The way that theology is
done and taught is increasingly being questioned by CT, not simply because that is its agenda, but
also because of the discoveries arising in the process of exploring the concrete issues arising
around the world. The theological component of the HCD Masters course for example engages
men and women, academics and practitioners, and uses music, art, sculpture, role play,
conversation and discussion, letter-writing, poetry as tools of the process. It begins with
theological reflection on existing practice and is determined to avoid “part theology” that creates
a false dichotomy between reasoned reflection in the light of Scripture, on the one hand, and
practical action and justice on the other. More than 20% of the course is devoted to working on
the practical implications of CT for the students’ life and work.
(ii) One of the implications for God’s mission is the discovery that babies, children and young
people, are chosen by God to be partners in His mission (not merely objects of “children’s
ministry”, evangelism and the like).4 Children’s ministry is becoming seen as a two-way process
where children are being considered as ministers and leaders (in child sensitive ways) not as those
who are taught and cared for.
(iii) Then there is the matter of children and the Bible. Traditional methods of Bible presentation,
reading, story-telling and teaching are being critiqued. The focal issue is how the Scriptures should
be properly handled and interpreted with children and young people in mind. This leads to more
general issues of hermeneutics.
(iv) Another implication is a fresh exploration of the gathered Christian community (Ecclesia).
Children are at the heart of Jewish worship and family life, and yet tend to be detached or semi-
detached in Christian communities. How does church look where children are once again at its
heart, alongside Jesus? And how are families (“little churches”) to be supported by the gathered
community in their ministry to children?
(v) Indigenous theologies and contextualization continue to be of critical importance in the
globalizing world. The issues are well known and continuously rehearsed. One possibility that has
been raised is that Child Theology (with particular reference to its way of developing theology)
might provide a uniquely sensitive starting point and initial framework. It has the advantage that
it embraces all people of the world (everyone is either a child or was a child chronologically, and
theologically every person is a child of God; whereas not everyone is a woman, Filipino or
economically poor). And it is inherently about contextualized listening and exploration. It does not
come with a set of beliefs, or denominational baggage, but is informed by the history of Christian
life and thought worldwide.

58
Pandita Ramabhai’s Conversion: Personal Choice and Public Outrage
The Christian faith came to India in the early centuries after Christ through the early followers
eager to gain new entrants to the faith. It was then centered mainly to a small principality, Kerala.
The second incursion the religion made into India was through the Europeans, especially the
British. Initially when the British advocated western education and ideology, the reform
movements had the much-needed Imperial support because the rulers also saw it as means of
sanitizing the Indian mind. However, as the missionary schools began its overt propaganda of the
Christian faith, the small but very powerful section of the Indian community, the Bramhins were
highly scandalized and began to protect their faith more intensely and fervently. They perceived
the Christian faith as a challenge to their deeply entrenched faith and belief. The Bramhin
community grouped closely and firmly and this began a period of intense nationalism and cultural
and religious resurrection. The Aryan models were quoted and cited as the ideals. Hence the
religion now came to be associated with the Imperial masters, their culture and society. It was
perceived more as the hallmark of the foreign rulers than the spiritual legacy that the religion
claimed it was. Adopting the Christian faith was therefore seen as a denial of cultural roots, as a
submission to a superior racial presence especially in a phase of nationalistic fervor, like the 19th
century, when Pandita Ramabai chose to become Christian. Her choice sent shock waves across
Maharashtra, riding on a wave of fervent nationalism and cultural regeneration, and the reactions
were intensely critical. For the conservative reform section, it was a betrayal of the reform cause.
The most vehement condemnation came from Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who through his newspaper,
Kesari launched a series of attacks on her. She was accused of overriding personal ambition and
giving in to “the temptation of the missionaries” before testing waters, before examining “whether
or not her achievements could make an impact on the Hindu society.” As a glorious contrast the
paper cited examples of other reformists who worked within the Hindu framework. The verdict
was that “an intelligent, determined and enterprising woman’s achievement helped not the Hindu
society but foreign missionaries.”
Ramabai’s relationship with Christianity was a long and a conflicting passage of trials and
tribulations. It has to be understood within the frameworks of the British cultural and political
agenda that sought to impose hegemony to propagate a belief, to sanitize the Indian mind as it
were. Even their sponsorship of the Indian social reform movement carried the same agenda of
establishing a cultural hegemony over the Indian consciousness. Strangely this carried overt and
implicit tones of Christian tenets, something that Ramabai was irresistibly drawn to. Thus
overlapping all these were the “larger confrontation between Indianness and western culture,
nationalism and colonial rule, feminism and patriarchy in its various guises.” [Meera Kausambi]
She was even perceived as an anti-national. Accepting the Christian faith was a betrayal of her
culture and her nation. She was seen as consorting with the imperial powers, subscribing to
western/ colonial dominance over indigenous people. Nationalism thus became synonymous with
Hinduism. The reactions and consequent evaluation of Ramabai raise some intriguing questions.
Did she really have the kind of space that her detractors claim she had? Did she have the legitimacy
that Ramabai Ranade, M.G. Ranade’s widow had? Was her conversion the only problematic issue?
If one looks at these issues and works out the dialectics of personal and public spaces, one finds
that matters were more intricate than they appear to be.

59
Her work brought her into contact with Christian missionaries. In 1883 she accepted an invitation
by a congregation of Anglican nuns to visit England. For some time Ramabai had felt a distance
from her Hindu upbringing, both on spiritual grounds and on the basis of her perception of the
status of women in India. While in England she undertook a serious study of the Bible and
eventually asked to be baptized.
The congregation of Anglican nuns who invited her to England at the rehabilitation of "fallen
women". This represents a radical 'experience for Pandita, since "fallen women" were ostracized
in Indian society. She asked the nuns why they helped such women, the Sisters responded by
reading from the Gospel of John, the story of adulteress, and how Jesus treats her. Pandita is so
moved and impressed by the testimony of the nuns she received baptism. She saw Jesus as the
greatest liberator of women. News of her conversion provoked angry public controversy in India.
Ramabai herself wrestled with her strong aversion to the cultural imperialism of foreign
missionaries in India. She was determined that becoming a Christian should not be construed as a
denial of her Indian culture and roots. The gospel of Christ represented for her the purest
expression of her own spiritual intuitions, in particular her growing belief that to serve women and
the poor was a religious and not simply a social work.
She returned to India and continued her charitable work, among other things founding a center for
unwed mothers, a program for famine relief, and a series of schools for poor girls. Now, ironically,
it was her fellow Christians who became her public critics. They charged that because she made
no effort to convert the poor women in her center her own conversion was only superficial. They
also pressed for proof of her doctrinal orthodoxy. Ramabai refused to be drawn into theological or
confessional debates. "I am, it is true, a member of the Church of Christ, but I am not bound to
accept every word that falls down from the lips of priests or bishops. I have just with great efforts
freed myself from the yoke of the Indian priestly tribe, so I am not at present willing to place
myself under another similar yoke."
KRISHNA MOHAN BANERJEE
Son of Jibon Krishna Banerjee and Sreemoti Devi, Krishna Mohan was born on 24 May 1813 at
Shyampur, Kolkata, Bengal, in the house of his maternal grandfather, Ramjay Vidyabhusan, the
court-pundit of Santiram Singha of Jorasanko. In 1819, Krishna Mohan joined the School Society
Institution (later renamed as Hare School) founded by David Hare at colootola. Impressed by his
talents, Hare took him to his school at Pataldanga, later famous as Hare School in 1822. Banerjee
joined the newly founded Hindu College with a scholarship. In 1831, the religious-reformer-and-
litterateur started publishing The Inquirer. In the same year his play, The Persecuted: or, Dramatic
Scenes Illustrative of the Present State of Hindoo Society in Calcutta, was produced. It was
monotonically critical of certain prevalent social practices. While at college he used to attend the
lectures of the Scottish Christian missionary, Alexander Duff, who had come to India in 1830. His
father died of cholera in 1828.
His Theological Development
The Christian encounter with Hinduism in the nineteenth century caused a large number of
Christian apologetic writings to emerge, marking the beginning of indigenous theological thinking
in India. Banerjea is widely regarded as "the foremost Indian Christian apologist" of this period,

60
and the following assessment focuses upon this aspect of his work. Banerjea made his theological
contribution at the most intense period of the religious confrontation between Christianity and
Hinduism. Four main groups were involved in the controversies that arose during this period: The
Young Bengal liberals, the orthodox Hindu party, the Brahmo Samaj and the Christian
missionaries. In a somewhat superficial assessment Philip identifies Banerjea's approach with the
confrontational missionary posture of this period. Although the approach of the class of early
Christian apologists that Banerjea represented bore some correspondence with this missionary
posture, it was distinctive in its attempt to preserve both indigenous cultural roots and national
identity. However, deriving from this identification of Banerjea's approach with the dominant
missionary attitude of this period, most analyses of Banerjea's apologetic approach distinguish two
stages in his theological development. The basis for this two-stage view is the following
perception:
Till about 1870 his position had been that which he expressed in his Dialogues in which by implication
he discarded the whole religious heritage of his country. In 1875, however, he published a little book
[Arian Witness] which revealed a completely different attitude to Hinduism.

This scheme distinguishes a 'first stage' in which, like the missionary writings of the period,
Banerjea's earlier apologetic speeches and writings sought to expose the errors and weaknesses of
Hinduism, setting forth Christian claims against Hindu criticisms of Christianity. In the second
phase, Banerjea is thought to have moved away from this negative posture in pursuit of a more
positive relationship between Christianity and Hinduism, emphasizing continuity and fulfilment
rather than points of contrast. There is no consensus regarding the precise date of the supposed
transition between the two stages in Banerjea's apologetic approach. According to Baago, the
transition took place by 1870, sometime after his retirement from Bishop's College, with "a
completely different attitude to Hinduism" reflected in his Arian Witness, published in 1875. Philip
detects a "marked change" in Banerjea's approach to Hinduism from about 1865, although the
reasons for this view are not convincing. Aleaz perceives this "marked change" as having occurred
as early as 1861, the year when he published his Dialogues.
The Emergence of Fulfilment in Banerjea's Early Thought
Banerjea's early apologies were essentially historical and philosophical enquiries in which he
sought to challenge the rational tenability of Hinduism, and correspondingly, to affirm the
reasonable basis of the Christian faith. His purpose was to defend Christianity against the criticism
of its opponents and at the same time convince his fellow-countrymen to accept Christianity. We
focus our attention in this section on the most important of his apologetic writings prior to 1865,
Dialogues. This was Banerjea's first full-length and detailed treatment of any subject, on the
occasion of a competition in which John Muir offered a prize of three hundred pounds for the best
English essay exposing and refuting the fundamental errors of the Nyaya, Sarrzkhya and Vedanta
philosophies. In the preface to Dialogues, Banerjea states his twofold purpose as: ''first, to give a
correct and authentic statement of the doctrines of Hindu philosophy, and, secondly, to suggest
such modes of dealing with them as may prove most effective to the Hindu mind.,, His approach,
in his own words, will be, "to recognize what we have found to be true, and courageously to
condemn what we have discovered to be false.

61
Banerjea makes it clear that he will not be appealing to "the primary standard of truth" for
Christians, the Bible, in his apologetic argument. Rather, the criterion of truth would be "the work
of the Law written in the hearts of men", the intuitive sense of right and wrong determined by the
authoritative voice of conscience. Thus, the common ground of appeal between him and his
dialogical opponents is reason:
Our test of truth and error in these discussions is accordingly the same which writers on moral
philosophy and natural theology are in the habit of observing. It is substantially the very test to which
the founders of the Hindu philosophy themselves appeal.

In this fairly extended treatise, Banerjea deals with a broad gamut of issues, including the authority
of the Vedas; the six Hindu philosophical systems, in terms of their origin, doctrine of God,
creation and salvation; and the evidences for the truth of Christianity. Presented as a series of ten
imaginary dialogues between three Hindu friends, one of who, Satyakama, is a convert to
Christianity, Banerjea pits the arguments of the contending schools of Hindu philosophy against
one another, in refuting all of them in favor of Christianity. Consistent with the tone of his writings
during this period, the author's style of argument is rationalistic and his attitude to Hindu
philosophy essentially negative. His arguments focus around the following issues in the Christi
an-Hindu encounter.
In the first place, Banerjea defends Christian evangelistic activity against Hindu criticism of
Christianity as a foreign religion, destructive of the Indian way of life. At the outset he points out
that Hindu tradition itself upholds the idea that truth should be judged on its own merit regardless
of the place of its origin. It was a fallacy to speak of Hinduism as the only religion meant for the
inhabitants of India, since the notion of a unified system as the common religion of all Hindus had
no basis either in the historical tradition or the ancient Scriptures of India. He argues, furthermore,
that there was no "eternal Dhanna" prescribed by the Hindu scriptures except caste dharma, and
that Hinduism in fact provided for individuals and groups to pledge allegiance to any deity of their
choice [Istadevata] and yet remain within the Hindu fold socio-culturally.
Veda
A major issue Banetjea addresses is the divine authority of the Vedas. He draws attention to the
inherent inconsistency in some orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, which regard the Vedas as
divine revelation and yet reject some Vedic teachings as impure, thus challenging their absolute
authority. Secondly, the Vedas themselves testify against their eternity in that they contain the
names of persons and places not eternal. Furthermore, the belief that the Veda is authoritative
because it is God's word cannot be sustained by most of the philosophies that deny the existence
of a Supreme Being. His main argument against the authority of the Vedas, however, is the absence
of external historical evidence to substantiate its authenticity. He contrasts this with what he
regards as convincing external evidence for the reliability of the Bible and truth of Christianity:
the fulfilment of biblical prophecy, the miracles of Christ and the rapid spread of Christianity.
A substantial portion of Banerjea's argument is directed towards exposing the Buddhist influence
up on Brahmanical Hinduism. He concludes a careful historical and philosophical analysis by
arguing that the essential teachings of the Hindu philosophies are not derived from the Vedas or
any pre-Buddhist writings, but have been borrowed from Buddhism. The Buddhists made the first

62
attempts at philosophical speculation in India, and employed reason and argument in religion in
challenging Vedic and Brahmanical authority. Brahmanical philosophy has been taken captive
from within by Buddhist logic and metaphysics.
God and creation
Banerjea also examines the doctrines of God, creation and salvation in the six Hindu philosophical
systems. His assessment concludes that the various schools of Hindu philosophy had capitulated
to the Buddhist intellectual assault, with an inadequate doctrine of creation and an essentially
atheistic rather than theistic framework. His main criticism of the doctrine of God and creation in
Hindu philosophy is its failure to postulate the existence of a supreme and sovereign being as the
creator and sustainer of the universe. He thus skillfully employs the arguments of the various
schools against one another, pointing out logical inconsistencies in all of them. Banerjea was one
of the first few Indians in the nineteenth century to address an apologetic against Hindu philosophy
based on a combination of an intimate knowledge of Hinduism and rationalist and evidential
criteria. His apologetic approach was in formal continuity with that of the missionary apologists,
but there are some vital points of difference often overlooked by critics.
To begin with, although Banerjea's approach at this stage is decidedly negative, and at times
aggressive, the terms of his discourse are largely academic and he remains respectful towards his
partners in dialogue. This is in contrast to the harsh and virulent rhetoric that characterized much
of the missionary apologetic of this period.
Secondly, overtones of cultural imperialism tainted the missionary approaches, while Banerjea
addresses his interlocutors as one within the Hindu fold. Although he rejects some aspects of his
ancestral religion, he identifies closely with his cultural heritage. Unlike most of the missionaries
who possessed at best a superficial grasp of Hinduism, Banerjea was a skilled Sanskritist, whose
arguments were based on a first-hand, in-depth knowledge of the Hindu scriptures, philosophy and
tradition.
The third and most critical contrast with respect to our present study is the evidence of Banerjea's
quest for a bridge of continuity between Christian faith and Hinduism even in this early stage of
his thought. Thus, although Dialogues is essentially negative in its attitude to Hinduism, it has
positive acknowledgments of points of contact between Christianity and Hinduism.
The first point of contact Banetjea discerns is the idea of a divine revelation. God has made
something of himself known through "the light of nature" or "the book of nature" - facts accessible
to natural reason. Some aspects of this knowledge of God may be found in Hindu philosophy, as
reflections of a "religious sentiment", which God has implanted in human nature: "The minds of
our ancestors were universally imbued with notions of a Revelation or supernatural
communication to man, but they could not explain what that Revelation was, or how it was given.”
He further sees the philosophical systems implicitly affirming the fact of an original primitive
revelation from God, a pivotal component of his fulfilment view in later writings. He sees the
validity of this conception confirmed by the continuity observed between certain teachings in the
Hindu scriptures and their fuller and clearer illumination in biblical revelation.

63
Salvation
Banerjea's understanding of humankind's sinful condition and salvation through Christ is in line
with nineteenth century orthodox Protestantism. Humanity has been created in the likeness of God
and for communion with God, but the human soul needs cleansing and purification from sin. By
his atoning death, Christ provides redemption from sin and evil, and enables humanity to be
restored to communion with God. On this basis Banerjea invites all nations to faith in Jesus Christ,
"the self-sacrificing Prajapati of the Vedas" and "the true Ark of salvation". But does the presence
of the self-sacrificing Prajapati ideal within Hinduism make it at least provisionally salvific as a
system? Two factors need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Banerjea clearly distinguished
between Hinduism as an ideal embodied in the Vedas, and the prevailing Hindu social reality,
tainted by centuries of corruption and accretion. The essential truths of Vedic religion had been
lost through the centuries:
the doctrine of sacrifice, as a figure of Prajapati, (who had offered himself as a sacrifice for the
benefit of the world), did not long continue in its integrity among our forefathers; its chief
characteristic. as a figure or type of a self-sacrificing Savior, had long vanished from the
conceptions of our countrymen ...

This vital truth" ... had become obsolete and fallen into oblivion by lurking in the sealed
manuscripts of the Vedas", and only been brought to the light and restored in the Providence of
God with the publication of the Vedas? It may be reasonably inferred that since Banerjea believed
that the Hinduism of his time had lost sight of the essential truth of redemption through sacrifice,
he did not regard it as even provisionally salvific. This inference is strengthened by Banerjea's
repeated assertion that the "Ark of Salvation" which the Vedas exhort sinners to embark in is not
Prajapati, nor even Christ, but the Church of Christ: "The ark of salvation, with the Purusha
begotten in the beginning at its head, can be no other than the Church of Christ.”
What about the ancient Vedic religion? There is some ambiguity in Banerjea's thought concerning
its salvific value. He seems to suggest that the Vedic seers had an incomplete perception of the
truth: "They longed for something greater, they panted for something at the same time more
convincing to reason and more elevating to the soul” They were diligent in performing the
sacrificial rituals, but were unaware of their actual significance; their true meaning was only
disclosed in the Christian revelation. The ancient rishis could not be blamed for their ignorance of
later revelation, but would stand in judgment against their Hindu descendants today who reject the
teaching of Christ.
On the other hand, Banerjea's representation of the Vedic gods as originally mere mortals who
"attained heaven" through their sacrifices suggests that the Vedic religion did have some salvific
value. He commends the religious devotion of the ancient rishis, and claims that they were aware
of "Salvation from sin by the death of a Savior.” Furthermore, in indicating points of close
correspondence between aspects of Vedic and patriarchal religion, he seems to place the Vedic
seers in the category of Old Testament saints who obtained salvation through their faithful
adherence to the sacrificial tradition.
Thus, contrary to some recent characterizations, Banerjea's view of the salvific value of Hinduism
does not fit neatly in either exc1usivist or inclusivist categories. His understanding of revelation

64
allowed for the presence of truth in Hinduism, but there is no evidence to suggest that he accepted
the 'apostate' Hindu system of his time as having even provisional salvific value. He does, however,
regard the prospects of salvation in Vedic religion more positively in terms corresponding to the
faith experience of Old Testament saints.
Christ
Banerjea also finds points of contact in the Hindu texts for the Christian doctrines of the incarnation
and the atoning work of Christ. He was thus convinced that the Avatara idea in the Bhagvadgita
was derived from a primitive revelation of a future savior:
The doctrine of Christ's incarnation for the redemption of the world, involved in the primitive revelation
of a future Savior, receives some confirmation from detached expressions in several portions of the
Brahminical sastras. The idea propounded in the Bhagavadgita and other works that Vishnu descended
in human form for the relief of the world, whenever it is opposed with sin and wickedness ... was
apparently derived by tradition from the primitive revelation of a future savior.

Likewise, the ancient Vedic conception of sacrifice is also a survival of the primitive revelation
given by God to all mankind. The offering of sacrifice for redemption from sin was an ancient
institution originally ordained by God to represent the future sacrifice of Christ. The Vedas record
this primitive practice without explanation: the fuller explanation is offered only in the biblical
account of the universal sacrificial atonement of Christ. These ideas seem to represent an incipient
form of 'fulfilment' during this early period of Banerjea's theological development. Lipner provides
the only evidence available regarding Banerjea's approach to Hinduism from the years between
1864 and 1875, an ordination sermon in Bengali delivered in 1870. In this sennon Banerjea refers
to a number of Hindu themes and characters as prefiguring Christ, the true sacrifice, of which the
Vedic offerings and sacrifices are only a copy, and the true 'Hari', the only one who removes our
sins. In succeeding years, Banerjea applied his scholarship to the exploration and development of
a clearer basis for continuity between Christian faith and Hinduism. Banerjea's understanding of
the relationship between Christian faith and Hinduism in ternms of the fulfilment approach is
expounded more clearly in his later writings.
Christ and Prajapati
Aleaz's evaluation of Banerjea's theological contribution characterizes Banerjea as "the first person
to hint at Prajapati as an unknown Christ of Hinduism.” Banerjea's fulfilment view has also been
described as "an autonomous Indian version of inclusivism", or as marking a "pioneering transition
from Exclusivism to Inclusivism". The context and concerns that Banerjea's apologetic seeks to
address are remote to the terms and problems of the modem theology of religions debate. If,
however, we are to represent his thought accurately in relation to present-day issues, two critical
questions need to be posed: How exactly does he view Prajapati in relation to Christ? What was
his view regarding the salvific value of Hinduism?
The Vedic figure of Prajapati is crucial to Banerjea's 'promise-fulfilment' scheme. His theory of
primitive revelation provides the framework, and the concept of sacrifice the bridge, but Prajapati
is the figure who strides across the bridge that he tries to erect between Christianity and Hinduism.
Banerjea's descriptions of Prajapati highlight the close parallels with the pre-existent Christ: "the
Lord or supporter of Creation", Purusa, "begotten before the world", and Viswakarma, "the Author
of the universe,” half mortal and immortal, he is even identified with "the universal Godhead".

65
The most striking correspondence, however, is in the representation of Prajapati as "the Divine
Self-sacrifice", and “the Divine Savior”, through whose death, death itself is vanquished. The Jesus
of the New Testament fulfils the ideal of Prajapati by the etymological correspondence of the two
names, and by his fulfilment of the character and claims of the Vedic ideal. Prajapati thus
prefigures and is fulfilled in the biblical description of Christ as God and man, mortal and
immortal, who offered himself as a sacrifice for man's salvation from sin. Banerjea seems to have
tried to get the figure of Prajapati to serve in India as a functional equivalent of "the unknown god"
in Paul's Athenian address, or the concept of the Logos in John's gospe1. In an implicit attestation
of Banerjea's claim a contemporary Vedic scholar offers the following comment on the relation of
the myth of Purusa/ Prajapati to the broader Vedic doctrine of sacrifice:
Taken in its totality the myth of Purusai Prajapati is not unworthy of the Christian conception of the
redemptive incarnation of the Logos by means of the "kenosis", leaving out the question whether they
can be homologated or not.

Banerjea's project succeeded in part, but like most other pioneers his work was limited in
theological sophistication and depth. Consequently, although his idea of Christ as the true Prajapati
was well received by his own generation, the theme was not taken up seriously by mainstream
Indian Christian thought in subsequent years. He was, however, the first Indian Christian thinker
to suggest the presence of anticipations of Christ in Hindu religious texts. In that sense his
conception of Christ as Prajapati may be judged to be a precursor to ideas of the "unknown Christ",
"acknowledged Christ", "unbound Christ” and other similar notions that emerged in later Indian
Christian thought.
Revelation
The dependence of Banerjea's fulfilment approach on the Vedas was integrally related to his view
of a universal primeval revelation. In Dialogues, he cites as evidence the almost universal idea in
India of an eternal Veda: "The mystery can only be explained on the supposition of some distorted
tradition existing among the Brahmins of a primitive revelation from God.” In his early theological
development Banerjea evidently rejected the possibility that this primitive revelation was
contained in the four Vedas: " ... no one can pretend that they [ the Vedas] are a record of the
primeval Sound ... there is nothing in the general scope of the Vedas to justify the conclusion that
they were revealed in the beginning." The Brahmins may have been aware of the general fact of
primitive revelation, but" ... their incoherent accounts of the Vedas are but distorted representations
of that jact.” The Vedas were thus clearly distinguished from primitive revelation. This primitive
revelation is rather identified with sabda, "the primeval Sound", infallible and eternal teaching, an
original divine communication given to the first man for the good of all humankind:
We can have no difficulty in believing that the Almighty made a communication of His will to our first
parents when He created them. That which the first man thus heard from His Maker, was a sabda, an
infallible teaching, intended for the benefit of others, mankind, and coeval with the commencement of
human society.
He viewed this primitive revelation in Dialogues as the source of the Avatara idea in the Bhagavad-Gita as
well as the Vedic conception of sacrifice. In Arian Witness the primitive revelation concept is used to
explain how the biblical teaching of Christ's redemptive sacrifice finds such clear resonance with the Vedic
concept of the self-sacrifice of Prajapati.

66
Christianity as the Fulfilment of Hinduism in Banerjea's Later Thought
In 1875 Banetjea published Arian Witness the first in a later series of writings, which seek to
explore a more positive relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. The other important
writings of this period, Two Essays as Supplements to the Arian Witness and Relation between
Christianity and Hinduism, essentially build upon the central argument of Arian Witness.
Consequently, there is repetition, continuity and some progression of thought in these later
writings. Philip summarizes the shift in outlook in Banetjea's post-1875 writings as follows:
In his Dialogues on Hindu Philosophy, he acknowledged the existence of a rudiment of primitive
revelation in Hinduism. Krishna Mohan developed this idea further in his later writings and
endeavored to show that Christianity was the fulfilment of Vedic religion. It was no longer
Christianity and Hinduism contrasted, but Christianity as fulfilment of Hinduism. For him, no one
could be a true Hindu without being a true Christian.

Rather than try to undermine Hinduism rationally, BaneIjea now sought meaningful continuity
between Hinduism and Christian faith. He did this by discovering striking parallels between the
Old Testament and the Vedas. Banerjea's innovative thesis was first stated in Arian Witness, and
remained substantially intact through his subsequent writings, but our analysis of his thought will
focus primarily on the final concise statement of his view of fulfilment in Christianity and
Hinduism. We will, however, also consider the contribution of the other two writings to the
development of his thesis. In setting forth his objectives in Arian Witness, BaneIjea lists various
points at which he expects his Vedic' Arian Witness' to confirm different aspects of the biblical
worldview. Several of these either explicitly mention or imply the concept of sacrifice: that
sacrifice is the divinely-sanctioned means for the remission of sins; that the seed of the woman
will bruise the serpent's head; that Prajapati, the Lord and Preserver of Creation, offered himself
as a sacrifice for the welfare of mortal souls which had attained immortality.
The Christian apologetic of this period was obliged to respond to an important challenge, the
common rejection of Christianity on nationalist grounds. Banerjea's second main objective
addresses this concern: to refute the charge that Christianity was a foreign religion by
demonstrating its direct continuity with the cardinal teachings of the Vedas:
We look to our Witness also for the disproof of an idea often broached against Hindoo Christians
that they are rebels against the sanatana dharma of the country, and apostates from the faith that
has animated the Hindoo mind, and the rule of life that has governed Hindoo practice, from time
immemorial ... [and to prove that] ... Hindoo Christians can alone have the satisfaction of knowing
that the fundamental principles of the Gospel were recognized, and acknowledged, both in theory
and practice, by their primitive ancestors, the Brahminical Arians of India, and that if the authors
of the Vedas could by any possibility now return to the world, they would at once recognize the
Indian Christians far more complacently as their own descendants, than any other body of educated
natives.

67
V. Missionary Constructions of Indian Christian Theology
ROBERT DE NOBILI
Robert de Nobili, SJ, was a missionary to India, especially known for his evangelization strategies
for proclaiming the Gospel to the people of India. De Nobili was born to an Italian noble family.
He was related to two popes and was expected to achieve great things for his family. In the midst
of his studies, de Nobili gave up on his family’s dreams and joined the Society of Jesus. Inspired
by the adventurous stories of the missionaries to Africa and Japan, de Nobili prepared himself for
the missions. He was sent to India, arriving in Goa in 1605. Initially de Nobili lived within the
Portuguese enclosures, surrounded by the benefits of European culture. He studied Tamil, the local
language. De Nobili was then challenged by his superior to enter into the interior of India and
convert those outside the walls. De Nobili discovered that among upper class Hindus, the
Portuguese were considered part of the low caste.
De Nobili adopted the garb of Brahmin scholars, gave up meat, and carried the walking stick and
water jug used by Hindu monks. He learned Sanskrit to read Hinduism’s holy books, and translated
Christian psalms and prayers into Tamil. De Nobili spent the rest of his life living as an ascetic in
the manner of the Hindu holy men. With this strategy, he had considerable success in converting
members of both the higher and the lower castes to Christianity. He died in 1656, faithful to his
Catholic faith and to the spiritual disciplines he practiced in the Hindu environment.
Nobili Enters the Worldview of the Hindus
As a sannyasi Nobili was expected to study hard and teach others the ways to the truth. Since he
deeply desired to know the Hindu religion, this was precisely the break Nobili was looking for,
and his disciplined study quickly began to bear fruit.
The Father speaks the purest Tamil and pronounces it so well that even the most fastidious Brahmin
scholars cannot improve on his diction. He has already read many books, and learned by heart the
essential passages of their laws as well as many verses of their most famous poets, who are held
among them in great honor. Many are the hymns he has learned by heart, and he sings them with
such perfection and grace that all listen to him with pleasure and unconcealed admiration.

A formidable obstacle still prevented Nobili from really understanding the Hindu mind. Most of
the ancient texts were in Sanskrit, and it was forbidden for any non-Brahmin to study Sanskrit.
Even as a sannyasi, Nobili was barred from possessing the key that would unlock the Hindu
scriptures. By providence, Nobili found a scholar who would teach him Sanskrit, and even at the
risk of his life this scholar gave Nobili a copy of the Vedas. Nobili at once set out to learn them
and began using them to convince Hindus of the one true God. Once Nobili understood the basic
foundations of Hinduism, he was free to measure the lives of Hindus by their own standards and
then introduce the true way.
I take occasion to tell them that they are indeed mistaken if they think they can be saved by any of
those three laws and I proceed to prove it to them by the very words of their books. As they are
most anxious to save their souls, for which they undertake various works of penance and alms-
giving, I tell them that I have come from a distant country for the sole purpose of teaching them

68
 that law which is said to have been lost. Thus, I adapt myself to their ideas just as Saint Paul adapted
himself to the ideas of the Athenians, regarding the unknown God.

The more Nobili learned from the Vedas, the more he debated with Hindus, often using the very
strengths of Hinduism to lead them to the cross. He also adapted the teachings of the church fathers
and Western philosophers to give Hindus keys to some foundational propositions on which
Christianity stood. And yet for all the debates he held and all the booklets he wrote, it was primarily
his love and gentle spirit that touched the hearts of his hearers.
He was committed to spreading the Catholic faith, not a system of European philosophy.
Nevertheless, to preserve the faith intact, it would be necessary to retain certain basic
apprehensions (for example, about the nature of divine love and of the soul) not normally
perceived in India and, indeed, to communicate them. The comparatively easy task of becoming
in all ways Indian was not open to Nobili. He must communicate those basic apprehensions not
only, or even chiefly, by verbal arguments but, under God, by a good life, for Indians expected
of a guru not so much information as transformation of character. Grace in him must act out
the truth of his apprehensions. Between Rome and Madurai, he himself must become a bridge
of love.

The way of life Nobili had chosen was a very crucial part of his contextualization. As a good
sannyasi, he won the hearts of those who knew him. They saw his simple lifestyle and the
commitment he lived out to the one true God. At crucial junctures in the growth of his high-caste
church, the Lord used him to convince many of the Europeans that certain symbols used by the
Brahmins were more cultural than religious. Thus, for example, the converts were allowed to retain
the thread they received as young men and the tuft of hair signifying their caste. (The loss of either
would have been a major obstacle to their conversion.) Nobili clearly saw how much more open
Brahmins would be to the gospel if they were allowed to retain their caste identity. In the baptism
of his first Brahmin convert Nobili gained a major victory:
The baptism of Sivadarma was the culmination of eighteen months’ work, during which the
Sanskrit master had become the Christian pupil. Nobili could well look at his Brahmin with
satisfaction. A few Brahmins had been baptized in Portuguese territory, but for motives of gain,
and in receiving baptism they had ceased to be Brahmins. The thread had been ripped from their
shoulders, and with it their caste: they wore trousers and a hat and ate Portuguese food, they spoke
the language of their masters. Forced to ape the Portuguese, they had ceased to be Indians. But
Sivadarma was a true Brahmin and a true Christian; he bore a Tamil name, not one borrowed from
a Portuguese godfather, and he would continue to speak his own language. The waters of baptism
had washed away his sins, not his color, nor his nationality, nor all that was good in his former way
of life.

Every time a cultural or religious issue confronted the new church Nobili had planted, he
comprehensively studied all that the Christian and Hindu scriptures had to say. Before making a
final decision, he also considered the social impact it might have in the Hindu community. One
issue was the Hindu festival of Pongal. Nobili developed an ecclesiology that constantly examined
the issues in light of the present context of society. He did not use a dialectical approach but rather
started first with Scripture and then moved to the context.

69
Nobili’s View of the Indian Church
Early on Nobili noted that the growth of the Indian Church would be stunted if it depended on
foreigners for its sustenance. Therefore, it wasn’t long before he devised a bold plan to raise up
hundreds of indigenous leaders.
Nobili wanted to train seminarists who, having preserved their Indian customs and their castes,
would be respected by their Hindu countrymen, to whom they could speak on equal terms. He
wanted his future priests to present Christianity to the Indian people in their own languages, not in
a jargon in which all religious terms were Portuguese; to be well trained in Christian theology but
also experts in the religion of the Hindus around him; to depend for support and protection on their
own countrymen, not on foreigners. In the first half of the seventeenth century such a plan was
extremely bold and farsighted.

Nobili believed and acted on his belief that books conceived and written in the Indian languages
(not mere translations) were absolutely indispensable to a “truly” Indian Church. His own books,
written from the perspective of someone who deeply understood the Vedas and the Hindu
worldview, paved the way for all sorts of indigenous innovations. Indian Christians wrote their
own worship songs and liturgies, they published books and tracts, and they willingly faced up to
the social issues of the day.
Critical Analytical approaches to the Robert De Nobili’s Contextualization
Nobili’s use of his methods which he derived from Hindu traditions was much more powerful
mean to reach out the high caste and other castes too. It made an impact on the minds of people to
accept Jesus Christ by indigenize way in their own culture. They never felt Christianity as a
western religion which imposes European life-style; since Nobili was cautious while presenting
Christianity to them. Irrespective of Nobili’s methods let’s see how he contextualized. What are
the positive and negative aspect and drawback of his methods of contextualization?
Nobili’s methods of Contextualization
The nature of Nobili’s methods of contextualization was very much indigenous. What I mean he
wanted people to stay back in their own culture but believe in Jesus as savior. Even, he rejected to
identify himself and his followers to relate with the term Parangi, because his main motive was
“to show that the Christian faith could be thought and lived in a truly Indian way. His main
point was that it is impossible to be Indian without being Hindu and Christian without being
European”. To this point I agree with his decision to not relate with Parangi. Because, Parangis
were very much westernized in their life-style, they used to do all sorts of things which caused to
offend many people. “The Hindus had been watching the foreigners carefully to determine what
caste they were from, and after repeatedly observing them eat meat and associate with low-caste
people had labeled them “Parangi” or “those who have horses and guns,” a term referring to low
caste.” Nobili believed that in order to understand others culture, we need to look through their
lenses because every culture has some good or evil.
elements. Moreover, he was not interested that his followers may be known as Christian. However,
he was interested that his followers may remain in their own cultures and have their own identity
of Indian. Sooner, Nobili discovered that the life-style of Sannyasi is a common practice in South

70
India and the best way to gain respect. He realized that society respect Gurus. Nobili’s adaptation
of the Life-style of Sannyasi and became Brahmin Guru was to reach out the high caste and know
their practices, beliefs thoroughly. At this point, I am largely convinced by Nobili and would like
to agree with his adaptation of the life-style of Sannyasi and Guru. Because, many high caste
Hindus attracted by his life-style of Sannyasi and used to visit him regularly. Cronin aptly describes
that,
Nobili’s innate courtesy and kindliness made them feel at home. He spoke well, without any
mixture of Portuguese, and he said things worth hearing. He listened too with close interest to what
they had to say. When they narrated to him their Puranic stories, he would never brush them aside
with a contemptuous “Nonsense".... He was struck by their deep sense of religion. With them
religion was not a cloak which they only occasionally put on. It was ingrained in their very life, in
their thoughts, in their words and in every action.

Nobili believes that there is not a single religious connotation to the life-style of Sannyasi and
Guru. By “quoting the Brahminic literature, he clarified that the term Guru did not denote an
exclusively religious scholar, but rather someone (he) who made (something) clear through his
Explanation.” Moreover, he abstains from non-vegetarian food which causes him to associate with
the high caste Brahmins. At this point I am still agreed with Nobili what
he believes and kept abstain from nonvegetarian. Because, although Bible does not resist us to a
stain from non-vegetarian and have great example of Peter’s vision of food where God himself told
him that, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Acts 11:9b NRSV). However,
there are certain things we need to consider and cautious when we are encountering others culture
as Nobili did. As a result, many high caste people used to meet him regularly without a fear of
defiling their culture.
Nobili’s use of the title Aiyer instead of Father was another example of contextualization which
was even controversial. Moreover, “in reply De Nobili underscored the fact that the term only
signified „the master of the house” was attributed to him as the superior of the community.” It
was the custom of South India those who are teacher of religious discourse; people used to address
them as Aiyer. However, I am largely agreed with the term Aiyer is because Nobili did not
introduce something new but used which was there in their culture and nothing wrong to use of
the term Aiyer. It is just to show one’s reverence and honor to particular people. Even, “the
members of his community did not merely style themselves as disciples of Aiyer, but referred to
themselves also as disciples of Jesus Christ” That’s why; Nobili began to known as the teacher of
reality.
Nobili observed certain Hindu practices, like, use of the holy thread, the tuft of
hair and sandal- paste. I largely agree with this point with Nobili, and he has given a very
good explanation that why he was using? First, “He says that he was not using the thread at the
time of writing, that even so, he had worn it with a cross attached. The neophytes too wore a similar
thread with a thin plate bearing the inscription “Jesus the Nazarene”. “We must understand that he
was from a Roman Catholic priestly family and for him wearing thread was common thing. Since
some of the Roman Catholics are tradition oriented and for Nobili thread was not new thing; even
though form was different but then he changes the form and kept same meaning. He argued that

71
wearing thread has nothing to do with religious matter, it is completely social thing. He says, “My
firm conviction that the Brahmins thread contains no element of superstition, even by second
intention. It is no more than a social badge to mark the grade and office of a man of learning.”
Therefore, “adaptation of the thread was vital for Nobili to be accepted as teacher of the spiritual
law.” Second, regarding the tuft of hair, he aptly describes that
No religious meaning is implied in the wearing of it is proven with even greater force by all thear
guments which were adduced on the subject of the thread, since this argument hold equally for both.
But apart from these the licit use of the kutumi rests on an independent foundation of its own. It
usage was introduced with a view that by this sign the various noble families among the Brahmins,
rulers, and merchants might be distinctly marked off.

He says, even similar kind of style was in Italy to categorize two notorious factions: the Ghibelines
and the Guelphs party. Similarly, in India, “the noble families choose to wear the tuft of hair in
different parts of the head, not from any motive of faction and hostility, but solely as distinctive
caste marks showing their respective social grades.” Therefore, Nobili says that the tuft of hair was
the mark of the social respect and status, and not a religious stigma. I think one should not bring
their own presuppositions
to justify themselves that Nobili’s use of Indigenous appearance was wrong. As far as my concern;
and even Dr. Graham Houghton once states someone and says that, our appearance matter when
we present ourselves; or to propagate gospel. We must make ourselves presentable whenever we
encounter with others. Nobili thought that his western look might cause hindrance to the spread of
gospel so; he changed the form and kept same social meaning. Third, his uses of Sandal paste in
the congregation. I agree with his point as far as my concern that there is no religious element in
it. Nobili describes that
The ceremony of putting sandal-paste on the forehead differed from the Hindu practice, both in the
material used and its end. Thus, the material used by the Hindus was ash, while that used by
Christians was sandal-paste. The Hindus did it impelled by the sacrilegious belief that their god did
the same. The Christians on the other hand did it as a sign of respect when going into the presence
of God, since the custom of the land demanded that one mark on his forehead before presenting
himself before a dignitary.

It was a common practice unlike, other practices in Indian. Whenever people will go to the temple,
somebody will put a mark called tilak or red dott to the reverence of that place or signifies
participation. Precisely, it is not just to participate in the pagan practices since we are separated
from them. However, Nobili used to put sandal-paste practice but he changed the form, even its
meaning and made it comfortable to the converts from Hinduism which is not wrong.
Identity and Dialogue
Despite his rather unique approach to dialogue and conversion, there is no way in which de Nobili
can be seen as being both spiritually Hindu and Christian. However, he does have a double
religious identity of sorts, through being Hindu in means of dress and custom; de Nobili serves as
a great example of someone who has an aesthetical, and even acquired a cultural, Hindu identity,
whilst remaining spiritually Christian, all for the sake of a Christian mission which would ease the
stress of Christian conversion. He is an example of how two facets, aesthetical and cultural, can

72
overlap in practice. The significance of his historical context should not be overlooked, as the
Catholicism of the day was exclusive, much more so than it is now because (as previously
discussed) Catholicism post Vatican II is inclusive (rather than exclusive) in its ideologies and
attitudes towards peoples of other faiths. The Hindu aesthetics he adopted are what enabled him
to spread the Gospel news, but they in no way reflect his spiritual religious identity; rather they
were the means to the end of bringing people to faith in Christ, a faith which he himself never
deserted. de Nobili, then, demonstrates the role that double religious identity can play in Christian
mission, shown by his efforts in entering into dialogue and the conscious use of his aesthetical
religious identity for the purposes of conversion. Whilst some might feel that de Nobili’s actions
were misguided, nevertheless this was once a good reason for entering into dialogue and therefore
should be examined in a study of this nature. The various accusations levelled at him are proof that
the pioneering method which defined his career was indeed “marked by controversy” because of
the way in which his religious identity was perceived.

J.N. FARQUAR
Farquhar was born at Aberdeen in 1861. He was educated at Aberdeen Grammar
School and Aberdeen University and served an apprenticeship as a draper, but he returned to
school at an age of 21, and finished his studies at Oxford University. With no prior ordination, he
was recruited by London Missionary Society as a lay educational missionary and sent to India in
1891. He arrived at Calcutta and started his missionary work by teaching at Bhowanipur for eleven
years from 1891. He joined Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) in 1902 as a national
student secretary; later, as a literary secretary, a post which he held until 1923. While working at
YMCA, he strived to enable the association to widen its appeal to students through lectures,
through personal friendships, and through production of whole new body of literature of the
highest grade that India had ever known before. Due to ill-health, he left India in 1923. He spent
last six years of his life working as a professor of comparative religion in the University of
Manchester. He died in Manchester in 1929.
Fulfilment theory
From 1902-1923 his main concern was to develop a theology based on questions raised by Hindu
thinkers, the very eminent thinkers like Rathakrishan, Dayananda Sarasvati and Vivekananda.
Farquhar felt the crucial need of a workable apologetic approach to the university educated Indians
and as a means to that end sought to find a more satisfactory relationship between Christianity and
Hinduism than that of mere mutual exclusion. In a serious of writings, he gradually worked out his
idea of fulfillment. I came not to destroy but to fulfill (Matthew 5: 17), has cleared up for us
completely all our difficulties with regard to the OT Can it be that Christ Himself was thinking
of pagan faiths as well as Judaism?... If Christ able to satisfy all the religious needs of the human
heart, then all the elements of pagan religious needs of the human heart since they spring from
these needs, will be found reproduced in perfect form, completely fulfilled, consummated in
Christ.
He believes that there is an evolutionary connection between Hinduism and Christianity
as of lower to the higher, so that what is only foreshadowed in Hinduism is fulfill and perfected in
Christianity. Jesus Christ crowns and fulfills the quest that is in the Hinduism that is understood
as the fulfillment theory. What Christ has fulfilled in Judaism, is fulfilled in Hinduism. He says,

73
when we say that Christianity is the crown of Hinduism, we do not mean Christianity as it is lived
in any nation nor Christianity as it is deepened and discipline of any single church but Christianity
as it springs living and creative from Christ himself. It is beyond denominationalism or
sectarianism. Every religion has some truth and that is instrumental in leading every man to God,
he says. Every religion is useful to lead people to God. Conversion for him is a sincere lead from
lower to the higher. Hinduism has gleams of light in it and a Hindu is right in following Hinduism
till the great light reaches him or her. According to him, it is a preparation of Christ and every
worth truth is fore shadowed in Christ. Farquhar maintained three things in relation to Hinduism.
First of all, Christianity should be able to demonstrate genuine sympathy with the phenomenon
of Hinduism. This does not mean an uncritical admiration for everything Hindu. Secondly
Christianity should be able to maintain scholarly accuracy objective studies and lastly Christianity
should continue to be directed by their own faith in Christ.
Fulfillment theology
According to O. Kandaswami Chetty, biographer of William Miller, for Miller "Christ was the
friend of all that was good and true not only in Christianity, but in Hinduism." The idea of "Christ
the fulfiller" was made familiar to the minds of South Indians of Madras Presidency long before
Farquhar's The Crown of Hinduism published in 1913. Even the colleagues of Miller like Bernard
Lucas and T.E. Slater, author of The Higher Hinduism in Relation to Christianity published in
1909, long before articulated "Fulfilment theology" at the World Missionary Conference held
at Edinburgh in 1910 itself Edinburgh conference is considered as the starting point for modern
theology of mission and also a launch-pad of the modern ecumenical movement.
According to Eric J. Sharpe, professor of Religious studies at University of Sydney; author of
books like "Not To Destroy, But To Fulfil: the contribution of J.N. Farquhar to Protestant
missionary thought in India before 1914", "John Nicol Farquhar and the missionary study of
Hinduism", "John Nicol Farquhar, a memoir", and "Faith meets Faith: Some Christian Attitudes
to Hinduism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries"; and who extensively wrote on Farquhar's
theology and missiological approach to Indian religions, has observed that Farquhar, although
fully worked out "Fulfillment thesis" in his seminal work, yet his work on "Fulfillment theology"
in Bengal was built on foundations laid out initially at Madras by William Miller itself.
He was the pioneer in popularizing his missionary theology Fulfillment theology. Although, he
didn't invent it by himself, but based his theology on William Miller Fulfilment theology that took
its shape in Madras Presidency. According to this theology, "Christ came to fulfill and bring to
completion not only the law and the prophets (Matt.5:17) but all the world's higher religions." in
this sense, Christ is the "Crown" of Hinduism.
He popularized and expressed the idea that Christianity was the fulfilment of other religions; he
advocated that Christianity was not out to destroy other religions but to fulfill. He intended to
develop a workable apologetic to maintain a satisfactory relationship between Christianity and
Hinduism during his days, there was a radical change in Indian Christian thoughts against Western
Christianity, sense of nationalism and self-consciousness was growing among Indians, Hindu
nationalism started reasserting its opposition to Christianity, Christian missionaries were
considering non-Christian religions as evil, and Church union movement towards Christian unity

74
was growing for Indianization and indigenization of Church in its administration, liturgy and
theology. With "Fulfilment theology," he affirmed that Christianity or rather Christ, is the "Crown"
of Hinduism. He hoped, progressive Hindus will embrace the Christianity; Christians, including
Christian missionaries would be more sympathetic to other religions. With an intention of
developing satisfactory relationship between Hinduism and Christianity, rather than of mere
exclusion, he gradually worked out his idea of "I came not to destroy but to fulfill."(Mathew 5:17) .
In his publication The Crown of Hinduism published in 1913, Farquhar argued that:

“If all religions are human, and yet men can in the long run hold only Christianity, clearly it must
be, in some sense, the climax of the religious development in the world, the end and culmination
of all religions. If all the great religious instincts, which have created the other faiths, find
ultimate satisfaction in Christianity, then Christianity stands in a very definite relation to every
other religion. It is the fulfilment and crown of each; and it is our privilege and duty to trace the
lines of connection and lead the peoples up to the Christ.”

Farquhar, though saw some amount of truth in non-Christian religions, yet he denounced some
elements that Christianity cannot accept. Caste system is one among them, as he felt that equality,
freedom, and justice are distinctive aspects of Christianity. According to Farquher, though,
"Fulfilment" dictated sympathy and reverence as the only "way of wisdom" for the missionary to
the Hindu, it indirectly spelt ultimate extinction for all non-Christian religions.
Eric Sharpe has remarked that Farquhar was "more than any other individual responsible for
bringing about a decisive change in the thinking of Christians over against the phenomena of other
faiths.
Fulfilment in "The Crown of Hinduism"
The Crown of Hinduism was Farquhar's response to the need for an effective apologetic approach
to the Hindu, which would remove the misconception that the Christian Gospel was anti-national
and destructive of the Indian religious and cultural heritage. The value of this work is not so much
in its conceptual originality as its breadth and scope: it attempts to establish Farquhar's thesis of
Hindu-Christian fulfilment in relation to all the main features of Hinduism. Farquhar's project is
skillfully outlined in the introduction the work in four stages. First, he describes how enhanced
modem communication has contributed to heightened interest in other religions, and a desire to
share one's religious treasures with people of other faiths. He restates two critical presuppositions
of the Science of Religion mentioned earlier: a recognition of the unity of the religious life of
humanity, and the possibility of a unifying framework provided by the evolutionary hypothesis.
He clarifies that his fulfilment view has been forged in the context of an urgent need for "a clear
statement of the practical relationship of Christianity to the other great religions". The Church feels
this need as it seeks to understand its mission to the people of other faiths and to respond to outside
objections to its sense of missionary obligation. The growing opposition to Christian mission and
conversion thus requires that these be justified in a clear statement of Christian belief regarding
the relation of Christian faith to other religions. In introducing how the informed Christian views
other religions Farquhar asserts the "underlying unity in all religions": from the lowest to the
highest there are "gleams of light" and "suggestions of truth", giving every religion "value" to its

75
followers. Consequently, every religion has some legitimacy in enabling humanity to reach God:
"We must believe that it is possible for every human being, no matter what his circumstances may
be, to find his way to God, if he truly uses all the light he has.”
The theological basis for this continuity rests primarily on the Christian acknowledgement of the
universal Fatherhood of God and the fact that Christ the universal light, although various religions
possess different degrees of light. Followers of the grossest forms of religion possess some degree
of access to God, for he accepts religious people of all nations without prejudice.] The condition
for reaching God is the same in every religion: " ... utter sincerity, the turning of his whole soul
toward the light, the frank acceptance of truth into his heart, straightforward obedience to the very
highest he knows. ,, However, newer and fuller truth received through the light of additional
revelation makes the old way invalid and ineffectual.
The fact that non-Christian religions have led multitudes of men and women to God, and continue
to mediate a true and fruitful religious experience, is evidence that each possesses some truth. He,
however, distinguishes the observation that all religions "contain" some measure of truth from the
absolute claim that all these religions are true. The irreconcilable differences and fundamental
contradictions between various religions are evidence of the superiority of some religions over
others, with Christianity clearly occupying the highest place.
Christ, the Crown of Hinduism
Farquhar's apologetic was concerned with affirming the supremacy of Christ based on his thesis
that Christ is the "consummator" of all the world's religions and the "spiritual crown" of Hinduism.
To what extent does he succeed in affirming the decisiveness of Christ in relation to Hinduism and
the other religions? Farquhar's Christology was cast in the straightforward categories of nineteenth
century evangelical orthodoxy. His entire discussion of the Hindu teaching on incarnation and its
fulfilment in Christ rests on an orthodox understanding of the deity of Christ: “In relation to God
the Father, Jesus called Himself the Son, and He affirmed that He alone could reveal the Father.”
The essence of the Hindu doctrine of the incarnation” ... that God became a man, was born, lived,
and died a man", is fulfilled in the Christian conviction that "Jesus is the incarnate Son of God"
and "the revelation of God.,” Likewise, in his treatment of the work of Christ, we find as much
discussion on the themes of atonement and redemption as the context warrants. For instance, in
concluding his discussion of how Christ fulfils the Hindu concept of incarnation, he affirms the
orthodox doctrine of the substitutionary atoning death of Christ:
Jesus came into the world to save men from sin ... and the greatest of His acts was His redemptive
death ... .in His death Jesus laid down his life deliberately, voluntarily, in full obedience to His
Father's will, realizing that the Cross was needed to secure our emancipation from the chains of sin.
His blood was the only possible ransom. It was shed for US.

His Christological framework is, however, inadequate for sustaining his fulfilment view. The main
question left unaddressed is whether there is anything "transcendent" or new in the fuller and
brighter light that Christ brings. Is Christ then the "crown" of Hinduism only in a quantitative
sense? If so, what does this indicate regarding his view of Christ's decisiveness? Farquhar does not
appear to have seen the need for providing an original Christological framework for his fulfilment
approach. His intention rather seems to have been to reinterpret the data of the Hindu tradition

76
within a scheme that pointed to fulfilment in Christ as described in the Gospels and interpreted in
the categories of nineteenth century evangelical faith. We are thus compelled to explore Farquhar's
earlier writings for light on certain questions unclarified in the later exposition of his fulfilment
view. The most critical is whether the light that shines outside of Christ is adequate for salvation.
A.G. HOGG
A. G. Hogg was a philosopher, and spent his long missionary career teaching philosophy in India.
His teaching and personality were to have a deep influence on a whole generation of Hindu
thinkers, of whom his student Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was the most distinguished. As a teacher
in a residential college, Hogg had deep and lasting friendships with Hindus. He could not doubt
the reality of their experience of God. He was absolutely clear about the centrality and decisiveness
of God's revelation of himself in Jesus, but he reasoned from his own experience of God in Jesus
that the God who revealed himself thus could only be the God who is seeking always and
everywhere to woo men and women from their estrangement and unbelief to a filial trust in their
heavenly father. He was sure that at the heart of the religious experience of his Hindu friends, with
all its errors and falsehoods, there was a faith which was a partial and defective, yet real, response
to this divine pleading.
Non-Christian faith
Hogg was led to challenge Kraemer at two principal points. First, Kraemer had started from the
distinction between the unique revelation in Jesus and the empirical phenomena of religion,
including Christianity. Hogg argued that an analogous distinction must be made between the faith
of the non-Christian, in which there is a real though partial response to a real revelation, and the
faiths-the complexes of belief and practice-which have been built around this central reality to
form the non-Christian religions. These latter are full of error which the Christian missionary must
lay bare. But the existence of these errors does not destroy the reality of the faith, nor does it
require us to deny the reality of the revelation to which this faith is a response. Non-Christian faith,
therefore, is 'not merely a seeking but in real measure a finding, and a finding by contact with
which the Christian may be helped to make fresh discoveries in his own finding of God in Christ.
' Thus 'it is radically wrong for a missionary to approach men of other faiths under a conviction-
no matter how sincerely humble that conviction may be-that he and his fellow-believers are
witnesses to a divine revelation, while other religions are exclusively the product of a "human
religious consciousness" Secondly, Kraemer had affirmed the uniqueness of God's revelation in
terms which appeared to suggest that revelation occurs nowhere but in Jesus. Hogg also affirms
the uniqueness of the revelation in Jesus, but finds the uniqueness in the content of the revelation,
not simply in the fact of its occurrence. God is always revealing himself, though some fail to
respond. What is unique about Jesus is that here alone was the perfect response, and therefore the
full and perfect manifestation of God's will and purpose. The uniqueness does not lie in the fact
that a revelation took place, but in what was revealed. The 'what' is the person and work and
teaching of Jesus, which 'must win conviction by its own direct appeal'.

77
Missionary Constructions of Indian Christian Theology
Alfred George Hogg was a missionary from Scotland who came to work as a Professor of
Philosophy in the Madras (Christian (college. Hogg wrote four books, The &Christian
interpretation of Mediation. Karma and Redemption. &Christ’s Message of the Kingdom. And
The &Cristian Message to the Hindu.
After the famous World missionary (conference in Edinburgh in 1910, the one theme of mission
theology was the relationship between hristianity and other religions. Some like Farquhar were
quite sympathetic towards other religions, calling Christianity as the fulfillment of Hinduism.
Others were quite negative, rejecting the whole of the no Christian religions as false and erroneous.
In the light of all these developments, Hogg coined a key phrase, which gained importance
in Indian Christian Theology he said that in the communication of the Gospel to the Hindu there
must always be “challenging relevancy.” To put it in his own words, there must be a challenge for
it is a unique gospel that the church is commissioned by its Lord to declare. but the message must
not only be challenging, it must also be relevant to the hearers. Otherwise the hearer at some point
or the other would switch off, because your message is not useful for him/her and his/her problems.
Hogg also feels that instead of searching out points of similarity between (hristianity and
Hinduism, we must seek to identify those points where Christian and Hindu concepts are most
radically opposed. In fact, they must be such key points that the important doctrines can be
developed from them. Once this is done, the next step is to formulate Christian doctrine in a way
which speaks clearly to the actual need of our Hindu friends. This is his understanding of
challenging relevancy. As such Hogg’s approach is of an encounter of the Hindus with Christian
this encounter the Hindu is awakened to certain needs and hungers of which he was previously
unaware or did not possess. The task of the Christian then is to introduce to the Hindu the figure
of Jesus Christ that he awakes in him new depths of hunger spiritually.
Hogg was not in favor of putting the garb of Hindu words to the body of the Christian message.
Therefore, he is against using Hindu words to describe the Christian message, as the Hindu words
have a content attached with them that cannot be rejected or thrown out. He admits that the doctrine
of karma provides a logical theory of punishment and offers to explain the inequalities of human
situation. Hogg presents a Christian criticism of karma theory. He says it is" It is incapable of
being demonstrated scientifically. It robes history of its meaning. It frustrates the will to serve. It
has no analogy in nature. It contradicts the theory of evolution. It interests the natural law.
He says in Christian view that evil actions bear bad/evil fruits and good action bear good fruits.
This is the law of ethical causation. According to him sinful man is redeemed by virtue of God’s
suffering.
Christology
A.G. Hogg’s description of Jesus as the ‘transcendent satyagrahi’. Faith in God’s self-giving love,
revealed through the cross of Christ, finds expression in a non-violent struggle of the people for
freedom and justice.

78
LESSLIE NEWBIGIN
James Edward Lesslie Newbigin (8 December 1909 – 30 January 1998) was a
British theologian, missiologist, missionary and author. Though originally ordained within
the Church of Scotland, Newbigin spent much of his career serving as a missionary in India and
became affiliated with the Church of South India and the United Reformed Church, becoming one
of the Church of South India's first bishops. A prolific author who wrote on a wide range of
theological topics, Newbigin is best known for his contributions to missiology and ecclesiology.
He is also known for his involvement in both the dialogue regarding ecumenism and the Gospel
and Our Culture movement. Many scholars also believe his work laid the foundations for the
contemporary missional church movement, and it is said his stature and range is comparable to the
"Fathers of the Church.".
Theological Contributions
Four of Newbigin’s most important contributions to theology, especially ecclesiology and
missiology, are worth highlighting. First, Newbigin exemplified and extended the conversation
taking place around him regarding the eschatological nature of the church. According to Newbigin,
“…the Church is not to be defined by what it is, but by that End to which it moves.” Newbigin’s
trademark description of the church is ripe with eschatological significance: “The church lives in
the midst of history as a sign, instrument and foretaste of the reign of God.” As a sign, the church
points beyond itself to the eschatological new humanity. Thus, the church draws attention away
from itself and thus confesses that it is not itself the eschatological end of redemption but only its
instrument and foretaste. The mission of the church, according to Newbigin, was “itself the sign
of the coming consummation.”
Eschatology and Church
As a foretaste, the church is an appetizer of the eschatological kingdom feast. The church is not
the realized kingdom to which it points but it is a genuine foretaste of that kingdom. Inasmuch as
the church is a community welcoming all cultures and is a fellowship that actualizes the peace and
justice which Christ has won for all people, the church is a preview of eschatological community
and the nucleus of a new redeemed humanity. It is the function of “a foretaste to make us long
ardently for that which is yet to come.” If the church is a foretaste, then it can serve as an
instrument.
As an instrument, the church is used to bring about the eschatological goal. While the church points
to the kingdom, and gives a sample of it, it also serves to usher the kingdom in, primarily through
its mission. Thus, Christian mission is not only a sign of the kingdom but also the “instrument of
a universal and eschatological salvation.” Through the empowerment of the Spirit, the church
leads this present age to its consummation, by bringing the Gospel to all nations. To summarize,
eschatologically speaking, history is on the way to a summing-up in Christ. The church points to
this reality, gives the world a taste of its flavor, and, through its mission, helps to usher it into
being.
Newbigin’s eschatological imagination was the wellspring of two further contributions to
ecclesiology: “the action of the eschatologically aware church must be both in the direction of
mission and in that of unity, for these are but two aspects of the one work of the Spirit.”

79
It might be summarized by stating that the church is missionary by nature. Indeed, an
eschatological ecclesiology must be a missionary ecclesiology, for the “implication of a true
eschatological perspective will be missionary obedience…” Thus, mission is not seen as merely
something the church does, but as essential to what it is. This commitment led Newbigin, while
head of the International Missionary Council, to commission Johannes Blauw to write The
Missionary Nature of the Church (1962).
Election and Church
Reimagining his inherited Reformed doctrine of election, Newbigin asserted that the church was
the elect people of God, chosen not merely for God’s blessing but for service as God’s missionary
people, priests for the world. The missionary and eschatological natures of the church are also
evident in Newbigin’s designation of the church as “the pilgrim people of God…hastening to the
ends of the earth to beseech all men to be reconciled to God, and hastening to the end of time to
meet its Lord who will gather all into one.”
Newbigin’s thought consistently and powerfully held together the integral relationship between
the church’s unity and its mission. As noted above, Newbigin was distressed by the way
denominational missions in South India were reifying caste divisions. This division was for
Newbigin a public and scandalous counter-witness to the gospel of reconciliation. The church
cannot be an instrument “beseeching all men to be reconciled to God, except we ourselves be
willing to be reconciled one to another in Him.” Christian unity testifies to participation in Christ
and the effectiveness of the gospel. Indeed, Newbigin noted, it was the church itself that Jesus left
behind as his witness, and its unity was “in order that the world may believe.”
Mission and Church
According to Newbigin, unity was a means to mission, but also a product of mission. Newbigin
rightly credited the modern missionary movement with bringing about the ecumenical movement.
When the church attempts to do mission, Newbigin asserted, it discovers how destructive and
unacceptable disunity is: “Everything about such a missionary situation conspires to make
Christian disunity an intolerable anomaly.” Thus Newbigin believed the hope for organic
ecumenical unity was not in academic discussions, but mission partnership. This belief, rooted in
his South India experience, led him to push for the integration of the IMC and the WCC.
For Newbigin, both unity and mission were basic to the church’s essence, thus he could say “When
the Church ceases to be one, or ceases to be missionary, it contradicts its own nature.” By this
measure, Newbigin accused much of the church of failing to be church. At this impasse, Newbigin
drew again from his Reformed tradition in declaring that “Simul justus et peccator applies to the
Church as to the Christian.” Thus, the church is the church despite its fundamental failures because
God is the one who calls things that are not as though they are, ala Romans 4:17.
Newbigin forcefully brought to awareness the post-Christian status of the West as a mission field,
and called for its reconversion. The importance of this reconversion rested, for Newbigin, in the
fact that modern post-Enlightenment western culture was replacing traditional cultures all over the
world and that he considered it the “most powerful, most pervasive and (with the possible
exception of Islam) the most resistant to the Gospel of all the cultures which compete for power in
our global city.” As this quotation suggests, Newbigin saw the need for “the same intense and

80
sustained attention to the problem of finding the ‘dynamic equivalent’ for the Gospel in Western
society as [missiologists] are giving to that problem as it occurs in the meeting with people of the
‘Third World.’” Newbigin thus turned his missiological acumen to the task of contextualization of
the gospel in the late modern West, by seeking to give Western Christians a “proper confidence”
in the gospel as a public truth capable of competing in the market of ideas. One of the chief
challenges here was what Newbigin identified as the domestic captivity of the Western Church
that he believed the church had become a prime example of syncretism. Moreover, the Church had
gone on the defensive against the claims of Western, pluralistic society when its essential task was
to live and tell the story that challenges every other account of reality from ancient religions up to
the skepticism of modernity.
The Gospel as public truth
Newbigin continually asserts the authority of Jesus Christ as public truth. Belief and acceptance
of this authority is a personal decision but one with public intent.
“The authority of Jesus cannot be validated by reference to some other authority that is
already accepted” because the gospel is a new starting point, a new lens to see the world
by. When Jesus’ disciples are challenged with the question, “By what power or by what
name did you do this?” Their only possible answer is “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:7-
10). This Lordship extends to all things and “because the authority of Jesus is ultimate, the
recognition of it involves a commitment that replaces all other commitments”
This ultimate authority means that in its declaration of the gospel the Church is not articulating a
spiritual or inward truth but a social and political reality. The task of the church is to live out this
confession and commitment in the public square as a sign and a foretaste of the consummation of
this authority. An overly spiritualized or individualized form of discipleship and witness does not
come from a Biblical frame of thinking. On this issue it is worth quoting him at length:
“The community that confesses Jesus is Lord has been, from the beginning, a movement launched
into the public life of mankind. The Greco-Roman world in which the New Testament was written
was full of societies offering to those who wished to join a way of personal salvation. There were
several commonly used Greek words for such societies. At no time did the church use any of these
names for itself…it used with almost total consistency the name ecclesia the ecclesia theou, the
assembly called by God…The Church could have escaped persecution by the Roman Empire if it
had been content to be treated as a cultus privatus.”

Of course, there are the dangers of imperialism and arrogance that can come in declaring that our
truth is public and relevant for all. Newbigin was a missionary during the height of the backlash
against imperialism and the guilt of the Western Church. But this is where we need ‘proper
confidence’ in the gospel rather than arrogance about the Church. We need assurance in Christ
and in what he has done, whilst being honest about the failings of his Church.
The Church must always be mindful of the nature of the servant kingship that Jesus embodied and
gave to us as our example. Jesus did wash his disciples’ feet and commanded us to do the same,
but as is clear in John 13, Jesus’ humble actions were rooted in a deep confidence about his
authority: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power” (John 13:3). Thus our

81
service and example should always remain humble without losing its deep confidence and clarity
about the unique authority of the one we follow.
ROBIN BOYD
Boyd was born in Belfast in 1924, to Irish missionaries to India. He pursued undergraduate studies
in classics at Trinity College Dublin, which was interrupted from 1943 to 1945 for war service,
and went on for theological studies at New College, Edinburgh. He worked for two years with
the Student Christian Movement as secretary to theological colleges (1951–1953), studied briefly
in Basel with Karl Barth and Oscar Cullmann, before marrying his first wife and SCM colleague
Frances Paton (granddaughter of John Gibson Paton) and moving to India as Christian
missionaries in 1954. In 1959, Boyd returned to Edinburgh to begin his PhD on the subject “The
Place of Dogmatic Theology in the Indian Church.”
He was appointed to the Gujarat United School of Theology in Ahmedabad in 1961 and witnessed
the formation of the Church of North India in 1970. In 1974, after twenty years as a missionary in
India, Boyd took up the parish ministry in Melbourne and witnessed the formation of another
church union, the Uniting Church in Australia in 1977. He later served as director of the Irish
School of Ecumenic (1980–1987) before returning to Melbourne for parish ministry and retiring
in 1994. His wife Frances died in 1998 and, after a brief visit to Scotland, he married Anne Booth-
Clibborn (née Forrester) a former Church of Scotland social worker in Kenya. Boyd died on 14
June 2018 in Edinburgh.
Theology
God as Spirit
In his Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, Robin Boyd observed that over nearly two
hundred years of Indian Christian theology pneumatology, particularly as it is expressed in John’s
gospel, emerges as the “cornerstone”. That is, God’s dealings with the world are seen primarily in
terms of the Spirit. This reflects the dominant cultural understanding that God is Spirit and that the
earth is the embodiment of the feminine power of God. Similarly, the Catholic theologian Felix
Wilfred explains to critics of Indian theology that, in keeping with Eastern religions in general,
Asian Christian theologies recognize particularly “the inexhaustible aspect of the divine mystery
which St John expresses laconically: ‘God is spirit’ (Jn 4.24)”.
Spirit Christology
The Indian Christology that Boyd describes tends therefore to be “Spirit Christology” rather than
“Logos Christology”, that is, it begins from the work of God in the world through God’s Spirit
since the creation and understands Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of that, rather than by justifying
the claims about the person and nature of Christ. In other words, in their dialogue with the twin
realities of the religious traditions of India and in awareness of the material poverty of its people,
Indian theologians have been particularly concerned with the role of Jesus Christ in mediating the
presence and salvation of God, rather than with the traditional Western preoccupation with matters
of ontology. According to James Dunn, the New Testament record gives grounds for Spirit
Christology as one of the earliest traditions, which was combined with Logos Christology in the
development of the Trinity.

82
The Spirit as Atman and Antaryamin
Boyd pointed out that the concept of the Holy Spirit may be rendered in Sanskrit by several
different words – atman, antaryamin and shakti each reflecting a different tradition and carrying
different connotations. 13 The word atman (spirit, soul, self) and its cognates including
Paramatman (Supreme Spirit) and antaratman (inner spirit) come from advaitic or classical
Hinduism. Advaita means “oneness”, or more literally “not two-ness” or “non-duality”. Describing
the Spirit as atman draws attention to the interior dimension, the spirit within, and its union with
the universal Spirit, Brahman. George Gispert-Sauch finds the expression “ground of being” a
better translation of the concept of atman than “soul” or “self”.
The Catholic ascetic, Abhishiktananda described the Holy Spirit as “the advaita of God, the
mystery of the non-duality of the Father and the Son”. In this vein Vandana, a leader of the Catholic
ashram movement, presents ashramic spirituality as a holistic approach to life, leading to and
flowing from a realisation of oneness with the One Spirit and hence a connectedness with the
universe and with “spiritual” people regardless of gender, caste and religion. This image of the
Spirit as the unifying principle of the Godhead and therefore of the universe lies behind Samartha’s
theology of dialogue, which is foundational to the ecumenical approach to other faiths. He insisted
on the relevance of the philosophy of advaita, claiming that the universal or “unbound” Spirit or
advaita provides the “unitive vision” that holds Indian communities together and allows for the
“traffic across the borders” that is dialogue. Samartha describes dialogue itself as not so much a
method or technique but “a mood, a spirit, an attitude of love and respect” for “our neighbors of
other faiths”. That is, dialogue takes place in the “milieu” of the Spirit.
VI. Christian life as Bhakti Marga and Contemplation
Definition of ‘Bhakti’
The word “Bhakti” is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘bhaj’, which has the sense of
divide, participate and share. Sanskrit English Dictionary
defines it as attachment, devotion, fondness for trust, homage, worship, piety, faith or love. The
parallel English word for Bhakti is (loving)devotion. However, generally it has been translated in
English as faith. It refers to a sense of love, obedience, devotion to God. According to Biren Kumar
Nayak, “Bhakti is the loving devotion to a personal God.” For T. Dayanandan Francis, “Bhakti
implies a distinction between God and man (sic). Bhakti is the deep longing of the soul for the
worship of God and for union with God.” Martin Alphonse considers Bhakti as a spiritual act of
love or devotion of a bhakta (devotee) to a personal God. Appasamy quotes L. J. Sedgwick’s
definition on Bhakti, “Personal faith in a personal God, love for Him (sic) as for a human being,
the dedication of everything to His (sic) service, and the attainment of “Moksha” (final bliss) by
this means, rather than by knowledge, or sacrifice or works.” For Appasamy Bhakti means a deep
and unselfish love of the whole humankind for God, finding its highest bliss in union with God. In
regard to the bhakta Laji Chacko states, bhakta experiences separation from God and therefore
longs to meet God, nothing else attracts, nothing else holds but God alone. The bhakta seeks a God
who can beloved and worshiped and who remains distinct from the worshipper, a God who can be
approached with feelings of deep love and personal devotion. Thus, Bhakti can be understood as
communion with personal God, love and devotion for God and attainment of moksha by means of
Bhakti.

83
SADHU SUNDER SINGH
Sadhu Sundar Singh (1889 - 1929), born in Patiala State, India, became an Indian Christian
missionary whose life and message had a far ranging impact. Born into a Sikh family, Sundar grew
up a faithful Sikh. When a boy, he converted to Christianity, incurring the rejection by his father.
Sundar withdrew from a Christian seminary after refusing to cast off his Sikh clothing and wear
Western clothing. That set the direction of his ministry, seeking to wear the clothing and speak the
terminology of the Sikh while conveying the Christian message. Sundar's impact went far and
wide, influencing important spiritual leaders, such as Mahatma Ghandi and C.S. Lewis. He is
believed to have died in the foothills of the Himalayas in 1929, although his body was never found.
The international Christian missionary press focused upon Sundar Singh's Christian message, even
giving some attention to the Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist terminology. His universalism message
though received little or no attention from the missionary Christian community. His writings were
widely published, revealing his view that so-called heathen Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs will go
to heaven as surely as a faithful Christian. Sundar, reflecting on an international trip he made to
the West during the 1920s, shared his view that many more Indian and Asian people have profound
faith than those in the West. During Sundar's lifetime, Great Britain ruled India, but he paid little
attention to that political situation. He focused his mission on reaching Indian and Tibetan people
with the life example and message of Jesus Christ. Reflecting on his way of life, the thought
presents that if Jesus Christ could have sent his disciples to India during Jesus' lifetime, they would
have lived and worked as Sadhu Sundar Singh had. His life displayed how the lifestyle and
message of the New Testament can integrate seamlessly into the life style of a Sikh, Hindu, Jain,
and Buddhist holy person.
Bhakti Mysticism and Sundar Singh's Fulfilment Framework
Sundar Singh's sermons and writings are of great value to us, both for their distinctive theological
content as well as their widespread and prolonged influence. His teaching and writings are marked
by direct simplicity of insight and vividness of expression. Although his theology is not set forth
in a systematic or structured form in any of his writings, the essential elements of his thought seem
to fit together into an integrated and coherent pattern. Sundar Singh's distinctive interpretation of
the Christian faith as embodied in his lifestyle and reflected in his sermons and writings raised a
number of questions both during his life-time and in the years following his death, many of which
were addressed in a substantial body of published writings in Europe.
These, for the most part, focused on the “Sadhu controversy” or on his mystical orientation, with
little attention being paid to a theological evaluation of his teaching. His contribution to the
development of Indian Christianity has thus been largely neglected, and his approach to other
religions almost totally ignored. Our purpose in this study is to examine the fulfilment approach
of Sundar Singh, as an Indian convert to Christian faith, whose "access to the innermost chambers
of Indian spirituality", resulted in the emergence of an original framework for relating the Christian
faith to the bhakti tradition. In the first stage of our evaluation, we explore the roots of Sundar
Singh's bhakti orientation, and then investigate the nature and extent of bhakti influence upon his
thought, based on which we propose a framework of 'continuity' between Sundar Singh's bhakti
and Christian experience.

84
The Background and Sources of Sundar Singh's Bhakti Mystical Orientation.
The outstanding characteristic of Sadhu Sundar Singh's theology is that it is grounded in personal
experience: "People do not believe, because they are strangers to the experience .... Faith and
experience must come first, and understanding will follow. We cannot understand until we have
some spiritual experience, and that comes through prayer. This emphasis on spiritual experience
in Sundar Singh's religious life and reflection is widely acknowledged by students of his thought.
One of the earliest analyses of his life and thought identified him as essentially a mystic, and
subsequent studies have tended to regard him primarily as a mystic-saint rather than a philosopher,
theologian or scholar. We will, thus, briefly explore the significance of the term 'mysticism' as it
relates to Sundar Singh's distinctive emphasis on spiritual experience.
Earlier definitions tended to describe 'mysticism' in essentialist terms, as a universal phenomenon
presents in various religious traditions, involving direct, unmediated intuitive experience and non-
rational appropriation of the ultimate reality. Critical to this view of mysticism was the
epistemological assumption that there was a 'mystical' way of appropriating reality through direct
intuitive experience, which bypassed the rational cognitive process.
This recognition of the contextuality and plurality of mystical experience makes the traditional
generic definitions of 'mysticism' implausible. Hence, the terms 'mysticism' or 'mystical' are used
hereafter in this study in a non-technical sense, to denote broadly the inner psychological,
devotional and spiritual dimensions of religious experience, the content of which is context-
specific. In Sundar Singh it is expressed in a blend of Hindu and Sikh bhakti elements within a
framework of Christ-centered devotional experience. At this stage we adopt this only as a
hypothesis, which we attempt to verify in the discussion that follows. We turn, then, to investigate
the specific sources of Sundar Singh's mystical orientation. Most commentators locate the original
impulse for Sundar Singh's mystical experience in his pre-Christian bhakti devotional roots.
However, some of the same commentators concur with others in asserting that he frequently
disclaimed the influence of any school of Hinduism upon his understanding of the Christian faith.
Are there any grounds for suggesting the definitive influence of bhakti upon Sundar Singh's
mystical orientation?
Bhakti Mysticism as a Framework of Continuity' in Sundar Singh's Fulfilment View
In considering the influence of bhakti upon Sundar Singh's theological framework, we are
especially concerned with those aspects of his pre-Christian bhakti religious consciousness, which
conditioned his conversion experience, and then subsequently became incorporated into his
Christian world-view. As noted earlier the influence of the New Testament on Sundar Singh's
thought is fairly explicit; what is in question is the fact and nature of bhakti influence. The
following analysis will focus, accordingly, on aspects of Sundar Singh's framework most likely to
have been conditioned by Singh's pre-Christian bhakti consciousness. The possibility of
specifically biblical or Christian influence in the shaping of those elements is thereby not
precluded. It is in fact presupposed, except with respect to those features expressly relating to his
pre-Christian consciousness, such as, for instance, the source of his pre-conversion aspirations
prior to exposure to Christian sources.
Our strategy thus does not seek to prove that Sundar Singh 'borrowed' certain elements from
various bhakti strands within his Christian framework, as much as to demonstrate 'continuity' - that

85
elements in his pre-Christian consciousness are likely to have contributed to his Christian
theological framework. We will have succeeded in demonstrating this 'continuity' if we discern
some elements of his Christian framework that are distinctively bhakti, and others that may be
common to both the bhakti and Christian traditions. The elements of 'continuity' thus identified
will help us affirm a framework 'continuity' between Sundar Singh's bhakti and Christian
experience. We focus on three critical components: his conception of God, his understanding of
divine revelation, and his view of salvation.
God: Sundar Singh's understanding of God is compatible with the Sikh and Vaisnava Hindu bhakti
conceptions of God at several points. He echoes a facet of Sikh mystical theology when he speaks
of God as ineffable and ultimately incomprehensible in essence, transcending all human categories
and powers of expression: "No man has ever seen or heard God as He is in Himself.” He thus
occasionally uses abstract terms such as 'Reality' or 'Truth' to address God. too This emphasis on
God as 'Truth' or 'the True One' resonates deeply with the Sikh view as observed in the opening
words of the Japji":
There is but one God whose name is true, the Creator, devoid of fear and enmity, immortal, unborn,
self-existent; by the favor of the Guru. The True One was in the beginning; the True One was in
the primal age. The True One is now also, O Nanak; the True One also shall be.

In keeping with the emphasis in both Sikh and Vaisnava bhakti, however, the 'Truth' or 'Reality'
which Sundar Singh refers to is clearly a personal being, an object of worship and devotion: "God
Himself is pleased when we pray. He rejoices in our worship. Yes, God and the soul long for each
other. God needs our prayer, just as a mother does not feel well if her baby does not lie on her
bosom and drink." Although he most commonly uses the biblical image of God as 'Father' or
'Heavenly Father', he also uses other personal terms such as 'Creator', 'Spiritual Mother' or
'Heavenly Mother-Father' to address God. The inclusive language of God as 'Father' and 'Mother'
would have been viewed as a radical innovation by the Christian community of Sundar Singh's
time; this emphasis on the 'motherhood' of God was thus almost certainly influenced by the
Vaisnava bhakti tradition Sundar Singh had imbibed in his formative years.
The conception of God as love is at the heart of the bhakti framework, and, for Sundar Singh, God
is supremely and above all else perfect, pure, self-giving love. The phrase "God is love" occurs
frequently and expresses Sundar Singh's favorite description of God :
God is the source of love. The force of gravity ... [is] the manifestation in matter of that spiritual
force of gravity, which is love and whose source is God ... God's love is infinite ... God's capacity
for love is without limit and, therefore, is sufficient for all.

Divine Revelation: According to Sundar Singh, God is always present in his creation, and every
aspect of God's creation, visible and invisible, animate and inanimate, in some way reflects the
nature and attributes of God. The God who has never been seen or heard as he is in himself reveals
something of his wisdom, power and glory through his creation: “In heaven and in earth God
proclaims His power and wisdom and glory in His wonderful handiwork.” Sundar Singh,
consequently, possessed an extraordinary fascination for nature, the handiwork and reflection of
the Creator-God. He loves the beauty of nature, it enhances his communion with God, and he

86
draws great enjoyment from reading the great truths of God in the "book of nature". He takes the
revelation of God in nature very seriously, frequently juxtaposing the "Book of nature" alongside
the Bible:
“The Bible and the Book of Nature are both written in spiritual language by the Holy Spirit. The
Holy Spirit being the author of life, all Nature, instinct with life, is the work of the Holy Spirit, and
the language in which it is written is spiritual language. Those who are born again have the Holy
Spirit for their mother. So, to them the language of the Bible and of nature is their mother tongue,
which they easily and naturally understand.”

The Bible and the "Book of nature" both have the same author, the Holy Spirit, and use the same
spiritual language of the Spirit, which only those who are "born again" understand. The difference
is that: "The message of the Bible is simple, direct and straightforward, whereas the message of
the Book of Nature has to be spelt out carefully letter by letter.”
Salvation: Sundar Singh's understanding of salvation is strongly conditioned by the bhakti mystic
quest for union with the divine. His view of the self in its relation to God is consonant with
Vaisnava bhakti spirituality, which regards mystical union with the divine as communion between
two free personalities rather than absorption in the absolute:
God is our Creator and we are His creatures; He is our Father, and we are His children. If we want
to rejoice in God, we must be different from Him; the tongue could taste no sweetness if there were
no difference between it and that which it tastes ... To be redeemed does not mean to be lost or

Man's deep desire for union with God is an intuitive impulse, expressed in a search for true peace
and happiness. The thirst in the soul for true happiness and peace implies that real happiness and
peace exists. This craving of the soul is fulfilled only when it attains real communion with God, a
conviction clearly grounded in Sundar Singh's own spiritual experience absorbed into God. We do
not lose our personality in God; rather we find it. A closer examination of certain aspects of Sundar
Singh's conversion experience offers several points of insight into the influence of his pre-Christian
religious consciousness upon his conversion and understanding of salvation. Firstly, we have some
indication of the reasons for his spiritual restlessness and pre-conversion aspirations. The human
predicament, according to Sundar Singh, is determined by sin: " ... to cast aside the will of God
and to live according to one's own will, deserting that which is true and lawful in order to satisfy
one's own desires". The strong moral content in this understanding of sin suggests its roots in the
Sikh concept of haumai, the condition of unregenerate man living in willful disobedience to God,
being led astray by the delusion of maya.
Furthermore, just as maya has no real existence of its own, but denotes a distorted and deluding
interpretation of the nature and purpose of creation permitted by God himself, for Sundar Singh,
sin or evil is " ... simply a delusive and destructive state of being ... not a self-existent thing, but
simply the absence or nonexistence of good.,, The concept of karma, likewise, though not
specifically a feature of bhakti, also conditions Sundar Singh's view of sin. Like karma, sin brings
with it its own effects, including hardening of a person's character, a process of moral degeneration
and consequent retribution. The influence of the Sikh maya concept and karma must be seen in
sharp contrast to the Calvinistic emphasis on total depravity and sin as a positive principle of evil
which characterized much of nineteenth century evangelical theology.
87
Christ as Fulfilment:
We have noted that the critical point of convergence in Sundar Singh's conception of the
preparation-fulfilment relationship is the bhakti quest for salvation through mystical fulfilment.
Sundar Singh's view of salvation must, however, be analyzed in the context of its location between
two poles: God's concern for the salvation of all humankind, and the decisiveness of Christ in
God's plan of salvation. Sundar Singh's overwhelming sense of the love and mercy of God causes
him to affirm strongly that God wills the salvation of all men and women. God's continuing
concern for people ensures his ongoing commitment to their well-being and happiness. Sundar
Singh, hence, has a very optimistic view of God's posture towards unregenerate humanity,
grounded in a theology of creation in which God's intent in creating man for fellowship with him
must be fulfilled ultimately.
Man did not create his own spirit, nor can he kill it. The Creator formed every creature for some
particular purpose, and as neither man nor God will destroy the spirit of man or the divine seed that
is in him, the purpose for which he was created will one day be fulfilled. He may go astray and be
lost, but eventually he will return to the one in whose image he has been made, because this is his
destiny .... As God created man to live in His presence and fellowship it is impossible that he should
become separated from Him forever.
Consequently, we can never be without hope for any person. This is one of several indicators in Sundar
Singh's writings of a strong inclination towards universalism. There is a certain degree of ambiguity in
Sundar Singh's teaching in this regard. On one hand, he speaks of judgment and hell in terms that affirm
the Church's traditional doctrine of everlasting punishment. The consequences of sin are described variously
as falling into "the darkness of hell", experiencing "the wrath to come", or rushing into "eternal destruction".
Disobedient Christians having no relationship to Christ will be "thrust out" of the kingdom of God. He
warns sternly that there is no possibility of salvation in the hereafter: "no second chance", "no escape" from
the "eternal death" which awaits those who reject the opportunity of salvation in this life.
The Logos-Christ of Mystical Experience
Christ is central to Sundar Singh's fulfilment theological framework. His dramatic conversion to
Christianity was the direct result of a vision of Christ, and thereafter, Christ remained the focus of his
religious experience. He is convinced that it is in Christ alone that God is fully revealed, and that we have
no knowledge of God or salvation apart from him. Is the decisiveness of Christ adequately affirmed in the
priority he gives to the mystical Christ of experience over the historical Christ? Sundar Singh's bhakti
mystical orientation ensures that the Logos-Christ of mystical experience has priority over the historical
Jesus as the object of his faith. This emphasis enables him to 'universalize' the Christ of experience and
hold together the two main poles of his salvation scheme: God's universal salvific concern and the
decisiveness of Christ.
Sundar Singh's conception bears some formal correspondence with the Logos-Christ notion of K.C. Sen.
While Christ is the center of both their religious experiences, the historical Jesus appears to be of less
consequence than the Logos-Christ. The focus of Sen's experience was the "spirit-Christ" or "all pervading"
Logos-Christ; for Sundar Singh it was the "risen", "living" or "inward" Christ. Both concur with the early
fathers in owning truth wherever it may be found as God's truth and thus seeing traces of God's revelation
and the Logos Christ in non-Christian religious experience, philosophy, science, poetry and art. The various
fragments of truth are brought together in Christ, in whom alone the Logos-light is manifested in full
measure.

88
There is, however, significant divergence between Sen and Sundar Singh in the value each ascribes to the
historical Jesus. For Sen, Christ was primarily the universal Logos-Christ who may be appropriated through
mystical experience in the context of all cultures and religions. Although the Christ of mystical experience
is critically important to Sundar Singh's scheme, the objective facts of the Christ-event also have value. Sen
rejected what he termed the "narrow", "smaller" or "little" Christ of history, since he regarded the objectivity
and historicity of the Christ-event as of little consequence. On the other hand, for Sundar Singh, the
historical figure of Christ has considerable significance.

The Joy of the Cross

Peace and joy in the mind of Sundar Singh these form the motives of the normal Christian life. But
in his own experience he has never found such pure, deep, overflowing joy and peace as in times
of most painful external sufferings. " When I had to suffer for my Savior, I found heaven on earth;
that is, a wonderful joy, which I did not feel at other times. In suffering I have always had such a
strong sense of the Presence of Christ that no doubt could cross my mind. His Presence was radiant
as the sun at noonday." This paradoxical experience has led the Sadhu into the depths of the
Christian philosophy of suffering. Suffering is the way to communion with God and to blessedness.
“The Cross is like the fruit of the wahiut-trec. The outer rind is bitter, but the kernel is refreshing
and strengthening. From the outside the Cross has neither beauty nor goodness; its essence is only
revealed to those who bear it. They find a kernel of spiritual sweetness and inward peace.”
Thus, it is that suffering and the Cross are the means which God uses to give to men the deepest
and purest blessedness. But the Cross does not bring only blessed- ness to man, it makes him like
God. Because the Savior of the world Himself endured suffering and the Cross, in like manner
humanity becomes transformed into His likeness through the Cross and through suffering. True
suffering is part of Christian mysticism; it draws the Christian into the closest living fellowship
with Christ. " It is a great privilege, a great honor, to enter into the fellowship of His sufferings.' "
Hence it is Sundar Singh's earnest desire in all things to follow the example of the suffering Christ.
In all the suspicions and accusations hurled at him by his opponents he keeps steadily before his
eyes the picture of the silent Christ before the Sanhedrin. And as he wishes to suffer with Christ,
so also, he desires to die with Him. " Because I am glad to share in the sufferings of Christ I have
no desire to experience His return while I am yet alive. . . , Rather I long to do as He did, to die,
and through the gate of death to enter heaven, that I may understand something of what it meant
to Him to die for us.” Sundar Singh is a true " Lover of the Cross."
Heaven upon Earth
The experience of Christ's Presence in prayer, deep joyful peace of soul, the sweetness of the Cross
and of suffering in this world all this the Sadhu loves to call Heaven upon earth.
" This expression, which he uses again and again, both in his public addresses and in private
conversations, Sundar Singh has not borrowed from the New Testament or the Imitatio Christi still
less from Luther or from Jakob Bohme, but rather from the old Vedic writings. In one of the most
famous of the Upanishads this phrase occurs: In very deed, this Atman is in the heart ... in truth,
he who knows this enters daily into the heavenly world."
Like that Brahman sage, Sundar Singh feels as though the whole of his life since his conversion
has been lived in heaven. " This is my testimony," he said again and again in Switzerland, " for the
past sixteen years I have lived in heaven." But his sense of present eternal bliss reaches its highest
89
point when he has to endure hardness for Christ. That terrible night which he had to spend in the
open after he was driven out of his home, he calls his " first night in heaven." After his
imprisonment at Ilom he wrote on the first page of his New Testament: “Christ's Pre-sense has
turned my prison into a heaven of blessing." In the horrible den full of corpses, he said to himself:
"This hell is heaven " This supernatural experience of “heaven upon earth” is based on prayer,
which itself brings man into immediate living communion with the Lord of heaven. “In proportion
to the reality of our inward prayer is our experience of joy and heaven upon earth.” “When our
souls are in communion with God and we experience the Reality of His Presence, we discover that
heaven consists in the possession of perfect peace.” “When we wait upon God in the stillness of
prayer,” we do not need to wait for the next world, we have already reached heaven upon earth.”
“The Christian lives already in heaven here upon earth. His heavenly life consists in prayer, in
continual communion with God in prayer.” “In prayer we are filled with the life of God and taste
the bliss of heaven.” “Eternal life is lived in prayer and is begun here below.” “Through prayer
this earth is turned into God's heaven.” For Sundar Singh the whole mystery and wonder of the
Christian life consists in the fact that “life in heaven” begins upon this earth, that eternal blessed-
ness begins in time. “This is the mystery: that here on earth we begin to live in heaven, because
we live with our Savior.” For the Sadhu, Christianity is not so much a religion which consists in
the promise of heaven, or the hope of heaven, but rather in heaven as a present possession.
A.J. APASAMY
Aiyadurai Jesudasen Appasamy was born in Palayamkottai Tamil Nadu (south India) on 3
September 1891, to Christian parents[1]His father had been a Shaivite before coming to the
Christian faith at the age of 24. A. J. Appasamy often wrote of the influence of his father and his
family on him. After becoming a Christian his father studied both Christianity and Hinduism. In
his 67th year he became consumed with a passion to see God, learnt meditation from a Hindu guru,
began to practice yoga regularly, had mystical experiences, and emphasized the value of the prayer
of dhyana (contemplation) as a method of attaining truth. His son, A.J. Appasamy, was aware of
some danger but also of ‘the immense value’ of this view of prayer; he was convinced that this
practice of yoga had made a profound, positive difference to his father's life.
In 1915 A. J. Appasamy went to study philosophy and religion in the U.S.A. at Harvard University,
and later in Britain at Oxford University, where he received a doctorate of Philosophy. It seemed
evident to Appasamy that ‘if the Christians in India are to make any impact upon national life, they
must be well-educated men who are quite familiar with the literature of the country, though they
may not follow the Hindu religion.’ He came to this conclusion from a comparison with the role
of Christians in ancient Rome. The influence of ‘many great scholars and inspiring teachers’, such
as J.N. Farquhar, B. H. Streeter, Friedrich von Hügel, William Temple, Friedrich
Heiler and Rudolf Otto, led him to the conclusion ‘that we had a good deal to learn from the life
and experience of the bhakti writers of India.’ Another influence which began at this time was that
of the sadhu Sundar Singh, who visited Oxford in 1920. Appasamy came to know Sundar Singh
well, and collaborated with B.H. Streeter in writing a book on him, The Sadhu (1921).
After returning to India in 1922 Appasamy became an editor of the Christian Literature Society.
This enabled him to continue his studies, turning to Sanskrit texts as well as Tamil; for which he

90
turned to Sanskrit pandits. He was particularly interested in ‘how Ramanuja had constructed into
a theological system his deep personal experience of God.
Christianity as Bhakti Marga
A. J. Appasamy was the only Indian theologian who more than any other has identified himself
with the Bhakti tradition. Therefore, Alphonse goes even to call him as a Christian Bhakti
theologian of Indian. He was influenced by Sadhu Sunder Singh, who visited Oxford in 1920; the
time when Appasamy was in Oxford. Appasamy attempted to interpret the Christian Gospel from
the perspective of the Bhakti tradition of Hinduism, particularly within the framework of
Ramanuja’s philosophy. According to R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves, Appasamy
identified himself with the Indian Bhakti tradition and used its insights for exposition of the fourth
Gospel. Boyd also points out this, “As Brahmabandhab used Sankara as his instrument or
elaborating an Indian Christian theology, and as Chenchiah turned towards Sri Aurobindo, so
Appasamy has looked to the personalist tradition of bhakti (sic) and to its philosophical exposition
as found in Ramanuja.” Appasamy’s subject of his Oxford doctorate dissertation was The
Mysticism of the Fourth Gospel in its Relation to Hindu Bhakti Literature. He was interested in
the work of his own Tamil devotional poets of both the Saivite and Vaisnavite traditions. He found
himself deeply stirred by the steadfast belief of these poets in a personal God and their intense
longing for communion with God. Thus, he found an Indian tradition which had close affinities
with Christianity and could surely be used as a way leading to the fuller Indian understanding of
the Christian faith. Hence, he concluded that, “Bhakti tradition and
its philosophical expression in Ramanuja is the best and most helpful available Indian instrument
for the proclamation and explanation of the Christian message.
Appasamy’s search for a philosophical basis for the Bhakti tradition led him to study of
Ramanuja’s philosophy. The fruit of his search resulted in the publication of two books, which
are perhaps his best books. They are: Christianity as Bhakti Marga (1928) and What is Moksha?
(1931). These books are an exposition of the Fourth Gospel by the wealth of illustration from the
Tamil Bhakti poets. The Christian life is seen as one loving devotion to God in Christ, and the
goal of life which is moksha (salvation) for which a Hindu or Christian long is to found in faith-
union with Christ. The chief end of humankind is not absorption into the divine but a
loving personal with God who said, ‘abide in me’. Appasamy believed that Christianity at its very
source is mystical. His approach towards mysticism is Christological. He interprets Christ’s
devotional life as the mystic experience. He states that, the life of Jesus shows a perfect
balance between its inner and outer aspects. Appasamy sees Apostle Paul as mystic. He states
that, Paul’s central experience was that of living in Christ. This indicates that Paul lived from day
today in intimate fellowship with Christ. His whole being was rested in Christ. His prolific
intellectual activity, his many-sided practical service, his strivings, his yearnings, and his
groaning-all these emerged from a life of fellowship with Christ. Appasamy sees even St. John
as a mystic. He pondered upon the words of Jesus until they give him fresh meaning. He treasured
all those parts of Jesus’ teachings which dealt on the life of communion with God. Beside them,
coming down the centuries we find great saints such as St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi,
Thomas Kempis, St. Teresa and others who had real mystical experiences. Interestingly, they are
all among the most powerful influences in the Christian Church.

91
The Union of God and Bhaktas
According to Sunand Sumithra, “Usually, the two great sayings or mahavakyas from John’s
Gospel, “I and my Father are one” and “Abide in me”, are used to prove that God and Christ
and believers are one in the same manner and that it is a union rather than communion.” The
traditional western understanding of Christ’s relationship with God is homoousios, which means
Christ is of the same substance (ousia) as God. This unity was considered to be metaphysical unity
between God and Jesus. Appasamy challenges this view by pointing out that Jesus always thought
of God as his Father and he used this name for God constantly. Jesus also says, “The Father is
greater than I’. This shows that he regards himself as wholly depended upon the father; thus, he
is not identical with God. Therefore, the relation between God and Jesus is personal relation
between Father and Son. He also points out that the oneness of Jesus with God was amoral
identity. The oneness was experienced continually and the sense of dependence was there all the
time. According to him, Jesus was one with God in the sense that he loved what God loved and
hated what God hated. Jesus from eternity past is so conformed to God’s will, so perfect in his
obedience, that the two persons are one, but in a moral rather than a metaphysical way. Appasamy
also states that, there is a moral oneness, an intimate fellowship between
God and human being in thought, feeling and will. He also states that, the union of Christ with
God or of the Christians with Christ, consists in carrying out God’s or Christ’s will to
its complete fulfilment. Thus, he holds that the union of the believers with Christ is a moral union,
based on love and obedience. He finds similarity between the union of Jesus with God and the
union of believers with Christ. The quality of life which the Bible, particularly John’s Gospel,
calls eternal life, Appasamy calls it moksha. In regard to Appasamy’s view on moksha, Sumithra
quotes from Appasamy’s book What is Moksha? A Study in the Johannine Doctrine of Life
(Moksha) is a real harmony with the holy and righteous Father (sic). It is a personal experience
which, however, in its higher reaches transcends the personal. It is a corporate experience, man
(sic) mingling with his (sic) fellow-men (sic) in order to attain the heights of God’s love. It begins
even in this life and does not wait for an in definite future.
Thus, it is been understood that Appasamy understood eternal life which is moksha in terms of
areal harmony and a personal communion with God. He also believed that moksha could be
experienced within this life. And to attain this moksha Appasamy chooses the Bhakti Marga which
maintains a real harmony and a personal communion with God. Therefore, for him Christian life
is the life of moksha (salvation) realized here and now and could be described as a life of Bhakti
(devotion). Since, the Bhakti (devotion) is personal, it engages our
whole personality, will, feeling and thought. However, he states that Christian Bhakti (devotion)
demands a response of the will, in ethical living.
The Immanence of God
T. Dayanandan Francis remarks that, the immanence of God is the basis for Bhakti
tradition. Alphonse states that, in Bhakti tradition God is believed to be antaryamin (indwelling)
in the devotee and energizing him/her from within, constantly affirming His (God) presence
therein. The Hindu bhaktas often speak of God as dwelling in the depths of their souls. God is
always connected with the deepest parts of a person’s being. Appasamy points out that there are

92
ample of teaching about the immanence of God in the New Testament. John 1:10, “he was in the
world”, is usually understood to refer only to his incarnation. However, Appasamy interprets it to
mean the presence of the immanent Christ, both before and after the incarnation. According to
Appasamy God can be known only in the heart of the world. God is present in the world and
inhuman beings. Therefore, he associated Logos of the Bible with the Hindu idea of the immanent
God, who indwells. For him Christ did not come only for the Jews rather he came for all men and
women, for all are his own. He considered everyone as by nature children of God. Therefore, Christ
as antaryamin is already present in all men and women. But men and women failed to understand
him fully. Therefore, in the person of Jesus, the immanent Logos has incarnated so that through
the indwelling of the incarnate Logos Christ, every human person may realize communion with
God in its fullness He was convinced that bhakta’s longing to realize the immanence of God as
the indweller of the human heart is the most important lesson we can learn from Bhakti tradition.
Thus, He felt that, if Christians in India cultivate such longing, we would have reached higher
levels of spirituality than we have now. And it would have also helped us to live and work for a
fuller realization of God’s abiding presence.
Prayer as Communion
Prayer is fundamentally a means of communion with God. Appasamy points out that, it is
important to remember that the most uplifting and ennobling experience in life is fellowship with
God. We must approach God with an attitude of intimate fellowship rather than an expectation.
We need to merely admire God’s goodness, truth and beauty. Therefore, it is essential for us to be
in God’s presence.
SR. SARA GRANT
Sara Grant, RSCJ (19 December 1922 – 2002) was a British Indologist, Christian missionary, and
one of the pioneers of interreligious dialogue in the twentieth century. She came to India in 1956,
as a missionary and member of the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, became actively
engaged in interreligious dialogue in India. In time, she became a leading figure in
the inculturation (imbibing local cultures) movement that was started in India by Roman Catholic
priest Fr Richard De Smet, SJ in the early 1970s, with whom she was closely associated with. Her
association with Swami Abhishiktananda, further led to working on the Advaita
Vedanta (Nondualism) teachings of Hindu philosopher Adi Sankara, as revealed in her spiritual
autobiography, Towards an Alternative Theology: Confessions of a Non-dualist Christian (1991).
She taught philosophy in Mumbai and Pune for several years, and remained spent many years as
co-acharya of the Christa Prema Seva Ashram in Pune, which combines the
Hindu ashram and sannyasa model and Christian monasticism.
The Challenge of Advaita for Christian theology
As Malkovsky states, part of Grant’s contribution to Catholic encounter with Hinduism was to
encourage a ‘greater appreciation of not only the challenge, but also the enrichment offered to
Christian thought by the world’s third largest religion.’ The idea that Hinduism (along with other
religions) might have something of value to offer for the doing of Christian theology globally
represents an aspect of Catholic reflection that has only come to prominence from the second half
of the twentieth century. In her Teape lectures, Grant identifies three ways in which the Advaita

93
of the Upanishads and Shankara might challenge contemporary Christian theology, ways in which
Advaita had answered her own spiritual and theological quest and where she had shared many
insights with Swami Abhishiktananda and de Smet.
First, she argues, Advaita challenges Christian theologians to resist the idea that theology can be
done as a purely academic subject. In Shankara’s Vedanta, knowledge of the Supreme Reality,
Brahman, only comes about as the result of a process that involves the whole person. The one who
desires knowledge of Brahman must be suitably disposed in manner of life as well as intellectually
and then must pursue the path of gradual realisation of the truth, which is revealed in the scriptures,
guided by a suitable teacher. Theology for Shankara is a practical and holistic discipline, a process
of becoming, not merely one of learning. Advaita challenges the tendency for Christian theology
to become like any other academic study:
By its uncompromising insistence and spelling out in detail of the demands the theological quest
makes on a human being; one cannot “do” theology as one may “do” mathematics or history or any
other branch of academic study. Unless our value systems are in harmony with the demands of the
Truth we are pursuing, we cannot hope for real enlightenment.

From early on Grant herself insisted on the centrality of personal experience in theological enquiry,
not least as an authority for the judgment of theological truth alongside doctrinal tradition. It was
the experiential path of encounter with Advaita that Abhishiktananda pursued and which Grant
felt herself compelled to follow in the course of her life. In the light of Advaita she came to think
of authentic theologising as always rooted in the personal contemplation and moral development
of the theologian. For Grant this model of theologising was in any case that found in classical
Christian theology in the Eastern and Western traditions. Second, Advaita challenges Christian
theologians to affirm that the divine reality remains a transcendent mystery, beyond any
conceptualisation:
By the apophatic character of Advaitic teaching about the Supreme, a dimension which has been
heavily overlaid in Christian tradition in recent centuries and yet appeals so strongly to modern
man, starved of transcendence and mystery...[that] might stem the tide of disillusionment created
by taking for granted, as still sufficient for us today, the myths and symbols which satisfied older
and less scientifically sophisticated generations.

Again, this is where her own spiritual quest and that of Abhishiktananda had much in common.
We have seen that from her early years Grant sensed that the transcendent divine mystery was
beyond the traditional formulations and devotions of Christianity and which she felt were often
made ends in themselves. From her early years in the Society Grant was taken with Aquinas’
phrase, ‘At the end of all our knowing, we know God as unknown: we are united to God as
something wholly unknown.’ In her encounter with Advaita this was echoed and re-enforced by
an Upanishadic text, ‘That from which speech turns back, together with the mind, unable to reach
it’ Advaita’s apophatic approach, she argues, is especially helpful to contemporary people, faced
by many different viewpoints, and uneasy with exclusive claims or the identification of the mystery
with any particular doctrinal formulation.
For Grant Shankara’s Advaita theology provides a good way of reconciling different religious
traditions and points of view, without excluding the value of the doctrines and theologies that
94
express them. Such formulations are relativized against the transcendent mystery of the divine, but
not excluded. Reflecting on her many years of meeting with people of different traditions and of
reading the Christian and Hindu scriptures together in her ashram, she comments that:
“Shankara’s approach provides an excellent basis for unself-conscious sharing of insights across
boundaries of race, nationhood and belief, often making it possible to reconcile different points of
view not by cancelling one or the other out, but by transcending both in a fuller synthesis.”

Third, and most important, Advaita challenges Christian theologians to recognise the non-duality
of the relationship between God and the world and to be open to the type of expression found in
Advaita. As Grant says:
“By the Copernican revolution which would be brought about in our theological expression of our
faith if we adopted as our basis the experience of “God” as the immanent yet transcendent Self
instead of the “God up there” or ‘out there” of traditional imagery, to whom contemporary man
finds it increasingly hard to relate. We have to face the fact that acceptance of either a heaven or a
God “up there” is no longer culturally or theologically possible.”
Bhakti
In Hindu Religious Experience, he has mentioned that Many people none the less have always
found it impossible to believe that the supreme Mystery is the private property of the better-born.
This conviction conspired with the deep-rooted psychological need experienced by most human
beings for a 'God with a face', a local habitation and above all a name, to give birth to the bhakti
tradition of intense devotion to the Supreme under a particular 'name and form', which gives full
scope for the affective element in human nature and puts warmth and new life into ritual worship.
From the later upanisadic period until today, the religion of the people has been markedly bhakti
in character, and has produced an amazing wealth of tenderly devotional poetry - usually song - to
the 'God of a thousand names', each region having its own variations and traditions of worship and
its own particular 'name and form' for the Nameless and Formless. In theory, the bhakti movement
should have been casteless, and to a considerable extent it has been, especially in the beginning;
but gradually it penetrated into all castes and suffered considerable contamination as a result. No
man is a pure intelligence or activist; so that it was inevitable that even the more distinctively
contemplative or ritualist types should at sometimes be attracted and influenced by bhakti:
Brahmins are certainly not immune to it.
Towards a Liberative Inculturation into Hindu Bhakti
Such a liberational perspective will be critical of a number of features of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita
affirms the caste hierarchy, for traditionally only those who are high caste are eligible to study the
Vedas and hence to follow the Vedantic path for liberation. Advaita would, moreover, seem to
have only a limited scope for constructing a positive view of the world that might motivate
emphasis on social concern. Even the Christian reading of Advaita, in which Advaita affirms the
reality of a contingent world, still expresses a fairly negative evaluation of the world in itself.
Advaita’s concern is not the transformation of the world of practical existence, but withdrawal
from it and its transcendence in the liberating experience of the unity of the soul with Brahman. In
recent times those Christians emphasizing social emancipation have, for their part, often been very
critical of the contemplative spirituality of the ashramic engagement with Hinduism, as
insufficiently unconcerned with the social and political reality of most Christians in India. Even

95
within the neo-Hindu movement itself there was doubt over the suitability of Advaita for
constructing a positive social ethic, which might serve to bring about social change and growth.
Important neo-Hindus such as Bankim Chandra Chatterji (1838-1894) and Gandhi (1869-1948)
turned instead to the Hindu theistic traditions for the resources they needed. Although from the
liberational perspective the developed bhakti traditions have themselves tended to allow caste
structures to be reaffirmed, they have also been a force for social change and have retained an
inherent dynamic to challenge the religious value of social hierarchy and exclusion. An ethic for
social transformation seems to find an easier basis in the theist trend in Hinduism in general, which
affirms the reality and value of the world and interpersonal relations and where there is found an
emphasis on concern for others. Bhakti traditions tend to emphasize release from existence
affected by ignorance and karma, rather than from materiality and embodiment as such. In
Ramanuja’s Visistadvaita, for instance, not only is embodiment viewed as a good thing in the state
of release, but even the present life of samsara changes from being place of sorrow to one of delight
for the devotee whose will is in harmony with that of God, the world in itself being the
manifestation of the glory of God. A liberational perspective suggesting a new engagement with
the bhakti tradition co-incides with a much greater openness to Hindu theism on the part of
Catholics in the second half of the twentieth century. Earlier generations of Christians, including
many of those Catholics who favored encounter with Advaita, tended to be quite negative towards
the devotional traditions of Hinduism and to see them as the opposite of what they understood
Christianity to be, taking the variety of Hindu theistic traditions to be polytheism and the
ubiquitous worship of images to be idolatry. Hindu devotion itself seemed to lack a sufficiently
ethical focus and to tend to the overly emotional and erotic. Hindu mythology was taken at face
value and dismissed as anthropomorphic and as picturing the gods in an immoral light.

VII. Christian Response to Freedom Movement and Nation Building

S.K. GEORGE
S. K. George (1900-1960) held pluralism in theology of religions since 1920s and 1930s
respectively and S. J. Samartha joined them in the 1990s. For S. K. George redemptive suffering
love manifested in the Cross of Christ is the central principle of Christianity and the manifestation
of it in practice and not the preaching of any dogma, is what is needed. Mahatma Gandhi’s
satyagraha movement was for him Cross in action and he joined it wholeheartedly in 1932
resigning a secure teaching job at Bishop’s College, Calcutta. Even prior to this as a Bachelor of
Divinity student of Bishop’s College (1924-27), he had his doubts about the exclusive divinity of
Christ. As early as 1937 S. K. George helped in organizing the All Kerala Inter-religious Students
Fellowship, which tried to bring together students of various religions for mutual understanding
and co-operation. The first conference of the Fellowship was held at Alwaye in May 1937 and
adopted its Aim and Basis which says:
Amidst the conflicting claims made on behalf of different religions… we believe there is
an urgent need for a full and free exchange of our differing religious experiences, in a spirit
of mutual respect, appreciation and sympathy. We consider that for such mutual respect
and sympathy to be real it is absolutely necessary that no member of the Fellowship should

96
 claim for his religion any exclusive and final possession of truth. We believe that such an
interchange of experience will lead to:
(a) An enrichment of one another’s religious life;
(b) Mutual respect, understanding and tolerance; and
(c) Cooperation in purifying and strengthening the religious attitude of mind …from
which our …problems have to be tackled
The Fellowship will explore fully the value of all the different religious traditions and disciplines
and present them for the benefit of all. But at the same time nobody in the Fellowship is persuaded
to join another’s religious belief and practice. To weaken the hold of the truth of any religion upon
humankind was considered as to weaken religion itself and hence the Fellowship is to strive for
the opposite. The Fellowship was to help one another to understand and to live up to the best in all
religions.
S. K. George had the conviction that the hope of world unity and human fellowship lies through
inter-religious cooperation. Inter-religious movement can eliminate religious conflicts and
intolerances. The spirit of co-operation, which he found among Christians, he wanted to be
extended to include the different religions as well. In his view inter-religious movement faces many
misunderstandings. One Charge is that it is syncretistic and will but result in adding one or more
new fancy religions to the crowded world of religions. The clarification given by George in this
context is:

The inter-religious movement does not aim at evolving a single universal religion for all mankind.
That … is the dream of the militant missionary faiths, which would blot out all other religions.
What inter-religionism stands for is the acceptance of the need and the fact of variety in religious
experience, of diversity in man’s approach towards and realization of the One Eternal Reality,
which is the common object of religious quest throughout the ages. It admits the limitation of all
human understanding of the Divine even unique revelations are mediated through human channels
and is, therefore, humble and willing to accept light from various sources. It accepts the revelation
through the spiritual geniuses of all mankind and while it does not aim at, or believe in, evolving
a uniformity of creed and conduct, it looks forward to a time when the spiritually minded of all
religions will unite in the appreciation of all known truths and is welcoming fresh revelations from
the unspent deep resources of God. The Fellowship of the Friends of Truth started in 1951 and
whose secretary for the first seven years was S. K. George, was functioning in such a spirit as an
inter-religious movement.
Few thoughts for national building
S.K Says that, the story of our Religion is nothing but the record of the appearances of Divinely
inspired prophets, coming forward with compelling messages for their times, to lead their fellow
men to fuller life and closer walk with God. But that story is also full of warnings to us, not to fail
to discern the signs of the times, to know the day of our visitation; for it has been the lot of most
of those prophets to be despised and rejected in their generation, though later ages have built their
tombs and enshrined their memory. It is India's glory that in these latter days God has raised up a
prophet, like unto these ancient men of God, from among her children. For it is my conviction that
Mahatma Gandhi has been raised up by God in these days, as Moses of old, to lead his people out
of the desolation of foreign domination and to set their feet on the path of self-realization and

97
world service. But the representatives of insolent might have, as of old, driven from before their
faces the people's representative and God's. But what of the people? Will they too reject and disown
him? We are persuaded better of the people of India as a whole. For India has never stoned her
prophets or rejected those that have been sent to her. But what of our Christian minority? India is
on trial. We are confident that her people will come out vindicated and triumphant out of this trial.
But Christianity in India is also on its trial. We wish we could have been equally confident about
that issue too. So far Indian Christians as a community have held aloof from the National struggle
and allowed their inaction to be interpreted as acquiescence in reactionary measures and thus
estranged themselves from their countrymen whom they seek to serve. But we trust they will not
miss this last great opportunity to take their religion to the heart of the New Indi^ in the making.
For this time the struggle will be swift and the issue decisive. We Christians ought to be devoutly
thankful that that struggle is directed along strictly non-violent lines, enabling us to bear our part
in it with a clear conscience. To us our Christian profession has already committed us to this
struggle both as to its objective and its method. For as Christians we are bound to stand out against
all injustice and oppression; and it needs no laboring the point at this time that British rule in India,
in spite of all its seeming benefits, has in its totality done more harm than good to the country; and
that in the interests both of India and Britain the present relation between the two countries must
be radically altered. As to non-violence, it/is our Master's method, the Way of the Cross; and it is
certainly up to us to be interpreters of its meaning and guardians of its integrity in the Holy War
4hat has already begun.
If I appeal to Indian Christians, men and women, in all parts of the country to join in their thousands
in the movement, it is because I believe that this movement under Mahatma Gandhi will lead to a
partial realization at least of that great goal before mankind the Kingdom of God, of which our
prophets have seen visions and for which our Lord lived and died. It is our Christian duty, due
both to God and country, to help in the realization of that ideal. May we not be found wanting in
this hour of our trial! As to methods and Programme, Mahatmaji in his last appeal to the
community, issued through the Nationalist Christian Party of Bombay, has suggested two items in
which Indian Christians can and ought to join. These are Khaddar and Prohibition. As he puts it,
he has felt that the poor Indian Christian community needs Khaddar as much as any other
community in the land for its economic salvation. So, he expresses the hope, in his own inimitable
language, that "every Indian Christian house will be adorned with the charkka and every Indian
Christian body with Khaddar, spun and woven by the hands of their poor countrymen and
countrywomen." As for Prohibition, he could not understand, he says, how a Christian could take
intoxicating drink. If we Christians have not been in the forefront of this work it is because we
have been culpably indifferent to one of the curses that is ruining our country. The fullest co-
operation with the country in these two items of constructive work seems to me the least the Indian
Christian community as a whole can do at this juncture. But if individual Christians feel they ought
to do more they ought to do so in the name of the Christ we serve; and I appeal to all Christian
Churches and leaders to send them forth with their blessings and to uphold them with their prayers.
Christology
According to George the place of Jesus Christ in the Hindu religious heritage of India is as one of
the Ishta Devatas or chosen deities or favorite deities. Hinduism readily grants such a place to
Jesus Christ. From the side of a disciple of Jesus what is needed is, he/she must not deny other
98
mediators between God and humans, other experiences of God’s presence in the human heart, the
validity of other Ishta Devatas. Such denials lie outside the positive experience of the Christians
and therefore have no validity.

K.T. PAUL
Kanakarayan Tiruselvam Paul (24 March 1876 – 11 April 1931) was an ardent follower of
Mahatma Gandhi. He was the first Indian -born National General Secretary of the National Council
of YMCAs of India. A Christian himself, he explored the relationship between Christianity and
national identity. He held positions such as President of the Governing Council of the United
Theological College, Bangalore, General Secretary of the National Missionary Society (India), and
Chairman of the National Christian Council of India. Paul's lasting legacy was rural reconstruction,
which he initiated through the YMCA in India.
Indian Nationalism and Christian Leaders
The massacre of innocent Indians by General Dyer at the Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab,
in 1918 had fanned the fire of anti-British feeling all over India. Mahatma Gandhi, launching his
first attack on British rule using the weapon of Satyagraha, gave a call for Non-Cooperation
Movement in 1920. Indian Christians could not sit on the fence, and had to reveal where their
sympathies lay. The leaders S. K. Datta and K. T. Paul published an article in the 'Young Men of
India' in July 1920 protesting against the insensitive behavior of the British in the Punjab. Though
the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh had shocked Indian Christians, Paul had not lost his belief that
India could build its future through organic links with Western Christianity and British contact.
However, his hopes of transformation of the Indian polity in cooperation with the British rule
strengthened by diarchy turned into dismay in 1918.
The history of India since the second half of the 19th century had been distinguished by a national
movement for political independence. In its initial stages Indian Christians had seldom
participated, and during the first Non-cooperation Movement of Gandhi [1920–23], there was
hardly any Christian participation. But in the latter phases of the struggle an increasing number of
Christians began to identify with the national movement, and the maintenance of a secular state –
especially from among the Reformed Churches: H.C. Mukherjee, Raja Sir Maharaj Singh, K.T.
Paul, S.K. Datta and V.S. Azariah and V. Santiago are examples. Between 1900 and 1930 K.T.
Paul, S.K. Datta, V. Santiago and V.S. Azariah formed a trio who instilled feelings of responsible
nationalism in the Christian community despite opposition from some western missionaries as well
as some Indian Christians.
In the 1930s and 40s Christians were mainly on the side of the Indian National Congress in its
struggle for independence. Several Christian organizations such as Christian Patriot Group of
Madras, and Indian Christian Association, were organized to express Christian views on political
matters.
K.T. Paul as the conscience of Indian Christians
Paul grew to adulthood at a time when the Indian National Congress was voicing the growing
demand of educated Indians for representative Government. Paul was committed to political
nationalism, seeing in it also a self-awakening of India which would transform the totality of

99
India's traditional life. Gandhi in his speech at the second session of the Round Table Conference
in London (7 to 11 September December 1931) said of K.T. Paul, “I miss as I have no doubt all of
you miss, the presence in our midst of K.T. Paul. Although, I do not know, but so far as I know,
though he never officially belonged to the Congress, he was a nationalist to the full.”
As the secretary of the National Missionary Society, and later as the National General Secretary
of the YMCA, Paul helped to prevent the Christian community from becoming a 'communal'
group. He saw a 'designed place of necessity' for nationalism in the purpose of God for mankind.
Paul as a nationalist recommended indigenization of even the structure of the Indian Church. He
was opposed to the Western type of church structure in India, especially episcopacy. He argued
that episcopacy was a product of the West, that it was foreign to the genius of India, that the prophet
and not the priest would suffice for the religious life of India, that if the united church in South
India fell into the clutches of episcopacy it would be fettered perpetually by western forms, since
such a union would be a patched-up union, unrelated in any way to what was essentially Indian.
Christian Nationalist
As a Christian Nationalist and a devote Christian leader, Paul saw the rising nationalist feelings in
a different dimension. In order to understand his position as a true nationalist one has to look into
the then political situations from 1919 to 1930. In 1919 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms were
introduced which were not accepted by the Congress. At this time the Government also passed
the Rowlatt Act in the pretext of eradicating terrorism. Most of the Indian leaders thought that
these measures were against liberty and thus a betrayal. As a result, the Satygraha Movement was
started by Mahatma Gandhi. At first, Paul did not agree with Gandhi's policy. In the tragedy of
Chauri Chaura a number of police men were brutally beaten to death by a gang of people who
claimed to be Gandhi's followers. This was followed by the Bombay riot. Gandhi suspended the
whole Satyagraha indefinitely. But on 10 March 1922, Gandhi was arrested.
Immediately after this, Paul was invited by the Viceroy to become a member of the first Round
Table Conference. There his main emphasis was on national unity, although he was unable to
influence matters much or in the political fields of India.
With the partition of Bengal in 1905, the Swadeshi movement had been inaugurated. One way in
which the Indian Christians responded to it was by developing indigenous leadership and freedom
from foreign domination and dependence within the church. With this idea, the National
Missionary Council was founded. It was founded on the principle that it will use only indigenous
personnel, methods and money for its work. The Society was never active in politics but because
it was purely Indian in its personal and management, it continued to express sympathy to the
national movement. The National Missionary Council (NMC) was established in 1912 at Calcutta.
NMC comprised British and Indian missionaries. Paul was one of the prominent leaders of this
council for many years.

100
C.F. ANDREWS
Charles Freer Andrews (12 February 1871 – 5 April 1940) was a Church of England priest.
A Christian missionary, educator and social reformer in India, he became a close friend
of Mahatma Gandhi and identified with the cause of India's independence. He was instrumental in
convincing Gandhi to return to India from South Africa, where Gandhi had been a leading light in
the Indian civil rights struggle. C. F. Andrews was affectionately dubbed Christ's Faithful
Apostle by Gandhi, based on his initials, C.F.A. For his contributions to the Indian Independence
Movement Gandhi and his students at St. Stephen's College, Delhi, named him Deenabandhu, or
"Friend of the Poor".
In India
Andrews had been involved in the Christian Social Union since university, and was interested in
exploring the relationship between a commitment to the Gospel and a commitment to justice,
through which he was attracted to struggles for justice throughout the British Empire, especially
in India. In 1904 he joined the Cambridge Mission to Delhi and arrived there to teach philosophy
at St. Stephen's College, where he grew close to many of his Indian colleagues and students.
Increasingly dismayed by the racist behavior and treatment of Indians by some British officials
and civilians, he supported Indian political aspirations, and wrote a letter in the Civil and Military
Gazette in 1906 voicing these sentiments. Andrews soon became involved in the activities of
the Indian National Congress, and he helped to resolve the 1913 cotton workers' strike in Madras.
With Gandhi in South Africa
Known for his persuasiveness, intellect and moral rectitude, he was asked by senior Indian political
leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale to visit South Africa and help the Indian community there to resolve
their political disputes with the Government. He met a young Gujarati lawyer, Mohandas Gandhi,
who was attempting to organize the Natal Indian Congress and the Indian community to protest
against the racial discrimination and police legislation that infringed their civil liberties. Andrews
was deeply impressed with Gandhi's knowledge of Christian values and his espousal of the concept
of ahimsa, nonviolence – something that Gandhi mixed with inspiration from elements
of Christian anarchism. He helped Gandhi to organize an Ashram in Natal and publish his famous
magazine, The Indian Opinion. Following the advice of several Indian Congress leaders and of
Principal Susil Kumar Rudra, of St. Stephen's College, Andrews was instrumental in persuading
Gandhi to return to India with him in 1915.
Tagore and Sree Narayana Guru
In 1918 Andrews disagreed with Gandhi's attempts to recruit combatants for World War I,
believing that this was inconsistent with their views on nonviolence. In Mahatma Gandhi's
Ideas Andrews wrote about Gandhi's recruitment campaign: "Personally I have never been able to
reconcile this with his own conduct in other respects, and it is one of the points where I have found
myself in painful disagreement." Andrews was elected President of the All India Trade Union in
1925 and 1927.
Andrews developed a dialogue between Christians and Hindus. He spent a lot of time
at Santiniketan in conversation with the poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore. He also
supported the movement to ban the ‘untouchability of outcasts. In 1919 he joined the
famous Vaikom Satyagraha, and in 1933 assisted B.R. Ambedkar in formulating the demands of

101
the Dalits. Once C.F. Andrews, along with Rabindranath Tagore, visited Sree Narayana Guru, a
spiritual leader from Kerala, South India. Then he wrote to Romain Rolland; that I have seen our
Christ walking on the shore of Arabian sea in the attire of a hindu sanyasin. He and Agatha
Harrison arranged for Gandhi's visit to the UK. He accompanied Gandhi to the second Round
Table Conference in London, helping him to negotiate with the British government on matters of
Indian autonomy and devolution.
P.D. DEVANANDAN
He was born in Madras(present Chennai) on 8 July 1901, and graduated from Nizam
College, Hyderabad. He did his M.A from Presidency College, Madras. While studying at Madras,
he was acquainted with K. T. Paul, a prominent Social activist, Christian and YMCA leader. He
taught briefly at Jaffna College, Ceylon, Sri Lanka. With assistance from K.T. Paul, he
flew United States in 1924 and did his theological studies at Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley,
California. He received his doctorate in Comparative religion from Yale University in 1931 for
his dissertation on the concept of Maya in Hinduism. Upon his return to India in 1931, he was
absorbed as a professor of philosophy and religions at United Theological College,
Bangalore between 1932 and 1949 for seventeen years. He had a lasting and long association
with Young Men's Christian Association(YMCA); he worked as a secretary at the Delhi YMCA,
and later as national literature secretary at YMCA between 1949 and 1956.
In 1954, he was ordained as a presbyter of the Church of South India. In 1956, he was appointed
as the director of the new "Center for the study of Hinduism" later renamed to "Christian Institute
for the Study of Religion and Society"(CISRS), Bangalore. His address to the Third Assembly of
the World Council of Churches at New Delhi in 1961, under the title "Called to Witness,"
delivered few months before his death caught the attention of the large ecumenical church. He died
on 10 August 1962 at Dehra Dun, India, on his way to a conference at the Christian Retreat and
Study Centre.
Movements in Hinduism for national building
The beginnings of this new, impact in traditional Hinduism are manifest as early as the beginning
of the nineteenth century. From then on there has been a steady modification of the concepts of
man and of society in Hindu thought and practice. Perhaps the greatest force in making for this
change was nationalism. In the earlier phase the primary concern was to achieve political
independence by throwing off foreign rule. In its later phase the chief preoccupation is nation-
building, the creation of a stable social structure, a pattern of society which will promote a sense
of national community, economic security and social justice. This later phase of nationalism is a
living force in our day. · · One of the characteristic features of Indian nationalism is that it has
been closely bound up with religion. Nationalism in India from its early beginnings turned to
religion for its inspiration and drive. This has been very obvious in the teachings of all" national
leaders, beginning with Ram Mohan Roy on to Vinoba· Bhave. To state it briefly, they laid
emphasis on (i) worthfulness of the human individual; (ii) the equality of the sexes ; (iii) freedom
from social restrictions which prevented the development of individual personality ; (iv)
development of a sense of social solidarity which transcended the distinction of class, caste and
creed ; and (v) realization of social justice in the concrete situations of everyday concern. In the

102
earlier stages, all these efforts were limited to the activity of small groups of interested reformers.
These were largely drawn from the Hindu intellectuals, and the concern was concentrated on the
removal of caste disabilities and the restoration of rights to the woman in society: The spread of
education which was increasingly influenced by Western liberalism was another important factor.
The very ideal of nationalism which claimed freedom as a birthright was due in great part to the
new education. From the beginning of the twentieth century there is a noticeable trend towards
accepting Western values in regard to the understanding· of man and of society.
The humanism of Tagore, the revolutionary political activity of the Terrorists, led earlier by
Aurobindo and later by Subhas Bose, the fierce religious nationalism tending towards Hindu
communalistic movements headed by Tilak, Savarkar, and Golwalkar, and the mass movement of
satyagraha which was the final phase of nationalism inspired by Mahatma Gandhi-all these were
undoubtedly influenced by Western concepts in regard to man and society. But at the ·same time
increasing emphasis was also placed upon the tendency to relate these new ideas to the traditional
concepts of Hindu religious orthodoxy. To some extent this was due to the desire to show that in
accepting these Western concepts they were not accepting Christian doctrines. A determined effort
was made to indicate that not only were these ideas related to traditionally accepted doctrines but
the claim is now set forth that they are in fact derived from and based upon scriptural sanctions.
At first the reformers turned to the Upanishads. This was true in the case of the Brahmo Samaj.
But for lack of sufficient emphasis in Upanishadic literature for a theistic justification for the new
teaching about man in society, a later generation of reformers under the leadership of the Arya
Samaj turned instead to the Vedas, the Rigveda in particular. More recently, however, needed
scriptural support has been found rather in the Bhagavad Gita. This is not surprising because in a
special sense Gita teaching lend themselves to the social needs of the modern Hindu man. The
Sankhyan analysis of human nature is easily adapted to the contemporary need for explanation of
economic and social disparity. Similarly, the Gita doctrine of nishkama karma seemingly gives
support and provides the motive for social service. Likewise, the Gita emphasis on svadharma and
lokasamgraha, both re-interpreted so as to provide. A dynamic and religious faith to the modem
Hindu understanding of personality and community. Also, the Gita teachings about varna dharma
and karma samsara are frequently cited to explain the modem view in regard to caste and the
persistent belief in transmigration.
Humanistic concern as a national building
There are a number of points where, biographically, theologically and socially, the origins of his
humanism may be placed. In 1931, Devanandan was in America. In one of his earliest published
writings (" Religion and Youth in America") he was sharp to acknowledge the challenge in the rise
of humanistic philosophy in the west. " Humanism is undermining orthodoxy," he wrote, breaking
down the " old cocksureness of an implicit faith." With this recognition Devanandan also
appropriated many of the social values of the Liberalism of his day; in 1938 at the SCM Rangoon
Quadrennial Conference he and other concerned Christians pressed for a Christian social order.
"We as Christians ought to act as pioneers in radically removing the more important social evils
which are prevalent in India by personal example," he stressed. Devanandan was also a
passionately involved nationalist-both in the: pre-1947 struggles and the post-Independence
"nation-building'' stage, and was convinced that a "wholesome humanism is the best rallying
ground for religious understanding and for national unity."
103
However, his own views on the Christian's contribution within the national struggle-partly
influenced by K. T. Paul of the YNICA-would not allow a separation of " political hopes from
religious ideals." Moreover, the Christian's contribution is a mission of peace, not unrelated to the
Great Commission to preach the good news "to all nations. "Though deeply human, his
nationalistic concerns were by no means superficial since, he felt, any human efforts to achieve
national unity must reckon with the living God who is the generating power of all true community
being. From this insight two of Devanandan's deepest convictions are revealed. The first is that the
fulfilment of the goals of humanism are in every way associated with the fulfilment of God's
purpose foremen. Without the latter the former cannot be obtained. And secondly, behind the
concern to pinpoint the areas of Christian humanistic responsibility Devanandan is stressing a
concept of religion as down to earth. If the Christian faith stands for anything at all it stands for
the redemption of the whole man.
Socially, Devanandan was aware of the awful fact of human need. and therefore, for Christian
diakonia in response to it. Yet he was also aware that any attempt to eradicate social evils must
bear in mind that the root cause was man's self-interest and sinfulness. On these grounds we cannot
entertain hopes of a classless society, which are founded on a partial v1ew of man or on a false
notion of the self-sufficiency of man. Thus, the task of restructuring society must be, firstly,
associated w1th the ultimate hope of the coming of the Kingdom of God " when all the children
of men shall have been transformed to become the children of God." And secondly, a view of man
and his worth can only be measured in terms of man as God's creature and in the light of God's
eschatological purpose for his Creation.
Theocentric
Humanism Alongside a concern for social justice was a desire to live " the Jesus way of life " in
many of Devanandan's early articles. When he took up a teaching post in the United Theological
College, he was very much a child of the theological liberalism of his day. But towards the end of
the 1930s, and largely as a result of the influence of Hendrik Kraemer at the IMC Tambaram
Conference in 193 8, he felt an emptiness in the Liberal tradition which became increasingly
evident to him. On Devanandan's death, his friend and colleague, M.M. Thomas wrote:
As a student of theological liberalism which reduced his Christianity to a kind of religious
philosophy, he revolted against it and found in Kraemer a basis for the renewal of his theology .

In 1940, in commenting on an address by Justice P. Chenchiah, he spoke out his new convictions:
The essence of the Gospel is not a new teaching about God; it is the good news that" God so loved
the world ... "

The social gospel movement he now regarded -as an enemy of mission: The Gospel could not be
seen in terms of values either "experiential or experimental alone ... The Christian ideal is~
commitment, a surrendering of the will in order that -the will of God may be done." Instead of a
moralism, a radical Christo-centricity based on God's revelation in Christ for the world of men was
the substance of Devanandan's preaching. For him, this " conversion" meant a new recognition of
God the Creator as the sovereign of every part of lifel4 and now redemptively active in the world.
In the Kingdom of God which has now come upon us is a statement of God's purpose for the world;
he is moving it towards an end involving all of human life and relationships in a transformation.

104
God was in secular history, to all those who through faith could discern His movements, making
it salvation history. The significance of such a new Theo-centricity for a Christian humanism, for
Devanandan, most of all involved a revaluation of the meaning of man in the context of the Creator
God; in fact, it meant that any view of man without first understanding God as his Creator and
Redeemer made nonsense of the true nature of man and could not make humanism complete. On
this basis, a Christian, theocentric revaluation may also be carried out in four other areas. In the
first place, Devanandan saw that in subjecting our values to this scrutiny, our concept of history
must be modified. It is not a meaningless string of secular events but the arena of God's activity in
which we can perceive him at work.
The New Creation
No treatment of Devanandan's humanism can be complete without paying full attention to the
concept of the New Creation. Unfortunately, there is space left only to make a few remarks.
As men we await a fulfilment, which has its " earnest" in the here, and now-" a new humanity is
now in the making." Yet whilst it is a "has been done," it is also a "not yet." Thus, central to
Devanandan's understanding is the view that whilst in some sense we may speak of God's salvation
for men, there is no straight identification between the two. For Devanandan salvation was " for"
a "new humanity to which and for which we are saved." It is a forward movement in which we can
partially discern the pattern of God's working, which is also revealed in the New Man, Jesus Christ.
A Christian understanding of man should not, therefore, ignore the fact that his destiny is to be
consummated at the End which is in Christ Jesus, the New Creation. The Good News is that it
envelopes the whole Creation. God himself in Christ has initiated a reconciliation between men
and God, which breaks down the barriers, and takes in the " whole network of human relations.""
God's purpose for man should not be separated from the work of bringing men to a realization of
their worth and dignity in modern humanism, since in Christ he has already made possible man's
redemption and fulfilment of his destiny. The vital link between what men do and what God has
done and is now doing in the ferment is Jesus Christ. He is the New Man in whom the New Creation
is a present reality. Unlike Chenchiah before him, who also utilized the concept Devanandan
insisted that the New Creation in Christ is the direct result of personal conversion. It signals the
transformation from the old, unfulfilled and sinful humanity to the New Humanity; it entails a
remodeling of the personality so that the central place is no longer given to self but God." If
humanism is to properly understand man and his dignity, then it must reckon with the need for
transformation into a new man, and the reconciliation of Gad-in-Christ which has enabled man-
in-opposition-to-God to become man-in-relation-to God.
In the restoring of the relationship between God the Creator and man the creature once again, man
can be understood in his totality, in his double-sidedness, which is the true view of man. What
emerges quite clearly here is the crucial role God's reconciliatory act in Christ, the pattern of men's
salvation, plays in Devanandan's understanding of the New Creation. So too without this
reconciliation we are bereft of a true humanism, condemned to view man in himself, and thus left
in bondage to the tragic dialectic of modern humanism. But for Devanandan, Jesus Christ, the New
Creation, sets man free to become himself in relation to God, realise his fulfilment in relation to
his fellow creatures, and recognize his own worth. The " rehashed eschatology" inherent in his
view of the New Creation emphasizes these three important aspects for the fulfilment of a true, "

105
theocentric humanism." There is "a new humanity in the making, in which all men are being
reconciled to God, one to another and each to his own self." Yet as well as the attempt to redefine
humanism, always implicit in his writings, there is also the note of the paradox of man, as Niebuhr
called it, man as creature and man as "Child of God," which underlines the necessity of theo-
centricity in approach. Without one's concentration on "revelation to and for the world of men,"
either the "underlying anthropological concern" is to be totally neglected, or one's humanism
becomes idolatrous or self-defeating.
P. CHENCHIAH
Pandipeddi Chenchiah (1886–1959), spelt also as Pandippedi Chenchiah, a second
generation indigenous convert to Christianity, was a jurist, South Indian Christian theologian, and
radical thinker of Rethinking Christianity in India group for Indianization of Christianity. He
published Rethinking Christianity in India, as an Indian Christian answer to the Hendrik
Kraemer's The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. He along with his brother-in-
law Vengal Chakkarai were the founders of Madras Christo Samaj, influenced by Calcutta
Christo Samaj founded by K.C. Banerjee and J.G. Shome Both Madras
Presidency and Calcuttawere British East India Company provinces - later part of British Raj.
Religion
Chenchiah vociferously promoted a progressive and reformist view of religion. In his own words,
Religious outlook has changed profoundly in two respects in the shift of emphasis;1. From other-
worldliness to life in the world; 2. From individualistic to social. If religions refuse to face social
and economic problems, they die. A similar sentiment was expressed in a review of a book on
sociology; "A religion that is a drag on social progress stands self-condemned" Here Chenchiah
ended up an advocate for religion in the face of secularist assumptions.
Whether ethics should or need be detached from religion admits debate and considerable difference
of opinion. While on the one hand religion has acted as a conservative force, often stereotyping
lower ethics, objective appraisal shows that the higher values of ethics arose with religions and
religious revivals. If we do not accept the facile verdict that the factors with which religion works
are purely imaginative, the call is not so much for positivism as for progressive religion.
“Progressive religion” obviously would unsettle, at least to some extent, traditional religion.
Chenchiah was not one to subtly unsettle; his preferred approach was all out attack. “The hope for
those embedded in orthodoxy lies in violently kicking against the walls of their abode that threatens
to be their grave.”

The history of Christianity and Hinduism in their long perspectives teaches us that the freedom of
spirit is never a danger to religion and the true danger comes from solid structures of words and
samskaras in which we seek to imprison the Spirit.
An apt image further made the point. Let us remember that ideas and ideals cannot do any good
till we reduce them to practice, any more than a prescription can do any good till we get the
medicine prescribed and take it. We have all in religions become worshippers of prescriptions. We
need become takers of medicine. Thus, true religion for Chenchiah centered in vital personal
experience lived out in society. In a review of a tribute to Wordsworth Chenchiah affirmed that as
pointed out by the author, the one point where religions meet (or ought to meet) is Realization to

106
be written in our opinion in capital letters. The greatness of a religion lies as much if not more in
its capacity to raise the morality and conduct of the masses and influencing the contemporary
climate of life than in the extent of custom and ritual. We can forego a few tall giants if we can
add an inch or two to the stature and height of average man.
Chenchiah’s impatience towards orthodoxy and organized religion did not necessitate his rejection
of the standard paradigm of various world religions. But his lack of concern for that outlook in
favor of an activist transformational approach did set him up for undermining the traditional reified
categories associated with religion.
Nationalism: Challenge of Hindu Renaissance
The nationalist movement, a movement whose specific purpose was the removal of foreign
domination, provided a new context for the Church to rethink its mission. Nationalism was linked
with a reassertion of Hinduism and its values. A response to the Hindu Renaissance was therefore,
an integral part of Christian witness in modern India. A social issue that was widely discussed in
regard to this is the attitude of Christians to other faiths and the relation of the Gospel to the claims
of other religions. P. Chenchiah, who was committed to this task, articulates the need for a change
in the Christian attitude to Hinduism in these words: There was a type of convert in the past who
hated Hinduism and surrendered himself wholeheartedly to what he supposed to be Christianity.
The convert today regards Hinduism as his spiritual mother, who has nurtured him in a sense of
spiritual values in the past. He discovers the supreme value of Christ, not in spite of Hinduism but
because Hinduism has taught him to discern spiritual greatness. For him, loyalty to Christ does not
involve the surrender of reverential attitude towards the Hindu heritage.
People like Chenchiah, V Chakkarai, A. J. Appasamy and others made the affirmation that the
living forces of Hinduism could be “a positive key to the still inaccessible riches of Hinduism.
They were not content with a mere intellectual approach to Hinduism but wanted to enter into the
spirit of Hindu religion with a desire to learn new things about their own faith and to express them
on the basis of their encounter.
A positive attitude towards Hinduism and other faiths was based on the faith in the universal
Lordship of Christ. The conviction widely shared by many Indian theologians was that God is
already at work in whatever area of life the Christian is speaking to make the Gospel effective. P.
D. Devanandan has expressed his conviction in the following words: Is the preaching of the Gospel
directed to the total annihilation of all religions other than Christianity? Will religions as religions,
and nations as nations, continue characteristically separate in the fullness of time when God would
gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth?
Christian faith distinguishes between the Gospel of proclamation of the fulfillment of Gods
promise of the Kingdom, and the hope in fulfillment of all religious faith, wherever it is found.
Fulfillment in the second sense would mean that all sincere humans striving to reach out to God
will indeed find favor with him.
Nation Building: Service, Development and Justice
The struggle for independence and the process of nation building have also brought challenges to
the churches with regard to its social and political witness. The question was posed as to how to
witness to Christ in the midst of socio-political changes? A conviction widely shared at this point
was that Christ was present in social and political realities, judging and transforming them.

107
Witnessing to the Gospel in the social and political context was a theme developed by the synod
of the Church of South India that met in 1962. A resolution passed by this synod was a landmark
concerning Indian church’s thinking on social questions. The Synod believes that the social
revolution now taking place in India is a manifestation of the eternal purpose and judgement of
God in human history. It believes that the Church is created by God to be a people wholly unto the
Lord and to seek the establishment of Righteousness, Mercy and Love in human society It therefore
calls the members of the Church of South India at this critical time to a series and prayerful
consideration of the implications of this belief for their worship, work and witness in a changing
India. The synod called upon all Christian institutions, congregations and individuals to take
seriously their responsibilities in relation to:
1) The need to offer the love and compassion of God in Christ to all sorts and conditions of men;
2) The need to establish within the life of the Church a fellowship transcending distinction of
caste and class;
3) The need that each Christian should be a politically conscious and responsible citizen;
4) The need to witness to the kingdom of God, to set forth and establish in society both the love
and the righteousness of God in Christ;
5) The need to make Christians in ‘secular occupation’ realise that their occupations themselves
which supply the physical and economic needs of society are also in the plan and purpose of God
for the total redemption of society.
Chenchiah on Christianity
In his opening editorial for The Pilgrim Chenchiah spelled out his goals for The Pilgrim and in the
process presented his perspective on Christianity, a fascinating synthesis of critique and hope. The
procedure of his argument throughout this paper will be followed, with evaluation at the
conclusion. It should be noted that in opening he aligned himself clearly with the stated purposes
of the CSSH.
The Pilgrim has a vision and vocation. First and foremost it seeks as the official organ of
the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism to promote true scholarship in Hinduism
which will give to the Christian an understanding of the Hindu mind and Hindu religious
psychology so that Christ may be presented to the Hindu in an appealing and arresting
manner....It will be our constant endeavor to present Christ to the Hindu and Hinduism to
the Christian.
There have been till recently two persons involved in this transaction [the Hindu Christian
interface] the missionary Catholic and Protestant who brought the Christian message to India and
the Hindu to whom the message was given. With the passage of time and by the fruition of
missionary effort a third person has arisen, the Indian Christian who represents the jewel of
redemption wrought by Christ set in the golden casket of the heritage of Hinduism. The Indian
Christian should be the embodiment of Indian Christianity and our Programme will be to give
body, features, language, utterance to Indian Christianity. Indian Christians alone can put the
majesty and magnitude of Christian salvation in an idiom intelligible to the Hindu. Indian
Christianity has been undeservedly a term of reproach, an occasion for warning and admonition.
All fears vanish if we remember that Indian Christianity has its anchor in Christ. It sums up the
devotion and loyalty of the Indian to Christ. Far from toning down the Christian message or
obscuring the features of the Nazarene, Indian Christianity welcomes Jesus into the Indian heart

108
to be the indwelling Lord. Indian Christianity as a blueprint consists of new lines of Christian
thought and activity.
From this foundation Chenchiah went on to talk about the need for Indian Christian theology and
Christian yoga. "We need to shift Christianity in India from creed to conduct, and from conduct to
new life," he suggested. Next, he focused on Christian literature, suggesting that the "Indian
Christian has done very little in this field". Service of the nation in all aspects was then considered,
with the comment that "every problem has a Christian solution (i.e.) a solution which uplifts and
enlarges man" Having spelled out his vision and hope, Chenchiah then critiqued the current
situation in Indian Christianity. Indian Christians have not shown any initiative in originating and
maintaining institutions. Depending too much on foreign help they have lost self-help. Barrenness
prevails in social and religious fields. One reason for this state of affairs seems to be poverty. The
very fact that religion cannot move without money in [the] modern world shows how far Indian
Christians have moved away from true sources of power. Before [the] Roman state became
Christian the Christians were among the poorest in the state but spiritually most powerful. Spiritual
power and Holy Spirit do not go with money.
Chenchiah on Fulfillment
Chenchiah’s position on the fulfillment approach to Hinduism is subtle and needs careful analysis.
The data of Chenchiah in The Pilgrim is quite definitely positive towards fulfillment. In a
stimulating statement in his first Easter editorial Chenchiah suggested that Christ does not fulfill
Old Testament prophecy nearly so neatly as many Christians believe, then claimed that "Jesus, it
may be asserted with greater amount of truth, fulfilled universal mythology." More directly related
to Hinduism, in an obituary for Ramana Maharshi Chenchiah suggested that "Siva swallowing
Kalakuta for saving the world was the myth of which Christ taking the suffering of the sinful on
the cross was the fulfillment." In an analysis of different ways to study Hinduism Chenchiah
referred to study "by liberal missionaries, who present Christ in an acceptable manner as fulfilment
of Hinduism" This might be interpreted as less than an endorsement, but that would be the most
natural reading. Similarly, without specific reference to fulfillment, Chenchiah endorsed the
approach of J. F. Edwards, which is a fulfillment approach. The remaining reference to fulfillment
in Chenchiah’s works in The Pilgrim is of a different type, and perhaps suggests that Chenchiah
has in mind something other than the traditional position. In an editorial he referred to "the Indian
Christian who sums up in himself all Hinduism representing the living past, which survives and
continues in Christ".
Later in that same paragraph he spoke of "what in Hinduism survives and operates in the true
Christian life and how the Hindu in the Christian offers a medium of interchange of ideas and
views between the Hindu and the Christian in an effective manner" Here the fulfillment (summing
up) of Hinduism is in people who integrate Hinduism into their life in Christ. The phrase "the
Hindu in the Christian" is quite like a phrase earlier noted, "a Hindu and Muslim Christian."
Chenchiah did not spell out what he meant by such phrases; he was undermining the paradigm of
conflicting world religions and seemed to be challenging the reified communalized religiosity of
India as well. Yet he was identified with Christianity and slipped into the world religions
terminology frequently. As an activist impatient with organized religion it is perhaps not surprising
that Chenchiah lived with these unresolved tensions.

109
Jesus Christ
According to Chenchiah Jesus Christ represents a new being different from either God or man. He
is Godman, not merely hyphenated God-man. He is the product of God and man. He is a new
emergence, 'the first of a new race', a new creation', 'the latest revolution in the creative process.
In Christ, God's ideal of a New man takes historical shape. He is the first born, the pattern of the
new creation, the Adi-purusha of a new creation. Chenchiah does not subscribe to any idea. of a
substantial unity between God and Christ as traditional theology holds. Between Christ and God,
a measure of unity is conceived which is not complete unity nor is its complete difference. God is
God, man is man. 'The two have met in Jesus, not merely met, but fused into one, into a new being.
The traditional two-nature doctrine of Christ is also irrelevant as far as Chenchiah was concerned,
for in Christ, the distinction between the divine and human is obliterated. He is the Godman. Along
with Chakkarai, Chenchiah holds that the human element in Christ is not· temporary but
permanent.
The Work of Christ, the New Creation
Chenchiah believes that the traditional conceptions of law, disobedience, sin, cross, propitiation,
justification, etc. miss the beauty and the newness of the Gospel. The ministry of Jesus Christ is
not primarily to restore humanity to its original condition but to produce a new stage in the
evolutionary process. Salvation does not consist in sinlessness, but in life-fulness. Hence, central
to his thought of the work of Christ is the view of the 'New Creation' and the 'Yoga of the Spirit'.
The Gospel is, that God in Jesus bas made. a 'new creation'. In him is the manifestation of a new
cosmic energy. From this standpoint, the emphasis in his view of atonement falls not on the death
of Christ, but on the birth of Christ. The good news of Christianity is the birth of Jesus. In him is
the emergence of a new life, not bound by Karma, not corrupted by sin, not humiliated by death,
but triumphant, partaking the immortal nature of God. Christ's saving work is in the new quality
of his life. Redemption for man consists in reproducing Jesus in his life.
Jesus is reproduced in us through a new birth. This new birth is not understood as a moral
regeneration through repentance, and faith, but as a biological process. According to him the
appropriation of salvation becomes 'a problem in genetics'. To quote, 'Unless we conceive of this
new birth as a biological process, a process which like life covers the physical, mental, and moral,
we miss its significance. How Jesus is reproduced in us by a new birth is not made clear. Man's
attempt to reproduce Christ in him is through what he called the yoga of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit
is to inspire and help men to be united with Christ and thus participate in the quality of the new
life. The Holy Spirit according to Chenchiah is the divine cosmic energy which in Jesus and
through Jesus entered the universe. The work of the Holy Spirit, the new cosmic energy, in the life
of the individual is given a great deal of significance in Chenchiah's thought. Indeed, he thinks that
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit will play a decisive role in Indian Theology. The work of Christ is
also seen in its cosmic and eschatological dimension. All those who are united with Christ already
share in the life of the Kingdom. But the time is coming when through the power of the Spirit not
only they, but the whole world, will be incorporated into Christ.

110
V. CHAKKARAI
Vengal Chakkarai Chettiar (17 January 1880 – 14 June 1958) was an Indian Christian theologian,
missionary, independence activist, politician and trade unionist. Chakkarai was born to
a Hindu Chettiar family. He was educated at the Scottish Mission School, Madras Christian
College, graduating in 1901 after majoring in philosophy. He then studied at Madras Law College,
and practiced for some time as a lawyer. In 1913, Chakkarai joined the Danish Mission Room as
a Christian preacher and worked as a missionary for twenty years. During these years, he also
became a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi and participated in the Indian independence movement. He
served as mayor of Madras from 1941 to 1942.
Indian Freedom Fighter and Christian Theologian
Chakkarai writes While this is so, the Indian Christian still remains in bondage, a safe slavery
where he can toil without thought. The imagination and heart have not yet been roused from their
slumber… The Church is to minister to a mind diseased within the prescribed limits… Itis a
positive danger to the individual to exert his mid, for, if he is a mission sub-ordinate he will be in
danger of judgment. He may have to lose his only means of livelihood. How many intelligent
minds of whom there are an increasing number in the churches, are capable of such sacrifice?
Again, the prestige of Western ecclesiasticism and its power of money are averse to independence
The passive and avoidant attitude of the Christian majority in regards to independence is what
makes Christians like Chakkarai unique and worthy of recognition. He was willing to challenge
the church’s mainstream attitude regarding social issues and dependence on foreign resources.
Chakkarai called the Indian church to reconsider how much freedom truly existed in their worship.
It was through participation in the independence movement that Chakkarai began to see the extent
of Western influence in the life of Indian Christians. He frequently expressed a longing for freedom
for Indian Christians to think for themselves and develop their theology and practices from the
treasures of their Indian heritages. Pandian argues that Chakkarai’s efforts to connect his Hindu
past with an indigenous theology were the result of his nationalistic sympathies rather than a
genuine Christian conviction. By contrast, Oddie argues that the rise in nationalism was the
catalyst which sparked a genuine rediscovery by Indian Christians, like Chakkarai, of what they
felt was an authentically Indian form of Christianity.
These Christians that Oddie describes would eventually form the Madras Rethinking Group, a
collection of lay Indian Christians who sought to “rethink” the theological and practical
expressions of Christianity in India. As Jathanna explains, the Madras Rethinking Group sought
to correct what they saw as a “misrepresentation of Christianity, which, on the one hand, did not
take the Hindu attitude of mind and way of thinking seriously, and on the other, blurred the
distinctive features of Christianity.” Although these criticisms of the church were sometimes harsh,
Chakkarai did not wish to eradicate the church as an institution as some of his colleagues were
arguing. Instead, most of Chakkarai’s ecclesiastical criticisms were aimed at the episcopal forms
of institutionalism such as was common with the Anglican Church in India. In the Rethinking
Group’s book published in 1938, Chakkarai wrote, “We are as ardent as those who cling to the
visible church with the difference that we insist on the organism and not on - organization.”
Chakkarai sought for the Indian church to not be pressured to conform to the “organization” of
foreign church authorities but instead to be full of life as an “organism” rooted in Indian soil. While
Chakkarai may have had no desire to demonize the Indian church itself, his frequent challenges to

111
the local churches’ dependence on foreign influence was often ill received. This resulted in
Chakkarai living much of his life in virtual ostracism from any local church congregation. In
describing the difficulty involved for Christians who supported the independence movement,
Chakkarai wrote, “Those Indian Christian young men who threw themselves into the political
propaganda were looked upon as even traitors to the Lord, because they would not prove traitors
to their motherland.” Pandian argues that Chakkarai’s ostracism from the local church was the
primary reason for his failure to see any visible movement or paradigm shift towards
“Indianization” within the local churches.
According to Pandian, his virtual detachment from a local church community made it impossible
for his theory of the “Indianization” of Christianity to move from being an epistemic project to a
practical reality, a transformation that can only happen “if the epistemic project is grounded in
community.” Richard, on a similar note, describes the failure of the Rethinking Group’s ashram
ideal. Their vision was that the ashram, a traditional type of Indian monastery, was the best form
of church structure for Indian Christians. This, however, was not to last since the initial passion
for such an idea dissipated after the death of the founders’ generation. Chakkarai’s distance from
any personal involvement in the church on the local level affected his efforts in promoting an
indigenous Christianity on the national level.
Theology
Chakkarai tried to explain the Christian faith through the Hinduism point of view. This can be
seen when he tried to find the meaning of cross for the followers of Christianity with how to
get moksha. Some of the Chakkarai's point of view about Christianity:
 Jesus is truly human (sat purusa).
 Holy Spirit is Christ himself who continues to exist and work until now.
 God cannot be seen as the creator of sin.
 Humans themselves are responsible for the sins that they commit.
 Knowledge of God is not something that is intellectual (jnana), but a personal experience
of God (anubhava).
 Sin is seen as the handcuffs (pasa), which prevents the human soul (pasu) to reach God.
 The essence of sin is the desire to find "the mystery of the forbidden".
Jesus the Avatar
The characteristic feature of Chakkarai's theology is the centrality of Christ. Jesus Christ is the
essential thing in Christianity. He is the unique Avatar of God (avatar par excellence). In Him is
the real avarohana (descent) of God. As Avatar, He is the revealer of God. God in Himself is
avyakta (NirgunaDeusabsconditus). and Christ is the vyakta lsvara (Deus revelatus). God is sat,
and Jesus Christ is chit. Another significant aspect of his Christology is his view of the dynamic
nature of the incarnation. The incarnation does not end by the crucifixion but is permanent and is
still today advancing to new depths of meaning. The incarnation is not temporary or static but is
permanent and dynamic. The classical Hindu theory of avatara is that it comes into the world ·from
time to time, as need arises, and then disappears and is reabsorbed in God. But Chakkarai regards
the Christ event as singular, once and for all times. God having become man in Christ remains as
God-man forever, and is not simply absorbed back into God with the discarding of his human
nature. This dynamic conception of avatara is a real contribution to Indian Christian theology. The

112
avatara does not cease with the cross or ascension, but God in Christ still continues to be man,
living and working in the lives of believers.
Humanity and Divinity
Jesus the Avatar is both human and divine. As said above, the humanity is real and permanent.
The uniqueness of his humanity is found particularly in two respects: (1) his prayer life and (2) his
sinlessness. His prayer life transcends that of any prophet or yogi. Regarding the sinlessness of
Jesus, Chakkarai says, ' In His presence, we stand before the moral miracle of humanity, the true
man (sat purusha) in whom as in looking into a mirror, we see our own deformities and yet realize
what is the inner meaning of our own strivings after a holy and perfect life. His humanity is as
transcendent and mysterious as his divinity.' The divinity of Christ was not 1 the result of an
apotheosis, but he was God always. His divinity is particularly seen in two facts: (1) the
resurrection and (2) the indwelling of the risen Lord in the believers. The resurrection, according
to Chakkarai, was not a mere continuation of the life of the Spirit after death. ' The physical
resurrection is a logical and psychological necessity in the process of the incarnation.' The body
of Christ after the. resurrection was the same and yet not the same. The resurrection and the
transformation of the human body into a spiritual body is the result of bhakti (love) and sakti
(energy) in Jesus. The divinity of Christ is also attested by His indwelling in His bhaktas.
Chakkarai says, ' Whereas the Indian incarnations, for instance, Rama and Krishna, were
temporary and passed away, the Christian view that we are describing is that it .is abiding and
permanent. The Spirit of Jesus is incarnated again and again in' human hearts.' The Spirit of Jesus
has become the antaryamin, the indwelling experience of his devotees.
Christ and the Holy Spirit:
Chakkarai identifies the Holy Spirit with the risen and living Christ at work in the world today.
Jesus' promise of John 14: 18 is fulfilled at Pentecost. With his dynamic conception of avatar, the
Holy Spirit is conceived as the Pentecostal stage of the Incarnation. The Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ
in the human personality. 'Jesus Christ is the Incarnation or Avatar of God; the Holy Spirit in
human experience is the incarnation of Jesus Christ.' Jesus as Holy Spirit not only inspires every
bhakta, but also animates the Sangha (the Church).
Jesus and Humanity
Jesus is true Man (sat purusha), the original pattern in the mind of God after whom all men have
been fashioned. To quote, ' He is the Sat Purusha; and though we are not as at, we are dominated
by maya. In Jesus the maya is cast off, and transcended and His full glory and light have shone on
the world.' Christ is the spiritual background of all humanity, the mula purusha.
The Work of Christ
Jesus Christ is the parama Vaidhya of the soul. Unlike Appasamy, Chakkarai regards the basic
features of Pauline ideas as relevant to our effort to understand Christ, His cross and His atoning
work. Chakkarai has much to say about sin in terms of maya and asat. In explaining God's act of
redemption in Jesus Christ. he uses many terms and phrases in the traditional and biblical sense,
but in the main, we find that greater stress is laid on the moral influence of the life and death of
Christ. Bhakti is identified with the Pauline conception of justifying faith. Through the moral sakti
of His redemptive suffering, Christ eradicates the disease of sin. Under the influence of Christ's
sakti the sinner turns, after the long night of sin, his face to God as the lotus opens its petals to the
rays of the sun. The way of salvation lies in union with Christ in bhakti which involves the cross

113
and suffering. As we share in the sufferings we share in the new creation. Chakkarai's view of
salvation and the work of Christ is more comprehensive than many typical views -of redemption.
Not only does it cover the whole range of individual life, the burden of sin and our justification in
the sight of God, but it involves the redemption of society from the sins of the social order.19 He.
has much to say about social justice, and the solidarity of the individual with society, and brings
them into his comprehensive view of the Kingdom of God.

M.M THOMAS

Madathilparampil Mammen Thomas was born on 15th May 1916 at Kavungumprayar and brought
up at Kozhencherry in Travancore which is now called Kerala, one of the southern states of India.
Thomas was the oldest of the nine children. He had a rural lower middle-class family background.
His father Mammen was a Gandhian socialist, who worked as secretary of a local Corporative
Society and had a printing press to ensure the livelihood of his large family. His father was a pious
and active member of the Syrian Mar Thoma Church of Malabar and was an active evangelist and
enthusiastic patriot. Thomas’ mother was a school-teacher. Thomas had his early education in a
school that was run by his church in his own village. He was regular to church service, Sunday
school meetings and cottage prayer meetings of the church. T.M. Phillip maintains that the Sunday
school lessons on the crucifixion of Jesus touched Thomas early in life, to the extent that it
impacted him throughout his life. The evangelical piety at home, and his family’s commitment to
Christian faith and church tradition helped him to develop a disciplined prayer life. He believed in
the importance of prayer; he was convinced that intercession for a personal, social and religious
life would impact the society towards humanization. In order to achieve this, Thomas used books
such as Self-Training in Prayer and Self-Training in Meditation. The evangelical spirituality that
he experienced both at home and in the church served as an early foundation to share his
experiences of evangelical spirituality with his friends. Thomas testifies to the impact of the
liturgical and evangelical tradition of his Church on his spirituality. Thinking of his early life, he
said in his autobiography: “looking back it is clear to me that I started my life of faith with what
may be called evangelical and sacramental piety, I believe it is still the fundamental structure of
my spiritual life.”
Sunand Sumithra, who has done doctoral research on the theology of Thomas, says that Thomas
“consciously counts himself as standing in the evangelical and sacramental piety in his early
years.” The influence of his church’s liturgy was large; Thomas wrote: “I have often been surprised
how much the liturgical tradition of my church has become through the years an integral part of
my spirituality.” Thus, the spirituality of Thomas was characterized by the evangelical,
sacramental tradition and the liturgical tradition of his church. He was so carried away by this
evangelical spirituality during his early period that he had no attention for the social concern; this
he developed in his later years. Hielke T. Wolters, who conducted his doctoral research on
Thomas’ theology of prophetic participation, confirms that the following three factors played a
significant role in his early spiritual and theological development: Firstly, the tradition of the Mar
Thoma Church with its emphasis on liturgy and sacraments and their relation to one’s personal
faith and social responsibility. Secondly, the personal faith received from his family background
and upbringing that gave him a solid evangelical piety and personal commitment to Jesus Christ.

114
The third was his involvement with the Student Christian Movement. Thomas acknowledged: “It
is to the reformation milieu of Kozhencherry and my family that I owe my faith which was
solidified in the course of time.
National building
Social responsibility
The impact of Thomas’ personal salvation was great importance in his search for social dharma
and responsibility. He writes “The self-consciousness that Jesus Christ is the ground and goal of
my life became deep rooted in me. I dedicated myself to God in Jesus Christ on that occasion and
it marks the beginning of my search for Christian social dharma.” Thomas says the years 1937-
1945, were “literally a pilgrimage in search of my dharma.” After he left the ashram school and
before joining the Christian Institute in 1937, he was wrestling with three related issues namely:
the centrality of Christ in his life, the reality of other religions and the social implications of the
gospel. Thomas writes:
I felt compelled to re-state my understanding of Christ in the context of my new discovery of the
richness of other religions on the one hand and my slow awakening to the social implications of
the Gospel on the other… the question was how to retain the centrality of Christ in my life, while
grappling with the realities of other religions and of social concerns.
Thomas’ concepts of salvation and humanization and Christ-centered secular fellowship, which
will be discussed in the next chapter, seem to evolve from his early convictions. This reflects his
struggle between the centrality of Christ (his Christo-centric spirituality) and the call for social
responsibility. He experienced this struggle because of his strong evangelical spirituality in which
he had been nurtured both at home and in the Mar Thoma Church. The problem with Christianity
at large, and with special reference to the evangelical tradition, has been the dichotomization and
compartmentalization of the spiritual from the social and the social from the spiritual. He stood
between the two as a connecting bridge through his powerful writings and addresses. He left his
teaching job in order to become more involved in the ministry. One of the reasons for leaving his
job as teacher in 1937 was the challenge to be more directly involved in evangelism and social
service. It was in this search for social responsibility that he joined Christian Institute at Alleppey.
In Search of Political Responsibility (1977–1992)
Thomas, after his retirement from WCC and CISRS, at the age of 61, became actively involved in
political action. During this period, he was actively involved in politics, fighting for democratic
rights and freedom of the people. He did this, as an ordinary responsible citizen and in his capacity
as the governor of Nagaland. Nagaland is one the states of India in the North East. The Nagas are
a tribal community and Nagaland is a Christian state.
A Quest and search for ideologies
As Thomas began to associate and interact with different people and ideologies, he began to realize
the one-sidedness of his evangelical background. His quest for ideologies started when he realized
the social implications of the gospel and the need for the transformation and humanization of the
society. He says “Ever since I accepted that Christian Faith had social and political implications, I
considered the quest for Ideology (Social anthropology as guide for understanding social reality
and for social action) as integrally necessary to witness to the faith in concrete historical
situations.” In this search he was attracted to several ideologies and accepted them critically and
even tried to Christianize them for the sake of the possibility of a ‘New Humanity’ and ‘New

115
Community in Christ.’ Thomas writes that the period 1939-1954 was the period of his “early
struggles in the search for a historically relevant social and political ideology within the framework
of my commitment to the Christian faith.” His aim was to look for an ideology that would meet
the historical realities and struggles of the people but did not contradict or compromise his
Christian faith. His encounter with the Indian national movement and the social realities of India
became the background and motivating factors for his search. He began his search of ideologies
with the conviction and purpose that “Christians must involve themselves with others in creating
and promoting ideologies which are informed by Christian insights and which can help the people
in their struggle for justice.” He explains ideology as “a sort of social analysis, an analysis of the
power-situation in terms of the interrelation of the forces of caste, class, religion, etc.”
Humanism
Another ideology that influenced his concept of salvation and humanization was humanism.
Thomas acknowledged the role of humanism, and in particular new humanism, in bringing justice
and equality to humanity. Thomas speaks about three aspects of new humanism. Firstly, the
awareness of man’s selfhood which is distinct from nature. This awareness of selfhood is the
source of man’s freedom and creativity. Secondly, its conviction that there is a genuine search for
a clear purpose and meaning of human life and history. Lastly, new humanism recognizes
‘individual freedom and equality between man and woman, and among all people in the society.’
Thomas considered Christ the source for a new humanism. According to his perception, it is Christ
who transcends cultures and transforms life of community. Therefore, according to Thomas, one
should “present Christ who transcends all cultures and incarnates Himself in all cultures, as the
source of a New Humanism, for integration of cultures.” Thomas as a Christocentric person
advocated that Christ was to be the source and normative factor for all human search for human
dignity, identity and freedom.
Secularism
The presence of religious pluralism in India and the realities of its challenges made Thomas to
move towards opting for a secular ideology of the state that would undertake the social and
religious freedom of all people. Thomas defines secularism as “a movement from a sacred to a
secular ethos in corporate life.” It is “a revolt against the control of traditional religion over social
and political life.” It paves the way for a new spirituality and culture. In India the concept of
secularism as a political philosophy emerged in the struggle for national independence, as part of
the battle against Hindu Nationalism and Islamic theory of two nations. India under the leadership
of Gandhi and Nehru was successful in overcoming the force of Hindu communalism to establish
a secular state. This concept of secular state had two features: the declaration of religious liberty
as a fundamental civil right of every citizen and the coexistence of different religions and cultures
in dynamic interaction for a peaceful life.
These elements of Indian secularism were a result of the impact of western democratic and socialist
secular ideologies which envisaged the idea of a more egalitarian society. The future of secular
humanism was under threat as the result of religious fundamentalism and communalism all over
the world. Thomas began to realize in the early 1990s that “Not only in India, but all the world
over, there is a resurgence of religious fundamentalism and communalism which threaten the
political, social and cultural achievements of movements of Secular Humanism” He said: “In my
assessment religious reform and renaissance is the result of religions absorbing within it concepts

116
of transcendent spirituality, a limited but real process of secularization.” Thomas believed that
secularization delivers men from the superstitions and oppressive religious institutions and
dogmatism. His search was never a purely theoretical and intellectual search for abstract truths but
rather for truths that would demand a concrete social involvement to humanize the dehumanized
society.
Theology of M.M Thomas
Salvation: Thomas states that salvation is “the transcendent ultimate destiny of human beings.”
Salvation according to Thomas is “the spiritual inwardness of true humanization and [that]
humanization is inherent in the message of salvation in Christ.” Thomas therefore sees a close link
between salvation and humanization; salvation includes humanization and humanization include
salvation. Salvation has to do with the inwardness of the person; it is the salvation of the soul.
Thomas elaborates on this when he says: “Salvation itself could be defined as humanization in a
total and eschatological sense. And all our struggles on earth for the fragmentary realization of
man’s humanity point to this eschatological humanization as their judgment and fulfilment.” Thus,
salvation is the ‘realization of man’s humanity’ and connected with the ultimate and eschatological
destiny of people. Though it is eschatological it is simultaneously a present reality as salvation
starts today here and now; however, its culmination is eschatological.
Humanization: Thomas coined the term humanization in 1971. For Thomas, humanization means
making the human genuinely and fully human, liberated from all social, political and religious
dehumanization. Humanization is integrally related and interwoven with salvation and is “the
penultimate human destiny” which means the destiny of the temporal earthly life of people. The
inwardness of humanization is salvation and the outwardness of salvation is humanization. He
writes “Salvation has always been seen by Christian missions in India in close integration with
humanization. Indian theologians such as Pandipeddi Chenchiah have even sought to define Christ
and his salvation in terms of the ‘new humanity’ offered by God for the ultimate humanization of
all mankind.” For Thomas salvation and humanization are complementary concepts, like two sides
of the same coin. One cannot choose or ignore one over the other. According to Thomas, it is not
a possibility, but an obligation to deal with both salvation and humanization. Though salvation and
humanization both take shape in this historical life, Thomas uses the concept salvation for the
ultimate eschatological salvation of people and the concept humanization for penultimate historical
salvation. Thomas concurred with Paul Lehmann, an ethicist and contemporary of Thomas, who
asserted in 1964 that God is already working in the world to humanize the world and the
responsibility of the church is to follow Christ where he has preceded us. Choan Seng Song, a
theologian from Taiwan, a contemporary of Thomas, follows the interpretation of Thomas and
also interprets salvation as humanization. Song writes, “God humanized himself [sic] to bring
salvation to the world. The mission of God begins with humanization. In short, mission is
humanization.”
According to M.M. Thomas salvation and humanization are inseparable.395 According to Sunand
Sumithra “humanization is the process of conforming man to the image of Jesus Christ” For Song,
Lehman and Sumithra the word humanization seems to apply to human beings only, whereas
Thomas’ idea of humanization is more encompassing and applies to the whole creation. Also,
Thomas has argued that the relation between salvation and humanization is not only vital to
Christianity but it is the common concern of all religions and secular movements. His thesis was:

117
“it is the theme of humanization which provides the most relevant point of entry for any Christian
dialogue with these movements on salvation in Christ at spiritual and theological depth.” Thomas
believed humanization is possible in and through Christ, as Christ is the source and foundation of
true humanization. Christ is the source because he is the new and perfect humanity; through his
death and resurrection he offers a fuller and a richer life. For Thomas, Christ is the ultimate source
of everything: “all things, spiritual and material, earthly and heavenly, the whole cosmos, come
under the creative and redeeming activity of Christ.” Therefore, he says: “The ultimate framework
of reference for Christian thought is neither God nor man in the abstract, neither the metaphysics
of god nor the science for man taken in isolation, but Jesus who is a Godman or rather God for
man or to use Karl Barth’s expression the Humanity of God…” What matters to Thomas is not
any abstract theology which is unrelated and irrelevant to anthropological struggles and challenges
but a concrete Christology that gives hope and assures a fuller and richer human community in
Christ. Therefore, Thomas’ theology of humanization is Christocentric. The following paragraph
will look in more detail in how Thomas grounded and developed his theology of salvation and
humanization.
Humanization as new humanity in Christ: Thomas interprets humanization as ‘New Humanity’
in Christ. Jesus Christ is the New Humanity, the ideal humanity who came to this world to make
the dehumanized community a new humanity in God through Christ. God is at work in the world
in Christ through the church with the goal of making human community as a new humanity.
Miyamoto notes “Devanandan’s concept of new creation and new humanity greatly contributed to
the refinement of his [Thomas] theological anthropology.” New humanity according to Thomas
was “the restoration of the human person in Christ as God’s free creative agent in the divine act of
new creation to restore the wholeness of the entire universe throughout history.” The goal of human
community is to practice justice for the poor and submerged and suppressed groups like Dalits,
tribal and women so that they can have an assured participation in the structures of power and in
the decision-making process. Thomas writes the mission of the Church is “to participate in the
movements of human liberation in our time in such a way as to witness to Jesus Christ as the
Source, the Judge and the Redeemer of the human spirituality and its orientation as it is at work in
these movements, and therefore as the Saviour of Man Today.” The world is the center of God’s
work therefore the church should actively involve in the service and struggles of the world.
According to Thomas traditions and technologies have to be humanized so that they support eco-
justice and social justice which would lead to a new humanity in Christ. Thomas connects social
justice of the marginalized people with eco-justice because people are alienated from their basic
source of life. The goal should be the transformation of structures which helps and not hinders the
dignity of human persons and the community of persons in justice and love. Thomas speaks about
three aspects of the newness of humanity in Christ. Firstly, the humanity in Christ brings freedom
from the elemental spirits of the universe, secondly it transforms oppressive social structures that
separate and alienate the humans from each other and finally the new humanity in Jesus Christ
offers a new personhood to the humans. Thomas writes “The new humanity revealed in Jesus
Christ is the instrument of constant revolution in social history, exerting pressure aimed at creating
universal brotherhood/sisterhood.” Thus, the new humanity in Christ is a humanized community
which is free from all forms of oppression and subjugation and enjoys and experiences equality of
rights and privileges. If this has to be a possibility and achievability the task and focus of humanity

118
should be building one human community. The church is the laboratory of community which
includes the whole human community. For Thomas:
Our immediate task is the creation of a secular koinonia in Christ, which would mean also the
development of an ideology of humanism in which Christians and non-Christians can participate.
I think there is need for the development of such an ideology, which is open to Christ, which is
based on the idea of the new humanity in Christ, a secular ideology based on the Christian hope.
This also is the task of the Church.
The Uppsala 1968 Assembly recognized the quest of people all over the world for fuller humanity
and saw God’s answer to it in his gift of new humanity in Jesus Christ. The conservative
evangelicals and evangelicals among the ecumenical leaders were unhappy about this shift in the
starting point from theology to anthropology, from salvation to humanization. But in the context
of human penultimate quest and secular anthropology the church had to define its Christology from
below and to interpret its significance for unity among all people.
Mission as Humanization
Like Aloysius Pieris, Thomas believed that the church should exercise “a divine option for the
poor”, striving for the humanization of people especially the poor and the marginalized like Dalits,
tribal and women. The church should involve in the prophetic mission of humanization in the
context of religious pluralism, technological development and modernization. The focus should be
justice to the whole person, social justice to the poor and the marginalized and justice to the organic
natural basis of production and reproduction of life on earth. Humanization restores human dignity
and freedom. Christian responsibility to ensure human dignity is one of the major subjects of
discussion in Indian Christian social thought during Thomas’ time. Godwin writes “The human is
the crown and criterion of creation…. It is argued that within a widely dehumanized situation like
that of India, the only course of action left is humanization, which can restore human dignity and
freedom.” It is this concern for human dignity which has motivated Indian Christian social thinkers
to attempt dialogues with people of other faiths and ideologies. The concern of different faiths,
ideologies and the state are also with regard to the question of human dignity and trying to eradicate
the sub-human conditions created by the traditional, feudal and colonial past and continued by
present unjust structures. Thomas writes ‘the search for self-identity by oppressed groups is an
essential part of the struggle for human dignity.’ He believes that Christ is the New Humanity who
restores human lost identity and dignity. It is significant that Vatican II and the Uppsala Assembly
of the World Council of Churches define the church as the sacramental sign of the unity of all
humanity, and also speaks of the presence of the Paschal Mystery among all peoples. This
approach assumes that in Christianity, acknowledgment of Salvation (understood as the
transcendent ultimate destiny of human beings) finds expression and witness in the universal
struggle for Humanization (understood as the penultimate human destiny) in world history which
is shaped not only by the forces of goodness and life, but also by the forces of evil and death.

119
VIII. Indian Perspective on Biblical Hermeneutics

WESLEY ARIARAJAH
Seevaratham Wesley Ariarajah is a theologian, professor, and former director of inter-religions
relations at the World Council of Churches (WCC). Ariarajah studied Theology at King's College
London. A Methodist minister from Sri Lanka, he served both in the pastoral ministry of the church
and as lecturer in the history of religions and New Testament in Sri Lanka. In 1981 he was invited
to join the staff of the World Council of Churches, where he led the Councils Interfaith Dialogue
for over ten years. From 1992 he served as the Deputy General Secretary of the WCC. He has
given lectures, conducted seminars, led conferences in many parts of the world and today is
Professor at Drew University, Madison, USA.
Hermeneutics
Wesley Ariarajah, brings a dialogical hermeneutic to his reading of scripture. 'The Bible is the
record of a great dialogue.' 'Dialogue has always been part and parcel of the Asian understanding
of religious life and discipline.' This leads Ariarajah into creative and genuine dialogue with
neighbor religions empowered by his dialogical reading strategy of scripture. Contemporary
Methodists live, not only with the oppressive fall-out of colonialism and the new economic
colonialism, and the challenge of inter-faith dialogue, but the deep challenge of feminist theology.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has become a pre-eminent voice of feminist biblical interpretation.
Her early groundbreaking book was 'In Memory of Her' in which she reconstructed Christian
origins from a feminist perspective. This meant developing a feminist critical hermeneutic of
scripture which she called a 'hermeneutic of suspicion'. Fiorenza and other women biblical scholars
and theologians have brought to the fore the patriarchal context of the biblical world and the
patriarchal standpoint of the biblical writers. In her latest book, Fiorenza describes a hermeneutic
of suspicion as: A deconstructive practice of enquiry that denaturalizes and demystifies linguistic
- cultural practices of domination …. It has the task of disentangling the ideological functions of
kyriocentric text and commentary.
Such an approach which she also describes as 'A critical theo-ethical hermeneutics' is suspicious
of all textual rhetoric which dominates and oppresses, not just women, but all through ideological
interpretation and use of power as domination, or in support of socio-economic or political status
quo. A hermeneutic of suspicion is critically subversive of all power/domination structures. It is
subversive of the objectivist illusion or academic myth that all scientifically based study, including
that of scripture is objective and value-free. A critical hermeneutic of suspicion will only consent
to the authority of texts that function in a concrete situation as emancipatory.18 The liberationist
hermeneutic of Tamez, dialogical hermeneutic of Ariarajah and the feminist hermeneutic of
suspicion of Fiorenza seem a long way from Wesley's soteriological hermeneutic. These
hermeneutical keys belong to a very different world. In that sense contemporary Methodists do
need to move beyond Wesley's hermeneutics. His Anglocentric hermeneutic is inadequate. Also,
in the 21st century biblical scholarship and hermeneutics are no longer a Eurocentric project. Nor
are androcentric or kyriocentric hermeneutics any longer possible. Wesley still speaks, not least in
his emphasis on the primacy of scripture though not as exclusive authority. Yet multiple reading
strategies are now required, in one sense going well beyond Wesley.

120
Challenged as a Minister of the Church
Wesley Ariarajah says that When I became a minister of the church, the issue of religious plurality
assumed other dimensions. I became aware that religious identity, as it was defined and
experienced, contributed much to the divisions in the community. Sri Lanka was already deeply
divided along ethnic and linguistic lines. Its inability to handle that plurality has resulted in one of
the tragic, violent and senseless internal conflicts of our day which has gone on now for many
decades. Religious communities, religious faith, and religious principles have not been able to play
any significant role in either addressing the issue or in seeking to resolve it. If anything, the
religious divide provides yet another powerful instrument in the hands of those who would see the
continuation of the conflict.
Much of the Christian community, even in this context, sees itself primarily as the religion that has
the "truth". Its "mission" to the nation is still spelt out predominantly in terms of enabling those of
other faiths to embrace the Christian way. While the church excels in humanitarian work, it has
done little or nothing to help the Christians have an informed understanding of what their neighbors
believe, and why. It has taken no initiatives to help Christians understand how to relate to those
who had heard the Gospel, but have chosen to remain Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. Nor has the
church taken any steps to encourage the Christians to engage together with persons of other faiths
in the struggles for justice, reconciliation and peace.
The problem here for me was that plurality made no difference to the church. It lives in a make-
believe world of its own; that it is the group that has all the answers to the questions of life; that it
has only one primary mandate, namely, to preach the Gospel, and that one day "every knee shall
bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord".

GEORGE SORES-PRABU

George Soares-Prabhu (17 November 1929–22 July 1995) was an Indian Jesuit priest, exegete and
biblical scholar, particularly known for his work in Indian Hermeneutics of the Christian
Scriptures. Soares-Prabhu completed his Senior Cambridge at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) in 1944
and then B. Sc. (Chemistry-Botany) at St. Xavier’s College, Bombay in 1949. Afterwards he
joined the Society of Jesus and was ordained a priest on 24 March 1961 at De Nobili
College, Pune.
He joined the Faculty of Theology at Pontifical Athenaeum (now known as Jnana-Deepa
Vidyapeeth), Pune. He went to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, to secure a licentiate
in Scriptures and completed a PhD in Biblical theology in Lyon, France. He wrote his thesis An
Enquiry into the Tradition History of Matthew 1-2under the guidance of Xavier Léon-Dufour.
Soares-Prabhu returned to Pune in June 1969 and began teaching in 1970. Among various courses
he taught, 'The Historical Jesus', 'Resurrection of Jesus and Dharma of Jesus' were most
appreciated. Along with his colleagues, Francis X D'sa, Rui de Menezes and Kurien
Kunnumpuram, he tried to articulate an Indian Christian theology. He was an ardent advocate of
a Liberation Theology adapted to the Indian ethos and socio-religious context. He died in a road
accident in Pune on 22 July 1995.

121
Hermeneutics
What distinguishes SOARES-PRABHU from other exegetes is that for him exegesis was only a
spring-board for theologizing. Besides, in his exegetical endeavors he employed tools whose
validity he did not take for granted; he tested them very critically and gave a reasoned account of
them. Though he rarely ventured into deep hermeneutical waters he regularly prefaced his essays
with questions of method and hermeneutics. Though he did not fully agree with WALTER WINK
that “historical biblical criticism is bankrupt”, he was by no means ignorant of "the growing
awareness that the method is not quite as 'neutral' as it pretends to be and that it is not really
adequate for the study of a book like the bible which is not a scientific but a religious text; and
which aims not at communicating historical information but at evoking a religious response".
When it came to the Bible Soares-Prabhu's concern was with “Interpreting the Bible in India
Today”. His quest was for new and more contextualized ways of reading the Bible. He was fully
acquainted with the fact that: "These [contextualized ways] shift attention from the author to the
text and the reader. Modern hermeneutical theory sees the text not simply as the repository of a
static 'author meaning', which is to be dug out by the careful use of philological and grammatical
tools, accessible only to the expert, but as an intelligible linguistic structure, a texture of words,
with an autonomous 'text meaning' of its own." For him the Bible like all religious texts was the
expression of an inexhaustible ‘originary experience’ “which can be actualized in many different
ways, none of which can claim to be definitive." Dialogue, not archaeology, he held, was the
paradigm for biblical interpretation since the meaning of a text results from the dialogue between
the reader and the text. That is to say, the two worlds of the reader and the text have to fuse, if a
contextual meaning is to emerge.
The Bible and Liberation
Liberation is discussed in the areas of human rights, the poor as a social class, economic liberation,
a liberated and liberating community and the dimension of love as the source of all liberation.
Soares-Prabhu sees the Bible as the magna carta of movements of liberation and human rights. As
is to be expected the vocabulary of the Bible is innocent of categories such as social class, human
rights, economic liberation, etc. But its understanding of the human person implies principles
which are the source of human and societal rights. Soares-Prabhu highlights two such principles:
the sacredness of the human person and “our responsibility for the welfare of people and specially
of those in need” one of the most characteristic features of the Bible. The two creation stories (the
Priestly story of Gen 1:1-24a and the Yahwist story of Gen 2:4b-25), says Soares-Prabhu,
forcefully affirm the principle: “Humankind is clearly set off from the rest of creation as its
crowning summit in Gen 1:2-30, and as the center round and for which the rest of the world is
made in Gen 2:7-9.” The affirmation of the special place of humankind is to be found in the
“striking pronouncement that humankind has been made in the image of God.” Moreover, the role
of stewardship belongs to all humankind, not to individuals as such.
Biblical Theology of Liberation for India
Biblical Theology of Liberation for India begins with “The Dharma of Jesus: An Interpretation of
the Sermon on the Mount”. Its ideas are in many ways similar to those of the previous essay. But
whereas in the previous essay the focus was on Mk 1:14-15 here Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount
occupies center stage. Accordingly, Soares-Prabhu explains meticulously the context and the
structure of the Sermon on the Mount as they “provide significant clues to its meaning”. The result

122
is that Jesus is seen as the new Moses proclaiming his Sermon on the Mount not as law but as love,
Gospel and a goal-directive. For Jesus has come to fulfil, not to abolish the law. The dharma of
the Sermon on the Mount then proclaims freedom from the burden of the law, since it is grounded
on an experience of God as abba who loves us his children with an unconditional love. This dharma
of concern for the neighbor, that is, concern for any one in need, is really the essence of the dharma
of Jesus.
In “Jesus and the Poor” Soares-Prabhu brings out the similarity in the exploitative situation of the
poor in Palestine at the time of Jesus with that of the poor in India. Helpfully he locates the different
classes of people that we encounter in the Gospels (chief priests, money changers, stewards,
Pharisees, tax-collectors, tanners, shepherds, lepers, possessed, etc.) in their socio-economic and
religious context. As we saw earlier, the poor in the Bible stand not merely “for the economically
destitute but also for the socially marginalized groups that have been mentioned above: the
illiterate, the outcast, the ritually polluted, the physically handicapped and the mentally ill.” All
these victims of oppression (this is how the Bible views them) are the anawim. Soares-Prabhu’s
Jesus identifies himself with the poor in his ‘active and effective concern’ for them. The objective
of such concern is to bring an end to their ‘social’ poverty, “while calling for a ‘spiritual’ poverty
that will set them and their rich exploiters free from ‘mammon’, the compulsive urge to possess.”
Jesus’ concern reveals his ‘compassion’ which Soares-Prabhu paraphrases as “that active, caring
and passionate love which defines so sharply his life-style and sets a pattern for the life style of his
followers, because it is, ultimately, the ‘life-style’ as it were of God himself.
Christology For India: The Jesus Of Faith
In Christology for India: The Jesus of Faith the floodlights are on the person of Jesus. The
highpoint of Soares-Prabhu’s ideas on biblical liberation is to be found in his seminal essay “The
Kingdom of God: Jesus’ Vision of a New Society”. After disposing off some ideologically loaded
suspicions regarding the possibility of studying Jesus’ vision he points out that the sayings of Jesus
are to a great extent authentic. “A substantial number of them can be shown to be authentic; and
these allow us to reconstruct with some confidence as even Bultmann admits - the central message
of Jesus (the ‘Kingdom of God’), the core experience from which this message derives (the ‘abba’
experience), the values that it announces (freedom, fellowship and justice), and so, ultimately, the
vision of a new human society that is implicit in it.”
Soares-Prabhu deals with the Kingdom and shows how the proclamation (Mk 1:14-15) is the
central concern of the words and works of Jesus. He analyses the context of Mk 1:14-15, studies
its setting and Jesus’ programmatic proclamation that it contains. Mk 1:15: “The time is fulfilled,
the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the good news.”) comprises two pairs of
indicative-imperative sentences following one another. “The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent,”
Soares-Prabhu believes, is the essence of Jesus’ proclamation. He then discusses the meaning of
the Kingdom of God (the expression is a characteristic feature of Jesus). The English ‘Kingdom’
and its Greek and Hebrew equivalents are circumlocutions for the Old Testament expression ‘God
reigns’.64 Borrowed from its neighbors, Kingdom as creation (which is portrayed mythically as a
‘gigantic rescue operation’), is not of primary importance. But the Kingdom as liberation is an
important motif of the Old Testament: YHWH means the God who redeems. This understanding
gave birth among other streams to Davidic messianism (which “looks forward to the realization of

123
God’s promise of liberation through a descendant of David”) and apocalyptic hope (that God will
destroy this ‘evil age’ and usher in a new age, a new heaven and a new earth).

MARIA ARUL RAJA

Maria Arul Raja is an International Visiting Jesuit Fellow at Holy Cross for the 2012-2013
academic year. He hails from Chennai, India, where he is director of Studies in the Theologate at
Vidyajyoti College's Arul Kadal Centre and supervisor of Doctoral Studies at the Institute of
Dialogue with Cultures and Religions at Loyola College in Chennai. His research has focused on
subaltern studies, Dalit theology and theologies of the oppressed. At Holy Cross, he is teaching a
Religious Studies course on Theologies of the Oppressed.
Hermeneutics
A Maria Arul Raja S.J. states, “It is an irony to think of a Dalit interpretation of the written text of
the Bible, when a vast majority of them are kept as illiterates.” He acknowledges Dalit
hermeneutics as a dialogue between two worlds: “the Dalit world creating its own texts and
Biblical texts creating its world are in dialogue with each other.” Dalits are often kept illiterate and
biblical teaching has been used to exploit them. Yet it is important to understand that the Bible
plays a very significant role in the lives of people; it speaks to people and exists as a living entity
in the lives of people. The Bible has been viewed as a transforming agent in the lives of Dalits.
Hence, A. Maria Arul Raja proposes the careful re-telling of biblical stories from the perspective
of the Dalit community.
Monica Melanchthon states that for a community that was denied access to the scriptures, the Bible
becomes good news. It is something unique to Dalits. Dalit Christians found dignity and decorum,
equality and equal opportunity, and a sense of worth and confidence in the Bible. Sathianathan
Clarke holds the view that “the Bible was invited to take its place as a sacred object, somewhat
resembling the concept of talisman.” For V. Devasahayam, the text, as well as the context, is the
site where the battle between the oppressed and the oppressor is played out. He says that
theologizing through Bible studies will facilitate understanding and acceptance of new ideas. He
acknowledges the fact that the Indian Dalit families cherish and value the Bible very much. He
emphasizes that the context should be the starting point for reading the Bible. Hence, in this article
I intend to re-view the parable of the lost coin from Dalit feminist perspective. The story that is
narrated below is a living witness to show the readers how women are lost in their own homes in
India. These stories find firm connections with the stories of the Bible.
Dalit Hermeneutics
Dalit hermeneutic on the interpretation of the Bible should base on the liberation of the people
from all their by and large sufferings, oppression etc. It must have a tremendous potential
for offering an encouragement for transformation of the oppression into emancipation.
Maria Arul Raja writes most of the Dalits are unlettered so the modern hermeneutic of Dalit
reading of the bible should use the global networks of the mass media communication world. The
audio-video discourses are the new modes of relating ourselves to very on and everything
including our roots and foundations. In this post literate stage, the unwritten discourses play a
significant role in decoding the meaning of the written text of the bible. Any reading genuinely
involved in the liberation of the Dalits today should necessarily assume the form of discourses.

124
Our objective is to do justice, both to the liberation of the unlettered Dalits and to the written of
the bible in our context.
Dalits and the Bible
Maria Arul Raja remarks, "It is an irony to think of a Dalit interpretation of the written text of the
Bible, when a vast majority of them are kept as illiterates." Also, it has to be borne in mind that
the Bible brought to India by the colonizers was used as an instrument of colonialism. Translation
of the Bible into several of the Indian languages was the work of missionaries. Their involvement
in the systematization and codification of the grammar of Indian languages can also be seen as part
of the colonizing activity of the colonizer to take control of the language, the metaphor, and the
worldview of the colonized. It is ironic that the Bible is given such importance in Dalit theologizing
and faith despite their being denied access to it and to literacy and the fact that the Bible is in many
ways a symbol of colonialism.
Dalit Reading
The bible is altogether the record of a religious experience of the oppressed Israelites; it is story of
struggles for liberation from injustice and inhumanity; it gives a history into which God enters
himself and mediated on their behalf in order to make them to get their full human identity. He
acts on behalf of the victims against the victimizers. He is designated as Yahweh, God of Israel.
He is a personal, living and liberating God. He is not on the side of the force of oppression
but always the side of those who cry out because of oppression and deprivation. Here we read
some passage for Dalit’s reading which give a connotation of Dalit experience in society and with
God, the Creator. The exodus event gives a clear understanding of Dalit reading
of bible that while the people of Israelwere slavery to the Egyptians, and they cried to their God t
o redeem them from the Egyptians hands. “after a long time, the king of Egypt died. The Israelite
groaned under their slavery and cried out. out of their slavery their cry for help rose up to God.
God heard their groaning and remember his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God looked
upon the Israelite and God took note of them (Ex. 2: 23-25). Then God choose one from the Israel,
the slavery or the Dalit community, Moses to rescue them from the hands of Egypt. God said to
Moses “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt… I will send you to Pharoh to
bring my people, the Israelite (the Dalits-oppressed people), out of Egypt (Ex. 3: 7-10). Then the
continue chapter deals with the encounter of the Yahweh did through to Moses with Pharaoh. God,
standing on the side of the oppressed, produced plagues and begun to destroy Egypt in order to
deliver the oppressed people.

R.S. SUGIRTHYARAJAH
Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, known as R. S. Sugirtharajah, is a biblical hermeneuticist and an emeritus
professor at the University of Birmingham. He is known for his work in developing the field
of postcolonial biblical criticism. Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, known as R. S. Sugirtharajah, is
a biblical hermeneuticist and an emeritus professor at the University of Birmingham. He is known
for his work in developing the field of postcolonial biblical criticism. He was Born in Sri Lanka,
Sugirtharajah pursued his Bachelor of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees at United
Theological College, Bangalore(affiliated to the Senate of Serampore College) in India before
completing his Doctor of Philosophy degree at the University of Birmingham in England. He is
best known for his work in introducing postcolonial criticism to the study of the Bible, in works

125
such as Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism and Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical
Interpretation. He is also known for bringing to the foreground marginalized voices which are
rarely heard in mainstream studies of Christianity.
Hermeneutics
Sugirtharajah reviews the different approaches to biblical interpretation which led to his
postcolonial approach. Some of his most scathing remarks subject "liberationist readings" or
"liberation hermeneutics" to critique. In acknowledging oversights made by this approach, he also
makes one of his most zealous endorsements for a postcolonial approach to the Bible. He defines
liberationist readings as those readings of the Bible produced by people such as Latin American
theologians Gustavo Gutierrez and Elsa Tamez. These readings were often created in the context
of a failed consolidation of power which might have brought about social change immediately
following the independence of a colony. Sugirtharajah begins his critique by observing that,
"liberation hermeneutics ends up reproducing a microcosmic version of the very hegemonic
interpretation which it tried to dislodge" through its base in the modern/Enlightenment tradition.
He faults liberation theologians for romanticizing and homogenizing the poor and for reading
indigenous traditions as another historical manifestation of the Christian God's presence in the
world. In his critiques, he notes that "Gutierrez and Tamez replicate the classical liberal view which
advocates that the Bible must be related to the context wherein God's presence is already evident".
According to Sugirtharajah, there is little tolerance for a non-Christian approach in liberation
hermeneutics since the "'problem is not the Bible itself, but the way it has been interpreted."'
Essentially, "In its overzealousness to represent the poor, liberation hermeneutics has ended up as
a liberation theology of the poor rather than a theology of liberation by the pool' Sugirtharajah
proposes that liberation hermeneutics work in conjunction with postcolonial theory since the latter
avoids the "errors and unsavory aspects" of the modernist tradition to which liberation
hermeneutics so closely allies itself. However, one of the weaknesses of his study is that he does
not always critique his own epistemological approach. One of the few times he does so is when he
notes that highlighting colonial allusions in each text a critic encounters "can became an esoteric
and an escapist activity. It might encourage the notion that deconstructing a narrative is the ultimate
form of liberation, and lead to complacency and overlook structural inequalities that are staring at
us". While he calls on liberation hermeneutics to "eschew its homogenization of the poor, incessant
Biblicism, and hostility to religious pluralism that plague its interpretative focus [so that it will] be
able to join forces with postcolonial thinking to fathom and fashion a different world from the one
we live in."

MONICA MELANCHTHON
Dr. Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon belongs to the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, India. A
graduate of the United Theological College, Bangalore, and the Lutheran School of Theology at
Chicago (Ph.D.), she currently teaches Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the United Faculty of
Theology, MCD University of Divinity, Melbourne.
Hermeneutics
Monica has strong commitments to the marginalized, particularly, women and Dalits. She has
contributed toward developing Dalit and Indian Feminist hermeneutics and theologies, and
interpretation of Biblical texts drawing on insights from the social biographies of these

126
communities, their perspectives and their lived experiences. Her approach is therefore contextual,
inter disciplinary and liberational. Her research interests include cultural and literary studies,
reception histories, epistemologies, ecological readings, feminist hermeneutics and interpretations.
While on research leave (Jan-June 2016) Monica worked on a manuscript entitled, Shaping
Survival: The Bible and Indian Women, a collection of juxtaposed readings of the Hebrew Bible
and Indian “texts”. Her current research projects include a feminist commentary on 1 Kings
(Liturgical Press) and a commentary on Joshua 1-11 (Earth Bible Commentary Series, Sheffield
Press), besides several chapters for various book projects.

IX. Intra and Inter-Faith Dialogue: Towards A Community of Communities

P.D. DEVANANDA
Hindu and Christian’s inter-faith Dialogue
P.D. Devananda's efforts as Director of The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and
Society, Bangalore were aimed at establishing Hindu-Christian dialogue at a deeper level than had
previously existed. In India, it was observed, "Most inter-religious meetings ... are still full of
'parallel monologues, in its hosting of conferences and through its journal, Religion and Society,
Devananda's hope has been at least partially realized. The Institute has played a major role,
especially during the seventies, in initiating serious Hindu-Christian dialogue. Especially notable
in this regard was the Institute's "Consultation on the Praxis of Inter-Faith Dialogue" in 1978 which
brought together leading scholars on dialogue from all over India. Several of the papers from this
Consultation were published in volume of Religion and Society and provide a good evaluation of
the state of Hindu-Christian Dialogue within India. One weakness of the Consultation, however,
was that Hindu scholars did not have equal representation with the Christian scholars. The
Consultation emphasized that Hindu Christian dialogue should transform the existing religious
ideas of clean-unclean and sacred-profane in both religions because they militate against the
realization of an inclusive human community in India.

ABHISHIKTANANDA
Swami Abhishiktananda was not a professional systematic theologian according to the current
common understanding. He was a sage narrating his spiritual search, his encounters and
pilgrimages and reflecting over his experiences partly to clarify (to himself) his own understanding
of them and partly to explain to his friends, mostly in France, what he was living and thinking
through. It was an ongoing conversation in which the responses of others to his reflections are not
often available. The Diary of Marc, if and when published, would be interesting.
Swamijji lived in an epoch-making period for the church in general and for the Indian church in
particular. After India gained independence in 1947 there was a move among the Catholics in India
to become really Indian. The Second Vatican Council came as a providential opening of windows,
followed by the National Seminar of 1969. Swamiji himself had theological conversation partners
like Raimon Panikkar. A group of younger Indian theologians were ready to respond creatively to
his theological intuitions and develop them further. The censors of Swamiji made sure that his
original insights were published mostly posthumously.
Swamiji’s own thinking was in process filled with tension. He started as a convinced Thomist
thinking in the framework of ‘preparation-fulfilment’ in the relationship of Hinduism to

127
Christianity. His slow moving away from this paradigm was painful, though it is to his credit that
he did not allow his intellectual convictions smother his experience. His disciples Marc and
Therese did not seem to have had this handicap. Swamiji has not left behind fully developed
treatises on any theological topic. Even his small treatise on sannyasa was a justification for the
double initiation Hindu and Christian.
Methodology
From the point of view of method in theological reflection I would like to point to two areas that
are important for Indian theology. Abhishiktananda is an early example of theological reflection
that has experience as its starting point and context. He comes to India to lead it to Christ by
exposing it to the spiritual and mystic dimension of Christianity. But he is blown over by his
encounter with Ramana maharishi and later Gnanananda and their advaitic or non-dual
experiences. He discovers a commentary of these in the Upanishads, which convey the experiences
of other sages. He engages in a spiritual dialogue with these sages, seeking to share their advaitic
experience rather than an intellectual dialogue with the different schools of Indian
philosophy/theology. His reflections start with their experience. He claims to have had this
experience only rather late in life. But his own experience does not radically question, but rather
confirm, his reflections. In this process of experience-based reflection, he does not allow his
Thomistic categories to control and define his experience. Rather he is open to change them. He
is enabled to do this because of his constant reading of and reflection over the Upanishads, which
mediate to him the experiences of other sages at other times. Does this not question the very idea
of theology as a ready-made system, backed up by doctrinal and magisterial statements?
The second important element in his methodology is that it is dialogical in an interreligious context.
His dialogue is not a comparative study of religions by someone who is outside them. His approach
is not even comparative theology that explores similar theological systems by placing them side
by side, while respecting their specificity. His reflection is born of shared experience. On the one
hand, he read the Upanishads and searches for advaitic experience. On the other, he reads the
psalms and celebrates the Eucharist. He experiences them as different, I am sure, but not as
incompatible. This is a kind of Indian theology that it still uncommon, though I wish that it
becomes habitual, not only in India, but also elsewhere. One speaks of inter-cultural theology. It
is safer than venturing into inter-religious theology. But, in a way inter-religious theology is easier
than inter-cultural theology. Inter-cultural theology is bound to get stuck in ‘names and forms’,
while inter-religious theology can transcend them. I think that Swamiji experienced this tension
while trying to express his experience in words. Symbols like light Shiva’s column of fire were
more helpful to express his experience.
The Theology of Religions
The current orthodoxy suggests that, not only Jesus Christ, but also the Church is the only ‘way’
to salvation. Though people belonging to other religions may be saved in ways known to God
alone, the other religions are not such ways. They are ‘inadequate’ to such a goal. But Bishops and
theologians in Asia, in contact with the believers of other religions, suggest that these can be
considered ways of salvation to those who believe in them. However, the goal, namely salvation,
being one, the believers of other religions are seen as co-pilgrims to the same goal. In India, a
seminar in 1973, asking whether we can consider the Scriptures of other religions as inspired,
proposed a framework of three covenants, namely Cosmic, Judaic and Christian. The other

128
religions belong to the Cosmic covenant so that their scriptures can be considered inspired
analogously. A later seminar on ‘Sharing Worship’ suggested that the goal of worship, namely
God, being one and the same, while the symbols used to approach God may be different, a sharing
at the level of symbols is possible. This supposes that the other religions are seen as valid ‘ways’
to God. Theologians in India would today widely accept the other religions as ‘ways’ to God or
salvation.
Swamiji contributed to such openness to other religions in his own way. On the one hand, he
considered that the advaitic experience of the Ultimate went beyond ‘names and forms’ of any
kind, whether Hindu or Christian. But his vision of sannyasa and his idea of a double initiation,
Hindu and Christian, through two gurus were due to his understanding that, though sannyasa itself
was acosmic, it was an element of Hindu tradition. On the other hand, he held on to some of these
names and forms, both as ‘ways’ to and as expressions of the advaitic experience in ordinary life.
He found the Upanishads and meditation on the one hand and the Psalms and the Eucharist on the
other useful till his last day. The picture of the fiery chariot carrying the Prophet Elias into heaven
remained an inspiration, though it may also have reminded him of the column of fire of
Arunachala. He did not reject such means in a fit of total acosmism. While Swamiji would not
have been comfortable with the ritualism in the Hindu temples, he felt inspired by Hindu sacred
spaces and non-iconic symbols. He refers often to Shiva, who is non-iconic, unlike Rama or
Krishna who to refer to historical people. He remained attracted to the sacred mountain Arunachala
and the symbol of the column of fire in which Shiva is said to have manifested himself. I do not
know whether the fact that Arunachala is said to be the center of a field of cosmic energy has
anything to do with it and whether Swamiji experienced it during the time that he spent there. He
was also attached to the Himalayas and the Ganges, not to speak of the sacred places like
Kedarnath, linked to Shiva. I think that the name Shiva simply indicates for him a cosmic
experience of the Absolute in nature – in the five elements. His attachment to Hinduism therefore
went beyond the Upanishads. On the other hand, when he describes the ritual of initiation of Marc,
the celebration of the Eucharist replaces all the sacrificial rituals associated with Hindu initiation.
I think that the experience of Swamiji was not Christianity integrating some elements of Hinduism,
nor vice versa. Nor was it a cosmic experience. It is rather an experience that transcends all ‘name
and form’, which is however rooted and finds expression in both Hindu and Christian traditions. I
would consider this an experience of ‘double identity’, which seems to upset both groups, some
Christians thinking that he has become a Hindu and some Hindus feeling that he is still too
Christian. Here we are in a territory unfamiliar to most theologians today. But once we are there,
we discover that such double identities exist at various levels: among Hindu and Christian and
even Muslim pilgrims who visit the sacred shrines of others, serious Christian practitioners of
Yoga or Zen and Hindu disciples of Jesus Christ. Swamiji refers in a letter to the Christ-experience
of a Hindu friend, identified as Harilal, a disciple of Ramana: “A friend, who is a real advaitin, last
month had a shattering vision of Christ, feet on earth, arms and head above the heavens, with arms
held out ‘as if to hold me’”. He meets him later and finds that he “has gone back to the path of
abheda-bhakti [bhakti without distinction between the Lord and his devotees]. And he explained
to us in that way the love of Christ for the Father… All my theology and rationalism is put to the
test by this vision. A reminder, I feel, from Him through such bhaktas and advaitis, not to

129
rationalize the all-surpassing advaitic experience, and that He is still there who is God omnia in
omnibus [all in all]”.
The theology of religions will have to break out of traditional paradigms like ‘exclusivism,
inclusivism and pluralism’ or complementarity or relativistic pluralism. Relativism denies an
Absolute. Here, on the contrary, a strong affirmation of the Absolute relativizes, but includes, the
many manifestations and ways to the Absolute. The Absolute itself transcends all that is relative.
Swamiji says: “People are converted – they receive an initiation [diksha], they become Christian,
Muslim, Sufi, Vedantin, etc. All those are superimposed forms. Whereas the essential thing is to
strip oneself of all that is superfluously added, to recover one’s proper form [svarupa] that was
lost.”
Jesus and the Christ
Such an attitude to other religions has implications for ecclesiology and Christology. Swamiji does
make passing allusions to them, while not developing them too much. Swamiji often speaks an
apophatic language. In his reflections on sannyasa he even seems to become a cosmic. Some
suggest that it was Marc who pushed him to such a cosmism and possibly became a cosmic himself
in ways unknown to us. But Swamiji’s apophatism did not lead him to abandon symbols altogether,
as we have already seen. In the Eucharist there is a sacramental dimension that goes beyond ‘name
and form’ or mere sign. In our contemporary theologies of religions, speaking of many mediators
and mediations, underlining the specificity of the incarnate Christ and the sacraments is necessary
and is often forgotten, though this specificity does not mean exclusivity. Even the Church does not
teach that the sacraments are the only means of grace. And yet they are different from other
possible means of grace and this difference is related to the mystery of the incarnation. As long as
Swamiji was faithful to the Eucharist he did not abandon the mystery of the incarnation.
But this attachment to the incarnation did not lead him to reify the mystery of Christ. As a matter
of fact, the history of Jesus leads him to the mystery of Christ which acquires cosmic dimensions.
The Indian term ‘Purusha’ (the Person) helps Swamiji to reach out to the cosmic mystery of Christ,
which is a sort of universal human form, somewhat in a Platonic perspective, but which can take
many historical manifestations. Such a mystical dimension of Christ sets limits to Jesus as a
historical figure. Panikkar puts it pithily: ‘Jesus is the Christ, but Christ is more than Jesus’. This
distinction, not separation, has often been opposed in terms of the oneness of the person of Christ.
Those who distinguish appeal, on the contrary, to the distinction of natures in the same person.
This promises to remain an inconclusive dispute. Swamiji almost refuses to do any ‘Christology’.
But he is clearly inclined to the distinction. In a letter to Sr. Sara Grant, he writes:
For the Christian point of view, of course, Christ is the Unique it is through him that we see all the
theophanies. He is the End of them, their Pleroma. Wonderful, but from the standpoint of
eternity… The brilliance of the paramartha overcasts [overthrows] all scale of values on the level
of vyavahara! Our Cosmic Christ, the all-embracing Isvara, the Purusha of the Veda/Upanishads…
we cannot escape to give him such a full dimension, expansion… Yet, why then call him only
Jesus of Nazareth? Why say that it is Jesus of Nazareth whom others unknowingly call Shiva or
Krishna? and not rather say that Jesus is the theophany for us, the Bible-believers, of that
unnameable mystery of the Manifestation, always tending beyond itself, since Brahman transcends
all its/his manifestations?

130
This distinction has been further developed by Panikkar and other theologians. Once again the
tension here is to suggest that there may be other ways to go to God besides Jesus – though we
believe that all are saved in Christ -, but that Jesus remains not merely one among many ways, but
a special incarnate way, even if, for the people searching for God, this may not be crucial.
Swamiji confesses that he is “interested in no christo-logy at all.” He explains:
I have so little interest in the Word of God which will awaken man within history. The ‘Word of
God’ comes from/to my own ‘present’; it is that very awakening which is my self-awareness. What
I discover above all in Christ is his ‘I AM’… Christ’s experience in the Jordan – Son/Abba is a
wonderful Semitic equivalent of ‘Tat tvam asi’/ ‘aham brahmasmi’. Of course, I can make use of
Christ experience to lead Christians to an ‘I AM’ experience, yet it is this I AM experience which
really matters. Christ is this very mystery ‘that I AM’, and in this experience and existential
knowledge all Christo-logy has disintegrated.
Swamiji’s understanding of the Eucharist, to which he was faithful till his death, is significant in
this context because it seems to give all the same a special place to Christ as the Satpurusha. He
explains its significance as a celebration preparatory to the initiation of Marc as a sannyasi.
In Christian understanding the Eucharist is that unique sacrifice (yajna) which Christ, the
Satpurusha, the True Man, the Barnasha or Son of Man, once for all (ephapax) in the fullness of
time offered to God as the summing up of all the sacrifices and offerings made by men throughout
all ages under countless different signs and symbols. In his perfect offering of himself as the Adi-
Purusha (the primordial, perfect Man) he passed, on his own account and on behalf of all those
who put their faith in him, beyond the veil which is his body (cp Heb 10:19-20), and attained to
the bosom of the Father, the guha which is at once the deep center of all and beyond all (cp Col
3:1ff)… Jesus’ sacrificial offering means the gift of himself for the same of all, and is signified in
the Eucharist by the gift of his body in the form of food and of his blood in the symbol of a beverage
a mystery which is prefigured in the Upanishads, where every being is expected to be annam and
madhu, food and sweet drink, for every other being.
This is the reason that Swamiji finds that, for the Christian, “his participation in the Eucharist and
his sacramental communion will be his own personal commitment by which he binds himself to
pass to the ‘beyond’.”
Swamiji does not speak much about sin and salvation. Advaitic experience is becoming aware of
what one is, going beyond one’s current, limited, dualistic awareness. The fundamental sin from
this perspective is, of course, ignorance or non-awareness, which can lead to egoism and other
evils. But Swamiji hardly speaks about these dimensions of human life. He will look at egoism
metaphysically, not morally. For him Jesus Christ is the great manifestation who assumes all of us
in his own advaitic union with the Father.
Jesus is a person who has totally discovered, realized his mystery… His name is ‘I AM’… Jesus
is savior by virtue of having realized his NAME. He has shown and has opened the way out of
samsara, the phenomenal world, and has reached the guha, the padam, beyond the heavens – which
is the mystery of the Father. In discovering the Father, he has not found an “Other”: I and the
Father are one. In the only Spirit, he has discovered his non-duality with Yahweh; it is the Spirit
that is the link, the non-duality.

131
It is in this way that Jesus ‘saves. It is this advaitic communion with the Father and the Spirit that
makes Swamiji say “Christ is not a namarupa.” This is certainly very different from the current
Christian emphasis on sin, satisfaction and salvation.
The Advaita
For Swamiji, the ultimate reality and experience is ‘I AM’. It is not the ‘i’ becoming the ‘I’, but
the ‘i’ disappearing in the ‘I’. It is not the conclusion of an argument or reflection, but an
awakening. Swamiji claims such an awakening at the moment of his heart attack, though he seems
to have had it a couple of times earlier in the year. Such awareness is not monism in the manner in
which Shankara is interpreted by some. Swamiji does not seem to have been interested in Vedantic
philosophers, though he mentions reading Shankara. He prefers rather to read and meditate over
the Upanishads. The Upanishads do not speak an ontological language of ‘being’, but of
experience in relationship. So non-duality is not monism, but communion. It is significant that he
refers to such an awakening in the context of his Guru-Sishya relationship of paternity-generation
with Marc. Jesus too achieves such an awakening when he becomes aware of himself as the Son
of the Father whom he calls Abba. Here is a summary of his vision in one of his last writings.
The absoluteness of the ultimate mystery is discovered in the absoluteness of the self itself, of
oneself seen in its full truth. The Self is then seen in the self. In the light of pure consciousness,
being shines with its own light. Then the eternity, the aseity, the absoluteness, the sovereignty of
God are no longer notions which man tries desperately to understand by way of analogy or
negations. They are realized in their own truth in the discovery that oneself is, beyond all
conditioning. Then God is no longer a HE about whom men dare to speak among themselves, nor
even only a THOU whose presence man realizes as facing him. Rather, necessarily starting from
oneself, God is discovered and experienced as I, the “aham asmi” of the Upanishads, the “ehieh
asher ehieh” of the Burning Bush. It is not an I which I abstract or conclude from the Thou that I
say to him, but an I of which I am aware in the very depth of my own I.
This is the experience of the sage, as different from that of the saint in the sphere of religions and
the philosopher, who realizes that “there is a level of being, of truth, of Self, in which he is beyond
the dvandvas (or pairs of opposites) of bhayam abhayam (security-insecurity), mrityu-amritam
(death-no death).” Swamiji suggests that three great traditions of the world stand by this intuition:
the Upanishadic, the Buddhist and the Tao. But the Indian Christian tradition will not be very
different. He writes to Marc:
The saving name of Christ is aham asmi [I AM]. And the deep confession of faith is no longer the
external ‘Christ is Lord’, but “so’ham asmi” [I am he]. Like him at once born and not-born. The
Father in relation to the Son-to me-to all. The Son in relation to me-all. Myself in relation to every
conscious being; born in all, ceaselessly, and yet always face to face.
Oneness with the Self leads to a communion with everything. Writing again to Marc, he says:
Jesus did not cudgel his brains to make a philosophy about his Advaita with God. He lived this
non-duality with absolute intensity simply by gazing like a child at his ‘Abba’. And he taught his
people to live, simply but deeply, a life of loving union with their brothers a union of mutual giving
without limit. And in the absoluteness of their self-giving to God and the neighbor, the non-dual
Absolute is found and lived with far greater truth than in Vedantin speculations… In the dazzling
light of the vision of Being, you have perhaps been over-strict in rejecting all the namarupas. And

132
yet, in the sariram that we bear, it is in the experience of these namarupas itself that we discover
Advaita. If we set them in opposition, we have lost our way.
The Advaita and the Trinity
In the final entry reprinted in his Spiritual Diary (dated September 12, 1973) Swamiji speaks of
the relations between Jesus, the Trinity and the advaitic experience.
The Trinity can only be understood in the experience of advaita. The Trinity is an experience, not
a theologumenon [theological formulation]. Or at least the theologumenon never conveys its truth.
It is only discovered in the lucidity of the inner gaze. Jesus has lived this agonizing and fulfilling
experience of Advaita. Advaita, we call it, in order to try to get beyond the common idea received
from our social environment – of God and oneself, of oneself and others. That is the experience of
duality [dvaita] which regards one’s skin as the boundary between oneself and other people and
which branches out on the basis of this experience of the ‘skin’. Whereas this experience, though
divided into two by the skin, is only one. For the experience of oneself, the foundation of
everything and the background, the infrastructure of everything, is only one. Jesus revealed to the
human being what he is, what everyone is.
Swamiji suggests often that the Trinity is the Greek way of explaining the experience of Jesus.
“The Trinity, is the way in which God appears to human beings in the circle of believers in Jesus.
The Trinity only exists in relationship to us. No formula can explain the mystery of Being.” But
when Jesus has his advaitic experience of “aham asmi” [I AM] the Trinity explodes.
The Trinity is God, the original source, Brahman, the Urgrund; It is the atman, the universal
presence of God… And finally, there is the atmavan, God in the form of a person, “one equipped
with an atman”, with the spirit [pneuma]. To tell the truth, there is only one Person in the Trinity,
and that is Christ, the Purusha. And I discover this Person in the mystery of my own aham, myself
full of the Self [atma-purna], myself having come to my atma.
When I therefore experience “aham asmi” [I AM] even Christ disappears of course, as a separate
person over against me. In the light of his other reflections we can say that Swamiji would probably
distinguish between Jesus and the Christ. As he says elsewhere, “Christ is not a namarupa. His
true name is I AM. He is not encountered in a theologumenon, nor even in any noeme. He can
only “be” in the very mystery of my being.”
The Contemplative Church and the Interreligious Dialogue
Abhishiktånanda was dreaming of a Church able to rediscover the contemplative soul. He believed
that the Church needed to reclaim its contemplative roots because she was facing two formidable
challenges in the contemporary world. On the one side, by those forces in the modern Western
world, which consider Christianity to be, at best, no more than “a kind of fiduciary currency,
lacking security, worth just the credulity of the ignorant man.” He also added, “At the present
juncture in the history…the sense of the Mystery is everywhere being increasingly obscured even
in those whose special vocation is to bear witness among their brothers to the eschaton, to the
presence here and now of the ultimate realities. The spirit of secular activism corrodes everything.
So, in the West monks and clergy seek to establish their status in society and ask for a social
recognition which is purely secular in character.” On the other hand, there was the challenge, which
the civilizations of the East presented out of their own spiritual experience.
The focus of attention will be on this second aspect. In fact, he always hoped and prayed that the
Church could be redeemed by those “deep contemplative souls” who, open to the Spirit, attune the

133
Church to that same Spirit, thus ensuring that she can open herself to the dialogue with the other
religions. Abhishiktånanda clearly linked the spiritual awakening of the Church to the dialogue
with the deeply contemplative and spiritually religious traditions of the East. In the revised English
version of Saccidananda, written in 1971, he offers his most clear passages about the urgent
imperative of a Hindu-Christian dialogue in the fullest sense of the term. He opens his introduction
with some remarks about the changes that have taken place in the Church and in the world at large
since the book’s composition in the early 1960s. He also makes a comment regarding the Second
Vatican Council. He says “the Vatican Council took it for granted that salvation is open to any
sincere man, whatever religious convictions he may or may not have, and thereby recognized the
fact that only a minority of men will work out their eternal destiny with any reference to Christ’s
incarnation. Not only is it necessary to grant the actual existence of religious pluralism here and
now, but it is also impossible to foresee a time in the Historical future when Christianity might
become for mankind as a whole even the predominant let alone the only way to realizing their
transcendent vocation.
Abhishiktånanda links contemplation not only to the Hindi-Christian dialogue, but also to any
interreligious dialogue. To be fully Catholic, or universal, the Church must integrate into her own
life all nations, all cultures and all languages. Just as Christianity incorporated Judaism and Greek
thought, so the Church could incorporate Hindu thought. At the same time, and for the same reason,
any dialogue is not possible if it does not happen at the level of the spirit and is likely to be
ineffective as a dialogue at the level of religious truth. From Abhishiktånanda’s perspective, the
dialogue with Hinduism is as needed as was the dialogue with the Hellenistic world in the early
Church. He thought that what was happening in India was simply a corresponding event to what
happened in the first centuries of the Christian era when the Church developed within the religious
and philosophical context of the Hellenistic world. “The greatest Doctors and Fathers of the
primitive Church first drank deep of Greek language, literature and philosophy. Then under the
grace of the Spirit, they achieved almost unconsciously within themselves the synthesis…referred
to above.” He affirmed that there are no non-cultural religions. Every religion is rooted,
encapsulated, expressed in a culture, beginning with the most primordial and hidden archetypes
which necessarily govern its view of the world. That suggests that there is a kind of primary
experience, an original consciousness”. Abhishiktånanda clearly express this point is a note of his
diary, when he explains how the process from the primary experience to the dogma works. The
dream is not true, but has its own truth. It is true in the sense that it expresses the primary
experience.

RAIMON PANIKKAR (1918-2010)

Raimon Panikkar is an outstanding Indian theologian "ho has decisively influenced

contemporary Indian theology. his writings bring to light the understanding of reality in connection
"with others, "which forms the first step towards improving the society. &is notion of cross-
cultural economics is based on the awareness of the intrinsic limitation of each economic system.
The adoption of a holistic vision as found in the advaitic tradition. This is an essential element
for transformation.

134
Radical Relativity and Cosmotheandrism
Radical relativity is the ontological state of the whole reality, which is the web of relationships.)
nothing is, nor can be understood and defined without reference to its being in-relation to the rest
of reality. This affirms the oneness of reality and strikes out all dualism and dichotomy. radical
relativity can be perceived in the very heart of reality whose whole as
well as parts carry in themselves an abyss of mystery understood in terms of either transcendence
or immanence in which consciousness, earthliness and secularity or cosmic nature come together.
In other words, every being bears in itself the stamp of the divine, the human and the cosmic. he
coined the new term called Cosmotheandrism. The Cosmos, theos and aner are not three
dimensions of a whole, but rather all the three are present in every single being, which males the
entire reality internally bound together by this cosmotheandric principle.
The focal point of Panikkar’s thought is the principle of radical relativity of the entire reality.
Nothing can be understood and defined without reference to its being in relation to the rest of
reality. Every being bears in itself the stamp of the divine, the human and the cosmic. Having
found no appropriate word that could express this truth he coins a new term, which nevertheless is
very expressive cosmotheandric. Since all beings share in the divine, the human and the cosmic,
they are all internally in their nature related to each other.
Tempiternity
The same vision of unity leads Panikkar to link also time and eternity which have been generally
viewed in opposition to each other. Panikkar unites these two poles with another neologism –
tempiternity. Tempiternity is characteristic of all reality which bears in itself some dimension of
transcendence as well as some dimension of temporality.
Models of inter-religious relationships
From out of his vision of a dialogue, Panikkar develops a theology of religions in their inter-
relatedness. He proposes several models for understanding and expressing the inter-relationship
among the religions. One such model is rainbow or what he calls the physical model. He explains
it saying that ‘the different religious traditions of mankind are like the almost infinite number of
colours that appear once the divine or simply the white light of reality falls on the prism of human
experience; it refracts into innumerable traditions, doctrines and religious systems. Green is not
yellow; Hinduism is not Buddhism, and yet at the fringe one cannot know, except by postulating
it artificially, where yellow ends and green begins. According to this vision of Panikkar no
religious tradition can isolate itself by erecting fences and hedges all around; the boundaries
between religions are something very fluid; one would flow into the other, all of them being
manifestations of the same light in its different colours.
According to another model – anthropological model – the religions would be like the variety of
languages. As a language is complete in itself and yet with the possibility of growth and evolution
in keeping with its own inner organic structure, so also every religion forms an organic whole
which can grow and evolve. A religion cannot be simply compared or properly translated, but has
to be understood on this own ground by entering into its universe; just as one learns a language by
learning it and speaking it from its world of semantics and experience. As is clear, this model has
a lot of consequence for understanding the nature of relationship among religions.

135
The Mystery of Jesus
Panikkar approaches the mystery of Jesus who is the epiphany of Christ, the transcendent and at
the same time immanent mystery. Jesus, therefore, is Christ. But the inverse is not correct. Christ
cannot be identified with Jesus. The mystery of Christ is not exhausted in the mystery of Jesus. He
places the Jesus of history against the trans-historical horizon of the Christ which is universal. In
this way, Panikkar wants to open up a space for a meaningful dialogue and encounter with other
religious traditions.
Christophany
Christ then, is the symbol of totality of reality. If such is the case that in
Christ the totality of reality manifests itself, then, what he is nothing but a Christophany. By a
deep experience of reality, we then also experience Christ. This Christ transcends all barriers of
religions, history, temporality, etc. In this way Panikkar wants to open a space for a meaningful
dialogue and encounter with other religious traditions.

S.J. SAMARTHA

Dr. S.J. Samartha was from the Church of South India in the state of Karnataka. He was at one
time professor of history and philosophy of religions in the United Theological College, Bangalore.
Then Principal of Serampore College and Director of the programme on Dialogue with the people
of Living Faith and Ideologies, in WCC. Till 1975 he worked as the director of DFI (Dialogue
with Men of other Faiths and Ideologies) at Geneva and after his retirement he came to teach at
Karnataka Theological College, Mangalore. He was one of the contemporaries of M.M. Thomas,
Russell Chandran, R. Panikkar and a senior theologian in India. “The Hindu Response to the
Unbound Christ” in one of the greatest thoughts of his works, and all his focus was on inter-
religious dialogue his main contribution in the realm of Christology. He goes beyond the steps of
both Panikkar;s understanding of “Christ is already present there in pure Hinduism but not yet
known to Hindus”; and of M.M. Thomas’s “Christ is still unknown in pure Hinduism, he is already
acknowledged in the modern Indian renaissance.” Samartha said in “The Hindu Response to the
Unbound Christ”- that “Hindus have recognized Christ in their own traditions and even have
responded to him at several levels”. He gives a summary of what an authentic Indian Christology
should be and he takes an advaitic interpretation of Christ. In his book he relates to gives guidelines
to what kind of Christology the Indian Church must evolve. His primary purpose in studying Christ
is to make his claims and offers relevant to the national need and struggles of India, and not a
spiritualized version of these needs and struggles.
Theology of Samartha
Revised Christology is the theology of Samartha, Theo-Centric Christology. He was developing
Christology from below, which he calls “Bullock-cart Christology”. The foundations of S.J. S’s
Christology can be seen in his understanding and interpretation of religious pluralism. He rejects
exclusivism and inclusivism naming these as “patronizing cousins” that perpetuate theological
violence against other faiths. It is to affirm plurality is one way of fighting against such violence.
N this point Samartha calls for a radical change in the Christian stance towards other religions,
which he considers as an existential demand and a theological necessity. His theology of religions
aims at breaking down the walls of separation between different religions. In the pluralism of

136
Samartha, no religion or philosophy holds a privileged status to make exclusive and normative
claims on behalf of any one particular religion or ideology. Pluralism provides resources for the
survival of people and nations to fight against forces that openly or obscurely seek impose
uniformity on a pluralist world. It will resist the imposition of any “one and only” religion/ideology
on all people. To develop his theology of religions he depends on Sankara’s “advaita”, and
considers the “Brahma-Atman” doctrine of Upanishads for the understanding of pluralism. In this
he recognizes a power that can hold together in harmony the diversities in language races, religions
and ideologies without conflict. Samartha affirms that in the Indian mind exclusive claims of any
kind have no place because of the vision of ‘advaita’.
Samartha’s Contribution to Inter-Faith Dialogue
Dialogue: For Samartha, “Dialogue is a living relationship with people of other faiths and so
sharing in the life of the community.” A Christian’s dialogue with another implies neither a denial
of uniqueness of Christ nor any loss of his own commitment to Christ, rather a genuinely Christian
approach to others must be human, personal, relevant and humble. It is searching for community
along with our neighbors in love or with love. He used the word witnessing; rather then or with
like, ‘campaign’ or ‘crusade’. Jesus Christ always points to God and so he was Theo-centric says
Samartha. He also believes that spirit is working in other religious traditions.
Theological Issues in Inter-faith Dialogue: According to Samartha, there are five issues which
need special emphasis in the context of dialogue:
 The authority of scripture raises a number of questions in a multi-scriptural context. People
of different faith hence their own scripture as their authority.
 The meaning of salvation history in relation to the history of other people has captured the
attention of many engaged in dialogue.
 Christology, inherited by us from a previous era, needs a through reconsideration in multi-
faith context.
 The Church needs to be redefined in a dialogue context.
 Both the formulation of the context and method of mission need to be radically changed.
The very spirit of Christ and Inter-religious situation are opposed to aggressive complaining. Our
mission is to beat faith in the situation which dialogue with people of other faith provides us. In
the process of developing new relationship with other faith, may the partners ask on what basis we
are committed Christians? Then we can share our experience of revelation and salvation revealed
through Jesus Christ in his life and work, crucifixion and resurrection. It is true that Christians
have a message to all people and nation. But we must admit that neighbors of other faiths also have
a story/message to tell us.
Christian and Hindu dialogue, Secularistic approach
Stanley Samartha, who was the first director of the WCC’s subunit for interfaith dialogue was the
pioneering figure who shaped the texture of inter-religious dialogue in India. Samartha was not
supportive of any “fulfillment model” or syncretic approaches because he thought they were open
to serious misunderstanding since Hinduism is not ‘Christianity in disguise’. He was impatient
with secular approaches since they tend to play down the importance of religion in people’s lives.
He was also intolerant towards evangelical approaches and accused them of perpetuating colonial
missiology, separatist attitudes, and religious supremacy. He also criticized liberation theologians
who claimed to take sides with the poor and provoke political ferment. He thought in the context

137
of religious fundamentalism the path of interreligious dialogue would pave a way forward to
maintain peace and harmony between different religious communities in India. Samartha was
greatly influenced by Paul Devanandan (Founder-Director of CISRS, Bangalore) and M.M
Thomas, who explored how Christians could work together with people of different faiths and
secular ideologies for social liberation. Nimrot Rajagukguk notes that Samartha's approach of
Inter-faith dialogue was built upon and was strengthened, “firstly, by Devanandan’s idea that
God’s grace operates everywhere and that other religions may be possible ways of salvation, and
secondly, by M.M Thomas's emphasis that common concern for the social change in the societies
is more important and more relevant instead of individual salvation.”
Christian mission dialogue
Samartha understands Christian mission as, “In a religiously plural world, Christians, together with
their neighbors of other faiths, are called upon to participate in God’s continuing mission in the
world. Mission is God’s continuing activity through the Spirit to mend the brokenness of creation,
to overcome the fragmentation of humanity, and to heal the rift between humanity, nature, and
God.” He believed that inter-faith dialogue is an effective tool towards this end. To Samartha,
since salvation can also be found within other religions, the purpose of Christian mission should
not be individual salvation but the mutual meeting between Christians and other faiths through
dialogue made possible on the basis of a common humanity to work towards social liberation.
Samartha’s underlying assumption behind his inter-faith dialogue could be categorized in the terms
of John Hick, as a ‘truth- seeking dialogue’ in which the Transcendent Being is mutually
acknowledged by both partners to be infinitely greater than their own limited vision of it, and
through dialogue they seek to share their visions in the hope that each may be helped towards a
fuller awareness of the Divine Reality before which they stand.

Politics and religion

According to Samartha ‘the increasing politicization of religions is a disturbing feature of
contemporary India.’ He notes that “Politicization is the use of religion by political or religious
leaders for the benefit of one community at the expense of other.” To him politicization of religion
is not acceptable because 1) it is a hindrance to the task of nation building, 2) it is a threat to the
secular, democratic, and socialistic character of the Indian state, and 3) it has global consequences,
raising the possibility of the religious factor intensifying conflicts between nations. Samartha
identified Hindutva as an illegitimate politicization of religion. He also saw Hindutva as the
hardening of the core of Hinduism as it reacts to the question of conversion in Islam and Hinduism.
With regard to the challenges raised by Hindutva he noted that “The most serious threat to the
secular character of the democratic state in India today comes from the Bharathiya Janata Party
(BJP), which has put forward Hindutva (“Hindu-ness”) as the political ideology for the state over
against what is described as the “pseudo secularism” of the present state”. In suggesting an
appropriate Christian response to political Hinduism, Samartha wrote:
For the moment, the Christian responses to Hindu fundamentalism often seem to be knee-jerk
political reactions reflecting the anxiety of a minority community. Far more systematic study of the
historical, religious and cultural roots of Hindu claims is necessary before advancing any serious
theological criticism of the Hindutva ideology. Without recognizing the totality of Hindu
fundamentalism as an autonomous reality and its certain irreducible basis in religion and religious
identity, and without exploring the entire ensemble of its social interconnectedness in India’s

138
 economy, history, politics, ideology and culture, and without consciously relating the Christian
struggle against it to the larger struggle of people of all religions in India for a better life, a genuinely
secular and democratic state that can guarantee a life of freedom, self-respect and dignity to all its
citizens will be beyond the reach of Indian people for many generations.
Pluralism
According to him pluralism describes a situation “in which various religions, philosophies and
ideological conceptions live side by side and which none of them holds a privileged status.” He
envisioned inter-faith dialogue to be of great use in this regard. He noted that alarming
politicization of religion should not be seen as a set back towards inter-faith dialogue initiatives,
but rather ‘should be regarded as an opportunity to enter more deeply into dialogue with our
neighbors and to concentrate on vital issues in the life of the nation.” The main contribution of
Inter-faith dialogue initiates was to undertake a genuine attempt to make Christian faith relevant
to a multi-religious context of India, strained by communal tensions. By promoting dialogues
between different religious communities, they hoped for mutual understanding, harmony and
cooperation towards the wellbeing of all. However interfaith dialogue assumes a willingness and
commitment by both parties to engage in conversation. To Hindutva exponents any talk of plurality
outside the fold of Hinduism is not acceptable. Therefore, unless so called ‘religions of foreign
origin’ confirm to Hindutva pattern, inter-faith dialogue is not possible. To the proponents of Inter-
faith dialogue the exclusive nature of Christian salvation and faith is problematic to an inclusive
acceptance of others. Samartha notes:
What is foolishness, and what is a stumbling block to neighbors of other faiths, is the Christian
claim that only in Jesus Christ has God been revealed once-for-all to redeem all humanity. This
claim has isolated Christians from their neighbors of other faiths in India, led to their theological
alienation and spiritual improvement, and in a religiously plural society has made it difficult, if not
impossible, for Christians to cooperate with their neighbors for common social purposes.
Christology
Samartha revised Nicene Christology using historical critical methodology to cater to his
pluralistic project. To Samartha, Jesus of Nazareth should be understood as divine but not God.
And incarnation is ‘best understood not solely in terms of “deity”, but in terms of “divinity”.

K.P ALEAZ

Kalarikkal Poulose Aleaz was born on 25th April, 1947 to Mr. Kalarikkal Cherian Poulose, a
businessman who ran a grocery shop, and Mrs. Kunjamma Poulose, a house wife. But as to his
certificate his date of birth is 2nd June, 1946. Although his home was at Eroor, part of Kochi or
Cochin in the district of Ernakulum, being the first child of his mother, he was born in his mother
house in Kakkanad, Kerala. He was the eldest of five siblings having three brothers and one sister.
Apart from the one brother who died at the age of fifty-five because of blood cancer, all the other
three have a family each and lived in their own place of work. Today, even though his father is no
more, his mother Kunjamma Poulose is still alive in her old age of 85 years with sound health.
With all the struggles in life and a commitment to achieve greater heights, Aleaz searchesno ease
but choose to fight and attain his destiny with all the effort and strength that he was able to carry
on. As a student in the department of religion in Bishop’s College, he happened to meet an
educated Bengali lady by name Bonita Ghosh who often comes to use the college library for her

139
research purposes. Aleaz who was well thorough with books in the library could help her showing
books which she wanted and later this could be remembered as a mark to point the beginning of
their relationship which led them to be husband and wife after three years of their meeting. With
the consent and approval of both the parents and families their marriage took place on 3 rd October
1982 at St. Theresa‟s Church, Moulali, Kolkata, where its reception was organized by the Bishop’s
College community in the College ground.
They have been blessed with a daughter named Gargi Aleaz, who was born in 1985.After
completing her M.A in International Relations from Jadavpur University, she was employed in a
research organization in New Delhi for some years. Later in the month of December 2011, she got
married to Tlyn Joseph who was a mechanical engineer cum MBA by profession and got settled
in the United States of America. V.J. John, in his Preface to the book, ‘Many Ways of
Pluralism,’ assumed that Aleaz married to a Bengal. Christian as his life partner could be
an evidence to prove his appreciation and integration in to another culture. This could certainly be
true because in many instances he never failed to do what he speaks which substantiate his nature
as an action-oriented theologian. Today after 31 years of their marriage, the couple is blessed with
health and strength to further involve in the interest of the wider community.
His Theological Influence and Formation

It could be traced from the time of his BD third year that Aleaz was deeply influenced and
convinced to study more on Śaṅkara’s philosophy of Advaita vedānta. There
were people like Prof. Y. D. Tiwari, who influenced him to delve down into the ocean ofWestern
and Indian philosophies. Fr. Richard V. De Smet, a Catholic father, who gave him an orientation
of understanding Śaṅkara’s philosophy later, became his greatest mentor and guide in his study of
Śaṅkara’s philosophy. Apart from the above, D. Isaac Devadoss in his article, the “Life and
Evolution of K.P. Aleaz’s Thought,” mentions that having observed the thought and theology of
the great Indian Christian theologians such as Brahmabandha Upadhyaya, K. Subba Rao, J. G.
Arapura, S.J. Samartha, Swami Abhishiktananda and Raimundo Panikkar as a background, “Aleaz
developed histhought further through Advaita vedāntic experience and brought out the
understanding of pluralistic inclusivism.” But according to Fr. Aleaz there are of course some
IndianChristian theologians whom he likes the most such as Brahmabandha Upadhyaya,
P.Chenchiah, S.J. Samartha and many others who enriched him in his theological formation.

But then he points out with a clear answer to the question of, who are the people who influence
him (Aleaz) to come up with his pluralistic inclusivism as follows Pluralistic Inclusivism is
gradually emerged from within myself; nobody was influencing me in that. But there are many
influences in my life, like Prof. Y.D. Tiwari who was my guru in Bishop’s College; he taught me
Sanskrit and Indian Philosophy. He influenced me on Western and Indian Philosophy too. Fr.
Richard V. De Smet, who was a catholic father, specialist in Śaṅkar’s thought, was my mentor and
my guide in my D.Th studies. He gave me an orientation of understanding Śaṅkara’s philosophy.
Therefore, his theology of religion with regards to pluralistic inclusivism is entirely the product
of his research and hard work in interpreting Christian Brahman, in interpreting the person and
work of Jesus Christ, in interpreting Eastern theology or Western theology within the framework
or perspective of pluralistic inclusivism, in which we can enrich each other and grow together with

140
people of other faith. So, Pluralistic Inclusivism is a perspective from which interconnection can
be made. Thus, Pluralistic Inclusivism is the unique contribution of Fr. Dr. K.P. Aleaz in the
schools of theology of Religion.
Contribution in the Field of Theology of Religion
Fr. Dr. K.P. Aleaz’s contribution in the field of Theology of Religion is visible in the formation of
Pluralistic Inclusivism, which is unique and different from the other existing schools of theology.
Since from the early days of the Church till today, there are certain visible approaches adopted by
the Christians towards the people of other faith, which simply proves and reveal the focus of
attention in the theology of religion is the issue of inter- faith relations. Approaches like
Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism may seem to look appropriate in a particular context to a
particular group of people. But the limitation seems to be so narrowed that it often leads to
misunderstanding than building a mutual understanding and a peaceful co-existence between other
religions and one’s own religious faith.
Therefore, with the conviction that there are limitations in all the three schools of theology, K. P.
Aleaz knew that this three schools of theology will not solve the issue of relationship between
one’s own religious faith and other faiths and Christian witness in building inter-faith relation. As
a result, he come up with a new school of theology known as the Pluralistic Inclusivism with the
faith and belief that it could be an alternative in the theology of religion in solving the issue of
relationship between one’s own religious faith and other faiths in bringing out a better development
of inter-faith relations. Within this research work we will see in the following chapters whether it
could really be viable schools of theology of religion for inter- faith relations.
Interfaith -dialogue
Pluralistic Inclusivism
Following his interpretation of Jesus in advaitic terms, Aleaz proposed a new paradigm in inter-
faith dialogue, Pluralistic Inclusivism. Following the same Vedantic concepts to understand Jesus
and God, he furthered the idea of Pluralistic Inclusivism, which is an effort to open up the Christian
thinking. It is an effort to go beyond exclusivism that considers Jesus Christ as the sole criterion
by which all religions, including Christianity can be understood and evaluated or Inclusivism
which affirms the salvific presence of God in other religions while still maintaining that Christ is
the definitive and authoritative revelation of God or Pluralism that acknowledges other religions
also contains salvific path. Then what is Pluralistic Inclusivism?
“(It) is an attempt to make Christian faith pluralistically inclusive. The content of the revelation of
God in Jesus is to become truly pluralistic by other faiths contributing to it as per the requirement
of different places and times and it is through such pluralistic understanding of the gospel that its
true Inclusivism is to shine forth. The basic affirmation here is that there is a possibility of the
fulfilment of the theological and spiritual contents of one’s own faith in and through the
contributions of other living faiths.”
Aleaz recognizes the contribution of other theologians in this tradition like Brahmabandhav
upadhyaya, Chenchia and Subba Rao, who used the Vedic concepts to further Christian thought.
As the path of Advaita is Jnanamarga, it could be achieved only through negation and
renunciation. Jesus is no excuse; only in the negation of him we may be able to attain the being.
He observes, “We have to sacrifice ourselves as Jesus did to discover our reality in being...Jesus
was one of the avataras and a yogi of the highest type.” Renunciation of earthly life and realization
of potential divinity of Jesus is the Indian path to salvation. Pluralistic Inclusivism begins with the
141
realization that God has not fully revealed God self in any one religion, not in Jesus or in Quran
or elsewhere, so one has to experience the others faith also in order to understand God. This can
be done by remaining in one’s own faith but accepting all religious expressions as human property.
Of course, this is possible only when we consider the fact that the underlying essence of all
religions is the same. Within Indian context it assumes important, he says
“Indian Christian theology is a conversion of Christian theology to the Indian religion
cultural context. It has to interact and be converted in terms of one another. Points of
disagreement are discarded as unimportant realms, after analyzing the disagreement in the
proper historical and theological contexts.
One of the possibilities in Pluralistic Inclusivism, Aleaz says is developing a Christian Vedanta
which can provide a model for other forms of religious interactions could follow in their own ways.

X. Orthodox and Evangelical Perspectives

PAULOSE MAR GREGORIOSE

Gregorios was born in Tripunithura to a traditional Christian family called Thadikkal. His Younger
brother Jacob T.P was a retired naval officer, he passed away on 26 February 2018. T.P Jacob has
4 children, Balu, Elizabeth, Sila and Biju. He started his career as a freelance journalist,
contributing articles and reports to various newspapers in Kochi and Malabar. Later, after working
with the Cochin Transport Company, he joined the Post & Telegraphs Department in 1942. He
then took up a job as a teacher in Ethiopia. He came to the attention of the Emperor of
Ethiopia, Haile Selassie I. The relationship that developed between them led Varghese to
appointments as the head of various institutions in Ethiopia. He was sent to the United States for
higher studies. He received his education there from Goshen College, the University of
Oklahoma, Princeton Theological Seminary and Yale. In 1954, he returned to India with a master's
degree in theology. He worked as a director of the Fellowship house in Aluva and a visiting
professor of Union Christian College Aluva. In 1955, he joined the faculty of the Orthodox
Theological Seminary, Kottayam. He also served as the general secretary of the Orthodox Students
Christian Movement. During the Ethiopian Emperor's visit to India, in 1956, Varghese was
persuaded to return to Ethiopia. There he served as the Emperor's personal aide and advisor. In
1959, he returned to India and in 1961 he was ordained as a priest. Fr. Varghese continued to
pursue theological studies. He did his doctoral studies in Oxford and Germany and received his
Doctorate in Theology from Serampore College in Calcutta.
Paulos Mar Gregorios is a veteran of Indian ecumenism. He has also participated in several of the
WCC meetings at the highest levels and has written and lectured profusely. Formerly Paul
Varghese, he is known as Mar Gregorios as the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Syrian Church. He
is also at present the Principal of the Orthodox Seminary at Kottayam. His books include: The
Gospel of the Kingdom, Be Still and Know, Freedom and Authority. The following are excerpts
from the last-mentioned book. In the present discussion of the whole question of liberation in Jesus
and the liberation theologies, Paul Mar Gregorios asks the fundamental questions of what do
authority and freedom mean in Christian perspective. The relevance of the question is clearly seen
as authority is breaking down everywhere. This crisis of authority is touching not only the Christian
church but the whole of human society at its very foundation.

142
Theology
Human
The question is, if man is created to do good, and he is created free in the image of God, to love
God and his fellow men, how is it that both freedom and authority are now crumbling? He begins
by establishing the cause for this crumbling of authority in the present cultures, both eastern and
western, that this is partly because of the Church’s image; it has been too authoritative and has
often failed to foster freedom. Then, analyzing the philosophical aspects of freedom and authority,
Gregorios bases his convictions on St. Gregory of Nyassa, whom he thinks is a corrective to many
of Augustine’s deviations. From there on he gives the Christian conclusion which he summarizes
as follows:
All historical human existence is under some pressure to interiorize what is good in certain patterns
of authorities, to discard the authority structure with all its freedom-hampering element and to move
on to a greater degree of freedom by developing new structures of authority which foster human
freedom.
Christology
Coming to his Christology, more can be said specifically about his conviction. Taking the ultimate
unity of mankind as his basis, Gregorios affirms that man cannot be truly man if he does not
identify with the whole of humankind. Jesus is the one who showed this can be done. This is the
new humanity which God created in Christ. So, Gregorios believes “Jesus Christ effects salvation
for all men whether they believe in him or not.” Because the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit
are at work in the church, the church becomes essential in his confession. Yet he is sure that “God’s
saving power is at work also outside the church” (it is revolutionary for an orthodox to say such a
statement). This emphasis on cosmic Christology, on the universality as well as the historicity of
Jesus, the essential unity of humankind with Jesus, all these elements are to be seen also in other
ecumenical theologians, such as M.M. Thomas.
I) Reflection on Enlightenment and Modernity
Paulos Mar Gregorios (PMG) begins to examine critically the foundations of Enlightenment. The
reflections are pointed here. a) PMG observes that the origins of modern philosophy are to be
sought in natural science that is to “understand Nature”. It leaves what is outside nature or super-
nature to theology or metaphysics. Renaissance separated philosophy from dogmatic theology.
The “philosophy of nature” remained heavily dependent on the older metaphysics of the Greeks.
Modern philosophy turned the older metaphysics to a more empirically grounded metaphysics.
b) The key to modernity in both Descates and Kant lay in their application of mathematics to the
philosophy of nature. Descartes and Kant sought to rescue the western world from the skepticism
of the Greeks by providing a “Method” of sure, certain, self -certifying knowledge not dependent
on Tradition. c) Modernity rejected Traditional religion, and decided to place Reason on the
throne with the Senses as executives and informants. Critical Rationality and empiricism thus
became the watch words of modernity. d) Modernity attempts to develop a critical rationality
based on reason and experience without any dependence on tradition. PMG says that it is a
failed attempt. Because in all acts of human understanding there is some dependence on tradition
seen as the linguistic, conceptual and methodological as well as cultural equipment that we inherit
from our societies. e) Three tier to two tier: The medieval European world lived in a three tier
system- God, Man and World. Enlightenment reduced reality to two tiers: Man and World. Trained

143
in this binary system provided by science and secular rationality, man proceeded to the mindless
exploitation of the world.

Reflection on Knowledge and Epistemology: a) Western natural science

eclipsed philosophy and the art of asking fundamental questions. Knowledge is to go beyond the
conscious reason in order to come to the experience of ultimate reality.
b) Naive realism assumes that there are subjects and objects and that the subjects can know the
objects as they are. According to this view, what cannot be known is not real or non - existent.
Enlightenment rationality has no notion of transcendent knowledge that overcomes the opposition
between the knower, the known and the knowledge.
c) Enlightenment rationality put too much interest on measurement-based science. But
measurement is always of a finite space-time entity. The infinite is by definition
immeasurable; because measure presupposes limit. We cannot measure all realities in nature and
beyond nature.
d) Knowledge of reality is constantly increasing. Every generation has to create its own vision of
reality and shape its life in accordance with it. We have neither the responsibility, nor
the possibility, to know the whole of reality before we begin to shape our lives. New aspects of
reality will manifest themselves to us as our lives become increasingly conformed to the “image”,
that is, to the good.
e) PMG had a different approach to western Objectivity. He states that the process by which the
mind itself is made an object of understanding is certainly not well established or universally
accepted. There is no system at all which honestly establishes the objectivity of the external world.
f) Truth is essentially an ongoing quest, and not a concept, idea or proposition as understood in
the Enlightenment. Truth is what is, not what is stated. A valid proposition about truth can be a
help in the quest, but is itself not the object of the quest.
g) Conscious reason is understood by the Enlightenment as the instrument of knowing. But there
are other ways and levels of knowing like the one we receive through meditation or mystical
experience.
h) Modern European rationality conceives the linear character of evolution, development
and progress as axiomatic. This has absolutes our present western mind-set and the reality it
conceives as final. Alternate visions of change and progress coming from other cultural settings
radically question the progressist notion of history and time-space reality.
i) PMG suggests for “a recovery of and re-entry into the universal tradition of philosophy as the
search for true wisdom instead of the exclusive dependence of modernity and
Western philosophical trends.
Science and Technology
PMG was a keen observer to the scientific development and he was well versed with the scientific
theories. Hence, he had critically evaluated the function of Religion and Science in his writings.
a) Science and Technology have lost the faculty of
addressing reality as a whole, of seeing in it the source and sustainer of life. We have lost the
capacity to respond with our whole being to the Being of the Wholly Other who presents himself
through the created universe.

144
b) Reverent-receptive attitude: Instead of the objectifying-analyzing technique PMG
suggests afresh attitude, the reverent-receptive attitude. It is the attitude of being open to
fundamental reality as it manifests itself to us through visible, audible, sensible realities in the
creation. This reverent receptive attitude is to be adopted not as an alternative to the scientific
technological attitude, but as necessary complement. But the scientific-technological attitude
without this is harmful. What he implies may be a combination of Einstein and Tagore.
c)The very objective of science is to seek a conceptually unified picture of the organic and
inorganic universe. The ultimate aim of science may be to explaining all things in terms of a single
set of laws. But we are not concerned here with explaining reality as a whole.
d) He has appreciation for the achievements of science and technology for the welfare of humanity.
But he criticizes the bondage of scientific enterprise to the industrial-political- military vested
interests.
e) PMG insists that the Church has to perform the task in re-orienting the development of science
and technology away from “domination” to a compassionate service to humanity
Concept of God
a) Ontological difference between God and the Creation. God’s is-ness is generically different
from all other is-ness. Therefore, it is dangerous even to say that “God is”, because this may lead to
the misunderstanding that God is, in the same way as things are. It is difficult to conceive a God
who is in a part or in the whole of space-time, and therefore the notion of God as a real existent
becomes untenable.
b) The “Being” of God remains inaccessible to our concepts or words. We can have partial
conceptual knowledge about the reality. Through this he denies the philosophical and
scientific presuppositions of modernity concerning God.
c) God is not a reality with precise physical boundaries; man cannot create a space-
interval between himself and God. God is the reality.
which sustains both man and nature. It is through man himself and through nature that god
presents himself to man. It is foolish to see God and nature as alternative poles. The hidden
possibility of the objectification and alienation are the root causes of sickness we find in modernity.
Reflections on Ecology and the Cosmos
a) It was science and technology that gave us
the power to do such damage to our planet. Eventually science and technology may enable us to
repair that damage.
b) Nature has been and is being transformed by human cultivation, human technology, andhuma
n culture. But humanity forms an intrinsic part of this nature, if nature really means the sum total
of all beings and processes. Human culture in that perspective is part of nature.
c) The whole of creation from beginning to end and from boundary to boundary is permanently
co-present with the creator. But every creation has a space-time extension with a beginning and
end.
d) The organic life is a single whole. All elements in the created universe are both directly
dependent on God for their very existence, and also totally interlinked with each other. God
is present in the nature with the divine creative energy. World is a living animated reality. G
God is continuous with the world. But in the other aspect God is discontinued with the world, that

145
is mystery. PMG presented it as an Eastern Christian alternative to the Western philosophy of
nature and the cosmos.
e) Modernity overemphasized the objectifying and alienating technological relationship of
humanity to nature. Hence humanity loses the capacity for the self-giving mutual love between
God and the universe, this love which constitutes human nature. We are fast losing this capacity
for self-giving. This loss to our proper humanity caused by our technological civilization is greater
than all the harm it has done through pollution, resource depletion, and all rest
Reflection on Anthropology
a) God created man in his own image. Image is the visible manifestation. Hence human is the
visible manifestation of God. Man is therefore free-like God; potentially capable of all good, all
wisdom, all power, all love. b) The only differences between God and man in terms of potentiality
are i) God is Himself the source of His being; man has
no being in himself. God is creator. Man is creature. ii) God is changeless. Man is placed in the
historical world of space and time and therefore of change. c) Humans are created
to participate in the Divine nature. The role of humanity is special participation with the highest
level of intelligence. Human intelligence is to participate in the Divine Goodness and to represent
that goodness to the world. PMG develops the alternative, “Humanity as the priest of creation”
Reflection on Deconstruction
a) According to PMG Western civilization tried to grasp all truth with conscious mind and
language. This is a tragicomic attempt. b) Existentialism to Structuralism and then to
Deconstruction seeking to capture truth in language and concept. Language is one image that
gets to our ears and eyes in the form of speech or letters. But there are also tactile images that our
skin takes in, smell images for the nose, taste image for the tongue. By reducing communication
to language or audible symbols we are limiting the scope of human c) Truth lies beyond language
and logic. d) Any absolutization of the linguistic or literary communication as the only means of
communicating truth is to be questioned according to PMG
Reflection on Secularization
Secularization was a uniquely European phenomenon. The word “secularization” was first used in
English in the early 18th century to denote the conversion of an ecclesiastical or religious
institutions property to non-religious use. It was a reaction to the monopoly medieval European
Church. But later the term receives different meaning: to ignore the transcendental dimensions of
reality and a general satisfaction in the scientific and technological advancements. The process of
secularization in Europe made the Religion as a “department” of life. Religion is reduced to
something simply useful, a utility for social integration and for identity maintenance.
Secularization is differed from humanism. PMG observes Buddhism as a mode of
secularization as a reaction to oppressive and ritualistic religion with a profound, silent, apophatic
way about God. It is varied from European connotation of the term.

146
K. M. GEORGE
K. M. George was a famous political leader from the Indian state of Kerala. He is the founder
of Kerala Congress, a political party in India. K. M. George began his political career in the Indian
National Congress. Following the death of P. T. Chacko, Pullolil in 1964 under turbulent
circumstances, 15 MLAs under the leadership of K. M. George withdrew their support to the
Congress party and, sitting as a separate group in the Assembly, brought down the R.
Sankar ministry and formed a new political party called the Kerala Congress under his
chairmanship at Kottayam. George was born in Muvattupuzha on 18 January 1919. He was
married to Marthamma Padinjarekkara and was survived by five children, one of whom is K.
Francis George, who has represented the constituency of Idukki twice in the Parliament of India.
George died on 11 December 1976.
Doctrinal, social and ethical issues
1. Modern European languages in general retain a predominantly pejorative sense of the word
Orthodox'. Makers of dictionaries and keepers of prejudices seem to like it that way. So
the dichotomy of the conservative versus progressive, the outdated versus modern and the
irrelevant versus relevant continues to play in the ecumenical circles as well. The
emergence of post-modern sensitivity has challenged the legitimacy of this dichotomy to
some extent, but not always in a way useful for ecumenical dialogue. Our dialogue needs
to be liberated from the clutches of traditional semantic and theological dichotomies. Our
usual self-definition in opposition to the other as well as our caricaturing of each other need
to be transcended in the process. St. Gregory of Nazianzus once ironically observed: "We
become pious by condemning the impiety of others". Most often our self-righteousness
makes use of this convenient tool.
2. Another set of categories we use is East' and West', apparently more legitimate and
congenial than the conservative progressive pair. The Orthodox Churches, in spite of their
acknowledged identification with "the faith of the undivided church" and "the church of
the oikoumene," the whole inhabited earth, consider themselves as "Eastern" Churches.
This is quite understandable in the light of the local church ecclesiology' of the Orthodox
tradition. A true local Church can be local and catholic at the same time. It can manifest
itself at the same time as the one Body of Christ diachronically and synchronically. Our
present historical experience is that the western local church has become universal ever
since the historic colonial conquests beginning with the 15th century while the Eastern
churches have remained parochially local due to known historical coincidences. This has
created theological and emotional imbalances in the dialogues between the Eastern and the
Western church traditions.
3. In terms of spiritual and theological sensitivity, the East-West cultural distinction still
holds good in much of our ecumenical conversation. Culture is the key here. Culture of the
East, however one may define it, has cut so deep into the faith and practice of Orthodox
churches that the sight, smell and sound of Orthodoxy are clearly distinguishable from
those of the western churches. Theological arguments and attitudes are also shaped on these
cultural lines. So, it is hard to fully agree and identify with each other's positions. We may
at best make some verbal agreements as in the BEM document for instance, but the way
forward from that point on is not necessarily handled by theologians but by custodians of

147
 culture whoever that may be. From obviously non-theological questions like whether the
priest should carry a beard to purely doctrinal matters like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son too, East-West relationship has always been determined to a significant
measure by the respective cultural attitudes of the partners in dialogue.
4. The Orthodox approach to all issues is necessarily ecclesial. In spite of the historical
contradictions and counter witness of some of the local churches, the Orthodox never cease
to be romantic' about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ,
the People of God. They speak of the sin and shortcomings of Christians, but never of any
defect of personified Holy Mother Church. She is always the Bride of Christ being prepared
and perfected for the ultimate revelation of glory. Questions of unity, doctrine and ethical
action can never be raised and reflected on except through the ecclesial channel. This is
not very often perceived sympathetically by western partners in the ecumenical dialogue
where individual theological opinions and contextual ethical concerns may hold sway. The
Orthodox are naturally apprehensive that such crucial matters like the authority of Scripture
and Tradition, the teaching authority of the Church and the total experience of life in the
Holy Spirit attested to by the saints and martyrs are eclipsed by the overriding currents of
individual and group demands to interpret the Gospel to suit their passing needs.
5. The Orthodox ecclesial approach to issues is shaped by the life of worship. Praising
and worshipping the Holy Trinity in words, symbols and ritual celebrations takes center
stage in the life of devout Christians. Concerns of this world seem to be sidelined, if not
totally ignored. The liturgical-ecclesial approach may look strange, to say the least, to those
who are brought up in an Enlightenment rationality tradition. It has been this latter tradition
that dominated the modern ecumenical movement. Hence the movement has become
acutely aware of the pressing social-ethical issues of humanity. In many instances worship
was sidelined, and occasionally questioned as irrelevant in face of the material needs of
humanity. The WCC is making great efforts to bring worship back to prominence, at least
in its major assemblies. The divergence of approach, however, continues to create
difficulties for the on-going dialogue.
6. The crumbling of authority in general in our contemporary world has eclipsed our
traditional reference points on the ecumenical pilgrimage. The time when ecumenical
movement began with forms of clear traditional authority both in the Protestant and
Orthodox families has radically changed. The secularization of the West had its tremendous
impact on the Western Churches and their affiliates in the rest of the world, while most
Orthodox churches had to undergo quite different historical traumas. So, the perspectives
have changed in both camps. A convergence now seems to be hardly possible. Yet we are
called to struggle, united in our one hope in Christ Jesus our Savior.
7. God's love for humanity (philanthropia) manifested in the incarnate Christ is the basis
for the Orthodox Church's care for the world and all social action. In the fellowship of the
WCC, the Orthodox Churches have been constantly exposed to the cry of the poor and the
oppressed, call for justice, peace and integrity of creation and all the ethical reflections they
required. The sense of ecumenical fellowship acted as a ferment and challenge without
which many local churches would probably have remained insensitive to the forces of
social evil, and contented themselves with some acts of charity. However, these churches

148
 also make it clear that they do not want to confine the fellowship to a simply humanitarian
organization which risks to be dominated by the rich do-goodists and their agenda. The
Orthodox Churches need to bring out more clearly its fundamental conviction that ethics
can never be divorced from theology. Working out God's philanthropy for our world which
is in dire poverty at one extreme and ecological catastrophe at the other is a holy task laid
on the Orthodox Churches. This is also one of the ways in which we can make our
fellowship in the WCC more fruitful and less tense.

JACOB KURIEN

Fr. Jacob Kurien was born in India in 1950. He teaches at the Orthodox Theological Seminary
since 1978, and is a priest of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church since 1979. Fr. Kurien served
as the first co-secretary of the Joint International Commission for Catholic Church and Malankara
Orthodox Church, and continues to be the member of this commission. As the secretary for Inter-
Church Relations of the Malankara Orthodox Church, he served as a member of the Standing
Commission, Faith and Order of the WCC for one term. He was one of the speakers at the Faith
and Order Plenary Assembly in Kuala Lampur, and one of the three respondent-speakers at the
Plenary Session on Church Unity at the WCC assembly, Porto-Algre. He was also one of the
drafters of the document on ‘Religious Plurality and Christian Self-Undertsanding' (a joint work
of WCC Dialogue Desk, Faith and Order and WCC). He edited the book ‘On Ecumenism' written
by Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios.
New ecumenical spaces at the national and the local levels.
he underscoring the fact that the Church is manifested "in each place" through the local Eucharistic
Koinonia and the Koinonia of such Eucharistic communities is the manifestation of unity which is
the ideal conciliarity of the early ecumenical councils. Today we, however, experience
this Koinonia and conciliarity in limited horizons only. Such experiences give us the hope for
wider ecumenical spaces. It is hoped that the recently suggested ecumenical space Viz. the Global
Christian Forum can provide new levels of conciliarity in the national and local situations too
where the experience of conciliarity was so far limited.
The prevailing culture of stagnation
With an affirmation on "our commitment on the way towards visible unity". But are the Churches,
including my own, really serious about this commitment? Are we not living in an age of
ecumenical stagnation"? (For this term stagnation' I am indebted to Prof. Nikos Nissiotis, one of
the former Moderators of the Faith and Order Commission). No doubt, we have been accustomed
to a culture of stagnation, with no spectacular unity-concerns for decades. Let me touch my own
context. Despite the theological agreements on almost all theological issues, the two families of
the Orthodox Churches still remain divided! Many people, especially youth, have lost hope and
confidence in official' deliberations for unity. They have been seeking alternate channels of
Christian unity. Out text is in fact inviting the Churches to rethink the legitimacy of our self-
complacency, we having become immune to ecumenical sensitivity and having delegated the
unity-concerns to W.C.C and similar bodies.

149
Orthodox church
The Orthodox Churches in general and the Orthodox Church in India particularly, witness to an
underlying unity in the midst of cultural diversities. We in India have been experiencing it in two
contexts: viz. that of the same Koinonia in diverse cultural traditions and that of the same cultural
group in diverse ecclesiastical traditions. We can observe here that it is not the cultural diversity
that became divisive, but the ecclesiastical interventions. This calls us for measures of healing the
painful memories of divisive ecclesiastical interventions from outside and seek ways of returning
to the once enjoyed unity.
Holiness
Ecclesiology has substantial elaboration on Oneness, Apostolicity and Catholicity of the Church.
But its comparative silence on "Holiness" is conspicuous. Is this symbolic of the growing signs of
unholiness becoming legitimized in the Churches? Is not this missing' a reminder to rethink the
Churches' pre-occupation with money and power-politics?
Social commitment
The mission of the Church as a reconciling and reconciled' community. In my Indian context, the
mutual reconciliation of the Churches has to take place largely in the area of mutual apprehensions
on each other's social commitment. Social commitment is often judged by such inadequate criteria
like the weight given to the Brahminic Hinduism, solidarity with the Dalits and the approach to
the ordination of women etc. The apprehensions on the basis of such criteria have branded certain
Churches as "Caste"-oriented and affected the local initiatives on Church-unity. Therefore, the
already existing social apprehensions have to be sorted out, and more appropriate criteria are to be
evolved.

SAPHIR ATHYAL
Saphir Athyal was the erstwhile principal of Union Biblical Seminary, Pune. He is involved in the
Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization as its director for Mission and Evangelism. He is
also one of the founders of what was earlier known as the Theological Assistance Programme
which later developed into the Asia Theological Association. Unfortunately, he has not written
much though he is a thinker in his own right. The main thrust of his articles and papers seems to
be his concern for indigenization of theology. In answering the question, what should characterize
an Asian Christian theology, he gives several answers.
a) The Christian faith has a historical basis and character and so the Bible is the only written
witness to this specific history of God’s salvation deeds. This means that in some way the basis
for indigenized theology must be the Bible.
(b) Since the context and the background in which God’s word came to man in the Bible are similar
to the life situations in Asia today, our theologies cannot be much different from the biblical
categories.
(c) In the Bible itself there are examples of indigenizing the message to particular forms of thought.
If that is what contextualization is, Saphir Athyal contends that in Asia there also must be a
systematization but not as in the west. While in the west systematization was more rational, Asian
systematization must be around the particular issues in Asia. This means, Asian Christians need to
study in depth and sympathetically the cultures and religions of Asia after all Asia is the birthplace
of religions and cultures. This means: “Inter-religious dialogues can be quite valuable in several

150
aspects”. It can create openness and friendship between peoples and help the participants
understand the basic essentials of one another’s faith. It also highlights the dissimilarities. Since
in Asia culture and religion are closely linked together, all our lifestyle and thoughts have religious
overtones. Athyal contrasts this with the western theologies which are primarily based on Aristotle
and ancient Greek philosophies.
In contrast to the western theologies Asian theologies cannot afford to be purely academic and
philosophical. Asian Christians have suffered for their faith and this means that one of the
distinctive characteristics of Asian theology must be its mission-orientedness, and willingness to
suffer. Thus, in developing an Asian confession of faith in the total life of the church, Asian
theology needs to be more issue-oriented rather than academic. These extracts are taken from his
article “Towards an Asian Theology” published in 1975.

SUNAND SUMITHRA

Dr Sunand Sumithra studies in Mechanical Engineering, earned a B.D from Union Biblical
seminary in India and Th.D. from Tuebingen University in Germany. He has served as a pastor in
the Methodist Church in India, a professor in union Biblical Seminary and Academic Dean of
south Asia Institute of Advanced Christian studies, Bangalore. Dr. Sumithra Served for three years
as executive secretary of the theological communication of the world evangelical fellowship.
Critics on Theology of Thomas, Marxist-Leninist ideology and Hindu spirituality
Sumithra’s conclusion is that “Thomas’s theology, being an attempt to reconcile a philosophy of
continuous dynamic evolution, Marxist-Leninist ideology and Hindu spirituality on the one hand,
with the biblical revelation on the other, tends ultimately to deprive God of his holiness, Jesus
Christ of his lordship and man of his faith, primarily because Thomas neglects the unique character
of the Bible”.
Readers of Thomas’s work who find this conclusion surprising will also be surprised to know that
Thomas accepts the impersonal brahman of the Vedanta and denies the lordship of Christ that “his
theology makes Christ marginal, almost as an appendage.” These conclusions are reached by a
method sustained throughout the book: short extracts of Thomas’s writings are quoted and then
“interpreted.” A few examples will indicate the method. Thus, Thomas writes: “When the
Christian Church speaks of ‘original sin’ it means that this self-centricity is a fact for all men in
all conditions of society, so that self-interest and self-righteousness are perennially present in
man’s life.”
Sumithra comments: “Thus, for Thomas, Original Sin means universality of sin, not that every
single individual is a sinner.” Thomas writes: “St. Paul sees in the risen Christ ‘the first fruits’ of
the re-creation of humanity, the inauguration of a movement through which Christ establishes his
reign over all rule and authority.” Sumithra comments that this shows “the understanding of
resurrection as happening in the subjective, spiritual world.”
Why is Sumithra unable to understand Thomas’s thought? It is because he begins from a so called
classical view of mission, loosely put together from elements of Ziegenbalg and Carey and later
amplified as “the redemption of a person from the wrath of God, through his faith in the
substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for his sins, so that the sinner is forgiven and joins the Church

151
for further nurture in the spiritual life”. Missing from this definition is any reference to the
corporate and cosmic dimensions of Christ’s work or to the ethical implications of salvation.

XII. Liberation Theology and Christian Social Witness

SEBASTIAN KAPPEN (1924-93)

He is known for his prophetic approach. He invites us to theologize in the social-political

context. He Was very much involved in studying the religio-cultural forces. What is remarkable is
that he brings his studies to bear upon the socio-political context more directly and sharply. He
was very much admired, but at the same times a controverted theologian. He has been a key figure
in the shaping of Indian theology liberation. He lived in vital contact with the various streams of
liberation in the country, and "as a source of inspiration for several groups of social activists by
his discussion and interaction.
Kappen states that the Divine can be encountered in two modes either as a gift in the true
experience of love, truth, fellowship, etc., or as a challenge or a call mediated through the historical
situation in which we find ourselves. This he calls gift-call. The manifestation of the Divine
mediated through history and the human response to it takes place continuously and this he calls
theandric praxis. For him theology is a reflection on this praxis and it should be critical because
our pre conceptions, prejudices, etc., should be subjected to scrutiny. Only in this way will we be
able to meaningfully reflect on the theandric practice.
Context
Fr. Sebastian Kappen {19Z4-93), an Indian liberation theologian who like M. M. Thomas has
related to critical social activists on the margin of the Church and far beyond it and inspired them
with his analysis and liberative vision, has addressed the same problem in terms of the need for
'cultural revolution.
At a meeting of Third World Theologians in Dialogue' held in New York in 1979, Kappen reflected
on the relevance of Jesus as the prophet of a counter-culture subverting first-century Jewish culture
for counter-cultural movements in India today as well as on the relevance of Indian tradition for
such movements today. Prophecy is 'the point of eruption for the repressed longings of the masses'
to be freed from inherited cultural bondages and at the same time the 'point of irruption of the
divine' which together result in an ultimate project of hope aiming at a 'theandric community of
justice, love and freedom'. It becomes a praxis of subversion of the existing culture and creation
of a counter-culture through a new dissenting community. Such counter-cultures never start from
scratch. They draw upon the 'wealth of tradition1, giving new meaning to old myths and symbols
in a 'dialectical supersession of the past' involving the moments of abolition, preservation and
sublimation.
Turning to Indian history Kappen identifies the Vedic religion as a culture of the oppressors and
the dissent of the Buddha as a movement towards the emancipation of the oppressed, with its
morality not of exclusion -as that of caste and family - but of inclusion based on all-encompassing
love and compassion. However, Buddhism was driven out of India, and what today is called
Hinduism succeeded in establishing the dominance of Brahminism through a process of integrating
and assimilating the deities of popular religions, while imposing simultaneously the oppressive
laws of Manu. This provoked a new outbreak of dissent in the medieval Bhakti movement

152
representing the devotion and aspirations of the oppressed masses. The Bhagavata Purana, the
main scriptural authority of the movement, speaks of a God who is partial to the poor. This
movement also got domesticated by Hindu orthodoxy. Again prophetic-millenarian movements
erupted in the eighteenth century drawing inspiration from folk traditions and their myths and
symbols- This history shows in Indian culture a mixture of two opposing strands, namely of
ascetical priestly, patriarchal and elitist and of life-affirming, creative popular, matriarchal,
egalitarian tendencies. Kappen concludes that a re-creation of Indian society can emerge only from
the repressed culture of the lower castes, outcastes and tribals, who in the present day have to
confront both orthodox Hinduism and modern capitalism. In this process Christians should avoid
claiming superiority by proclaiming the lordship of Christ and instead bring the message of the
reign of God in the spirit of the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels. Then the way will be free for the
Jesus tradition to give to India as well as to receive from her. Here Kappen differs from M. M,
Thomas who derives much of his vision from the cosmic Christ of the letter to the Colossians and
from the Syrian Orthodox bishop Mar Osthatios who bases his argument-for a classless society on
the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The contribution of the Jesus tradition, as Kappen saw it,
consisted in its dialogical rather than cyclic view of history, its ethical rather than cosmic religion
and its communitarian approach, all aiming at the liberation of history rather than liberation from
history. In its turn the Indian tradition could contribute a deeper understanding of the indwelling
of the divine in nature and society, of the yogic discovering of the self within as a means towards
freedom from acquisitiveness, hatred and violence, and of the motherhood of the earth, Kappen
concludes:
What I claim is not the superiority of Christianity over the Indian religious tradition but the
superiority of the humanizing religiosity of the Buddha, the radical Bhaktas and Jesus over the
rnagico-ritualistic religiosity of orthodox Hinduism and the depropheticixed religiosity of
tradition-bound Christianity,19
Aloysius Pieris, a Sri Lankan Jesuit, founder and director of the Centre for Research and Dialogue
at Kelaniya, has pushed the question of the relationship to the religious traditions of Asia as a
crucial issue on the agenda of liberation theologians. As one who is deeply involved in dialogue
with Buddhists, he has challenged EATWOT members as well as Catholic bishops to face mass
poverty and (non-Christian) religion as basic characteristics of Asian reality. The tendency is to
ignore one of the two; the task is to relate to both simultaneously. Churches and theologians will
try in vain to overcome their isolation from Asia's non-Christian civilizations through
'indigenization' of liturgy and theology, if they do not relate first of all to the poor of Asia. And
liberation movements will remain marginal or become oppressive if they view the religion of the
poor only as a bondage which has to be overcome. Religion and poverty both have an enslaving
and a liberating side, and these are connected. Enslaving religion justifies the poverty which is
imposed on people through exploitative structures. Liberating religion opts for voluntary poverty
as the way of interior liberation from the rule of Mammon and as a political strategy of solidarity
with the poor in their struggle against forced poverty, as in the case of Gandhi, In the biblical
tradition we find the distinction and connection of voluntary and enforced poverty in the call to
follow Jesus who was poor then and to serve Christ who is in the poor now. Followers of Jesus opt
to be poor in order to serve the poor by 'birth' who are the proxies of Christ (Matt, 2-5.31-46),
Asian liberation theologians have pointed at the same connection by insisting that the tGod-Man

153
Jesus saves by being at once the human victim and the divine judge of Asia's institutionalized
misery. Pieris criticises them, however, for having counterposed this understanding of Christ
against Asian religion, not discerning the prophetic-political resources in it. He identifies two
versions of religious socialism in Asia's ancient traditions: that of peasants in clannic societies, and
that of monks in monastic communities. The first is founded on what Pieris defines as 'cosmic
religiousness* in which 'social harmony is insured by cosmic communion with the elements of
nature', the second is based on a 'metacosmic religiousness'* which does not negate cosmic reality,
but points to a salvific beyond through its non-addiction to cosmic needs. The monastic tradition,
however, located in a feudal context, has turned into 'the luxury of a leisure class maintained by
the really poor', one of its weaknesses being the lack of respect for the dignity of labor. This
happens once more in a lot of Western enthusiasm for 'oriental spirituality'. But in some rural areas
of Asia a symbiosis of the religious socialism of peasants and monks can be found, in which the
earth is everybody's property and 'cosmic needs are made to serve rather than to obsess the person'.
Theology
According to him a Christian theology of liberation has a twofold task: it should, in the first place,
reflect on the theandric practice in the light of the Gospel. The starting point is not statements
predicating about God, nor narration of what happened two thousand years ago, but experiencing
in the history of the struggles of the people the unfolding of the Divine. Kappen does not stop with
the movement from the theandric practice to the Gospel. He completes the circle starting that
Christian liberation theology should be a movement from the Gospel to the theandric praxis as
well. It is here that Kappen speaks of the contribution the Gospel can make to the transformation
of the Indian society, when it is read and interpreted in an unprejudiced manner, freed from all
historical accretions. It can infuse a sense of history and social commitment in the Hindu world
which has the tendency of flight into the metaphysical realm. The tradition of the Gospel can help
to discern the genuine response given to the call of the Divine from the spurious ones.
Kappen is sharply critical of the present state of Christianity in general and of its condition
in India particular. The mystical Christ the Church proclaims and celebrates in its rites makes Jesus
no different from other gods of Hinduism for whom endless rites and worships are performed. In
this way the Church will only help to reinforce further the prevalent magical and superstitious
religiosity for the Indian masses. It is not the Christ of pompous liturgy, preaching and dogma, but
Jesus of history, the prophet of Nazareth who could free the Indian society from its fetters. Gods
like the manner Christians make of Jesus, the Hindus have any amount.
For the developing of an Indian liberation theology, along with Jesus-tradition and Indian religious
tradition, Kappen brings into the picture also Marxism as a humanizing force. As he confesses, it
is Marx who helped him to encounter the historical Jesus. His deep studies into the writings of
Marx and his concrete experience of oppression in the Indian society led him to a sharp critique of
capitalism, its cult of money, its greed and culture of competition. He does not accept Marxism
uncritically. Kappen disagrees with a simply materialistic and reductionist reading of the Indian
religious history. Further, the absence in Marxism of the subjective pole around which religion
and culture orbit, has rendered it incapable of drawing the Indian masses, deeply rooted in their
religious and cultural traditions. Notwithstanding these reservations, Kappen recognizes the role
Marxism has played in lending a sharp tooth to Christianity and its transformative engagement in
the concrete Indian situation.

154
Foundational Theology of Liberation
The foundational theology of liberation of Dappan is a theology which cuts across the barriers of
religions and ideologies, and critically reflects on 0the historical self-manifestation of the (divine
as gift call and on the human response to it. It is also universal. It is not restricted to religious group
or tradition it is founded on the experience of a common situation in which Hindus, Muslims,
Christians, followers of secular ideologies, etc., find satisfactory solution to their day to day
problems of life in social, cultural, economic and political level. From this angle, we see that all
genuine theology is liberative, as it provokes freedom from every alienation and freedom for love,
communion and creativity.
The gospel can bring transformation in Indian society, when it is read and interpreted in
an unprejudiced manner, freed from all historical accretions.
Theandric praxis
Dappen states that the (divine can be encountered either as a gift in the true experience of love,
truth, fellowship, etc., or as a challenge or a call mediated through the historical situation in which
we find ourselves. The manifestation of the (divine is mediated through history and the human
response to it takes place continuously, and that is what he calls theandric praxis. For, him
theology is a reflection on this praxis.
Setting Jesus and His Gospel free
He is critical of the present state of Christianity in general and of its condition in India in particular.
We have to proclaim Jesus Christ of pompous liturgy, preaching and dogma, but Jesus of history,
the prophet of Nazareth who could free the Indian society from its fetter. According to Dappen the
attachment to the mystical Christ blunts the awareness about the Indian realities; it has rendered
the Christians incapable of a prophetic involvement in the contemporary Indian society.

SAMUEL RAYAN

Rayan brings a wide-range of experience into his theology. But what has been, perhaps, most
decisive in his theological thinking was his association with University students as a chaplain for
a number of years. His theology emerged in dialogue and interaction with the many critical
questions raised about faith, religion, God, Christ, etc., in the context of the students’ movement
which was seeking for relevance and meaning. Fundamental to the whole of Rayan’s theology is
his deep humanity. He believes deeply in the mystery of the human person as God’s gift and grace,
and therefore he champions the cause of the life, dignity, rights and freedom of the human person
wherever he or she is in fetters. It is the poor and the marginalized who are the chief source of
theology, the chief record of God’s self-revelation and intervention in world history.
The most significant of contribution to Indian theology by Rayan is his initiation of a new
methodology of theologizing in India. Independently of what was happening in Latin America at
the end of 1960’s and early 1970’s Rayan started theologizing precisely from praxis. Rayan has
developed a theology that is supportive of peoples’ movements. He believes in the indomitable
power of the people and their movements for liberation surging forth in India and in other parts of
the world; he sees in them the sign of hope for a new and humane social order. His commitment
to uphold the dignity and honour of the exploited masses leads him to a scathing critique of all
dehumanizing forces in the Indian society and in the globe at large. He denounces the

155
discrimination and social marginalization in the name of the caste, attacks the basic inequality
inherent in the feudal forms of human relationships in society. His critique is most virulent against
capitalism for its dehumanizing effects, its greed and idolatry. Rayan’s Ecclesiology is the outcome
of his basic faith in the human person, his interpretation of Jesus and reading of history. For him,
the task of the church is the same as that of Jesus; to be in solidarity with marginalized, to champion
a new social order and to participate in the struggles for liberation so that bread, freedom, justice
and equality may be accessible to all God’s children. The concern of the church he writes is not
Christians but the poor; its struggle is not for itself but for the liberation of all men and women
who are held captive.
Rayan gives much importance to witnessing through praxis which alone can make the church
credible as a herald of Good news in India. Looking at it from the perspective of the Hindus, Rayan
remarks that the preaching of the Church that Christ is the life of the world, will be a blatant lie as
long as the Western nations, whose people profess Christianity, continue to be agents of death all
over the world through the production and sales of deadly armaments, and as long as they rob the
poor nations of their food through economic exploitation and unjust trade relationships. The great
contribution of Rayan to Indian theology is to have developed a new methodology for theologizing
and to have sensitized it to the question of justice, human rights, and struggle of the people for a
new social order. Through the influence of his thought people and power are increasingly
becoming significant realities in the Indian theological reflection. Rayan has tried to weave into
his theology the insights contained in people’s sages, stories, folksongs, myths, etc., and which
traditionally expressed the yearning for liberation in India.
Methodology
The methodological significance of Rayan can be understood against background of theological
education in India, because at the time all for practical purpose the imparting the western traditional
theology which is only classical methodology but he broke with this tradition, to pursue theology
differently. That is committed to attentiveness to what happens to people around us, their struggles,
their tears and hopes, and for response to concrete
human problems became the focal point of his theologizing. In short, his theology was the
methodology of Jesus himself for whom god talk was the fruit of his deep immersion into the
human. &e suggested the urgency of interpreting the mystery of Christ starting from the context
of changing India with its problems and challenges. For him reflection for Jesus and his message
have clear Indian dent which from his rootedness in Indian history, culture, and tradition. &e
brings insights from the Indian religio-cultural tradition and dealt with Indian approach to
history. For him, history is to be able to understand both the biblical and Indian approach to
history. Why he is concerned about history is because he is convinced that history is about the
human. For him history is to be described in terms of the value and should male man as human. but
it is not as the way of domination, con6uest or violence, exploitation. Church imitates Christ.
Eco-theology
To his eco-theology not just aesthetic but also human concerns. From the beginning, his Indian
context, in which most people are directly dependent on the land, causes him to see the needs of
the human and the needs of the earth as bound up together. "The earth is also ours", Rayan writes,
it is given by God to human beings, it is "a large round of bread God bakes, a big bowl of rice God
cooks each morning over the fire of God's heart". Rayan quotes Hopkins, St Francis, early

156
Christians, tribal peoples, and modern scientists in support of a "cosmic sisterhood/brotherhood"
and to stress that "matter matters". For Rayan, the earth is a theological and a liturgical reality.
Because it is imbued with the Holy Spirit, the earth is precious and to be treated with "reverence
and tenderness". He argues against private ownership of land, and for "a planned and peaceful
reallocation of land to peoples" Rayan describes the "integrity of creation" in terms of the famous
verses in Romans 8 in which the liberation of the earth to security in the heart of God is brought
about by the power of the Spirit). He finds John V. Taylor's description of the Holy Spirit as the
"go-between God" helpful in explaining the way in which the Spirit works to create mutual
awareness and therefore holds the universe together. Rayan's eco-theology is therefore perhaps
best described as a "pneumatological cosmism" such as is expressed in Hopkins' poem "God's
Grandeur", which Rayan quotes:
The world is charged with the grandeur of God... Their lives the dearest freshness deep down
things... Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright
wings.
The spirituality of Indian culture
So Rayan, who has always put liberation before cultural and religious sensibilities as the
touchstone of an authentic theology, was also one of the first to articulate Indian unease with the
generally a cultural approach of Latin American liberation theologians In 1981 Rayan led the
Indian delegation to the 5th EATWOT conference of Third World theologians in arguing the need
for a new theological language, a poetic approach reflecting the... various Indian traditions, "a
dialogue with the earth" that uncovers the "latent theology in the heart of people's struggles".
Rayan's approach to culture is "to reflect and integrate not elements from any [one] religious
tradition..., but the social symbols which are meaningful and common to the (oppressed) masses
of the people". He argues that culture has a spiritual element in that it embraces values but also in
the sense that it is a people's response to realities. Culture is also a social dream and a means of
political resistance; therefore, spirituality is culture-creating (: 5). "Incarnated spirituality" then
consists in creating counter-culture as did Gandhiji in the struggle against the British, and as Asian
peasants have done for centuries (: 8-11). In Rayan's view, it is the Holy Spirit that generates these
"dreams and visions" (cf. Joel and Acts 2), and who urges us to subvert unjust structures (Rayan
1979a: 38, 41). "The world is full of icons of the Holy Spirit" in the people who, like Jesus, "love
liberty and uphold human dignity."
Theology: liberated and liberating
Theology has to do with faith; it is critical reflection on faith and life in the light of faith. The
first step, then, in decolonizing theology and in building an authentic Indian theology, is to re-
examine the colonially obtained/imposed definition of theology and to re-understand it if need be,
and re-describe it.
Theology is bound up with faith, and faith with revelation. Revelation is not a set of
propositions or a string of truths; it is not even a creedal formula handed to us by God. Revelation
is God’s free, loving self-communication to us in and through what God does for us and gives to
us. Creation is revelation: so are the seasonal rains, the crops that grow, the food that gives us
strength; they are God’s self-witness. In and through them God says, ‘I am here, and I care’ (cf.
Rom 1:19-20; Acts 14:17). We ourselves are God’s love-gift to us, and are a disclosure of God’s
mind and heart. And God’s law is inscribed in every heart (Rom 2:14-l5). The human heart’s

157
endless yearning born of its radical God-ward orientation, is also revelation. So are all meaningful
events and history’s unfolding. They are ways of God’s self-giving. The poets, the makers of just
laws, the seers and saints of all ages everywhere are a word from God about us and about God’s
own self, God’s love for us and plans for the world. The Word of God is not only disclosure but
invitation to respond by collaborating with God in the ongoing work of creating and recreating us
and the universe. And we know that Jesus of Nazareth is a very special self-communication of
God, of divine Love and Compassion, of solidarity with human beings, with the poor in particular,
in their humiliation and suffering and struggle for justice.
Hearing the revelation is faith. Traditionally, in the patristic and Scholastic West, faith has been
understood as an intellectual conviction. Hence the concern with dogmas and their elaboration,
and the killing of people whose terminology differed from that of the people in power. Faith was
reduced to correct words and creeds, to neat orthodoxy. But the truth is that saving faith consists
in orthopraxis, in right living, in doing God’s will. Jesus said, "It is not anyone who calls me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ who will enter in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my
Father". Merely to listen to Jesus’s words will not help; one has to act on them. To listen and not
to act is to build one’s house on sand and to have to watch it collapse when the floods and the gales
come (Mt 7:21-27). Jesus asks, "Why do you call me: ‘Lord! Lord!’ and do not do what I tell you?"
(Lk 6:46-49). James’ outlook is similar: "How does it help when someone who has never done a
good act claims to have faith" (Jas 2:14-17). Did not the good Samaritan, whom Jesus points to as
a model, have finer faith than the priest who hurried by to pray in the temple for the man on the
roadside? (Lk 10:30-37). Or, what saving faith did those have whom, according to Mt 25:31-46,
Jesus invites to come, inherit the Kingdom? Perhaps they had never seen Jesus nor heard of him.
Perhaps when they fed the hungry and clothed the naked, they had no religious thoughts or
intentions. Still they are blessed with the reward of faith. Saving faith is the concrete love they
showed to needy persons, regardless of color, creed or caste. In such acts of justice-love there is a
real encounter with God, a true hearing and heeding of the Word made Flesh in the reality of the
hungry and the broken, the cast-away and the unwanted. The simplest deeds of justice and love
have dimensions and depths unknown to us, but known to the Spirit and disclosed by it.
Jesus too points to deeds as the decisive revelation grounding faith: "If I am not doing my Father’s
will there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it at least believe in the works I do" (Jn 10:37-
38). Similarly, it is by our love for one another, and not by our buildings, rites, quarrels or canon
laws, that the world will know we are Christ’s disciples (Jn 13:35). Hence the sending of us to bear
witness with the beauty, the newness and the surprise of our lives, by being light and salt and yeast
and the fragrance of Christ (Mt 5:13-16; 13:33; 2 Cor 2:14-16). Faith is caring for God in the needy
neighbor, in the crucified Son of Man. Faith is binding ourselves to God who comes offering
himself in the rejected Son of Man. Faith then is "the full act of human existence in freedom" (K.
Rahner, "Theology" in: Encyclopedia of Theology, London, 1975). That is a completely
decolonized description of the saving relationship we call faith.
Where faith was mainly a matter of words rather than of life, it was in style to hunt for heresies
and kill people in the name of ‘truth’, while conniving at and using profoundly criminal and
heretical systems like slavery, conquest, land-grab, exploitation of the poor and oppression of
women. A decolonized Church and its theology, understanding faith as ortho-/ theo- praxis, will

158
avoid such pitfalls and strive to become Good News of liberation and life for the people of the
land.
Theology is a way of orienting this praxis towards social transformation in the direction of the
Reign of God with its justice, equality, freedom and peace. It is a process of making faith,
understood as commitment and obedience to God’s purposes for history, interact critically with
our situation: negatively with the situations of oppression and structures of injustice, and positively
with people’s struggles for dignity, freedom and food. Theology is done by bringing faith-
experience with its interpretations and symbols face to face with real life with its problems and
suffering; by letting them meet, clash, question and challenge each other, illumine and interpret
each other, and encounter God as judgement or as grace in each other’s depths. The sparks born
of the contact and the flame leaping from it will be the seeds and the buds of a theology making
for social transformation. Faith-experience will interact with situations of oppression and death till
it becomes a call and a stimulus to fresh liberating and life-enhancing action.
Ecclesiology
For him ecclesiology is the outcome of basic faith in the human person, and interpretation of Jesus
and reading of history. For him the task of the church is the same as that of Jesus to be solidarity
with marginalized, to champion a new social order and to participate in the struggles for liberation
so that bread, freedom, justice and equality may be accessible to all children. In order to do that,
the church, like him, must be truly enfleshed; it must become the flesh of India’s flesh. He also
gives much importance to “witnessing through praxis that can make the church credible as a herald
of good news in India.

FELIX WILFRED

Prof. Felix Wilfred is currently Head of the Dept. of Christian Studies, School of Philosophy and
Religious Thought, University of Madras, Chennai. Felix Wilfred has contributed articles to
prestigious journals at the national and international levels. They include such journals as
Development and Change (Madras Institute of Development Studies), Jeevadhara (Kottayam) ,
Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection (Delhi), Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und
Religionswissenschaft, Jahrbuch Mission (Germany), Pacifica (Australia), Spiritus, Archives de
Sciences Sociales des Religions (France), Pro Mundi Vita (Belgium), Pro Dialogo, Archivio
Teologico Torinese (Italy), CTC Bulletin - Bulletin of the Commission on Theological Concerns,
Christian Conference of Asia, (Hong Kong), Ching Feng (Hong Kong), Asia Journal of Theology
(Singapore), Seleccciones de Teologia (Spain), Communio - Revista Internacional Catolica
(Portugal), Concilium (Holand, and now in Chennai). Given below is a list of his papers and
articles:
Theology
Felix Wilfred’s theology of inculturation is bound up with the theology of religions and is founded
on the premise that one cannot genuinely and fruitfully engage in inculturation of Christianity
without encountering non-Christian religions. An inculturation that neglects the understanding and
encounter of non-Christian religions can become very questionable and counter-productive.
Our understanding of inculturation and its practice are very much bound up with our attitudes
towards and relationships with other religions, because of the intimate connection between culture

159
and religion. Commitment to inculturation cannot go together with negative and exclusivist
attitude towards other religions. Therefore, the task of inculturation imposes on us the obligation
and provides us the opportunity to establish fresh relationships with followers of other world
religions evolve new perspectives and develop the right attitudes towards them.
When Christianity is enculturated into a particular culture of people, this culture which has
developed over many centuries, has been influenced and formed by the non-Christian religions
which the people have practiced prior to becoming Christians. Most cultures in the world are
shaped by different religions. Religions are so much interwoven into the cultures of people, that
one can never comprehend the culture of people without entering into dialogue with the religions
that have shaped it. “If culture is the body, religion is the soul, the ultimate or core element of
culture; if culture is language, religion is the thought permeating it.” And “to adopt only cultural
elements without coming to grips with religions would be tantamount to relate to a body without
the soul.” When we talk of religions, we can’t delineate religion from the people. We need to bear
in mind unfailingly that “behind religion are people, believing, hoping, experiencing and
expressing themselves.” In Asia, religion is not just a part of people’s lives, but it is life itself, a
total way of life.
Methodology and Inculturation as Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics
Wilfred finds the prevalent methodologies of inculturation “defective” for their inadequate dealing
with culture. They do not value culture sufficiently and consider it as a mere “instrument” for the
indigenization of Christianity. The focus is on the “universality of Christian faith” rather than on
culture. These models of inculturation “let the theological precede the anthropological” and,
according to Wilfred, true inculturation can happen “only when the anthropological precedes the
theological.” Thus, he suggests a shift in the methodology of inculturation, and that “cross-cultural
hermeneutics” should be at the heart of a methodology. The question then is not how to make
Christianity Asian, but how to understand what the church is in terms of one’s culture? For Felix,
the anthropological and the cultural are not mere “contexts of the Church” but are “part of the very
text of the Church.” Wilfred indicates some principles of such “cross-cultural hermeneutics” and
their implication for the church. Such methodology will attempt to understand the church through
the cultural world of the local people. He points out, for example, that Asians who perceive truth
as “more an ontic than a mental reality,” would have difficulty understanding “church as an
institution proclaiming truth in the form of concepts.” Since every culture has a particular world-
view, in the context of religious pluralism, true inculturation cannot take place without a dialogue
of religions. Pointing to the numerous devotees of Christ in Asia who are not baptized, he indicates
that inculturation in such context calls for an “ecclesiology not simply centered on redemption and
salvation, but integrated within the larger frame of theology of creation.” Since culture is
intimately related to the socio-political realities of life, and culture can be a force of transformation,
inculturation is concretely linked to the realities of poverty and injustice in Asia. And the
normativity of inculturation has to be sought from within the cultural world of a local church in its
concrete living of the Gospel.
Dalit theology: A Socio-Political Perspective
As for dalit theology, Felix Wilfred considers it as the greatest achievement of Indian theology,
seen especially from the socio-political angle. It has made a significant impact in the way theology
is to be pursued in India, and has also attained international attention. While in many other areas

160
of theology, the gulf between the statements and reality is larger, as for Dalit theology is concerned,
we could confidently state that things are not that wide. In the first place, Dalit theology has shaken
the traditional way of pursuing theology by drawing our attention to the experience of the most
oppressed and marginalized groups in the Indian society. Immediacy, concreteness and a certain
urgency characterizing the Dalit theology has spared it from futile theoretical discussions and
theological narcissm. The realism of Dalit theology derives from its direct contact with the earth
and the experience of hard physical labor and sweat. The experience of negativity by the Dalits
has created an atmosphere conducive to the projection of alternatives than compliance with the
system or following of the trodden path. For example, the depth of suffering (material deprivation,
psychological wounds, dependency and social humiliation) as a positive reality has triggered the
Dalit imagination for new theological trajectories mirroring their experience more closely. Further,
the nature of Dalit experience is such that it has led also to radicalism in thought. It is counter-
culture in spirit. The millennia of suffering and oppression has created in the dalit people an anti-
establishment and antihegemonic urge, which can be seen reflected in their theology. The
radicalism of Dalit theology could be seen also in the way it unmasks the traditional social
constructs of purity and pollution, high and low, and its restlessness regarding the ideological
justifications, be it in the society or within the Christian communities. It is the merit of Dalit
theology and subaltern theological orientation is to have challenged the development of Indian
theology along the traditional Sanskritic and Brahminical lines and the exclusive use of so-called
classical texts.
Dalit theology has its seminal roots in the autochthonous tradition of the Dalits. The first thing we
should remember about this autochthonous tradition of the Dalits is that it is a living tradition
surviving from ancient times though dependent and powerless. It appears in the form of myths,
proverbs, songs, festivals and rituals. They tell the story of Dalit origin and their enslavement under
religious symbolism. Protests and the search for justice and equality are often explicitly expressed
in songs, rituals and festivals.
Tribal Contribution
As for tribal theology, a critical distancing from traditional theology and moving towards a
theology that will incorporate the tribal culture was a welcome change. Instead of reproducing a
theology that is foreign to their life and world of experience, it has contributed to make the tribal
to feel a little at home in Christianity. The anthropological and cultural studies which have found
a way into tribal theologizing has helped its growth. Biblical themes like “promise land, Pentecost,
exodus and the alien” have served as key concepts in interpreting some of the tribal experiences.
The tribal theologizing has unfolded before us extremely rich resources whose significance go far
beyond the tribal areas. The strong sense of community and practice of solidarity at a time of
aggressive individualism, the sense of wholeness and harmony with nature at a time of serious
ecological crisis are some of the important which the tribal peoples can contribute to theologizing.
The tribal situation leads us to reflect about the indissociable relationship between ecology and
social justice. In the light of all this we could say that a more appropriate question would be, what
is the contribution of the tribals to theology, rather than how we could pursue tribal theology.
However, there are many thorny questions and issue which need to be responded to. One such
crucial issue is that of identity-crisis. It is a focal point which explains the situation of Indian
tribals, and the experiences and struggles they are undergoing. Tribal societies are in transition in

161
the midst of many political convulsions, and in some parts in situations of armed struggles. There
is a serious cultural crisis caused by the whirlwind of modernity and globalization that try to blow
them off their feet. Many tribals are pushed into a situation of anomie, torn and pulled in all
directions. Tribals feel that they are exploited in their own soil and are alienated from their natural
habitat. Attention to the socio-political developments, and a critical approach to the society and a
more dynamic understanding of culture are important issues which tribal theology has to respond.

X. Feminist theological reflection and praxis in Indian

ARUNA GNANADASON

Aruna Gnanadason was formerly the Executive Director for Planning and Integration in the
General Secretariat of the World Council of Churches. She was Coordinator of the Justice Peace
and Creation Team and of the Women’s Programme of the World Council of Churches before
taking up that position. She has a doctorate in ministry from the San Francisco Theological
Seminary, and three honorary doctorates. Aruna comes from India and belongs to the Church of
South India.
Aruna Gnanadason writes about creation care and eco-feminist theology, globalization and local
cultures, women and faith, peacemaking and leading nonviolent change, and addressing violence
against women. Her publications include “Asian Women in the Ecumenical Movement: Voices of
Resistance and Hope” (2017), “Jesus and the Asian Woman: A Post-colonial Look at the Syro-
Phoenician Woman/Canaanite Woman from an Indian Perspective” (2001), Listen to the Women!
Listen to the Earth! (2005), Women, Violence and Nonviolent Change (ed.) (2009), and Creator
God in Your Grace, Transform the Earth: An Eco-Feminist Ethic of Resistance, Prudence and
Care (2012).
Christian Feminist Theologies
In addition to liberation theologies, Gnanadason explores the relation between first and third-
world, Christian feminist theologies, including ecofeminist theologies. While feminist theologians
from the first and third worlds share common interests and goals, she purports that “it is not
possible to speak of ‘women’ as one oppressed category. Any feminist vision of creation has to
embrace and acknowledge cultural and social norms of discrimination that make the lives of some
women more precarious than other women.” Not discounting the importance of universal human
rights, her claim resonates with feminist theologians who question the tendency to universalize
women’s experiences through the lens of majority groups. To illustrate her point, Gnanadason
writes that the relationship between women and our natural environment plays out differently
between continents, nations, and even within localities. From her perspective, essentialism often
minimizes the cultural and political dimensions of the “historical subordination” of women to men
and of women to other women, citing racism and classism in the first world and the caste system
in India as examples. Gnanadason recognizes that first-world women continue to experience
oppression by first-world men, but in light of the disparities between the lives of women in the
first and third worlds, she encourages first-world women to acknowledge their place of privilege
in our global community. Along these lines, Gnanadason maintains that a key difference between
first and third-world ecofeminists is the way in which they address poverty in their writings. In
contrast with first-world women, she explains that “women in the third world see the poverty that

162
afflicts whole communities (particularly women and children) and land as the base line for
understanding domination of women and nature.” She notes that in India and other parts of the
third world, “sex-role divisions of work ensure that women do the most strenuous kinds of work
in close proximity to the resource of the earth food and fuel gathering and collecting of water from
distant places,” affirming the UN studies cited in the introduction to this dissertation. She also
discusses the impact of the breakdown of traditional social structures on Indigenous and Dalit
women who sacrifice their needs for the sake of their families. Many of these women suffer from
the effects of hard physical labor, experience discrimination in pay compared with that of men,
receive scant government health care, face domestic violence “at the hands of many men in their
families,” and possess little power in family and communal decisions.
Gnanadason also incorporates the works of secular ecofeminists from the third world who discuss
social and economic disparities among women but may frame them in different ways. For instance,
she references Indian economics professor Bina Agarwal, who critiques aspects of both first and
third-world ecofeminism, arguing that much ecofeminist discourse “posits women as a unitary
category and ignores socio-economic heterogeneity among women.” Agarwal promotes the
“alternative” concept of “feminist environmentalism,” which draws from “the experience of
community forestry in India,” and recognizes a shared interest in forest preservation among both
women and men but expressed differently due to the relationship between their responsibilities
and required resources to meet them (e.g., timber for construction done by men versus fodder and
fuel to meet daily cooking needs by women). Not discounting the influence of “ideological
constructions of gender, of nature, and of the relationship between the two,” Agarwal writes that
her approach acknowledges that the dominant influences on “people’s relationship with nature,
their interest in protecting it, and their ability to do effectively are significantly shaped by their
material reality, their everyday dependence on nature for survival, and the social, economic, and
political tools at their command for furthering their concerns.” Contributing to her discussion on
the differences between the contexts of first and third-world ecofeminists, Gnanadason also draws
from the works of Vandana Shiva. As I discuss later in this chapter in regard to violations against
women and our natural environment, Shiva highlights both the disproportionate effects of
environmental degradation on third-world women and their active response prevent further
destruction. However, Gnanadason also observes that Bina Agarwal and theologian Gabriele
Dietrich critique Shiva’s lack of attention to the relation between the caste system and patriarchy
in India, which neglects the purview of the Dalits and Indigenous peoples. In response to
Agarwal’s observations, Gnanadason contends that “ecofeminist analysis must acknowledge the
internal contradictions among women,” taking into account the influences on women’s experiences
in their local context and their responses to protect the earth, along with recognizing stark
variations in resource distribution caused by current systems and structures. Despite differences
among feminists and, more specifically, ecofeminists, Gnanadason strongly rejects theologian
Lois K. Daly’s concept of “competing feminisms.” Finding Daly’s notion detrimental to
challenging the negative effects of globalization on our world, Gnanadason insists that “there are
just many entry points and perspectives in feminist discourses,” which she thinks can provide
opportunities for learning from one another and offering “our plurality of visions to a common
commitment to affirm life.” Gnanadason also places more overall importance on the need to ensure
that marginalized voices can be heard, including the voices of Indian women who have unique

163
ideas to help “transform injustice in our world.” In addition, examining the complexity of
environmental issues helps to further contextualize the emergence of her ecofeminist theology.
Overall, Gnanadason affirms the diversity of “many ‘eco-feminisms’ in our world – all pioneered
by women passionately committed to justice and dignity for women and for all of creation.” She
remarks that what might be the most difficult challenge for feminist theologians is “to recognize
that none of us hold the final truth.” However, she declares that feminism calls upon theologians
“to read each text with new eyes—to retell the story of salvation so that it can offer a word of
liberation to all women and to all people. At the moment, it does not.” Her challenge applies not
only to first-world, feminist and ecofeminist theologians, but also to first-world, Catholic theology
as a whole. As demonstrated above, the contextualization of Gnanadason’s theology gives insight
into the influences on her work and her ecofeminist hermeneutic. Her assessment of contemporary
liberation and feminist theologies also reveals the diversity of voices among ecofeminists and
third-world theologians. In order to better understand how she develops her ecofeminist theology,
we explore her articulation of the roots of the “theology of dominion” and how its implications
reinforce gender inequalities which lead to the injustices discussed above.
Feminist Ethics: A Search for Meaning and Hope from the Margins
Women have not been active in the field of theological ethics in India. Unfortunately, the
theological establishment in our country have not taken seriously enough the contributions women
can make to this important field of theology. There has been no strategy to empower women to
become qualified in this field and therefore the non-existence of women theological ethicists is no
surprise. This is indeed a shame that after so many decades of work in theology, India still paints
such a dismal picture. I am therefore grateful to the editors that they have asked me to contribute
to this volume being brought out to honor K.C. Abraham. On a personal note, I am very happy to
write because we as a family have much to thank Abraham for - a man who as a pastor to us lived
out the principles that he teaches as a theological ethicist. We have known him for many years
now, and recognize the important contributions he is making to theological thought and education,
in India and globally.
I have heard Dr. Abraham speak at innumerable gatherings and have read a lot of what he has
written and I have been struck by the methodology he uses to link faith to the struggles for life in
our societies. His starting point is of course the context of our world today and the many dangers
it poses to the life of millions in our world. More recently, the rapid globalization of the world
economy and the challenge that the market is posing to the quality of life, has been a central
concern to him. Within this broad spectrum of concerns, it is important to note that he is
increasingly paying special attention to our ethical responsibility to creation. He has from the
earliest stages of his theological work emphasized the need and responsibility of Christians to get
immersed into social action and movements as a theological imperative for our times. In a context
where millions in our world are either excluded or have been rendered invisible by callous and
inhuman policies and actions of international financial institutions and agencies (which are
supposedly there to regulate trade and create the space for the powerless), to talk of ethical
engagement of Christians in struggle for life, is more urgent now than ever before. I am therefore
grateful to Dr. Abraham for his contributions to liberation theology which attempts to shape such
a commitment of Christians everywhere.

164
In my paper, I attempt to open a dialogue on another area of ethical and moral engagement, which
receives scant attention in India. Increasingly, women theologians in Asia, Africa and Latin
America are pointing out that well-being or the quality of life has another very important
dimension this is the way in which we relate to our bodies and talk of sexuality. Much of the
violence women experience in the world is centered around the physical abuse and control of our
bodies as women and the denial of basic rights over one’s own sexuality and sexual choice. Most
Indian cultures are inherently patriarchal and have viewed women as the property of men and
therefore she has very little control over what happens to her body. We live in cultures in India
which have permitted the most outrageous traditional practices, with no regard for what this does
to the innermost psyche of individual women and to their communities.
There are two reasons why it is important for women to get more actively engaged in ethical
discourse in India, as in all parts of the world. The primary reason for this is that it is often women
who find themselves in the midst of almost daily ethical and moral choices that they are called to
make in their own lives but also in the life of their families or communities. Women are critical in
molding the ethical consciousness of families -- to deal with the pressure of modern life and the
demands it makes, on particularly the young, to break out of the norm and to experiment with life.
Women are called to often make moral choice about their own bodies, their relationships as well
as their lifestyles. It is matters related to women’s sexuality and sexual choice that cause the
greatest unease in the church -- and therefore the inability of the church to provide a powerful
moral condemnation of the violence women experience.
In 1988, the World Council of Churches launched the Ecumenical Decade of the Churches in
Solidarity with Women. At the mid-point of the Decade, the WCC initiated a project of ecumenical
Team Visits - Living Letters - to every member church, for the first time in its history on a single
major ecumenical theme. This project is almost complete. The purpose was to reflect with the
churches on how far they have come in their solidarity with women, and with them to identify the
obstacles that stand in the way of change so that more creative and intentional plans can be set in
place for the remaining years of the Decade and beyond. A small group of women and men, a
Readers Group, has been analyzing the reports received from the teams. Yes, the WCC has been
moving along in its history of standing in solidarity with women but the question is whether the
churches are moving along in this history too! The anger, the frustration, the pain and agony. . .
but also the extraordinary love and patient endurance and perseverance of women in the churches
is very evident. The Church on the other hand, has neither responded to the pain and outrage of
women, nor has it recognized this immense love women have for the Church. The Church is
steadily "leaving women behind".
What we discover through the Team Visits is that now steps are being taken by many churches to
"accommodate" the presence and participation of women. This indeed is not what women yearn
for. The Decade process has made it clear that to most women, it is not those small concessions
that the churches offer that really matter. The question being asked by women is whether the
Decade will invite "the churches and the ecumenical movement to discover and nurture an enriched
understanding of the very nature and mission of the church . . . growing from and supporting a
new community, embodying the visions of all persons . . . ," as the Readers Group describe it in
their interim report. They add, "Women are calling for the strengthening of the community of
women and men in a way that will lead to fundamentally new understanding of ecclesiology."

165
How can the churches meet and dialogue on their brave commitments to koinonia and the unity
they seek, without facing up to the fragmentation of the community of women and men? How will
visible unity ever be reached as long as there is this brokenness within each of our churches and
societies? The Readers Group challenges the WCC to relook at its criteria for membership and the
way in which it calls on the churches to dialogue. Such claims do indeed sound presumptuous --
but is it not true that at the heart of a new community of women and men in the church lies that
basic question of how we live in faith and faithfulness so that we will truly reflect in our life that
we are indeed the Church of Jesus Christ?
The Team Visits have opened our eyes to the extent of violence that women experience and the
resounding silence of the Church or indeed its theological legitimization of the violence. I share
some images and I ask -- how can we claim discipleship when we as the Church refuse to face up
to the moral and ethical challenges that images, such as these described below, evoke?
The image of a woman who is battered for 20 years by her clergyman husband and who would
forgive him, "because the Bible tells her to," the image of a young mother and father who cannot
understand why their three-year-old daughter was sexually abused in the day care center to which
they had entrusted her each morning; the image of a woman who was sacked from the women’s
program of her church because she refused to comply to the request of the president of the church
that she and the other women vote for him in his election campaign; the image of a 14-year-old
migrant domestic worker who faces the death sentence on trumped up charges, because she would
not give in to the sexual demands of her employer; the image of a male priest of a church saying
that every time he beats his wife she should thank him, because she is one step closer to salvation;
or the priest who would make sexual advances on a woman who out of vulnerability turns to the
church for pastoral comfort. . . these are but a glimpse of the many such images that are gathered
during the course of this Decade. The Ecumenical Decade is challenging the church not to ignore
this reality but to courageously speak out and stand in solidarity with women. How can the
churches not face up to their responsibility to hold each other mutually accountable for the violence
in their midst? How can we make statements about our evangelistic witness to issues of justice,
peace and the integrity of creation in the world, when even within the womb of the church, there
is no safety for women?
Even as I write this article, I have before my mind’s eye a letter I received recently from a woman
in Nigeria. She has both her Masters in Theology and a Masters in Education, and yet she writes:
"I am in a very difficult and life-threatening marital situation and it is imperative that my children
and I get to safety as soon as possible (before I become a statistic of domestic violence) " For her
the ethical choice is clear whether to live on in a farcical and dangerous relationship so as to serve
the demands made on her by society . . . or to protect herself and her children. Hers indeed is the
kind of moral choice which millions of women are being forced to take, increasingly.
To speak of the violence, we experience as women is not easy -- every encounter is surrounded by
the tears of women. We weep together, but we also reflect on the theological challenge to us as
women, to transcend our victimization and transform our pain into political power and action. It is
true that it is the very personal faith, a childlike spirituality that has sustained women who live in
contexts of violence . . . but we so easily see the inseparable link between our faith and our obedient
action in the world and demand a violence-free and safe world.

166
The second reason why women must get more engaged in this discourse is because they have
something radically new to offer -- a new way of understanding society, of human relationships
and even of being church. Women are speaking with a new voice, a courageous voice which
challenges many traditional assumptions -- the most important is the challenge to the notion that
women are required, by tradition and by the biblical heritage, to submit to all forms of inhuman
treatment. The courageous work that women in theology do in all parts of the world, to deconstruct
basic theological and reconstruct more inclusive and life affirming principles, is an example of
this.
To Be or Not to Be: To Live for the Common Good
I have opted to use this as an ethical yardstick, because often women, or rather the women’s
movement in India, has been targeted and blamed for the breaking up of the family unit. I often
have it said to me, when I speak in gatherings, that women always only speak of negative images,
never affirming what is positive and good in our lives -- but is there not a basis on which women
are forced to speak out, or is silence preferred? In the Indian psyche, the sanctity of the family is
to be maintained at all costs for the common good, even if it requires a woman to live in daily
violence, even in jeopardy for her life. It is disheartening to see how the work of a core of
committed women in the women’s movement in India is so often trivialized or rejected. The work
they do to avoid perpetuating or acquiescing in the oppression of women but rather to contribute,
whenever possible, to the further understanding of dissolution of sexual inequality, has often been
branded and labeled as "Western" and therefore rejected as not being related to the India’s "cultural
ethos." But then, it is out of a commitment to "the common good" that the women’s movement in
India is to be weighed. It must be recognized for what it is: ". . . the women’s movement represents,
not merely an oppositional force fuelled by anger, a rather negative reaction to oppression, but the
development of a distinctive female culture, a positive creative force inspiring men and women
alike," write Johanna Liddle and Rama Joshi.1
In fact, I will boldly claim that the women’s movement has at its central binding force a
commitment to "the common good." Perhaps the most striking example of this truth is what
happened in Beijing in September of 1995. Over 30,000 women gathered in the holiday town of
Huairou, some 60 km. from Beijing, for the parallel NGO gathering of the IV UN World
Conference on Women, Peace and Development. They came from all parts of the world, they came
with their commitment and courage, they came with their multitude of concerns and voices but
they came to meet each other, to share their stories of struggle and pain. It was clear that the women
gathered often entered the struggle from different vantage points, they did not always agree with
all that was spoken, but what could not be ignored was that there were some common issues that
did draw them together -- it was not accidental or designed that over one-third of the 4,000
workshops by different women’s groups, from all regions of the world, focuses on the issue of
violence against women -- some of the best being organized by Indian women, What was at the
heart of Huairou was the commitment of the women present to draw energy and support from each
other -- it was a consciousness that they were doing it all "for the common good." Women have
through the centuries been devoted to ending all forms of violence. This commitment extends
beyond what happens to individual women, it is built on the determination that war, poverty and
cultural and social practices are the forms of violence that destroy the fabric of families and
societies.

167
However, Asian women draw attention to the fact that the family in Asia is a source of control of
women:
The family, along with the state today, has sought to control women through rigid definitions of
sexuality and appropriate for itself reproductive rights and control over her body; violence and
subjugation have been woven into institutionalized forms of religion whose patriarchal tenets have
marginalized and domesticated the female and the feminine, shackling her and legitimizing
violence against her. Social and legal codes of justice have either been blind to crimes against
women like wife-battering and prostitution that have in fact received tacit social approval; or have
seen violations like sexual assault and rape as acts of individual aberration and deviance and have
even rendered some totally invisible, as in the case of homophobia. 2
All this is in fact what does breaks the family unit. There is the constant demand on a woman to
give up everything, most of all her dignity, even if this demands submissiveness and silence in the
face of outrageous and inhuman treatment, so as to serve the common good. There are in India
proverbs, teachings and cultural norms which are taught to a woman from childhood, preparing
her for such a life of hardship and injustice. There is for instance the old Hindi saying that
accompanies a woman from the family of her birth into that of her marriage: "A woman is like
spit, once spat out she cannot be taken back in." She is expected to give up her identity, her dignity,
and in cases even her name for "the common good." She cannot "be taken back" even when she
tries to warn her family that her life is in danger. The almost daily newspapers stories of "accidental
deaths" of women in their homes reveals the consequence of our silence.
One way by which the control has been achieved is by privatizing violence against women into
the domestic realm. Corrine Kumar. writes:
And in the traditional human rights discourse there is no place for women. Human rights was born
of a specific world view which endorsed the relegation of women to the private domain. The
privatization of crimes and violence and crimes as a domestic issue made these violations invisible,
denying them their public face and any political significance or social reparation. The assumptions
of gender intricately woven into the international covenants on human rights articulated in 1948
legitimated the denigration of women. The founding fathers of the liberal tradition from Hegel to
Rousseau understood the feminine as woman’s biological nature, lack of political consciousness,
emotionality, irrationality, all of which made her a threat to public life and citizenship. Women
could contribute by rearing citizens, but not by being citizens. Liberalism and the politics of the
nation-state sought to make men good citizens and women good private persons."
God and Christ: "Christ died for you on the Cross, why can’t you bear some suffering too?",
"Your husband is your cross . . . you have to carry whatever comes, silently." "Christ forgave . . .
you must also forgive . . . such statements are no figments of my imagination -- they are words of
advice given by clergy, or in other words, the Church, to women who finally opt to seek refuge in
the Church when the daily violence becomes unbearable or dangerous. This indeed is what makes
the discussion on violence so difficult to deal with -- the fact that it is a theological problem and
that the violence is so often legitimized by religious practices and teachings -- including that of the
Church. The silence is rooted in these theological convictions and teachings. The doctrine of
forgiveness, the doctrine of the Cross as a symbol of redemption, the myths and the mysteries
surrounding the human body and human sexuality, the identification of sin and temptation with
femaleness, the Image of God, the mind/body dualism that devalues female life, the depreciation

168
of creation . . . these are some of the problems Christianity poses, giving subtle sanction to the
violence women experience. Sometimes the church tends to engage in an unqualified affirmation
of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the larger community -- the common good -- without
taking into consideration who sacrifices what, for whom and within what kind of relationships.
The Church’s reluctance to deal with the issue of human sexuality is at the heart of the problem.
All religious traditions have tended to convey warped images of sexuality, providing quasi-divine
legitimization for rape and abuse of women’s bodies. It is therefore easier to discuss, for example,
the economic and political roots of prostitution than the reason why men seek out prostitutes. The
Church would rather take a moralistic stand on the women involved in prostitution, blaming them
for their lack of a moral code of behavior than challenge the men to examine their depraved
sexuality. Joy Bussert writes: "Christian theologians like Luther projected ‘uncontrolled sexuality’
and thus responsibility for the fall, onto women, as the object of sexuality, since sexuality appears
to be what they feared most in themselves."4
To achieve this order of power women had to be kept in control in the private sphere, with rituals,
religious practices, customs and traditions, defining "the common good" from a particular vantage
point which will render women invisible. What is needed is a radical reclaiming of what we mean
by the common good. Keep silent and listen . . . the women of India and of the world are reclaiming
their right to do just this, out of their deep commitment to preserve life.
Ecclesiology and Ethics: A Way to Reconstruct Anew Authority and Power?
I understand the new work on ecclesiology and ethics which the World Council of Churches has
launched to be a way to find new ethical principles to interpret the very nature and being of the
Church. Of course, throughout Church history there have been efforts to discover the connections
between ecclesiology and ethics. The entry point into the debate has varied, but there has always
been an awareness in the Church that the search for visible unity and the communion the churches
seek, is connected inextricably with the authority with which the Church interprets and lives up to
its traditions, but also the way in which we act as Christians in the world. In fact it is in servanthood
to Christ that the Church discovers its basis and this is what formulates its ethical and moral
authority in the world. The Ronde Consultation on "Costly Unity," which drew together the work
on ecclesiology and ethics put it this way: "the Church not only has, but is, a social ethic,
a koinonia ethic.”
Such an affirmation, of course gives to the Church the responsibility to engage in the moral
formation of its community -- it is to "help shape both character and particular moral choices and
action people take, singly and together. In doing so, they teach and embody virtues, values,
obligations and moral visions."
But then, new questions have been raised in recent times about this authority of the Church by
what many see as the complicity of the churches in political conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, in
Rwanda and Burundi, in South Africa and in Northern Ireland. In all the situations cited, a section
of the Church was in itself directly involved in provoking and participating in the violence -- often
giving theological legitimization for the conflicts or for the oppression of "the other." Though
slightly different in context, one could add an event that must not be forgotten: the silence of the
Indian church during the Emergency period (1975-1977) even though everyone knew of all the
atrocities committed by the Indira Gandhi regime. But then, equally shameful was the protest

169
lodged by the officers of the NCCI, against WCC for having condemned emergencies. All this has
led to an understanding that for the Church:
Some of the presuppositions which have been taken for granted in the past are beginning to
crumble. Regarding the Church and its self-understanding, the question is no longer simply when
and by what authority the Church (as distinct from the individual Christian) should take a stance
on ethical issues. Instead the focus is on what it means to be the Church in face of the fundamental
ethical challenges of our time or, to put it differently, how church fellowship can be maintained in
face of ethical conflicts. It is no longer possible to assume the traditional theological bases of the
understanding of the church as given and concentrate solely on the question of the legitimate
connection between ecclesiology and ethics. The ethical debates surrounding the struggle against
racism, the relationship of rich and poor and the Christian witness to peace have opened up a new
perception of the reality of the Church, which needs to be worked through ecclesiologically. 10
Unfortunately, as women, we have found it difficult to persuade the churches and the ecumenical
movement that the issue of violence against women is as much an issue of ecclesiology as is
complicity in political conflicts, because women have been silent for too long and the churches
too have been complicit by their often silence, but also by their sometimes legitimization of the
violence theologically. The Decade has pointed this out repeatedly to the churches-first that the
veneer of silence with which violence against women is dealt with is a moral failure of the Church
and secondly that outrageous biblical and theological legitimizations of violence, calling into
question the authority and power of the church, as a moral community. In a recent discussion on
"impunity" against the former corrupt political regime in Argentina, individual after individual
present spoke out in shame against their silence in the face of oppression -- each one felt that they
had succumbed to the fear of repression, maybe of the possibility of "disappearance" -- but now
they recognized that their silence had sanctioned so much of the violence.
This had meant that many corrupt leaders who had been accused of crimes against humanity escape
without being charged, tried and punished for criminal acts committed, with official sanction, in
times of war of dictatorial rule. "Impunity can happen by default -- the deliberate lack of action at
all."11 Suddenly, in the midst of that litany of voices from various people, a woman spoke up. She
was middle-class and smartly attired. She spoke of the many years of violence she had experienced
in her home in the hands of her husband and her shame at the silence that she had decided to
maintain. She recognized her submissiveness as granting impunity to the perpetrator of the
violence against women -- perhaps her only option is to get away from that abusive and life-
threatening relationship. Does this not challenge the churches and the ecumenical movement to
respond to the issue of violence against women as an ecclesiological concern, as serious and as
vital as are other issues of moral engagement to which the Church is challenged?
To continue Konrad Raiser’s analysis of the new debate, all of which comes alive, if we would
only look at violence against women in the same framework. He writes, "The radicalizing of these
questions becomes especially clear if we take seriously that the scope of ethical responsibility is
no longer confined to life in personal relations or in social structures. What is at stake is the
preservation of the very foundations of life itself."12 He is of course referring here to our
inhumanity to all creation, but then the question I ask is whether such an enquiry can ignore the
fact that for women living in unsafe environments it is life itself that is constantly at threat. Added
are the new forms of violence being heaped on women by the colonizing of our wombs by bio-

170
technology and other scientific methodology, controlling the reproductive choices and capacities
of women -- threatening the "very foundations of life itself."
The Voice of Hope from the Margins from the Excluded
Women have found ways to deal with the violence. They have moved away from their
victimization into recovering a sense of their identity and integrity. Out of such a commitment to
discover the sources of their power, women have been able to be creative in the conceptualization
of new forms of community and relationship. Corrine Kumar raises this in the form of a series of
questions which are the challenges that women pose to each other and to the Church:
The patriarchal ethic has only violent answers. We need a radically new ethic, another vision of
the world. Can we women who know the sacredness of life return the spiritual to the material? Can
we rediscover the feminine in the increasingly violent male ethos of civilizations? Can we bring
back the sacred to the earth? It is not difficult to see that we are at the end of an epoch. Can we
find new words, seek new ways, create new possibilities out of the material and human spirit to
transform the existing exploitative social order and discern the great human potential? 13
Corrine speaks Out of a "secular" consciousness of the women’s movement which increasingly
seeks the "sacred," the "spiritual." The feminist theological movement in all regions of the world
attempts to discover a theological response to these "secular" questions. It begins where women in
theology attempt to deconstruct basic ethical principles such as "the common good" and "the
question of moral power and authority," but from there it moves to the creative impulses we see
around us, as women in faith and faithfulness reconstruct the future image and face of the Church
as a "community of Christ, bought with a price, where everyone is welcome," 14 as Letty Russell
describes it. Her image of the Church in the Round -- of round table talk and of leadership in the
round is an exciting image of the church inclusive and open, welcoming, hospitable, comforting,
prophetic and visibly present in the struggles for justice and life. Indeed, she aptly sums up what
women are saying. The ecclesial reality of the Church is intricately interwoven with its life as a
moral community -- it has to constantly test its authority to be the moral voice in the world against
its ability to respond with courage and conviction to the voices of the excluded, the voices from
the margins. The Decade has gathered together the voices of women globally -- it is now the
responsibility of the Church and of the ecumenical movement to stop and listen.

GABRIELE DIETRICH

Gabriele Dietrich (born 1943) is a Sociology Professor at the Tamil Nadu Theological
Seminary, Madurai, affiliated to the nation's first University, the Senate of Serampore College
(University). Dietrich grew up in Germany during the post-Second World War period in a
disarrayed atmosphere. In various stages of her study life, Dietrich went through the Universities
of Marburg, Muenster and Heidelberg. She had done her research at the Free University of
Berlin on Aztec religion. Dietrich first came to India in 1971 as a Researcher to the Christian
Institute of Study of Religion and Society (CISRS), Bangalore during the Directorship of M. M.
Thomas. After an extended stint with the CISRS, she left for Germany in 1973. On invitation from
the Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary in 1975, she returned to India to take up a teaching a Dalit

171
Dalit struggles
Dr. Dietrich gravitated towards Dalit struggles intuitively. She worked for two years in
Kizhvenmani, where Dalits were burnt in 1968 in a hut where they took refuge during a wage
dispute with a violent landlord. She feels Dalit and Adivasi struggles are most crucial in times of
globalization to protest the dominant development paradigm.
“Organization building of workers in the informal sector is very important because that's where
their livelihood is.,” she stresses. From farm workers, tobacco workers, fisherfolk and construction
laborer’s to women activists, she has put her stamp on every movement radiating an uncomplicated
spirit of affability.
As national convener of the National Alliance of People's Movements, Dr. Dietrich feels the good
thing about the movement led by Medha Patkar is that different streams of socialism, Marxism,
Ambedkarism and Gandhism are now coming together for dialogue and mutual understanding. “It
is time everybody collectively has a better grasp of the reality we live in. Or else, there will be a
war over everything from water to power and food to roads.”
Women s Movement and Religion
Women's Movement and Religion Gabriele Dietrich During the International Women's Decade,
the question of women and religion did not come to the forefront much. The main emphasis was
on women's deteriorating economic situation, declining work opportunities, victimization due to
technological modernization, self-help through sell employment schemes and on sexual and other
violence against women, like rape, wife beating, dowry deaths and the like. Attention was also
paid to women's health situation, family planning schemes, the effects of certain contraceptives
like lUDs, Depo- provera, and NET-EN, etc. This does not come as a surprise since patriarchy in
the feminist debate has been understood as exploitation of a woman's labor, sexuality and fertility.
It is therefore only logical that primary attention should go to the economic aspects and to the
actual physical subjugation of women. The only aspect where religion has come into the picture is
the demand for a secular family code which has been raised on and off and short of this, battles
are today fought for Muslim women's rights to maintenance, for the right of Christian women to
get a divorce, against extremes of discrimination in inheritance rights like the Travancore Christian
Succession Act.
Eco-feminism as a Paradigm Shift in Theology
Christian theology emerges in a particular context, by taking people's experience as a starting
point. Most of the theologies emerged over the years failed to start from reflecting a particular
contextual reality and address people's problems collectively. Western theology is full of
patriarchal domination over women and nature. Indian Christian theology too, though taking
Indian images, symbols, languages, ignored the problems of women and nature. Feminist theology,
one of the variants of liberation theology, though starting from women's experience, does not
necessarily concern itself with nature. Very few theologians have dealt with ecological problems
from a feminist perspective Dalit theology, which is an Indian liberation theology tends to
exclusively focus on the problem of casteism and its victims. The interest of Dalit movements in
ecological problems begins to emerge. Gabriele Dietrich feels that Dalit women are more directly
dependently the environment as they have no access to property. Many Dalits were traditionally
landless. Though, Dalit theology reflects these basic concerns of Dalits and tries to find common
ground with tribal theology, which articulates the concerns of tribal people in India who live with,

172
and by nature, it is crucial to note that ecological issue is now in the beginning stage of its
theological reflection. We cannot, therefore avoid a felt-need of focusing on a particular context
in formulating a liberative praxis oriented Indian Christian eco-feminist theology. This theology
will challenge the traditional Christian theologies. As the problems of women and nature differ
from place to place and time to time, eco-feminism must become a local expression. In India where
the Dalit and tribal women are thrice oppressed, eco-feminism must emerge as a bold theological
expression to challenge all forms of oppression. It emerges in a context in which they suffer,
struggle and cry to find out where God is. In this struggle, they feel that a father God or a brother
God or a male God or a God who has been pictured as taking care of humans cannot help. But a
God who understands and participate in people's struggles collectively can be worthy of worship.

PRASANA KUMARI

The Rev. Dr. Prasanna Kumari Samuel died on March 16 of cardiac arrest at the Apollo Hospital
in Chennai, India. She was a Ph.D. student at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
scheduled to graduate in May 2006. Dr. Kumari Samuel was an internationally respected church
leader who was serving as vice president of the National Council of Churches in India at the time
of her death. She was a professor of New Testament and head of the Department of Women's
Studies at Gurukul Theological Seminary in Chennai, India. A memorial service will be held at
LSTC on April 9. Kumari Samuel was the first Lutheran woman to be ordained in India and the
first woman to serve as the executive secretary of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India.
Her contributions to the church extended around the globe when she served as vice president of
the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) from 1997-2003.
Kumari Samuel's published works include Abortion: The Agony and Aftermath; A Reader in
Feminist Theology; Gender in Contemporary India; Feminist Theology: Perspectives and
Praxis; and Women in Church and Society: Essays in Honor of Florence Robinson. The title
of her doctoral dissertation is Dalit Women's Experience: A Theological Imperative for
Constructing Indian Feminist Theology. She was awarded a doctor of divinity degree, honoris
causa, by the Academy of Ecumenical Indian Theology and Church Administration in Chennai,
India.

EVANGELINE ANDERSON RAJKUMAR

Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar is a feminist activist ecumenical theologian who taught at

Serampore College, Serampore (1990-1994) the United Theological College, Bangalore, (1999-
2014). Evangeline Anderson Rajkumar was the first permanent woman faculty to serve as faculty
in the Theology Department of the renowned Serampore College, founded by William Carey when
he came to India in 1792. She was the first Lutheran Woman to serve as first Vice President of the
United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India in 2006. She comes from a family of theologians
- about 17 of them, her father, all eight siblings, and seven of the eight who married into the family.
Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar served as the President of the Association of Theologically
Trained Women of India (ATTWI) and is a sought-after resource person on Body Theology.

173
A Feminist Christology
The world has witnessed the destructive potentiality of violence in extreme forms over the last few
years: violence in name of religion, faith, theology, culture, ideology (even in the name of peace!)
On the one hand, we have hegemonic powers that sharpen their tools, ammunition and technology
against the "enemies" who are used essentially as guinea pigs. That it is for gaining the identity as
"Global police," extending the presence of "Global Empire," was proved beyond doubt when the
decision to attack Iraq came despite the loudest forms of protest from all parts of the globe. A "War
against Terrorism" was waged in a most terrorizing way and a threat of similar wars was unleashed
against those countries that dared to challenge the power of the global empire. On the other hand,
we have also seen an unprecedented consolidation of people and movements for peace who had
the courage and faith to believe in the possibility of Peace. Violence against women, against
creation and the marginalized of the earth continues in the name of development and globalization.
It is against this backdrop of violence that I would like to raise the following questions: How can
Christology challenge our faith in a violence-ridden context? What will be the nature, method,
source and content of such a Christology? What are the implications for the church in terms of
envisioning its task, identity, mission and renewal in the light of such a Christology?
Method of Approach
Experiences of women are the crucible for feminist theologizing. In order to arrive at a relevant
and credible Christology in context, once again, I have chosen to reflect critically on the
experiences of two women who "represent" several ideological constructs. The first is a testimony
shared by Kausar Bano´s husband, narrating the violence inflicted on his wife, who was a victim
of communal violence in Gujarat, in February 2002. The second narrative is that of a "Black"
"woman" whose trajectory in "life-history of the slaves" has seen most bitter moments of pain and
suffering. Besides the experiences of these two women, I have also chosen a third narrative which
is the experience of Jesus on his way to the Cross to experience a brutal form of violence and
capital punishment at the hands of the powers. These three narratives are then analyzed separately
against the respective socio-political backdrop and critically reflected upon before embarking upon
a new basis for a Feminist Christology.
Nameless Black Woman
"They bound her ankles together and by them hanged her to a tree. Gasoline and motor oil were
thrown upon her dangling clothes; a match wrapped her in sudden flames. Mocking ribald laughter
from her tormentors answered the helpless woman´s screams of pain and terror. The clothes burned
crisply, toasted body, in which unfortunately life lingered; a man stepped toward the woman and
with his knife, ripped open the abdomen in a crude caesarian operation. Out tumbled the
prematurely born child. Two feeble cries it gave and received for answer, the heel of a stalwart
man, as life was ground out of the tiny form."
"Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor´s headquarters and they gathered
the whole cohort around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him and after twisting
some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before
him and mocked him saying, "Hail King of the Jews!" They spat on him and took the reed and
struck him on the head. After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and his own clothes on
him. Then they led him away to crucify him. As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene
named Simon, they compelled this man to carry his Cross. And when they came to a place called

174
Golgotha, they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not
drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting
lots, then they sat down there and kept watch over him. Over his head, they put the charge against
him, which read, ´This is Jesus the King of the Jews.

MONICA MELANCHTHON

Monica Melanchthon teaches Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the Pilgrim Theological College,
University of Divinity, Melbourne, Australia. She is the author of, "Protect me from those who are
violent!" – Psalm 140: A Cry for Justice, A Song of Hope" in Singing the Songs of the Lord in
Foreign lands: Psalms in Contemporary Lutheran Interpretation, LWF Documentation Series
(59/2014) and, "Engaging Women’s Experiences in the Struggle for Justice, Dignity, and
Humanity: Hebrew Bible Readings by South Asian Women" in With the Eyes of a Woman: A
Retrospective of Feminist Contextual Readings of the Hebrew Bible. Monica has strong
commitments to the marginalized, particularly, women and Dalits. She has contributed toward
developing Dalit and Indian Feminist hermeneutics and theologies, and interpretation of Biblical
texts drawing on insights from the social biographies of these communities, their perspectives and
their lived experiences. Her approach is therefore contextual, inter disciplinary and liberational.
Her research interests include cultural and literary studies, reception histories, epistemologies,
ecological readings, feminist hermeneutics and interpretations.
Dalit Consciousness and with a Perspective of Liberation
The overarching perspective adopted by Dalit interpreters of the Bible is one of liberation. It is a
perspective that is influenced by Dalit consciousness, a mind-set influenced not only by the Dalit
experience of suffering and rejection but also of overcoming the same. The term "Dalit" is a result
of this new consciousness and determination. The name bears witness to their awakening and their
awareness of subjugation and of their oppressors. It affirms their determination to annihilate
slavery, both internal and external, and their visions for an egalitarian, casteless society. It asserts
that their new identity is shaped by shared visions and formed as a counter to imposed oppressive
identities. This desire to surmount repression makes their experience a legitimate and creative
theological resource. It is within such experience that the affirmation of God's liberating power
also takes place. A. P. Nirmal, a pioneering Dalit theologian, compares the Dalit struggle for
liberation with that of the slaves in Egypt by identifying five important features of their struggle
as mentioned in the Deuteronomic creed (Deut 26: 5-12). These are the affirmation of one's roots,
collective struggle, the experience of suffering and of liberation, and the vision of liberation and
of restoration. These features are present in the historic struggle of the Dalits and are the
ingredients that contribute to the formation of Dalit consciousness. Such consciousness is a
prerequisite for reading and interpreting the text for Dalit liberation. Dalit readings of Scripture
are therefore not unbiased. They are readings that are committed to the cause of justice and
wholistic life for all people and for the entire earth. Hence, the ultimate goal of Dalit readings is
to instill in the community the impetus to strive for political and social liberation and to provide
the community with possible blueprints for action towards liberation, a new identity, and fullness
of life. Therefore, the Dalit reading of the text plays a major part in the social, cultural, and political
mobilization of Dalit communities.

175
The caste system has resulted in a situation that is characterized by discrimination and subjugation
of a number of Dalit communities. But with increasing awareness among these communities and
the resistance that is building up, there is also increasing suspicion, conflict, and violence in
society. Dalit readings of the Bible, which begin with a contextual analysis, identify these caste
tensions that exist in society, which enable them to identify similar tensions in the text and the
parties that are thereby affected. In many of Devasahayam's Bible studies, the description of the
context highlights also the conflicts in society between those with power and the subjugated. This
is followed by the identification of similar tensions between groups namely, the powerful and the
powerless in the text. Against this background of conflict, Devasahayam sees God as one who
always takes the side of the oppressed and works for their liberation. Thus, to Devasahayam, the
text, as well as the context, is the site where the battle between the oppressed and the oppressor is
played out. In the process of reading the text, the Dalit reader notes how God acts on behalf of the
oppressed; therefore, the message of the text is that God continues to do the same today.
Remembering is also an important part of the Dalit hermeneutical process. Dalits are a people
whose history has been suppressed, and the role of remembering enables them to reclaim their lost
identities. The process of remembering is aimed at remembering; it is a political act to unite
Christian Dalits and other Dalits.[33] In the face of a system that suppresses the process of
remembering common history and a common heritage, it serves to re-member this broken body.
The task of liberating the Dalits from a life of servitude is therefore comprised of mobilizing the
Dalits and equipping them with the social and theological motive to fight for freedom. It also
involves the remembering of Dalit communities and creating links of solidarity between Dalit
communities by appealing to their common experience of oppression and enabling them to
embrace their identities and their histories. It is to this end that Dalit readings of the Bible are
necessary and essential.
Creative Imagination and Performance
This tool becomes essential within a semi-literate or illiterate community, where oral narratives
take on primacy. Dalit readers use imagination to read the text because imagination enables the
interpreter to articulate alternative liberating interpretations that are not based on androcentric
dualisms and patriarchal functions of the text and gives voice to the voiceless. Storytelling and
role playing, the enactment of the biblical story, are alternative methods of reading the text by a
community that is largely illiterate. These methods are more popular among Dalit women than
men, for such a method, along with the hermeneutic of suspicion, enables women to release
themselves from androcentric interpretive processes. In the process of sharing stories and acting
those out, the Dalits become participants in the biblical story and not just recipients of it. This
creative process enables them to highlight certain aspects of the text that speak to them. It draws
the community into the experiences of the characters in the text as well as enables them to draw
parallels between their experience and the experience of the characters in the text. This process of
acting out the text empowers Dalit women, whom society has trained not to act or to act in certain
predefined ways.

176
LALRINAWMI RALTE
Lalrinawmi Ralte was born on 01/01/1957. Lalrinawmi Ralte lives in Watertown, MA; previous
city includes Cambridge MA. Other family members and associates include Betsy Silva, Virginia
Tashjian, Christine Hamilton, Hilda Campbell and Brandon Muir. Lalrinawmi Ralte is also
known as ‘Rini’ is teaching in the Department of Women’s Studies and the Dean of Graduate
Studies at the United Theological College, Bangalore. She comes from the Presbyterian Church of
Mizoram.
Hermeneutics
Lalrinawmi Ralte stated in her article on Cultural Hermeneutics” that there is gender
discrimination as she was not allowed to express her feelings about the injustice done to her in the
Church. Mizo women are regular Church goers, yet the Church does not allow women for positions
authority and recognition but there is misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, for adultery a
woman had to sit facing walls in the Church of Samsuih village in Mizoram, in Lungkawlh village
bamboos were used to divide men and women in worship singing. Therefore re-reading of the
Bible is required from cultural hermeneutical perspective for a transformation, equality and justice
in the society.
The World as the Body of God Ecofeminist Theological Discourse with special reference to
Tribal Women in India
Violence against women is on the rise every day and globalization has contributed a great deal
towards violence. Tensions arise every corners of India based on religion, caste, class and sex. It
is an emerging issue for the Indian Christians to address our theologies based on the contextual
reality, such as SEZ issues in Nandigram, farmers suicide, 340 kms walk on March for Justice by
Tribals,1 Noida serial killings of innocent girls, 2002 Gujarat killings and Human trafficking in all
forms in India. With humility and acknowledging the seriousness of the death dealing issues in our
context, however, I want to mention that this paper is an attempt to address one area of life
threatening that is the ecological crisis in India with a special focus on Mizo tribal women’s reality.
It aims to uplift the contributions of tribal women in the search of guardianship to ecological
concerns. This paper is an attempt to highlight the hypothesis of the pre-Christian and precolonial
cultural heritage of the Mizos had deep ecological content and therefore, it has relevance in today’s
situation of ecological crisis in Mizoram and beyond. In this work an attempt is made to recover
and interpret this worldview from a feminist perspective. Mizo social system was the male-
centered, patriarchal structure of village administration in Mizo society which bonded not only
with the missionary culture (which was also male-centered and patriarchal), but also with the
colonial and later the Indian State which introduced a male-centered, destructive Western
economic developmental concept. This led to rampant corruption and destruction of forest wealth.
A feminist perspective, however, comes close to the roots of Mizo culture as preserved by women.
However, as women have been prominent in trade, in promotion of monetary economy, their
cooperation with the capitalist economy needs to be looked at critically.
The feminist recovery of ecological elements in Mizo culture therefore needs to grapple with two
obstacles: The first hurdle is the strong devaluation of Mizo culture by the missionaries, which led
to severe cultural colonization. While at the level of the social structure community life remained
relatively intact, it was gradually taken over by the Church. Cultural colonization took place by
means of literacy enterprises and higher education. Social control took place through Church

177
discipline. The second hurdle is due to changes in the land holding system in agriculture and
especially in lifestyle. The material base for the ecological Mizo worldview, which was the land,
has thus been destroyed to a large extent. Keeping these obstacles in mind, the feminist recovery
of Mizo ecological contents will have to provide a major critique of the missionary endeavor, as
well as a critique of present-day development policies, promoted by the State and lifestyles of the
people. Alternatives need to be developed both theologically and materially, based on the present-
day interaction with what can be retrieved from Mizo pre-colonial heritage. The latter is a task
which implies a very comprehensive reorganization of society and therefore lies way beyond the
scope of this thesis. But some valid attempts made in that direction will be discussed. The
theological task can only be indicated in outline and will need to be implemented through a
transformative feminist paradigm within the churches. This transformative task can hopefully be
helped by the limited insights of this paper. The Mizos once lived in a subsistence economy based
on forest and jhum agriculture. They went through several changes in the socio-religious,
economic, political life, which is particularly evident in the ecological changes that have taken
place. Because these tremendous changes occurred in a short period of time, the Mizo subsistence
economy has been shaken. The economy of the state has become totally dependent on outside
forces. Socio-politically, development of social divisions and corruption has both taken root.
The main ecological problems are deforestation, erosion of soil, land becoming barren, scarcity of
water, change of weather, loss of wildlife and plant species. Other problems connected with
globalization and urbanization are pollution, congestion and loss of survival skills. The result is
emigration and loss of livelihoods. Due to the unique functioning of Mizo social structure, women
were deeply rooted in the forest economy and jhum cultivation, but were not politically represented
in the village councils. Thus, the decisions regarding conversion to Christianity, changes in land
holding and the type of agriculture practiced were introduced without consulting women. Men fell
in line due to existing social controls even though women had access to education. However,
women could not become ministers of the Church. Their influence in social life remained under
control. While women suffered severe losses due to destruction of forest and jhum, they remained
nevertheless resourceful due to a certain continuity of knowledge. Those who were educated
became more ‘empowered’ according to standards of modernity, but lost their continuity with
regard to the traditional knowledge systems.
This article is also an attempt of educated and non-educated women to reconnect with the
traditional knowledge system by recovering it from written and oral sources and reinterpreting the
same in the light of recent ecofeminist theological debates. In discussing the contributions of
ecofeminists to the ecological debate on the World as the Body of God, the choice of Sallie
McFague among many other ecofeminist thinkers in the West, is grounded on the one hand on her
metaphoric theology, which creates openings to the metaphor of God in Mizo culture before the
missionaries came. On the other hand, she has also addressed extremes of ecological devastation
implicit in nuclear technology, which, in a way made her an exponent of a radical critique of
destructive technocratic options in Western development.
Land as a metaphor for the ‘Body of God’
Sallie McFague uses language as a ‘model’ to make connections between God and creation. In
developing ‘models of God’ she uses a metaphorical language to emphasize relationality in
creation in terms of God’s body. Any credible theology today should take into account the nuclear

178
threat and should respond to it in a manner that enhances the value of life and creation. In order to
arrive at this ‘credible theology’ McFague suggests ‘credible theology’ as new metaphors for
understanding God and creation, which is the metaphor of ‘God’s body.’ This metaphor of God’s
body not only builds up relationality, inclusiveness and mutuality between the values of life and
creation, but also an interdependence of all life which helps to remember the nuclear threat as that
which ‘breaks’ this interdependence and threatens the world with total annihilation McFague treats
theology as metaphorical and conceptualizes creation as God’s body. For her the metaphor of
God’s body is in relation to God as mother, lover and friend. A metaphor for God’s body implies
intimate relationship between God and the world, which is appropriate to bring about an ecological
balance in creation in terms of interdependence. McFague’s argument draws on Teilhardian and
process theologies, but with an ecofeminist emphasis and direction. She argues that the Western
model of development or welfare is based on “treating the world and the earth as object to exploit
it,” thus, curtailing its resources for growth and welfare. It is notable how the Western idea of
development caught on to the nations around, encompassing the world and creation.
The use of Sallie McFague for a center of dialogue between Western ecofeminist and tribal
ecofeminist have been chosen for two reasons: Firstly, the work on theological metaphors is
relevant for a dialogue with the pre-Christian tradition in Mizoram and its flexible concepts of
divinity, which include female, male and neuter metaphors. McFague’s work on metaphors helps
to loosen up the fixed patriarchal concepts prevalent in the Mizo churches and to open up to the
cultural traditions which have been rendered invisible by the missionaries. Secondly, her writings
on re-thinking theological language in the nuclear age are giving insights into how Western
feminist theology has dealt with the extremes of a destructive development concept, which
contributes to the danger of wiping out all life on earth. The Mizo tribal position presents another
extreme of people depending for their livelihood on a forest economy which is now in danger of
being wiped out by ecological deterioration. While it is not possible to go back to a readymade
positive past of a more balanced ecosystem, a balance between nature and human needs is to be
found, which does not have a blue print in the traditional tribal culture, but which also cannot be
found in the agricultural and cultural practices imported by the missionaries and by government
policies.
The World as the Body of God
The interpretation of scripture, language, and metaphors to relate God and the world has been
challenged by liberation theologians, particularly the feminist liberation theologians. Many
Feminist theologians’ value and affirm a model of God that includes an emphasis on empowerment
and life-giving. In response to the current issues of ecological disturbance and the threat of nuclear
strikes. Kathryn Guthrie quotes McFague:
The evolutionary, ecological perspective, the holistic vision that is basic to a new sensibility,
renders untenable any understanding of the God-world relationship in which God is viewed as a
being externally related to the world as the power that totally controls it.
Kathryn Guthrie shares the experience of God as the inclusive and wide spectrum and especially
the experience of God as ‘externally related’ to the world. Therefore, Guthrie suggests the
appropriateness of the metaphorical models of God in terms of the Earth as God’s body, God as
mother, friend and lover. This model of God in metaphors clearly offers the inclusive nature of
God’s work in our lives, a source of live and compassion for a person in distress. Such a God as a

179
friend can offer empowerment towards hope for a future radically altering the past. This also offers
an intimacy that was not stressed in the past.5 McFague urges us to identify our experiences of
mothering, loving and befriending to be specially cognizant of our physical bodily base, to strip
these of their particularities, and try and test them by asking: what does each say about God’s love,
God’s activity and God’s ethic? In McFague’s work on God’s body, the link between the world as
God’s body and the three metaphors of God as Mother, Friend and Lover are clearly spelled out.
God as Mother
The physical acts of gestation, giving birth, and nurturing constitute the basis of the model of God
as Mother. God as mother reflects God’s relationship with human beings in terms of agapaeic love
which constitutes for McFague the motherly relationship that exists in the universe. God’s activity
is seen as that of a creator, and is concern for creation and its nurture. Theological categories such
as judgment are to be understood in terms of mother- creator’s love for the universe and so justice
as the ethic of God. Sin is termed as the inequitable distribution of goods and lack of generative
concern for the future with insensitivity to ecological concerns.6 The metaphor of God as mother
may not find its true acceptance theologically, as one has to contend with the problem of how God
now is the mother of her own body. The emphasis on relationality undercuts the threatening aspect
of the mother, who, in the experience of the dependent child, has power over life and death.

R.L HNUNI

R.L. Hnuni A senior members of the Baptist Church of Mizoram said R.L. Hnuni, would be the
first woman to bag the laurels of being adorned as pastor. She is now the principal of the Academy
of the Integrated Christian Studies in the capital city of Aizawl. A senior official of the Mizoram
church said Hnuni would be ceremoniously ushered to the post of pastor next month.The Baptist
Church of Mizoram is the apex body of Baptist churches and is the the second largest body of
Christian denominations in the state. It stands next to the Presbyterian Church in terms of
membership and church goers. Hnuni, who did advanced studies in Christianity from England,
was first nominated to the post by a pastoral committee of the BCM in its two-day conclave in
Aizawl this year. According to the census conducted in 2001, 90 per cent of Mizoram’s total 9.5
lakh population follows Christianity. Mizoram at present is a veritable beehive of different
Christian denominations with the Presbyterians topping the list. The Presbyterians have over 1,000
churches in the eight districts of Mizoram. The other important church denominations, apart from
the Presbyterians and Baptists, are Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecoastal Church and
the Salvation Army. Hnuni worked as a lecturer in the theology department of Eastern Theological
College in Jorhat from 1981 to 2001. She can also write and speak Assamese.
The entry of a woman pastor in the strictly patriarchal society of the Mizos is a notable event.
Though the Presbyterian Synod in Mizoram boasts of a large number of followers in the state, it
has still denied women their share of pastoral roles. Mizoram, however, has a good number of
woman theologians, who serve the church as teachers, coordinators in the women’s desk and in
sundry missionary activity. The Presbyterian Church has installed a separate women’s ministry in
the church forum. Two Welsh missionaries, Savidge and Lorrain, had introduced Christianity in
Mizoram, reaching the Lushai hills through Assam’s Cachar district in 1894 and since then the
Christian population has rapidly increased in the state.

180
Inter-faith
Interfaith Relations in the Context of Primal Women and Mission When we speak of interfaith
relations in the context of the hill tribals in NEI as a whole, it must be kept in mind that since the
NEI primal people, especially those in the hills, lived in isolation from the rest of India they had
very little or no contact with people from the major religions found in other parts of India.
Therefore, interfaith relations point more to the relations between Christians and non-Christians
who were animists. It was mainly among the primal people who were animists that Christian
mission was carried out. Those who embraced Hinduism and Islam, etc., were mainly the people
living in the plains of Assam though the Meiteis in Manipur were sanskritized and have identified
themselves as Hindus. It is only in the last few decades that Hindu fundamentalism has appeared
in Arunachal Pradesh where the Anti-conversion Bill was introduced. Since then, missionaries in
Arunachal have encountered problems relating to anti-Christian activities. Hinduism is a foreign
religion which came from outside to the primal community as such interfaith dialogue with Hindus
or Muslims or Buddhists was not a necessity. That problem of anti-Christian sentiments comes
from outside and not so much from within, except when the local people were instigated by Hindu
extremists’ groups. Due to these instigations from external forces, a cultural renewal movement
that began in the 1960s was correlated with anti-Christian activities. This development contributed
to the persecution of Christians which intensified in the 1970s. Churches reported numerous
kidnappings and torture of Christians, the dispossession of their belongings, and the burning of
their houses.
Interfaith Relations and Primal Women
Interfaith relations in the context of primal women in NEI may be viewed from a historical and
modern perspective.
The Historical Perspective
In the past women’s interfaith relations with people of other faiths was quite limited for the reasons
mentioned above as well as due to their limited role and status in the family and society. In the
absence of written record and without empirical research, it is difficult to comment on the manner
in which primal women helped build relationships between Christians and non-Christians
(animists) in the overall mission endeavor. However, it is the general understanding that women
normally could relate others better to non-Christians than their male counterparts, and that they
were better at building friendships with people irrespective of whether they were Christians or
non-Christians. Among primal women there were also brave and courageous women who risked
their lives for the cause of their own people. For example, at the time that Christianity was
introduced in Mizoram, there was a queen called Ropuiliani whose daring act humbled the British
colonialists as she refused to conform to their demands and refused to submit herself and her people
to British authority. She was the only one among so many chiefs, who dared to stand up to the
cultural invasion that came with the territorial invasion by the British. While all the other chiefs,
when asked, submitted to the authority of the British soldiers, she refused to submit and keep her
integrity as Mizo queen who would not yield to the foreign invaders. She risked her life protecting
her people and religion to the extent of starving to death in 1895 in the Chittagong prison (in
present-day Bangladesh) where she was imprisoned, because she refused to eat anything offered
by the foreigners. She fulfilled her mission as a queen and protected her honour and that of her
people and her culture. Even today, she is known and remembered as a lady who would not submit

181
and yield to British colonizers and as the one who stood firm for what she believed to be right and
true. Her bravery and strong personality is an example of primal women in NEI. Mission requires
uncompromising people when necessary and when interfaith relations do not work, God’s mission
should be given priority After the advent of Christianity, women were compelled to live with
women who were animists by religion. Before Christianity, women did not play much role in
religion as the father was all-in all-in religion. After the advent of Christianity, women became
catalysts of its spread in the Church and society. This can be seen in the manner in which many
women became evangelists. Because of the need for evangelism and mission, many women
became evangelists and even ordained church elders in the Mizoram Baptist Church. It is
interesting to note that there was another Christian queen Lalkhumi, who had a great passion for
evangelism and she was able convert all her people to Christianity. We have the record of Siniboni,
a Khasi woman who worked very hard for the evangelization not only of the Khasi people, but
also among the Mizo people. She is called a Bible Woman. Like many other women evangelists,
she crossed cultural and regional boundaries and came into contact with other tribal groups and
was instrumental in bringing the Gospel message to the Mizos as well as other people. In Mizoram
alone there were at least 26 women evangelists called Bible Women, from both the Presbyterian
and Baptist church circles alone. It is good to note that among foreign missionaries who came to
NEI, women missionaries stand out prominently and they played an important role in evangelism.
3) Educated women are importance factor for evangelization. Christian women became models
for many non-Christian women. After getting an education they became teachers, nurses and
worked in different spheres of life, and this became a very important factor that drew other non-
Christian women to becoming Christians.
The Modern Perspective
A few areas where interfaith relations may be built up are mentioned:
1) Economic life: Economic life is the area in which women can develop interfaith relations. Tribal
women have been the backbone of a society’s economic life right from the primal period till today.
They engage themselves in various spheres of life through trading and marketing, and this is an
area where interfaith relations can be developed by women.
2) Business: Business is another area in which interfaith relations can be developed. Women today
are involved in carrying out different kinds of business and through this woman come in contact
with people of different faiths. Today women show that they are in no way inferior to their male
counterparts in this regard. In Mizoram particularly, Mizo women are the main persons who run
businesses, trade and travel to different corners in India and abroad for such purposes. It has also
become a means of evangelization in various mission fields. A woman named Villy for example,
runs a beauty parlour. She shares the Gospel message with many of the women who visit her
parlour.
3) Education: It was Mrs. Clark the pioneer missionary to Nagaland along with her husband who
first introduced education for boys and girls though initially parents refused to send their daughters
to school. There have been outstanding educated Naga women who have worked untiringly
towards the evangelization of their people. In Mizoram, Miss Chapman (Pi Zirtiri) played a
significant role in educating Mizo women. There were more women missionaries than men, and
they played significant roles in education, in evangelism and in health and sanitation. But as it is
often done in a patriarchal culture, history is silent about the role women have played in mission

182
history. Those whose names are mentioned and recorded are those who were really outstanding
figures. This is true in other parts of NEI in which there were many women who made outstanding
contributions and played great role in mission and evangelism. But most of the time their names
were forgotten or ignored. In most cases history is silent about many women and only a few women
have appeared in historical records. Because of the patriarchal cultural traditions and values which
dehumanized women, many daring and courageous women were not able to take up their role in
mission as they should have done. They were not allowed to receive an education as women were
discouraged from going to school. They were controlled by either their fathers or their husbands,
and were required to stay back at home to look after the household duties. In spite of their lower
status and the conditions they faced, some women still emerged as outstanding contributors in
mission and evangelism. Right from the primitive period till today, women struggle more with the
attitude of men than with people of other faiths so far as NEI is concerned. In spite of the low
regard given to them, women, who had the freedom to exercise their faith and passion for mission
became fruitful instruments of God. They were accepted as full-time missionaries and many
committed their lives to mission work even at the risk of losing partners or remaining unmarried.
Women converts could cross cultural boundaries and establish relationships with others and their
simplicity yet firmness and passion for evangelizing other people made them successful
missionaries in their own right even though they were not officially recognized as missionaries in
many cases. As they had easy access to others and were easily approachable, right from the
inception of Christianity among the tribal communities of NEI, primal women’s role and
contributions were significant in the mission work.

XIII. Dalit theology

A.P. NIRMAL
Arvind P. Nirmal, the founder of Dalit theology, denied any significance of Thomas’ concept of
salvation and humanization towards the development of Dalits. First Nirmal’s arguments are
presented and then they are discussed. His arguments are fourfold: Nirmal states, Thomas as a
non-Dalit cannot write Dalit theology as Dalitness is the criteria for Dalit theology. Nirmal took a
radical position which argues that only a Dalit can write Dalit theology, because Dalit theology
according to Nirmal is based on Dalits’ “pain-pathos” and Dalitness which are unique to the Dalits.
Contributions of Arvind P. Nirmal for the Development of Dalit Theology
Any breakthrough in theology is associated with its daring pioneers. When one talks about
Liberation theology, the man associated with the epoch is Gustavo Guttirez while when one studies
Black theology the name of James Cone as a pioneer stands unparalleled. Congruently when one
discusses about Dalit theology, Dr. A. P. Nirmal becomes synonymous to it. As we have seen there
are many contributors of Dalit Theology but the scope of this paper allows us only to look at the
contribution of A.P. Nirmal and to analyse his theological categories. One needs to keep in mind
that Dalit theology emerged on the basis of a need where the Indian Christian theology and the
emerging liberation theology seemed inadequate to counter the problems of the religiously
sanctioned practice of Caste. It is in such a context that one needs to place the works of A.P Nirmal.
The primary task of theology according to Nirmal, is to aid people; and the people who need to be
aided in the Indian context, as identified by him are the Dalits. Informed by the vision of the New

183
Man in Christ, he tried to be relevant in the Indian context by articulating the Dalit theology. Let
us now concentrate the premises and theological categories of Dalit theology according to A.P.
Nirmal.
a) Pathos, the Basis of Dalit Theology
Nirmal defined Dalit Theology as a theology by, for and of an oppressed people: it is a people’s
theology. In doing Dalit Theology he had taken the social and sociological dimensions seriously.
Unlike the classical Christian theology as the most adequate medium for communicating Christian
theological truths, Nirmal advocated the importance and the use of sociology. He said that Dalit
theology is more concerned with peoples and their life- life with all its absurdity, illogicality,
inconsistency and incoherence. Dalit theology serves the interests of Dalit people because they are
an oppressed people. It does this by empowering them in their liberation struggle.[10] Dalit
theology is based on views from the “bottom” and also from the “inside”. Dalit theological
affirmations are grounded in people’s experiences. It is a theology from below and therefore it is
more interested in the horizontal relations than in the vertical revelations. Nirmal contended
that pathos was the basis of Dalit theology. Dalit thelogy affirms the basic unity between thelogy
and practice, thought and action. All knowing is praxeological, but then it affirms that pathos is
prior to praxis. “To suffer is to know” and Nirmal asserts that at the heart of dalit people’s
experience is pathos or suffering. He contends that the dalits know God in and through their
suffering. So for a Dalit theology pain or pathos is the beginning of knowledge. It is in and through
this pathos that the sufferers know God. This is because the sufferer in and through his/her pathos
knows that God participates in human pathos.[11]
b) Dalit Theology and Methodological Exclusivism
Nirmal in outlining a Dalit theology calls for a methodological exclusivism. This does not mean
community exclusivism or that the Dalits must not be open to and receive help from all possible
sources. What he means is that all dominant theologies have a tendency to accommodate, include,
assimilate, and finally conquer other theologies. This is the danger that Dalit theology has to guard
against. Dalit theology is a counter theology and, in order to play the role of a counter theology,
Dalit theology must adopt a exclusivist stance and shut off the encroaching influences of dominant
theology. This methodological exclusivism, according to Nirmal, was considered necessary for
maintaining the distinctive identity of a Dalit theology.
c) Dalit Theology, a Theology of Identity
Nirmal was of the opinion that all people’s theologies are really theologies of identity. Dalit
theology, liberation theology, Black theology, etc., are all theologies which try to seek to express
the distinctive identities of these people. These are the people who are denied their distinctive
identities by their oppressors. In the case of the Dalits, historically, it was the Brahmins who
inflicted double injury on them. They subjugated the Dalits in order to subjugate their labor. They
denied them worshiping rights by using the exploitative doctrine of Karma samsarato make them
believe that their status as Dalits, was determined by their karma in their past lives.
While the oppressors’ theologies are imposed on the oppressed as normative everywhere, in India,
it is the Brahmanical theological tradition which imposed itself upon the Dalit Christian majority,
and therefore, the question of the distinctive identity of Dalit theology is inseparably linked with
the identity of the Dalit people. But then one may ask, how are oppressor’s theologies forced upon
the oppressed? Nirmal cites examples. He opined that the suppression of the holistic tribal vision

184
was done in the name of national integration and the mainstream culture. The subjugation of the
American Black theology by the theology developed by the Whites is another example to show
that the oppressors’ theologies functions as normative and that they suppress and deny identity to
the oppressed people.
d) Dalit Theology and History
Nirmal spoke about Dalit identity because the question of identity is the question of the concerned
people’s roots and their historical consciousness. History is important for Dalits. But the current
prevailing historiography is not their side because it demands historical sources, particularly
written sources of archaeological findings. The Dalit people have no written historical traditions.
Their histories are oral histories based on historical traditions. Dalits were a conquered people so
much so that their history and culture have been systematically destroyed by their conquerors. So
Nirmal has been appealing for a historical scholarship that is interested in Dalit issues and to accept
oral traditions as “alternative historical sources.” He suggested that family histories of Dalit be
attempted. He also said that the rituals, rites and festivals of Dalits also need to be researched. He
emphasises that Dalits and tribals are/were the original inhabitants of India and therefore their
history and culture are not onlt per- Aryan but also pre- Dravidian. So, his contribution for a new
historiography based on oral traditions is a significant source for formulating a Dalit theology.[13]
e) Dalit Theology and Liberative Vision
It is not enough to identify the pathos and rewrite the history of the Dalits. Nirmal underlined that
it is important to see a transforming liberative social vision. He cited Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s
liberative social vision, which was based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Ambedkarian vision, one needs to note, places man and human dignity at the centre of his
philosophical and sociological thinking. His writings that are integral to the Dalit Sahitya, are a
protest against social inequality and social injustice. Thus, the basic theme in Dalit Sahitya is total
human liberation.[14] What one needs to realize is that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and his writings
were central to the methodology of Dr. Nirmal.
f) Historical Consciousness, the Source of Dalit Theology
As we have seen above, the historical Dalit consciousness is the primary datum of a Christian Dalit
theology according to Dr. Nirmal. But one may wonder what is Christian about Dalit theology?
Nirmal opines that “It is the Dalitness which is Christian about Dalit theology.” In other words,
the Christian for this theology is exclusively the ‘Dalit’. What this exclusivism implies is the
affirmation that the Triune God- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit- is on the side of the Dalits
and not of on the non-Dalits who are the oppressors. He thinks that the Common Dalit experience
of Christian Dalits along with the other Dalits will help shape a Christian Dalit theology. But then
what is the common Dalit experience that fosters a historical consciousness? What is unique about
Nirmal is that he uses his own experience as well as the experience of his Dalit mothers and fathers.
His Dalit foreparents were outcastes. The Dalits were and are always on the outskirts of the Indian
village. The historical Dalit consciousness in India depicts even greater and deeper pathos than is
found in the Deuteronomic creed as they could not unclean footprints, could not spit out their
spittle, and could not learn Sanskrit. They were not only “no people” but also “no humans”. They
were the outcastes, the avarnas, people who were outside the caste system, and not human. Nirmal
explained this very powerfully. He said “My Dalit mothers and sisters were forbidden to wear any
blouses and the savarnas feasted their eyes on their bare bosoms. The savarnas denied my dalit

185
ancestor any access to public wells and reservoirs. They denied him entry to their temples and
places of worship. That my friends, was my ancestor- mainly in Maharashtra.” Dalit historical
consciousness is a story of afflictions, bondage, the harsh treatment and the toil and tears of the
Dalits. This is just not a past experience of Dalit foreparents, but it is also a present reality which
is rooted in their psyche and in society. He says that Dalits should be aware of their historical Dalit
experience. “We are not just Dalits, we are Christian Dalits. Our exodus from Hinduism to
Christianity or rather to Jesus Christ is a valuable experience. It has enabled us to recognize our
Dalitness and also the Dalitness of Jesus of Nazareth and the Dalitness of His father and our God.”
Methodology
Nirmal advocated “methodological exclusivism”, a position he shares with Azariah; he writes: “If
a Dalit theology has to play the role of counter theology then it must adopt an exclusivist stance
and shut off the encroaching influences of the dominant theologies. This methodological
exclusivism is necessary for maintaining the distinctive identity of Dalit theology.” Nirmal argued
that:
Christian Dalit theology will be produced by Dalits. It will be based on their own Dalit
experiences, their own sufferings, their own aspirations and their own hope. It will narrate the
story of their pathos and their protest against the socio-economic injustices they have been
subjected to throughout history. It will anticipate liberation which is meaningful to them.
Dalit theology should remain “exclusive in character.” He says this exclusivism must be stressed
“because the tendency of all dominant tradition cultural or theological is to accommodate, include,
assimilate and finally conquer others.” Nirmal speaks about three different modes of knowing of
Dalit suffering: ‘pathetic knowing, the empathetic knowing and the sympathetic knowing.’
Pathetic suffering is the experience of the Dalits. Empathetic knowing is the experience of the
Shudras who also suffer because of caste discrimination but not like the Dalits. Sympathetic
knowing is a category that pertains to the non-Dalits, who sympathize and work for the liberation
of the Dalits. This last category could be something that applies to Thomas, but Nirmal denies that
as well.
Nirmal was of the opinion that Thomas as a high caste Syrian Christian did not work for the welfare
of the Dalits. Thirdly, Nirmal argues that Indian liberation theologians like Thomas have ignored
the reality of caste and its impact on Dalits. They engaged with socio-economic issues rather than
caste. This critique here is twofold: firstly, that the focus of Indian theologians was mainly on
engagement with the philosophy of the high caste dominant minority group and secondly the
attempts to formulate an Indian Christian theology were amongst others made by the high caste
people who were converted to Christianity. Nirmal holds that “until the 1970s Indian Christian
theology was developed mainly by caste converts to Christianity. They propagated the Brahminic
tradition, trying to formulate an Indian Christian theology using mainly advaitic categories and
following the jñana, karma or bhakti margas. This theology could not have mass appeal as the
majority of Christians in India do not come from the Brahminic tradition.” Thus, Indian Christian
inculturation theology is nothing but brahmanic theology which has neither any connection nor
any relevance to the Dalits in India as it was written and dominated by brahmanic thinkers and
writers.
Nirmal argued that Thomas aligned with the oppressive Brahmanical tradition which discriminates
and deprives the rights and privileges of the Dalits and women. He described Thomas as a

186
proponent of Hindu karma marga and classified him as ‘a theological foe rather than an ally of
Dalit theology’. Dalit theologian James
Massey who has contributed and written many books on the historical roots of the Dalits also
remarks that though P.D. Devanandan and M.M. Thomas had brought back the importance of
human history in the construction of Indian Christian theology, a category which was ignored in
Hinduism, yet both of them simply followed and failed to critically assess the tradition of
Hinduism, as did their predecessors. Dalit theologians like Nirmal and others are highly critical of
Indian Christian inculturation and interreligious theology because it promotes Brahmanism and
does not take into account of the experiences of the Dalits engendered by the caste-system that is
legitimized by Hinduism nor engage with the theological contributions of the Dalits. Nirmal’s
criticism of Thomas as a Brahminic theologian will be dealt along with the criticism of M. Azariah
as they both share similar view.
The validity of the above arguments of Nirmal will be examined here on the basis of the life and
work of Thomas as well as the testimonies of others. The methodologically exclusive approach by
Nirmal that only Dalit can and should write Dalit theology builds fences around it and denies the
eligibility for doing Dalit theology by any non-Dalits even if they are pro-Dalits. According to this
argument Thomas cannot be a Dalit theologian on the basis of methodological exclusivism but
could contribute to Dalit liberation (sympathetic knowing leading to community inclusivism).
These exclusivist positions of Nirmal raise critical questions: Dalits need help and solidarity of
others to work and promote the cause of the Dalits. Nirmal also admits that the Dalits cannot save
themselves without support of non-Dalits; therefore, he says Dalit theology should have a
“methodological exclusivism” but not “community exclusivism” as Dalits need the help of others
for their liberation. Nirmal advocates methodological exclusivism for an ‘authentic Dalit theology’
based on ‘Dalit pain-pathos’ but promotes community inclusivism for Dalit humanization which
includes non-Dalits on the basis of their ‘sympathetic knowing’. He advises that the Dalit
community must be open to other communities and willing to receive help and support from all
sources and they must also promote horizontal relationships with all communities.
Nirmal admits that his way of theologizing is a Dalit perspective among others and he is open to
other ways of theologizing from the Dalit standpoint. However, all should take into consideration
the particular experience of the Dalits in their theologizing. This exclusive approach according to
Bird, leads to polarization and ‘theological isolation’; Stanley Samartha calls it moving from ‘one
bondage to another.’ If one follows the logic of Nirmal’s argument the ultimate consequence would
be even Jesus who is the source and hope for Dalits cannot save them as he is not a Dalit racially
though he suffered like a Dalit. In Nirmal’s perception Jesus could not develop Dalit theology
(methodological exclusivism) though he could contribute to Dalit liberation (community
inclusivism).
The exclusive approach reflects the genuine concern that others (non-Dalits) would dilute and
duplicate its originality and authenticity as many are encasing in the name of Dalits; also, it is
Nirmal’s way of ascribing power and exclusiveness to Dalit by claiming this as exclusive
possession and position of Dalit. There is a difference between a Dalit theology by the Dalits and
Dalit theology by the non-Dalits as it is done as an outsider and not as an insider. Dalit theology
formulated by non-Dalits is objective not subjective, it is theoretical and not experiential; it lacks
Dalitness and Dalit identity which is the very fabric of Dalit theology.

187
A Dalit God and Jesus the Dalit
The Christian God is a Dalit god, affirm Dalit theologians. This God who is revealed in the Old
Testament and Jesus who sided with the Dalits of the world are the liberative paradigms for the
doing of Dalit theology. It not only helps them to come to terms with their historical consciousness,
which is submerged in pathos and protest, but also to comprehend a God who in Jesus restores
"humanness" to Dalits.
The Exodus liberation paradigm which had tremendous implications for liberation theologies in
Latin America has extensively influenced the thinking and articulation of Dalit theology in India.
A.P. Nirmal particularly depended on the Deuteronomic account of the affliction, toil and the
oppression of the fore parents of the Israelites to expound the movement of Dalits from a "no
people" to "God’s people."
Using the Deuteronomic Creed as model, Dalit theology can construct the historical Dalit
consciousness which has to do with their roots, identities and struggle for human dignity and "for
the right to live as free people created in the image of God." Nirmal says:
The historical Dalit consciousness in depicts even greater and deeper pathos than is found in the
Deuteronomic Creed. My Dalit ancestors did not enjoy the nomadic freedom of the wandering
Aramean. As outcasts, they were also cast out of their villages
When my Dalit ancestors walked the dusty roads of his village, the Sa Varnas tied a branch of a
tree around his rest so that he would not leave any unclean foot prints and pollute the roads."
Nirmal concludes,
The Dalit consciousness should realize that the ultimate goal of its liberation movement cannot be
the ‘land flowing with milk and honey’. For Christian Dalit Theology, it cannot be simply the
gaining of the rights, the reservation, and the privileges. The goal is the realization of our full
humanness or, conversely our full divinity, the ideal of the Imago Dei, the image of God in us. To
use another biblical metaphor, our goal is the ‘glorious liberty of the children of god." 26
For Dalit theologians God is clearly a Dalit God. God, who reveals himself, both through the
prophets and Jesus Christ, is a God of the Dalits. The servant God, a God who identifies with the
servant-hood of Dalits, is perceived by Dalit theologians as Dalit God. The servant role that the
ex-untouchable played in India was indeed a participation in this "servant-God’s ministries." Thus,
Nirmal says, "To speak of a Servant-God, therefore, is to recognize and identify him as a truly
Dalit deity ,27 For Dalit theologians Jesus is the ultimate Dalit, the servant God whom God reveals.
However, it may be noted here that some of the recent theologians underplay the use of this
servant’ imagery as it evokes extremely painful memories. Moreover, they feel, this will only help
perpetuate structures of domination and subservience within which Dalits are caught up even now.

188
JAMES MASSEY

Massey, originally from Punjab, India, was one of the pioneers and proponents of Dalit Theology
and has contributed immensely to the field of theology and theological formation. He translated
the Bible in Punjabi and authored and edited more than twenty books, most of which are in-depth
studies on Dalits and other subaltern communities in India. One of his major contributions is the
Dalit Bible Commentary. He also served the minority communities in India in the capacity of
member of the National Minority Commission.
He served as General Secretary of ‘Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPCK)’
from 1985–1996, Secretary of the Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore
College (BTESSC) for two terms and Chairperson of NCCI’s Communications Unit from 1998–
2004. He was the founding director of Centre for Dalit/ Minorities Studies (CDS) and Community
Contextual Communication Centre. He also passionately worked for the betterment of people
living in the slums of New Delhi, the dispossessed and the marginalized. James Massey, who died
March 3, was a leading Dalit Christian theologian, one of the pioneers in the field. He wrote several
books on Dalit Christian theology. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand in 2005 he talks about
the Dalit Christians, Dalit ways of understanding Christianity and the challenges posed before the
Dalit movement by Hindutva fascism.
Dalit Christian theology
Dalit Christian theology is a relatively new phenomenon, going back to the late 1970s. It is a
reflection of the Dalit Christians, who form the vast majority of the Indian Christian population,
becoming increasingly conscious of their Dalit roots, their Dalit condition and of being oppressed
both within as well as outside the church. As a result of the growing consciousness of the Dalit
Christians, they are beginning to ask how much of what they had been taught Biblically and
theologically is actually relevant to their own social conditions. They are increasingly realizing
that the way the Christian faith has been explained does not include the experiences of the Dalits—
the Dalit Christians as well as the larger Dalit community as a whole. They are now saying that
the sort of theology that is taught in the seminaries and preached from the pulpits of the churches
is largely irrelevant for them because it does not take into account their oppressed condition, their
experiences. So, I would say that the emergence of Dalit Christian theology is really only a part of
a larger process of the emergence of Dalit consciousness.
Define Dalit theology
James Massey says it is a systematic reflection on God and humankind from the perspective of
the Dalit experience. It is our faith experience in a particular context put in a systematic form. Dalit
Christian theology sees God as struggling alongside the Dalits in challenging the structures of caste
and oppression, both within as well as outside the Church. But Dalit Christian theology, in order
to be a complete, and not just a partial, theology, has to base itself on the experiences of the Dalits
as a whole and not simply that of the Dalit Christians alone.
Dalit Christian theology differ from non-Dalit Indian Christian theology
Since Dalit Christian theology is based on the faith experiences of the Dalits, it presents a very
different image of God and His role in human history from what it is depicted in the theology
evolved by ‘upper’ caste Christians. Till now, Indian Christian theology has been based on either
the experience of western colonialists or of ‘upper ‘caste Christians, who are a small, but, at the

189
same time, a very powerful, minority within the Indian Christian community. Now, the problem
of the ‘upper’ caste Christians is not social oppression or poverty but of how to relate to their
former Hindu faith and ethos. That is why they talk in terms of ‘Christian Vedanta’, ‘Christian
Bhakti’, ‘Christian Yoga’, ‘Christian Ashrams’ and so on. This resulted in what some have called
the Brahminisation of Christianity. But the problems of the Dalit Christians are very different. For
us the principal question is that of sheer survival, of denial of our social, economic and political
rights. So, while in their theological formulations ‘upper’ caste Christians were principally
concerned with explaining Christianity in Brahminical categories, our major concern has been how
our faith experience can help us win our rights. This is really what Dalit theology is all about.
Historiographical Approach
The word 'Dalit' is found in Sanskrit. Persian, Arabic as well as Hebrew and in all these languages
it means roughly the same thing: oppressed or weak. In the Bible the word 'Dalit' is used 52 times.
In the Old Testament, the prophets are described as chiding traders and priests for their
mistreatment of people whom they call 'Dalits'. Likewise, the prophet Isaiah foretells the arrival
of a messiah who will come to deliver the 'Dalits' from oppression. So, this theme of God and His
prophets working for the cause of the Dalits is one that runs right through the Bible.
According to James Massey, Dalit theology is essentially a product of reflecting on Divine action
in the history of the Dalits. So, like any other liberation theology, Dalit theology takes the issue of
history very seriously. On the other hand, Brahmin Christian and Western Christian theology do
not attach much importance to history. Brahminic Christian theology is based on the philosophy
of Vedanta, according to which the world is illusory, while western Christian theology is based on
the classical Greek dualism between the this–world and the other-world, between matter and spirit.
In contrast, Dalit theology is deeply rooted in this world, in this–worldly experiences and
sufferings of the Dalits, and, rather than promising the Dalits a place in heaven, it inspires them to
struggle for transforming this world to bring justice for the Dalits.
Through the work of Massey, he draws his strength and inspiration from his Christian faith
experience. He saw Christ not decked up in silken robes wearing a golden crown, as he was
depicted in the cathedrals and churches, but as the child of a poor village woman, the wife of a
carpenter. Mary was so poor that the only place she could find to deliver her child was a manger,
where cows and horses are tied up. It is a different matter that the people have tried to distort this
image by constructing fancy mangers in palatial churches to depict Jesus’ birth during Christmas
celebrations.
When Jesus was born, the only thing that Mary could offer at the synagogue was a pair of doves,
while the general practice was to offer an Iamb. Jesus was born in a desperately poor family, spent
the whole of his life working for the liberation of the poor and the oppressed. As a Christian, it is
a natural expression of faith commitment to be involved in the movement for Dalit liberation,
because Jesus, the person in whom he has put his faith, became Dalit, oppressed and despised, in
order to liberate the Dalits.
According to James Massey, some have accused Dalits of ‘dividing’ the church and of
‘misinterpreting’ Christianity. But, on the whole, it can say that the church leadership is definitely
under increasing pressure from the Dalits because of their growing awareness of their rights that
have been denied to them. And then there is also pressure from the Holy Spirit. This is forcing the
Church to respond. Even those sections within the Church hierarchy who do not wish to see the

190
Dalits advance are forced to respond, because they know that if they do not to do so, they will be
left high and dry. They won’t have any space. So, in order to save themselves they will have to
become part of this process.
He is trying, through his writings and speeches, to impress upon the Church to radically change in
its attitudes towards the Dalits. As the editor of the official organ of the Church of North India -
The North Indian Church Review-. He constantly questioned the Church leaders as to what they
are doing for the Dalits. It had discussed the various resolutions that the Church of North India has
passed on the Dalit question in the past ten years. Every year for the past one decade the top-brass
of the Church of North India have been meeting and issuing grand statements reiterating their
commitment to the Dalit cause. But in one of their recent statements the Church had admitted that
they have done almost nothing at all.

V. DEVASAHAYAM

Vedanayagam Devasahayam (b. 1949) of the Church of South India followed Nirmal as head of
Dalit theology at the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College, and further developed Nirmal's ideas,
writing a number of books.[14] Devasahayam later became bishop of the Church of South India's
Madras Diocese. Dalit theology opposes indigenization movements within Indian Christian
liturgy, since these are seen as reinforcing traditional caste hierarchies. However, the incorporation
of some pre-Sanskritic Indian religious traditions is supported.
Dalit theology
According to V. Devasahayam, Dalit theology is a branch of Christian theology that emerged
among the Dalit caste in India in the 1980s. It shares a number of themes with liberation theology,
which arose two decades earlier, including a self-identity as a people undergoing Exodus. Dalit
theology sees hope in the "Nazareth Manifesto" of Luke 4, where Jesus speaks of preaching "good
news to the poor ... freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind" and of releasing
"the oppressed."
Development
A major proponent of Dalit theology was Arvind P. Nirmal (1936–95), a Dalit Christian in
the Church of North India. Nirmal criticised Brahminic dominance of Christian theology in India,
and believed that the application of liberation theology to India should reflect the struggle of
Dalits, who make up about 70% of Christians in India, as claimed by Poor Christian Liberation
Movement (PCLM). Nirmal also criticised the Marxist element within South American liberation
theology. Nirmal drew on the concept of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 to
identify Jesus himself as a Dalit "a waiter, a dhobi, and bhangi.”
Dalit theologians have seen passages in the gospels, such as Jesus' sharing a common drinking
vessel with the Samaritan woman in John 4, as indicating his embracing of Dalitness. The parable
of the Good Samaritan is also seen as significant, providing a "life-giving message to the
marginalized Dalits and a challenging message to the non-Dalits."
M. E. Prabhakar expanded on the Dalitness of Jesus, stating that "the God of the Dalits ... does not
create others to do servile work, but does servile work Himself." He also suggested that Jesus
experienced human, and especially Dalit, brokenness in his crucifixion. Prabhakar has developed
a Dalit creed, which reads in part:

191
 "Our cries for liberation from harsh caste-bondage Were heard by God, who came to us in Jesus
Christ To live with us and save all people from their sins."
Caste-Based Discrimination
According to Bishop Dr Vedanayagam Devasahayam of the Church of South India, Madras
Diocese, caste-based discrimination often contributes to the feminization of poverty. In India, a
majority of the approximately 1.2 million Dalits forced to do degrading, unsanitary jobs for a
pittance are women. The women must “clean dry latrines with the help of minimum aids, usually
a pair of tin scrapers and a wicker bucket or basket, remove and carry human excreta on their heads
to the dumping sites,” reported Devasahayam. Karuppaiah, a Dalit living in a slum in Chennai in
the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, commented, “I obviously know it is disgusting, but I have
no option other than to do this work.”

SATHIANATHAN CLARKE

Sathiannathan Clarke was, till recently, Associate Professor at the United Theological College,
Bangalore, one of the leading Christian seminaries in India. His book on Dalit Christian liberation
theology was published by the Oxford University Press.
Dalit theology
Dalit Christian theology actually developed in the wake of the emergence of liberation theology
in South America and black theology in the USA. All these theologies are a counter to the
colonialist, western Christian theology, which is highly individualistic and does not take history,
especially that of the oppressed, seriously. But what marks Dalit Christian theology out is the
centrality it gives to the question of caste and caste oppression, which is unique to India. Caste is
an important category in Dalit Christian theology in analyzing social oppression. This should be
seen in the light of the fact that the leadership of the Indian Christian Church sought to convince
its own members that everyone was equal in Jesus Christ, that we are all part of the body of Christ,
despite the existence of gross discrimination against the Dalits inside the Church itself. What Dalit
theology began to do was to force the Church to recognize this discrimination and oppression of
the Dalit Christians.
Theology
Sathianathan Clarke is a non–Dalit postcolonial theologian who advocates humanization of Dalits
through his writings. Clarke has criticized Thomas for his indifferent attitude to the marginalized
people and their struggles for fair treatment and acceptance in the society as equal human beings
as others. According to Clarke, Thomas seems to ignore and his solidarity with the poor and the
weak as well as failed to explore the ways and means towards their humanization and liberation.
Clarke criticizes Thomas for his lack of attention to the “internal colonialism” that was distinctly
and intrinsically part of systematic dehumanization of Indian society. Clarke states that Thomas
did not pay attention to the Western agents of domination and exploitation. His failure has denied
empowerment for the subjugated and marginalized people which would name and shame the
colonizers. He also criticizes that Thomas has failed to study the power and impact of colonialism
and failed to give guidelines which could have been a tool or help to deal and overcome the future
forms of domination. Evangeline Anderson Rajkumari, Y.T Vinaya Raj David C Scott who
reviewed Thomas’ book Risking Christ for Christ sake feels that though Thomas was concerned
about the plight of the Dalits, he failed to identify the unique sufferings of Dalits as he has

192
generalized the sufferings of the Dalits with the suffering of the rest of the people. Thomas was
criticized for this generalization.
Scott writes: “M. M’s theological analysis is powerful and effective to a point. The same could be
said of most liberation theologies. But by reducing the dehumanized to a general class of people
that share certain “universal” attributes, some more telling attributes are disregarded.” This
objective approach of Thomas seems to justify the position of Dalit theologians like Nirmal and
others that there is the need for an exclusive methodology that only Dalits can and should write a
Dalit theology for the Dalits because others neither can share nor experience the dalitness of the
Dalits. Clarke along with other Dalit theologians feels that Thomas’ contribution to the
humanization of marginalized majority like Dalits, tribal and women lacks depth and analysis. He
writes “For Thomas, who was a member of the dominant Syrian Christian (caste) community, to
have missed these in some analytical (theological and anthropological) depth make one wonder
whether he deliberately undercuts particular human beings and their concrete debilitation in
valorizing the much more abstract notion of humanization.” Thomas was capable and could have
done so much towards the humanization of the marginalized people but Clarke seems to suggest
that he purposely avoided it. Similar remarks have been made against liberation theology, feminist
theology etc. and that ongoing reflection has made clear that generalizations on the basis of caste,
gender, race etc are nowadays considered problematic. Joy Joseph however notes that Thomas did
not neglect the marginalized people. In fact, he was trying to bring awareness and awakening
among them right from early period of his life. Many non-party movements and Action Groups
were attracted to his writings and commitment towards the poor and the marginalized in the
society. There were movements and groups which he initiated - Delhi Forum is one such group.
Thus, it seems, Thomas moved beyond mere words and facilitated and stimulated
instruments for the transformation of society and the implementation of humanization. K.C.
Abraham pointed out that Thomas used the ‘grand narratives’ of the dominant group ignoring the
weaker section of the society. He says “A kind of ‘grand narrative’ that sweeps across different
specificities is characteristic of his and other theologians of his time.” Dalit theologians reject the
“master narrative” or “grand narrative” of the dominant elite group. John C Webster, who has
contributed to the history of Dalit Christians, also speaks about the “great theological tradition”
and “little theological traditions” the Dalit Christians. The ‘great theological tradition’ is the
theology of the well-educated leadership, most of whom have had considerable formal theological
training and in the case of India it is written in English. Little theological traditions are the
theologies of the less well-educated village pastors and catechists or of the semi-literate and
illiterate majority of the Dalit Christian population. They are expressed in the vernacular. Webster
supports the agenda of the Dalit theologians of today to interact theologically with the little
theological traditions of Dalit Christians, with other theological traditions within the Indian Church
and with Dalits who do not share their Christian convictions. Dalits don’t want somebody to write
their history but they want to write their own history from their own experiences and perspective.
They want to write a theology in which the Dalits are the subject of their own history. As the
majority of Indian Christians is of Dalit origin it is necessary that the church should pay more
attention to the language of the ‘smaller narratives’ of the Dalits, tribal and women. David C Scott
writes that though Thomas used the dominant religious tradition, yet he is not the only culprit as
he is a follower and part of an earlier tradition. One may like Scott find a logical reason to excuse

193
Thomas for his uncritical acceptance of the grand tradition which is the tradition of the Brahmins,
yet Thomas of his stature both nationally and globally should not have been carried away by the
traditional way of using the grand dominant tradition. As a frontier and trend setter he should have
been sensitive to include smaller narratives and traditions of non-theologically trained as well as
the marginalized people to justify his commitment to the poor and the liberation of the
marginalized people of the society. Thus, Thomas has been justly criticized for generalizing the
unique sufferings of marginalized people with others, for engaging the Brahminic tradition in
Indian theology and therefore using theology to voice the dominant narrative instead of engaging
the ‘little traditions’ of marginalized Dalits in his reflections. Thomas may have failed to reflect
directly on the internalization of colonialism among groups like the Dalits but his stress on Dalit’s
conscientization, empowering them to be part of the decision-making process and enabling them
to be subject of their own history seems to suggest that Thomas was indirectly addressing the
internalization of colonialism.

ENVANGLINE ANDERSON RAJ KUMAR

Dalit Theology
Dalit Theology is a branch of Theology that articulates faith in God from the Dalit people’s
perspectives having Total human liberation as its goal. The terms Dalit Theology and Christian
Dalit Theology are used interchangeably.
Impact of caste discrimination on Dalit Christian Women
On 29th October 2015, a group of 35 bishops and church leaders from 20 countries gathered in
Munich, Germany to discuss about refugees and the role of the churches in Europe with a
recommendation for safe passage to those seeking refuge. Together, in one voice they have stated,
“As Christians we share the belief that we see in the other, the image of Christ himself (Matthew
25), and that all human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1. 26-27),” Those present
in Munich represented Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions in the most
affected regions from most of the church families in Europe.
This was indeed a proud moment when the global ecumenical movement could together make this
statement of faith that has been all along a non-negotiable principle in Christian Faith and
Theology. However, the unwillingness to accept the non-negotiable and the core principle within
the Christian understanding that all human beings are created in the image of God, leads to
perpetuation of gender discrimination as well as caste oppression among many others such as those
based on colour, race, region or religion. When as Christians we deny the image of God in
ourselves or others, it leads to structural oppressions and injustice.
Caste oppression is a structural oppression that systematically perpetuates dehumanization in
history denying and destroying God’s image in God’s people whoever they may be. This denial
leads to oppression, marginalization, alienation and exploitation by dehumanizing one section of
the people as untouchables or outcastes. The image of God is borne by the person in and through
his or her body. This was inscribed by God. When this inscription is replaced with other oppressive
identities such as caste, class, region and gender, it perpetuates oppression and dehumanization.

194
Imposing the identities of lower position given to woman based on the woman’s body or to a Dalit
based on Dalit’s body (his parents position in the caste system) leads to gender and caste-based
discriminations with continuous outbursts of gender and caste violence.
Majority of women face discrimination in relation to wages, and also finding employment in top
level management team. A woman becomes more vulnerable when other identities inscribed on
her such as her caste, class or colour, stratifies her more rigidly deepening her suffering within
existing social, economic, political and religious structures. Therefore, it is not just the gender
where as a woman she faces severe discrimination but it gets compounded as other categories get
added on to her complex identity. These factors add fuel to the increasing Social, economic and
religious injustice. The Christian Dalit woman is thus discriminated and alienated 4 times being in
the bottom most rung of the caste pyramid based on caste, class, gender and religion.
Similarly, when the earth is also relegated to a lower identity and position, ecological injustice
continues and overpowers ensuring destruction and ecological degradation. The intrinsic
relationship between humans and the environment should therefore consider the human response
to ecological degradation very serious as the earth becomes a part of our body, an extension of our
body. To be more precise, a miniature of the environment is within our bodies and we can be
defined to be part of earth’s body, which in turn becomes part of the solar system that is part of
the galaxy or milky-way which is part of the grand universe that holds many galaxies together! So,
the nexus between woman and earth needs to be reinterpreted in positive and liberating terms. Here
the problem of dichotomy is to be seen and addressed. Is there a need to strike at some of the
dichotomies like Male-Female, Heaven and Earth, Reason/Mind and Body (Rational and
Emotional), and Soul and Body in order to see if a positive, inclusive and liberating identities can
be inscribed on ‘Body’ as a tool in constructing local theologies with special reference to Dalit
Theology? So, the problem of ‘Body’ being seen as an enslaving tool needs to be questioned and
addressed to make it a liberating tool. When ‘Body’ becomes the site of violence, entire
communities are targeted, enslaved and kept in bondage for thousands of years. Theological
reflections need to bring about a change in the heart, mind, attitudes and behavior of the faithful
community? Therefore, the central question, ‘Why, when and how does body become an important
tool in constructing local theologies?’
Dalit feminist theology
The term “Dalit,” India’s 32 million or so Dalits, a word that means “broken” or “scattered,” are
punished if they “transgress the boundaries” of social expectations, Anderson said during a brown
bag lunch session Wednesday. While Dalits’ bodies are considered by Brahmans, the highest
Hindu caste, to be “perpetually and permanently polluting,” she said the bodies of Dalit women
are considered “touchable and so accessible.”
Dalits who are Christian believe like Christians around the world that human beings are created in
the image of God, she said. “That is where the image of Brahmans stands in absolute contrast to
the image of the body of Christ,” she said. “The body is the site on which the battle of the caste
system is fought, where violence is perpetuated.”
It took a Supreme Court ruling to allow Dalit women to enter a temple but when they did, the
temple had to be purified. Dalits are “preyed upon and violated every day, but Dalit resistance is
part and parcel of who Dalits are,” she said. “That is where Dalit theology and Christology come
together very powerfully. Both deal with bodies, hope, resurrection and new life.” Anderson-

195
Rajkumar is pastor of two churches in Corydon, Indiana — Gethsemane Lutheran Church and St.
Peter’s Lutheran Church. In a question-and-answer session following her 30-minute talk, she said
about 80 percent of India’s Christian population is Dalit. “Caste and Christ cannot go together,”
she used to tell her students. “You choose. You cannot serve them both.”
A self-described “person of hope,” she said Jesus’ resurrection is “the starting point” for her hope,
but there are others. The woman who was healed of a hemorrhage she’d had for 12 years by
touching the hem of Jesus’ clothes is “to me the story of resurrection from social death. Jesus calls
her ‘daughter.’ She is reborn as a new being.”
Groups working on justice issues have goals “that inform what we do and what we are engaged
in,” she said. “If our goal is just to have a relationship with people of other faith communities, then
dialogue is enough. But that is an empty goal, in my opinion.” “Our ultimate goal is life in
abundance for all,” with “women and men of different faiths coming together for the common goal
of justice,” she said. “How I wish the church would practice that true meaning of ecumenism! Any
dialogue that contributes to this is absolutely welcome.”
Dalit History
Dr Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar, a Dalit spiritual leader whose struggle and contributions have
revolutionized the Church’s approach to religion, gender, caste and sexuality. Dr. Evangeline grew
up in a family of 8 children raised single-handedly by her father following the early demise of her
mother. Her father was a key influence in her life, planting the seeds of Dalit consciousness and
Dalit spirituality in her young mind. He encouraged her to dream big and transcend the boundaries
drawn by caste and gender.
Walking the path of his lessons, young Evangeline, at 21, found herself the only girl in her divinity
class. On the day of her interview, she was asked, “Why did you choose theological education as
your option, when you know that the Church does not ordain women to be priests?” Evangeline’s
answer challenged this logic of impossibility: “Perhaps, I will come back to teach in this College!”.
And she did. Evangeline came back to teach in the same college where she gained that critical
perspective.
In 2006, when the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India made an amendment to let women
into their ministry, Evangeline became the first woman to hold office as the Vice President.
Evangeline recalls the different painful glass ceilings that had to be shattered during that climb in
life. She was told, “Evangeline, you may have secured the prestigious award for being the
outstanding student of your theology class, but what will we, the male pastors do, if women opt
for ministry and take away our jobs in the church? Women have enough work to do at home!”
In her attempts to revolutionize the church’s relationship to gender, she asserts that the acceptance
of body and sexuality is key to faith in God. Her fiery sermons ask why it is so difficult to find
acceptance for effeminacy. She asks that we break free from the understanding of women’s bodies
as polluting, leaking, bleeding and sexual. She says that the image of God as cis, male, and one
who condones racism, sexism, classism, casteism and ethnocentrism has damaged not only the
oppressed peoples’ self-esteem but has seriously curbed our communities’ larger possibility for
liberation. Her ideas have stood tall and have shook the status quo of both church and caste
patriarchal society. Today the Reverend Dr. Evangeline continues to be a theological juggernaut.
She teaches at the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, South Carolina and
focuses on building a network of struggle and resistance between Dalits and other people of color.

196
XIV. Adivasi and Tribal Theologies

Etymology- Etymologically the word ‘tribe’ has its roots in the Latin term ‘tribus’ which refers
tothe three basic division of the Roman citizens within in the Empire without any pejorative
connotation. Vanlalchhuanawma a professor of Missiology and History of Christianity and
Vice- principal of Aizawl Theological College, states that it was during the colonial era of the ce
-ntury that the term tribal underwent a change in connotations- from the neutral reference of the
Roman Empire to the derogative reference of the colonial anthropologist- to mean a primitive
society in contrast to the modern societies. This derogative reference was later adopted by the
Government of India in their policy making and by the general social institutions (like education,
industries, etc) in sidelining the Indian-tribals.
Meaning- Social scientist has understood the concept or reality that the term ‘tribe’ represents in
two broad perspectives. Firstly, is refers to the group of people- irrespective of their socio- -religio-
cultural, political and economic state- who have been listed under Article 342 as Schedule Tribes.
Secondly it refers to “a group of families with having a distinct name, language or dialect,
common territory, common taboos, common occupation, common culture and reciprocalrelations
hips.”

NIRMAL MINZ
Nirmal Minz is Bishop Emeritus of the Protestant North Western Gossner Evangelical Lutheran
Church Society who served as Bishop from 1980 through 1996. As a Scholar, Nirmal Minz is an
authority on Tribal and indigenous people and culture. Minz views tribes as being the indigenous
people of India and opines that moves to alienate their landholding will cause destruction to the
planet Earth itself. As for the attitudes of the indigenous peoples, Minz believed that the
accommodative nature, communitarian ownership of properties and decision by consensus did not
find favour with the colonial British India which even continues to this day with the powers that
be. Professor K. P. Aleaz in A Tribal Theology from a Tribal World - View considers Nirmal Minz
along with Renthy Keitzer and Timotheas Hembrom as the Theologians with focus
on Tribal cultures and ideologies.
Religion, Culture and Education in The Context of Tribal Aspirations in India
Tribal problems, and how to solve them, have been widely discussed by Government and private
agencies including the Christian Church in India. In this discussion education of Tribal occupies
a prominent place. Huge amounts of material and human resources have already been spent at
local, state and national levels on Tribal Welfare, which includes their education. Many articles
and books have been published on problems relating to Tribal education in India. This paper takes
note of them but it has attempted to adopt a different approach to tribal education in discussing
the problems. The attitude that tribals are objects of welfare/development as reflected in most
of the materials is resisted and rejected in the process. A small beginning is made here to explore
the vision and understanding of education of Tribals as authors of their own destiny.
The Tribals in India
a. The tribal population is distributed all over India. Education and service facilities within the
Indian Union. About seven percent of the total population of India is classified under scheduled
Tribes. The major concentration of their population is found in four regions. The North-Eastern

197
region (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya) is the
home of Tibeten- Burman family of Tribals. The Nagas, Khasis, Garos, Mizos and Boros are chief
among them. The Western region (Western M.P., Rajasthan, Gujrat and Northern Maharashtra) is
mainly populated by the Bhils, the Kurkus and Kols. The Central region (Eastern M.P., Orissa,
Chotanagpur and West Bengal) is the most densely tribal area in India. The Kharies, Mundas,
Santals, Hos, Bhumij, Ashurs, Korwas (Oraon), Gonds, Konds, Savaras are the dominant tribal
communities in this region. The South Indian region has scattered tribal populations. Best known
among these are the Todas of Nilgiri, the Banjaras and the Gadavas. Our discussion will center
round the Central Tribal belt of India. This region is best known to us and, therefore, we will make
only some passing references to other regions. The situation obtaining in the Central Tribal belt
with regard to tribal aspirations is more or less the same as in the other regions. By aspiration is
meant the will ‘to be’ and a strong community will to defend one’s identity, preserve and promote
it in response to a historical challenge. Behind this aspiration there is an innate power. This power
is the ability by an individual or a community to act or to do certain things in a given situation. It
is the strength or force, which controls, guides and gives direction to an individual and community
in their life. It is the capacity or authority to act. This power can be used for good and misused for
bad purposes. Therefore, the context of tribal aspirations in India means the expressions and
activities of tribal communities with a strong will to defend their identity and promote it in
response to historical challenges.
b) The Tribal Vision of Life: Tribal life is based and built upon a vision of human existence. In
this vision tribal people are aware that the land, forest and the country they occupy are the gifts of
God. They are not the owners but custodians only. For them ‘land is life’; no land no life. Behind,
beyond, and in the midst of nature tribal people recognize the spirit as power. Therefore man-
nature-spirit continuum as the basic texture of existence is what makes man truly human. Balance
and harmony of man-nature-spirit are essential for man to be and to remain human. Any imbalance
between and among these initiates a dehumanizing process and therefore this harmony has to be
protected and promoted from generation to generation.
Tribal people live by a set of cultural values which can be accepted more or less as human values
universally. Their values comprise equality among men-women, dignity of labor, community
ownership of means of production (the land and forest), use of production for the common good
mutual cooperation to face life situations and challenges, honesty and truthfulness, consensus as a
means of decision-making, and facing life with dance and song. These socio-economic/political
and cultural principles and values were practically implemented in community life. These values
provided the practical organizing principles and became sustaining powers in the face of
historical challenges.
Tribal traditional education served as an effective instrument to pass on the basic vision and
practical ethical and moral values of human life from one generation to another. The
Ghotul of Muria Gonds, the Morung among the Nagas, and Dhukuria among the tribals of Central
Tribal belt in India are the traditional educational institutions among them. It is true that literacy
through the employment of numerals and letters of the alphabet was not used by them. But
education through stories, riddles, songs, parables continued in oral tradition in a systematic
way. It was an education and learning by doing; it involved work experience in every item of
sociology, economics, history, politics, and religion. Among the Oraons (Kurukha) of

198
Chotanagpur “Dhumkuria” meant Jonkh Erpa and Pello Erpa (Boys home or Youth home and
Girls home). Three grades of students lived in this traditional educational institution. The Sanni
Johkhar (the Junior boys), the Majhturai Jankh (the intermediate youth) and the Koha Jankhar
(the Senior boys); the same pattern of classification was used for the girls also. Every child both
male and female had to go through this educational process compulsorily. Not only till 14 years of
age but till about to 20 years of age tribal boys and girls had to continue in the Dhumkuria education
Programme. Only after one’s marriage is one graduated from this school and settled down in life
but learning by doing continued till death. Therefore, traditional tribal education was education for
life, and throughout life. Dr. Ramdayal Munda, the Director and the Head of the Department of
Regional and Tribal Languages and Literature and the present Pro- Vice-Chancellor has expressed
the tribal vision of life in a simple chart form. He has listed the tribal basis of identity, elements of
identity, and cause of cultural crisis among the tribal of the Central tribal belt in India.
2 Tribal Aspirations as Expressed in Response to Historical Challenges
a) Historical challenges have come to the Tribals of the Central Tribal belt in waves at various
stages of history of India. The Aryan invasion during ancient period pushed them to their present
homeland in Chotanagapur and its adjacent areas in West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh and
Uttar Pradesh. They lived fairly isolated from the Aryan population in the plains. But there are
evidences of contacts with the Aryans during the early period and early middle and later middle
periods of Indian History. Traces of Buddhism, Rama Bhakti, Mahavira temples in the ancient
land of Jharkhand are found. Archeology and history can confirm or refute the accuracy of these
surmises. Before the East Indian Company and the British came to this region, the Muslim rulers
discovered Jharkhand in the second half of the 17th century AD. The Mughals were
interested in diamonds from Bearkho Dah in South Koel, about 20 miles West of Ranchi, and the
annual payment of tributes in cash/kind by the Maharaja of Chotanagpur. The court language in
Chotanagpur is the gift of the Muslim rulers and some kinds of land holdings were initiated, at
least in their own documents. Since our focus of interest in this paper is education and culture, we
only note here in passing that no formal/informal education was introduced during the early and
middle ages of cultural contacts with the tribals in this region either by the Aryan agents or by the
Muslim rulers and their agents here. We have no substantial evidence of the existence of any
educational institutions during these periods affecting tribal life and posing a challenge to their
cultural identity.
The modern period int he Central Tribal belt begings with the invasion of the British and
establishment of their administration in this region during the years 1773-1780. By this time all
Rajas, and the Maharaja of Chotanagpur had accepted British rule and had begun to
pay a tribute to the Crown. The process of British penetration into Jharkhand had three
phases. (I) Subdue the Zamindars, Rajas and Maharajas by military power. (II) Use them as
the British Administrative instruments to keep the people (the tribals) under control.
(Ill) Introduce the. legal system and land rights in the area with the help of local non-
tribals. Private ownership of land, money economy; law courts to decide the legal rights of
people, and the police system to maintain law and order in this region interfered with the
basic texture of tribal life and their social, economic, political and cultural values.- Local
zamindars (landlords) and non-tribals were recruited to carry out the local administration and to
maintain law and order. On top of all these the British introduced the formal schooling and

199
education system through Hindi and English media at primary, and secondary/higher levels. Along
with the British rule came Christian missionaries from Germany, England and Belgium to preach
the Gospel and established. primary and secondary schools in Chotanagpur. The first girls’
schools were founded in 1852 by the Gossner Mission in Ranchi, Bethseda Girls School at
Ranchi. The First High School was started by the British Government- Zila School, Ranchi in
1894. The Gossner Mission established the Gossner High School in 1896 (1896). The First
Collage, St. Columba’s Collage, Hazzaribagh was established in late 1920.
The foreign missionaries had to abide by the policies of the British Government in all
walks of life. They were bound to follow the British system of education-curriculum and
examination systems. The mission schools tried to introduce and keep up manual labor and
training in carpentry etc. in the schools as part of educational requirement for students. But by and
large primary, secondary and higher educations remained theoretical. One could pass
examinations by reading books and memorizing factors and reproducing them in the annual
examinations. Such an education system produced clerks, teachers and preachers in the Church
and society. The school net-works touched even the remote village in tribal society. Among many
serious drawbacks of the British system of education, and consequently, the Christians mission
schools was a complete disregard for the traditional mode of education obtaining in tribal
communities as described above, and they never made any attempt to incorporate the seven
cultural values prevalent in tribal society. For the missionaries those values and
the traditional system of education were not worth considering. In some respects, the Dhumkuria
was considered a den of evils by both the British and the foreign missionaries. Therefore, the
colonial rulers and the Christian missionaries were directly responsible for creating a cultural crisis
among the tribal communities in this region. But we should mention at the same time two
important contributions made by the Christian missionaries to tribal life:
(I) It was the Christian missionaries who gave all major tribal language their written forms. Some
British officials also took interest in tribal languages. (II) It was primarily the German and Belgian
missionaries who fought for the preservation of land rights by the tribals. Without such direct
help and guidance by the Christian missionaries the tribal could not have retained land rights to
the extent it became possible for them.
Science, technology, mining and industries came with the British Government and the British
system of education. Chotanagpur being rich in forests and other natural resources, devastating
effects on land, forests, social, economic, political life of the tribals were initiated by modern
influence. The Education system made the tribals too dependent on the Government and the
missions, through a kind of self- consciousness was also built up among the educated elite in
this process. But this self-consciousness had no socio-cultural frame of reference of a tribal
vision of life and the tribal cultural values. Reactions, resistance, rebellions and organized
movements against the above cultural attacks in this modern period began from the first half of the
19th century.
Tribals had great hopes in the National Government after Independence in 1947. But to their utter
disappointment and dismay they soon discovered that in some respects the British rule had been
better for them than the national Government today. There is no fundamental change in the social,
economic, political and cultural approach of the Government today to tribal problems. The same
basic prejudice against socio-cultural values, their language, land and forests are evident in the

200
Government machinery today. The traditional education of the tribals is not even discussed let
alone considered sympathetically by the educationists of free India. The Adimjati Seva Mandal, a
semi-Goverrnment agency, the Banbasi Kalyan Ashrams, a voluntary agency engaged in the
education of tribals have done equal, if not more, damage to the tribal vision of life and cultural
values and traditional education than the foreign Christian missionaries. Neither the tribal language
nor the tribal social and cultural values are accepted as of any worth by these agencies of education
among the tribals in free India. In fact they are indirect instruments of the Hindu Mahasabha which
is concerned more about opposing the Christian mission than supporting the tribals in their socio-
economic, political and cultural struggles in the defence of their identity and its preservation
against the onslaught of modernism which is engaged in grabbing wealth, propagating unhealthy
moral values through mass media and corruption in all walks of life including the education
department in our country and in the tribal areas.
(b) Tribal aspirations have found expression in various forms. Tribal ‘insurrections’ ‘rebellions’
and protest and resistance movements took place in the socio-economic, political and religious
history of Jharkhand. These phenomena appeared towards the close of the 18th century and from
the beginning of the 19th century. The following are the main events in the expression of tribal
aspirations: (a) Rebellion against Tribal Rajas, Mankis and Mundas- 1795-1810. Mundas, Mankis
and Rajas were political leaders of a village, cluster of villages, and regions respectively. These
leaders assumed political power on their own and rebelled against the British rule in their country,
but they did not enjoy the co-operation of their people. Naturally this rebellion was put down
immediately, (b) Kol Bidroh Rebellion 1931-32: the people of Singhbhum, Manbhum and Ranchi
Districts rebelled against the injustice, atrocities, and inhuman treatment of the British in
collaboration with the Zamindars (landlords). After many years of struggle the movement
subsided. The result was ‘Wilkinson’s Law’ for the Kolhan area in Singhbhum. (c) The Santal
Rebellion 1955-57: Sidhu and Kanhu, two brothers were inspired and guided by ‘Marangburu’
(the great spirit) to save the Santal people from the inhuman treatment by the Landlords, petty
kings and businessmen under the British Government in Santolpargana in Bihar. The movement
was mercilessly put down at gun- point, (d) Sardar Larai (Sardar’s struggle) 1860-1890: The
Tribal leaders- Christians and Sarna led a socio-economic liberation movement against the white
rulers and their allies, the missionaries, Zamindars and money-leaders. These enemies of the
tribals had begun to grap tribal lands, by alienating them by unfair and foul
means of fake indebtedness. Since the missionaries did not support the Sardars against the
British, the latter liquidated due to the foul game of the British against the tribals. (e) Birsa
Andolan 1890- 1900: Birsa led a religio-political and economic liberation movement against the
white rulers and their agents in the remote areas. Land, forests and cultural values were being
grabbed and destroyed in the Munda country. The British Government suppressed and destroyed
the Birsa Andolan using strong military power. Birsa died in 1900 and the movement came to
an end. (f) Tana Bhagat Movement 1920-22: One Mr. Jatra Oraon led a socio-
religious and economic-political liberation movement. Tana Bhagat launched a non-cooperation
movement against the British by means of non-payment of rents for their own God-given land.
After coming in contact with Mahatma Gandhi after Ramgarh Congress Tana Bhagats joined the
India Independence Movement. The British did not tolerate the Tana Bhagats and stopped the
movement using military and legal power, (g) The Unnati Samaj (development society) Adivasi

201
Mahasabha, and Tharkhand Andolan- 1920s, 1939 and 1952: The educated tribals, mostly
Christians, got together and decided to work for the development of their own people. The
Adivasi Mahasabha was an organized social movement for the defense of the tribal community
identity against the cultural onslaught by people from the plains. Later this movement was known
as Jharkhand political party. This party enjoyed people’s full support. But due to greed for power
and money, leaders of the Jharkhand party betrayed and sold the interests of their own people.
A large amount of written materials, both published and in manuscript form, are available on all
the tribal events reflecting reactions, resistance, rebellion, and movements for liberation from the
evil mechanism of a foreign power exploiting and oppressing the tribal people. The majority of
reports and comments of the colonial Government before Independence, and those of National
Governments in free India on tribal movements have been quite unhelpful. Consequently, all these
liberation movements have either been crushed by military power, or by the leaders being bought
over with money and political allurements in the past. Piece-meal temporary relief measures have
been employed to slow down the tempos of those movements. There have been some sympathetic
men and women who have tried to understand tribal aspirations from within. They Have pleaded
for a sympathetic attitude and dealings with the tribal by Governments in power in
contemporary times. But these individual opinions have had their limitations because political
policies and Government planning an action are quite often motivated and guided by some adhoc
and narrow-minded considerations. Any party in power derives that power from the people but
uses it against ħe interests of the peopl and in favor of the vested interests of the few. Such
attitudes and motives have guided the colonial and national Governments with regard to the tribals
of the Central Triba! belt in India. To please the sympathetic and outstanding scholars on tribal
affairs, and to appease the tribal people socioeconomic and political processes are being
promoted, and programmes implemented to subdue and destroy tribal aspirations in this part of
our country. The British system of education, which is “education for Domestication” and not for
“Liberation”, has been used effectively all through the modem period till today. The National
Government in free India is adding fuel to the fire by offering educational and service facilities
to the most competent tribal men and women and by winning them over to the other side of the
fence. Such educated tribal Government officials, and those employed in other concerns, are the
people most alienated from the tribal texture of their existence, and devoid of the tribal cultural
values mentioned above. In a sense such persons are completely lost as far as the tribal identity
and struggle for its defense is concerned.
From a close look at the nature and function of tribal movements for defending tribal identity and
attempts to preserve and promote the following points emerge. There are two distinct groups
among these movements. (1) Those which have a purely socio-economic and political basis and
goal. The tribal Rajas, Mankis and Mundas rebellion, the Kol Bidroh, and the Unnati Samaj and
Jharkhand movement come under this group. Land and forests have to be preserved and injustices
and exploitations have to be stopped by means of a political solution of a separate homeland for
the tribals of the Central Tribal belt within the Indian Union. But without a deep vision of tribal
life and appreciation for the cultural values of the tribal people the achievement of à short-sighted
goal will not deliver the goods - that is one cannot defend the tribal identity without a firm
determination to incorporate the tribal vision of life and basic tribal cultural values in building up
a human society congenial for the tribal people.

202
(2) Those movements which took the vision of tribal life and cultural values seriously and tried to
defend the tribal identity against the onslaughts by the modern economic, political, scientific and
technological culture of the west represented by the British colonial power and corrupt Indian
cultures of the plains through their representatives then and now. The Santal Hul {Rebellion),
Sardars Larai (struggle), Birsa Andolan, and Tana Bhagat movements represent this stream. The
tribal texture of human life was deeply grasped by leaders of these movements, but the cultural
values as framework for building up socio-economic, and political life were not properly worked
out and emphasized in the short periods of existence of these movements. If the military and the
money power had not crushed them, then the leaders of these movements could have paid attention
to cultural framework aspect for the economic and political rebuilding of tribal society. It is true
that the present leaders draw more inspiration and strength to struggle in defence of tribal identity
and to preserve and promote it in accordance with the ideals of this group of tribal movements.
3. An Attempt to Relate Education with Tribal Vision and Cultural Values
Political and economic struggles must continue, but they must be underlined by tribal
vision and their cultural values. Here education has to play a crucial and key-role to enable the
tribal individual, and the tribal communities to overcome their mental and moral
tension in the present cultural crisis. On the principle, education must be education for life and
not for earning livelihood alone by right or wrong means and methods. That is to say, the cultural
values of the tribals, which are also universal human values must be transmitted from one
generation Jo another. Learning by doing or learning by work experience should replace the
purely theoretical and. intellectual information gathering exercises. The body, mind and spirit
must get involved in the process of education from junior through intermediate and senior stages
of education.
Educational institutions must become a part of social life in the village community and should not
remain just an appendage t life it must become practical source and center of individual and
community life. The formal, non-formal dichotomy in education process should be broken down
with respect to tribal education in India. The present allurement of white-collar job without any
cultural value for life and full of injustice and corruption has to be exposed and eradicated. ‘Uttam
Kheti, Madhayam Beopar, and Nikrist Nawkri (Best is farming, second best business, and
worst to be employed by someone else) has to be brought home to the tribal and Indian youth.
The Government and the people in the plains have to forget about the dream of assimilation of
tribal into the main stream of Indian culture. The dehumanizing processes predominant in the so-
called main stream including the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in education
institutions and departments have to be completely discarded and disowned by the tribals. They
have their tribal vision of life and live by their cultural values and defend their identity and
promote it even in the midst of the onslaughts of modern culture. This is the valuable contribution
that the tribal people of India want to offer at the feet of mother India to build up a mosaic of
cultural panorama in this land. The following steps have already been taken to, achieve the
above aim.
(a) Using and developing the language, literature and culture of all major tribal communities in
schools, colleges, and universities. The tribal and regional language and literature department at
Ranchi University is one of the steps towards this goal. An attempt is being made to weave into
the courses of studies the basic vision of tribal life and cultural values. It is a had

203
and difficult task. Through a domesticating method how can one get a liberating experience in
the process of education in this department? Song, music and dance have become a means of
communicating old and new ideas in the tribal and regional languages. The Government pays lip-
service with regard to promoting the above educational programmes. The community is taking
time to study and understand the intention behind such efforts as the people have been cheated by
our own people in the past.
The Christian Churches are equally doubtful about the value of such undertakings in view of the
21st century which is going to be the Electronic Age. But Church institutions pick up better the
human values in traditional tribal education and use and implement them in their own schools
and colleges.
(b)A humble beginning was made‫ ׃‬in Dhumkuria School Kanks by the most gifted and descerning
philosophy Honours graduate, late Shri Julius Tiga. He used his sharp imagination and grasped the
tribal vision of life and accepted the cultural values for himself and for the tribal community in
future. He used the play method in teaching. He organized courses in Mathematics, Geography,
History and other subjects in the form of traditional tunes and taught them through song and dance.
He tried to introduce learning by doing and education for life. He was the first really educated
tribal who had genuine knowledge of song and dance. He led the first team of the Oraon tribe in
the Republic Day cultural competition and won the national shield for music and dance.
The Christian Church misunderstood him. He was very nearly excommunicated from the
organized ritualistic life of the Church. The tribal community could not understand him, placed as
they were in the midst of glamours of modern domesticating education and alluring positions in
Government services. Sri Julius Tiga was a unique person with extraordinary intellectual and
artistic gifts. He never got himself a job anywhere though he had a brilliant academic carrier: He
began as a social worker and lived and died as a social worker.
Gossner College, Ranchi founded in 1971, started off with the aim of promoting the unique cultural
and social identities of the tribal people in this region. The teaching of tribal language and literature
was taken as a symbol of prestige and honour to the tribal people. It pioneered in this area the
education of the tribals for liberation. Debates and discussions on life issues were held through
tribal languages. Talking in tribal languages in the college campus became a symbol of self-respect
for the teachers and students. Tribal song and dance occupied special place in the life and work of
the college.
Other colleges, St. Xavier’s Ranchi College in Ranchi proper and ‘colleges in the country side,
also have taken up the task of teaching tribal language and literature as one of the subjects for the
tribal students. Unless the tribal vision of life and cultural values prevail in the college life and
provide the context these attempts will mean just the same thing as teaching any other subject in a
college to pass the Intermediate or Bachelor degree examination. The whole environment - the
Principal, the teaching staff, the non-teaching staff, the Governing Council must be inspired and
surcharged with the elements of tribal identity as spelled out above.
This means that educational institutions must become an integrated part of the society around it.
Only with such a physical, social and cultural setting school and college will become instruments
of straggle for the defense of tribal identity and help promote’ it in response to historical
challenge today.

204
Primary, secondary and higher educational institutions have to be established and ran by the
communities with the above ideas and programmes in mind.
(c) Literary and cultural associations among the tribals in this region. All the major tribal
communities- the Kharia, Munda, Santal, Ho, and Oraon (kurakh)- in this region have taken steps
to organize literacy and cultural associations to promote the languages, literature and culture by
publishing the literature and organizing cultural and literary festivals. Some of them have begun
honoring the tribal and non-tribal scholars who have made outstanding contributions to promote a
specific tribal language and literature. Other communities, including the Nagpuri and Kurmalis,
are going ahead with the production, promotion and development of their languages, literature and
cultures. Nagpuri is spoken by Sadans and tribals, and Ќurmali by Kurmis of this region. These
communities and Jolha, the converted Muslims of this region, are the closest neighbors of the
tribal people.
(d) Tribal education must include business and commerce as an integral part of their education.
Besides vocational education, cultural orientation towards business among the tribals is a must in
saving the identity in the face of the economic onslaughts of the model world.
Mining and industry cannot be neglected by the tribal community as their land, and forests are full
of natural resources. But education for mining and industry also must be underscored by the
cultural values of the tribal people.
Many potential physical, mental, and social gifts with which the tribal people are endowed must
be scientifically explored and given scope for development. Education must be made relevant to
those gifts and natural talents and not vice versa. Physical fitness of tribal youth, care of
children the and sick by women teachers and nurses belonging to tribal communities must be
brought up to national and international standards. These and other cultural heritages must be
incorporated and used in planning for tribal education now and in the future. The immediate and
distant cultural neighbors have to take up the challenge to co-operate and participate in this great
and glorious venture of defending and promoting tribal identity through relevant meaningful
education in India.
Experience of the Tribal
The Tribals and dalits claim to be the indigenous or the ‘Adivasis’ (first inhabitants) people of
India, though the Indian Govt has never officially recognized this claim. Nirmal Minz
says,”Adivasis (Tribals-Dalits) of India are the indigenous people-the original inhabitants of land
from which they were displaced by invaders. Though the land originally belonged to them, Tribals
in India till date are facing chronic socio-political and economic problems. Different tribes in
different places go through marginalization and oppression in various forms. Ever since India has
started new economic policy (since 1991) the tribals have become the victims in the so-called
economic development and industrialization. “Every major dam since 1970s has been submerging
adivasi land. Every wild life sanctuary in India is on adivasi homelands. Every national park is
totally adivasi. Of the mines in India, 90% are on adivasi land. Almost 50% of the mineral wealth
of India comes from adivasi areas. Yet 85% of the Adivasis are below poverty line. K.Thanzauva
observed that “Tribals have been victimized by development effort in our country. They are pushed
out from their ancestral land, to give way to the establishment of damps, power plan and other
developmental projects…the problem of alienation of tribal land is more acute in in the plain areas.
The problem of hill tribes in North east India is the shift of ownership from community to

205
individual ownership which deprived land right of the poor” Today, tribals are facing serious
problems in socio-economic spheres. Particularly in the North East India context, as Yangkahao
says, “The whole NE India is burning with the problem of insurgency, militarization, foreigners’
issue, state sponsored terrorism, human rights violation etc but the social reality of the context has
been overlooked by the Central Govt of India. Inspite of all these problems and economic
backwardness, M.M. Thomas observed that the tribal Christians and Church are the real hope of
bringing the Gospel to India’s heart. Out of his personal experience he mentions, that tribal
Christians are the effective and dynamic instruments for future Christian missions in India.
A need for the Tribal hermeneutical principle
Moltmann rightly says, “Reading the Bible with the eyes of the poor is a different thing from
reading it with the eye of the man with full belly. Thus, the understanding and interpretation of the
Bible can be differing from one perspective to another. More importantly, it is quite important to
note that the Bible tells us about the experience of the particular people in a context which is
conditioned by time and space. Therefore, the tribal reading of the Bible cannot be same as that of
those who are different from tribal culture. Thus, the context of the tribal demands a new
hermeneutical paradigm that should meet the contextual demand. And so, the hermeneutics of
biblical interpretation of tribal begins with the tribal social context rather than the biblical texts
themselves.
Liberation of the Aliens as the Tribal Hermeneutical paradigm
The biggest problem among the tribal people in India is alienation. There are certain reasons for
this; the tribals do not belong to the dominant racial group of Dravidians or Aryans. They do not
belong to the major religious groups (Hindus and Muslims). Physical appearance is also another
cause for the alienation. Thus, a hermeneutical paradigm addressing this issue has to be developed.
Here, i would like to agree with the advocacy of K.Thanzauva who says, “the hermeneutical
paradigm has to be drawn from the experience and suffering of the gerim (aliens)

The issue of alien occupies the central place in the Bible. The Biblical texts made evident that the
people of God (Israelites) themselves are the Aliens (Exodus 22:21; 23:9, Deut 24:18,22). When
the Israelites were settled as a nation there were aliens among them (Exodus 22:22; 23:19etc).
More importantly, God commanded them to protect the aliens; They should not oppress aliens
(Deut 5:12-15). Aliens should be helped (Deut 14:28; 24:19-21). They should do justice to aliens
(Deut 24: 14-22), aliens should participate in the worship and covenant ceremonies. Justice for the
Aliens and weaker section of community is one of the central themes of the Bible. Hence, the issue
of alien or alienation in the Bible becomes a theological challenge and provides a hermeneutical
paradigm for the tribals.
The Exodus: A Biblical Paradigm for the Tribal – Liberation
For the tribals, liberation movement in the Exodus provides a hope and paradigm for liberation.
The Exodus is the paradigm of the tribal movement that most closely parallels the current Indian
tribal context. From a tribal perspective the socio-political or socio-economic dimension of the
Exodus narrative is highlighted, rather than abstracting it to a spiritual and personal dimension.
Biblical accounts or stories have their full meaning when they are re-embodied in and through the
tribal own praxis of current socio-political liberation.

206
Tribals themselves become the bridge connecting the hermeneutical gap between the liberating
events of the Bible and events of today. The tribals experience or belief in a God who delivered
the oppressed from social and political bondage in biblical times will inform and invite the tribals
into the Bible, believing the same God will deliver the oppressed in the present as well. The
conviction and belief that God who stands on the side of Hebrew slaves (Deut5:15; 15:15) will
stand on the side of the oppressed tribals fills a gap between the Bible and the life of today's tribals.
The story of Hebrew tribals experience in Exodus provides insight and hope to the tribals who are
suffering. It is not the situation or the reality of tribals that compares two different groups of tribals
in two different times and cultures. Rather, it is God who delivers the oppressed in the past and
present and tribals’ experience that encounters God in history as the liberator. The past experience
provides hope for the present; the present experience confirms the God of the past, creating a unity
of past and present, history and reality. Thus, in a socio-economic or socio-political sense, the
biblical liberating events are clear paradigms for God's intervention in history, and such
intervention takes place in the socio-economic arena today.
Tribal Cosmology
Indigenous people perceive their cosmology in an organically interconnected way. Wati Longchar,
says, “All creation, including the Sacred Power, affects each other. Though the Sacred Power and
the Spirits are understood as the Creator and Sustainers of all living beings, they are also perceived,
though distinct, as part of the total cosmic life.” Nature is sacred to be contemplated and revered.
It is beyond human comprehension. Nature is integral part of human community. Humans do not
have the right to exploit and manipulate other creatures. Each creature has intrinsic rights and
humans, as integral part of cosmic life, must respect them.
Theology of Eco-Justice
Indigenous people depend completely on nature for their sustenance, especially for economy and
medicine. Hence, Yangkahao Vashum, a Naga scholar from the North-East India, writes, “space,
creation and land together serve as the foundation of indigenous people’s concept of life,
relationship and interdependence.”Placing space and creation as theology’s starting point is crucial
because it affirms that humans and the entire creation are destined to be together as one universal
family in which everyone is coequal participant. Commenting on this approach of Tribal theology,
Wati Lonchar writes, “Their [Tribal] culture, beliefs and practices were developed to maintain a
balance between human and ecological needs...This balance was maintained through the practice
of taboos and totems.”
Nirmal Minz, a Tribal theologian from Jharkhand adds, “Space means that everything is integrally
related to one another and therefore, they must treat each other with justice.” Consequently, the
tribal people maintain a very strong sense of symbiotic relationship with the environment. Creation
is approached as the exegesis of God since it manifests the order and beauty set by God. Seen from
the perspective of the Indigenous people, a space-creation centred theology calls for critical new
thinking on our life-style, our Christian spirituality and our attitude towards all God’s creation.
Looking from the indigenous people’s view of life, physical and spiritual, matter and spirit, human
beings and the rest of creation are interconnected and interrelated. For the indigenous people
spirituality is essentially a way of life – part of one’s life style. In our times, when we are faced
with environmental crisis due to unsustainable development projects, it seems to me that space-

207
creation centered theology of the Tribal people can be a source of inspiration toward building a
community of justice where all people and nature itself can flourish.
Theology of Harmony
The Tribal worldview is based on the idea of harmony, wherein the whole is the sum total of the
web of relationships and interconnectedness of the various parts with each other. The idea of
cosmic harmony spoken in many religious traditions in Asia18 resonates with the tribal culture in
India. As mentioned elsewhere, the Tribal cosmology perceives the world of diversity of creatures
as an organic whole with the web of relations knitting together each and every part of it. When this
ethics of symbiotic harmony is put into action in the society, it takes the form of inter-human
concern by which a righteous order begins to take shape. Hence, sensitivity in human relationships,
close ties of love and cooperation in families, villages and neighborhood are highly valued in the
Tribal societies. These are celebrated through songs and dances which are always communitarian
performances. Tribal idea of harmony adds richness to Christian understanding of harmony which
is sourced by the Trinitarian mystery of perichoresis and the Christ’s Paschal mystery of
reconciliation and redemption.

K. THANZAUVA

K. Thanzauva, a prominent church leader from Lunglei, near the Myanmar and Bangladesh
borders. "We now feel closer to the capital, and the lives of the villagers will improve." K.
Thanzauva defines tribal theology as “…a theological reflection on the tribal Christianity
experiences of the interaction of tribal culture and gospel over the past one hundred years in this
region and of the struggle for liberation.” Thus tribal theology seeks to understand the interaction
of the Gospel and the tribal culture and to reflect on the experiences of the tribal people in their
struggle for liberation from alienation in society and to rediscover the liberational motifs from their
tribal traditions
Methodology for Tribal Theology
For K. Thanzauva and L.H. Lalpekhlua they suggest a synthetic-Praxis model, whereby it is a
combination of two models, the synthetic model- the combination of the Gospel and the culture-
and the praxis model- formulation of right actions for the transformation/liberation of the people.
Thanzauva opines that the “combination of the two is necessary in a society like ours, suffering as
it does from a crisis of identity, as the same time struggling for liberation from all forms of
alienation.” From the women’s perspective, in highlighting the tribal context, Bendangla
Longkumer opines that women still face the same discrimination as “she is as much a victim of
the system that oppress and subjugates her” as compared to the general Indian and even global
context. Further she states that in tribal theology women’s issues has been only “a part of a larger
one” and in some cases have been formulated within the androcentric framework, thus “devoid of
effectiveness and liberational motifs.” Thus, within such a context the “base for tribal women
theological methodology would be their experiences of patriarchal oppression and the Christian
tradition as well.” Furthermore, Wati Longchar articulates a methodological shift from the human-
centric to a creation-centric methodological approach in articulating a tribal theology as creation,
especially the land, as it is the foundation of history, existence and identity- for it not only “sustains

208
and nourishes all beings…[but]…gives them an identity and selfhood” and thus should not be
sidelined.
Tribal Hermeneutics
Understanding that tribal theology is a contextual/people’s theology, the hermeneutical task of
interpreting the Scriptures should seriously take into considerations the context of the people. K.
Thanzauva opines that “unless the tribals are allowed to be different in their interpretation of the
Bible, the Bible will not only loose its significant, Christianity will remain superficial without
really taking root into the tribal culture.” Mathew G Kariapuram, a professor of Contextual
theology at Sacred Heart Theological College Shillong, states that tribal hermeneutics means
“focusing attention on the existential and historical concerns of the present-day tribal population
in India and on interpreting these issues to which theology addresses itself, from the perspective
of tribal worldview and value system so that theology becomes a people’s theology.” Further he
says that the thrust of tribal hermeneutics lies not in abstract theoretical-analytical philosophical
tradition and text but concentrates on “oral traditions and events or experiential contents of life.”
Development of Tribal Theology
After two years of Wati Longchar’s work on Traditional Tribal worldview and Modernity,
Thanzauva published his Theology of Community in 1997. In it, he speaks of the need of a
theology of social transformation in Northeast India which must be rooted in the received biblical
and theological traditions developed by Christians over nearly two thousand years, the cultural
traditions of the people and the context of the people. He defines tribal theology as “…a
theological reflection on the tribal Christianity experiences of the interaction of tribal culture and
gospel over the past one hundred years in this region and of the struggle for liberation.” Thus,
tribal theology seeks to understand the interaction of the Gospel and the tribal culture and to reflect
on the experiences of the tribal people in their struggle for liberation from alienation in society and
to rediscover the liberational motifs from their tribal traditions.
Thanzauva’s book breaks new ground in the making of tribal theology. The author is of the view
that amongst the tribal communities of the Northeast India, there is a common and distinctive
cultural feature which can be described as communitarian. And hence the title of the book:
Theology of Community. The concept of communitarian amongst the tribals is taken as a basis for
social transformation, social ethics, ecclesiology and ecology. He opines that any contextual
theology has to be a reflection upon action which should lead to further action to transform human
society and individual lives. It should lead to fundamental Christian values and beliefs and should
be necessarily translatable into worship. It must be incorporated into the preaching, the hymns, the
prayers and the litanies of the Christian worship. And if this is not possible, the validity of that
particular contextual theology is questionable. Ultimately, the goal of contextual theology is the
realization of the kingdom of God.
In writing his theology of community, Thanzauva has clearly kept in his mind the needs of the
community, the church and society, which tribal theology must address. He asserts that a theology
can be relevant only as it opens up to criticism and change- this is a direct reference to the criticism
of the church as regards tribal theology. According to him, it must be open to critical self-
evaluation and if necessary, to reconstruction to meet the needs of the context in order to be
relevant. And so, a relevant theology cannot be static.

209
RENTHY KIETZAR
Development of Tribal Theology
Dr Keitzar is Professor of Old Testament at Eastern Theological ·College, Jorhat.. Tribal
Theological thinking began to develop in Northeast India around the 1970s. This was a time when
Liberation Theology was already in the height of its development. At Eastern Theological College,
Jorhat, Renthy Keitzar was the first one to openly talk of the need of developing a tribal theology.
He wrote: It is now about 150 years (that is writing in 1973, and it is now more than 150) since the
gospel message has been proclaimed in this corner of India and so the churches must be well
established on solid rock, but they still live on a worn-out theology which is unintelligible and
irrelevant to a tribal audience. The time has come to evolve a new theology along the line of sound
biblical teaching and at the same time a message that can penetrate into the core of tribal mentality-
one might call it a tribal Christian theology.
In order to achieve this, Renthy proposed that the hermeneutical task should involve (a) taking the
Bible as the norm of our faith and practice (b) the history of the church and the confessional and
denominational traditions, and (c) our cultural traditions. The primary concern of Renthy in his
hermeneutics of primal vision was the interpretation of the Christian traditions to the tribal mind.
He gave three semantic connotations to the term ‘Christian traditions. First, it refers to the Gospel
itself, second it refers to the confessional traditions and thirdly, the cultural traditions. He asserted
that the Tribal thought forms, ideas, theological terms, life situations, and so on be adopted with
adaptations in interpreting Christian ideas. He proposed that the tribal categories like cock, rice,
mithuns, pigs and eggs, etc. be employed for explaining the Christian concept of the sacrificial act
of Christ. One reason, according to Renthy which is restraining the growth of the church in
Northeast India is simply “because the Christian message has not gone deep into the heart and is
not fully cultured to make it relevant to the people of the North East India. Tribal Christians need
not become European or American Christians, but remain as tribal Christians maintaining the
distinctiveness of one’s own culture. Taking the footsteps of Renthy, almost all the later writers of
tribal theology in Northeast India has pointed out that missionaries were not sympathetic to tribal
thought and tribal culture and were partly responsible for the decaying and death of a culture.
Modern forces of change were at work beginning with 70s and they are still at work and in order
to counter such a development, the tribal theologians began to speak of retaining the values of a
deteriorating culture so that the Christians will remain as Naga, Garo, Khasi, Mizo and so on.
Renthy identified several theologies that developed in the two-thirds world such as the Latin
American Theology, Black theology, Minjung theology, Dalit theology and feminist theology as
liberation theologies. He recognized the indigenization of Christian theology, or tribal theology as
liberation theology to certain extent because it has developed as a resistance movement to foreign
Christian thought and ideas. Thus, in Renthy’s writing, one can see a deep conviction for the
indigenization of the Christian message proclaimed by the missionaries and a great concern to
communicate the Good News to the tribals in a meaningful way.
He suggested several ways for this to happen. Firstly, he believed that the Bible should be
translated with utmost care so that the resulting translation is accurate in the language in which it
is translated. The translated Bible must then become the basis for theological formulation in the
languages of Northeast India. He opines:

210
In addition to our various oral traditions, the Holy Bible is our normative text to determine our
expression of faith and practice as Christians…. The Bible shape our theology. Hence Bible
translation does play a very important role in shaping the theology of a given Christian community;
indeed, the Bible in a given language is the first theological textbook in a Christian community.
Secondly, he asserted that an attempt should be made to understand the tribal religions of Northeast
India. That is our heritage as tribals. Because of this traditional heritage we are what we are as
Arunachali, Assamese, Garo, Khasi-Jaintia, Manipuri/Meitei, Mizo, Naga and Tripuri Christians.
Because of this heritage, we are not American or European Christians, but tribal Christians. And
so, this tribal heritage must become the basis of Christianity in Northeast India.
Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics Today
Hermeneutics may be a new subject to some of us here and so it is good to start with some simple
definitions. The word hermeneutics is derived from Greek hermeneutic (techne) via New Latin
hermeneutica, the art of interpretation. In its verbal form hermeneuii (infinitive: hermeneuein)
means "to interpret," "to expound," "to explain," that is to translate what has been spoken or written
in a foreign tongue into the vemacular. It is used in this sense in Xenophon's Anabasis (5, 4, 4) in
about 400 B.C. Compare a similar usage in John I :38 as methermeneuomenon. Its cognates
hermeneia, hermeneus, hermeneutes, etc. are used in a variety of senses in both Greek -classics
and koine Greek (koine dialektos: common language). A -comprehensive definition may be seen
in this description: Traditionally, Hs. sought to establish the principles, methods, and rules needed
in the interpretation of written texts, particularly sacred texts whose literal meaning was in doubt
or had become unbelievable because of the shifting world views or deepening moral sensitivity,
and thus required interpretation in order to be preserved as sacred literatures.ll Hence we can define
hermeneutics as the science and methodology of interpretation of written (or oral) texts, especially
scriptural texts and their meaningfulness to different situations and cultures. · Secondly, what is
"tribe" or "tribal"? K. Chattopadhyaya,. defines " tribe " as " a social group usually with a definite
area, dialect, -cultural homogeneity, and unifying social organization’s Sometimes '" tribal "
people are understood as primitive people. Thus, in the. opinion of Eugene A. Nida4 the most
definitive characteristics of primitive peoples are (I) small, isolated groups of people living in a
close society, (2) fundamentally homogeneous culture, (3) practically no full-time specialists, (4)
a strong sense of solidarity based on thesentiment of kinship, (5) relationship between people based
upon the status of family and personal acquaintance rather than wealth or symbolic reputation, (6)
a high degree of cooperation in procuring such. basic necessities as food and shelter, and (7) an
implicit adherence to· the moral order, the definition of the word " tribe " by the tribal Christians
themselves can be seen in the findings of a consultation held in Shillong, in 1962, which runs thus:
A "Tribe" is an indigenous, homogeneous unit, speaking a common language, claiming a common
ancestry, living in a. particular geographical area, backward in technology, preliterate, loyally
observing social and political customs based on kinship.
Christology
Christology is a neglected section in tribal theology. There is very little reference to Christ. In
speaking about the person and work of Christ, Renthy proposed that for the tribals, it will be more
meaningful to present Jesus as ‘Christus Victor’ who liberates us from evil spirits. He spoke of
Christ as the victor over sin, the Conqueror of all evil spirits. According to him, this idea is already
there in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is presented as stronger than the power of the evil spirits

211
and the demons. This message can be preached as it stands so that the tribals will be freed from
the fear of the evil spirits and their influence. He further went on to say that there is some similarity
between the rituals of the Old Testament and the traditional Naga sacrifices. And so, the Naga
categories such as rice, pigs, chickens, eggs, cows or bulls, mithuns and even dogs can be
reinterpreted to explain the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Recognizing the similarity in sending away
the goat free into the wilderness for the sins of the people in Lev 16, and the releasing of the cock
as a substitute for the client (sinner), to carry away sickness, misfortune or even the sins of a person
in the Naga tradition, Renthy suggested that John 1:29 should be translated as: “Behold the Cock
of God who takes away the sins of the world”. While appreciating such creative and innovative
way of translating the Bible, it is to be noted that Renthy could not explore this further neither in
Bible translation nor in the actual preaching of the church.

WATI LONGCHAR

Dr. A. Wati Longchar, formerly Professor of Theology at Eastern Theological College, Jorhat,
Assam, is the E.T.E.
Resources for developing a Tribal Theology
Wati Longchar states that as “we want theology to the culturally rooted, pastorally transforming,
spiritually sustaining and contextually relevant” thus it is important that the resources should come
from their experiences and context. Yangkahao Vashum in his article “Sources for Studying Tribal
Theology” gives a number of ‘raw materials’ or resources that is necessary for shaping a tribal
theology, they are:
a. Tribal traditional heritages which includes their tribal religio-philosophical traditions
and their socio-cultural traditions.
b. Tribal experiences of the people, as tribal theology needs to theologize in the context
of the people’s suffering and pain, by taking into serious consideration people’s
emotional feelings, aspirations and hopes.
c. Tribal history, as it is in history that people’s identity is shaped and recorded.
d. Christian heritage which includes revelation of God in the present history, scripture and traditions,
i.e. the theological reflection of the church upon the nature of Christianity from time of the early
church to the present day. A year after the publication of Tsungremology, in 1995, Wati
Longchar published his findings on the Traditional Tribal Worldview and Modernity, a
revised version of his earlier edition entitled, Tribal Religious Traditions in Northeast India.
The thesis of his investigation was that in the tribal worldview creation is the key and the
central point of reference for understanding all realities. However, in the modern worldview
creation becomes subordinate to humanity, which is the central point of reference and norm.
The main concern of Wati in this study was to discover a new basis for a more sustainable
future for the tribal people who are threatened by destruction of land and its resources which
is the main source of life for the tribal. His theology can be regarded also as a type of
liberation theology, because it seeks to liberate the tribal from the negative forces of
modernization and a dominant culture which is oppressive.

212
Dancing with the Land: Significance of Land for Doing Tribal Theology
Having said the traditional understanding of land, one may raise a number of questions: Why are
the Nagas and Kukis fighting for the land? Why do we have so many land cases in the court? Why
are the tribals sensitive to foreigner issue? Why are they not welcoming? Why does every tribal
community fight for it's own independence? and so forth. It appears to be a contradiction to the
traditional tribal worldview. By way of conclusion we make two observations: 1. The tribals have
almost forgotten our past heritage. Historically, the disintegration of the traditional organic tribal
world view begun with the new political climate of colonialism, which in its wake brought about
a new infrastructure including urbanization and its allied processes. In addition, the Christian
missionaries introduced a new faith, a new worldview, along with literature and education which
paved the way for the initiation of the process of modernization in the tribal society. This process
was further intensified through attainment of India's independence and later through the creation
of separate tribal states particularly in North East India. Modernity has already come home and
many modem people would not like to abandon it. Needless to say, the tribal community should
strive to become an integral part of the modernized world community. However, the undergirding
philosophy of modernity which is being upheld today is dangerous not only to the people, but also
to creation as a whole. It has made the tribal to not only forget our past heritage but also to view
our traditional culture as something primitive and uncivilized. Therefore, in our search for a new
ideology for the post-modern society, we should strive to make the relatedness of human
community in the land as the basis of modernity. 2. No culture is static. Unfortunately, for more
than a century, serious attention has not been made to reinterpret the tribal heritage. Inter-tribal
and intra-tribal, village and clan conflicts over the issue of land and commercialization of land are
a new phenomenon in the tribal society. These problems are partly the product of modernity. On
the other hand, these are struggles to reclaim our rootedness on the land. People are uprooted from
the soil-centred pattern of life leading to an identity crisis and spiritual impotency. In the past,
people lived in their own world without much contact with the outside world. Today no community
can remain in isolation. People have to co-exist with people of different cultures, religions,
languages and race both in rural and urban places. Thus, it is imperative to reinterpret the
traditional worldview relevant in today's context. The purpose of this exploration is to show that
in the tribal worldview the land is the central concept in understanding all realities. The ethics,
religion, culture and other social patterns of the tribals cannot be perceived without taking into
account this aspect, that is, the land. This centrality of land cannot be ignored if we want to make
our modern tribal society meaningful and sustainable.

Christology: Wati Longchar also refers to Christ in his theology of land but the discussion on
Christ is one-sided. As for example, in an article, he rejects the Christ of personalism. He asserts:
Since God is an integral part of creation, God suffers pain when creation suffers, because tribals
conceive God as one who comes out from the soil (but not from above) …. We are challenged to
see Christ as the incarnate one who is organically related to the total eco-system. Jesus shares his
being with the whole created order. Since Jesus Christ is an integral part of creation, all parts of
creation are now reconciled to Christ. It rejects Christ of personalism…. The event of Jesus Christ
thus re-established the reality of ‘space’
Wati is right when he says that Christ as the incarnate one is organically related to the total eco-
system. The danger is in emphasizing only the created order where Jesus shares his being to the
extent that Christ’s work on the cross of Calvary for the whole of humanity is forgotten. The Bible

213
is holistic in its approach to the salvation of the whole world which includes both the created world
and humanity in its depraved or degenerate condition. It is both universal and personal in scope.

XV. Post-Enlightenment Theological Reflection

M. M. THOMAS

Madathiparambil Mammen Thomas was born on 15th may 1916 at ozhencherry, in Kerala. He still
recently the director of the CISRS, is a good representative of the theological trend in India in
which the central concern is the role of the gospel in the struggle for justices. The following
statement of R. H. S. Boyd is a fair indication of the theological orientation of Thomas: in carrying
forward Devanandan’s experiments in dialogue, Thomas speaks of three different levels at which
dialogue with Hinduism must be carried on. First there is a dialogue which studies the contribution
of each faith to man and society- secular conversation which should lead on to the possibility of a
common culture based on a common humanity. Secondly, there is a type of dialogue which seeks
to come to grips with the central theological issues of each faith. His faith is deeply rooted in the
affirmation of Christ crucified and risen as the basis for the hope of salvation for the sinner. He is
critical of religious as well as secular system of thought that fail to recognize the tragic character
of sin. He says that ‘the mission of salvation and the task of humanization are integrally related to
each other, even if they cannot be considered identical.’ He made struggle for the humanization as
the cornerstone of his theology. His theology can be summarized as Humanization; humanizing
the dehumanized and peopling the developed.
Theological Signposts for the Emergence of Dalit Theology
Dalit Christian Theology emerged as a counter theological movement in India in the 1980s. As a
theology ‘of the Dalits, by the Dalits, for the Dalits’, Dalit Christian theology sought to counter
prevalent trends in Indian Christian theology which had proved inadequate to reflect the actual
experience of the majority of Christians in India. The emergence of Dalit Christian theology as a
contextual liberation theology thus reflects a polarising shift in theological discourse within India.
This thesis argues, however, that the theology of M.M. Thomas, a leading non-Dalit Indian
Christian theologian of the twentieth Century, offered significant theological signposts for the
emergence and development of Dalit Christian theology. While it is clear that he did not, nor could
not, construct a Dalit theology, this thesis argues that Thomas’s theological reflections in the midst
of a rapidly changing and pluralistic religio-secular Indian context brought to the fore of
theological debate essential questions relating to the concept of salvation, humanisation and justice
relevant to the emergence of Dalit Christian theology. Seeking to relate Christology to the Indian
context dynamically, M.M. Thomas sought a theology which could be ‘challengingly relevant’ to
the people of India in the post-Independent search for a just and equal society. In order to
substantiate the thesis, this study examines the reflections of two first generation Dalit Christian
theologians, Bishop M. Azariah and Bishop V. Devasahayam. From within a framework of
methodological exclusivism, both theologians appear to reject the theological contribution of
M.M. Thomas, regarding him an Indian Christian theologian with little relevance to the Dalit
theological quest. Closer textual examination, however, reveals that the theological contribution
of M.M. Thomas is discernable within emerging Dalit theological discourse. This thesis further
investigates the relevance of M.M. Thomas’s theological contribution for Dalit Christian theology

214
today through the critical assessment of twelve second generation Dalit theologians studying at
United Theological College, Bangalore. These voices assess the rise of Dalit Christian theology,
and examine the relevance of Thomas’s thoughts for contemporary Dalit discourse.
Relevance of Salvation and Humanization Towards the Development of Dalit Theology
The cry of humanity – in particular of the marginalized Dalits – has been a cry for salvation and
humanization from all forms and forces that suppress and discriminate people on the basis of caste,
color, creed and gender. The Dalit movement and Dalit theology have emerged to address and
challenge these systemic and structural evils that deny Dalits of their basic human rights. A Dalit
theology of humanization that takes its point of departure in the theology of M.M. Thomas should
reflect on these burning issues of Dalits, such as social injustice, inequality, discrimination and
dehumanization in the society. The caste system of Hinduism in India has been considered a curse
by Dalits and Dalit activists; it breeds inequality and discrimination among people to keep them
against each other as enemies, as one is placed higher than the other in the hierarchy of caste. The
caste system can therefore be considered an ‘enemy’ of Dalits; because of it, people treat Dalits as
worse than animals and dehumanize them in every aspect of their social and religious life. This
chapter deals with the significance of Thomas’ theology of salvation and humanization for the
development of a Dalit theology in India. Though there is a general acclamation of Thomas’
interpretation of the concept’s salvation and humanization and of his quest for humanization of
marginalized groups like Dalits, tribals and women, Thomas has often been reproached for
generalizing both the suffering and the quest for humanization of marginalized groups. Building
on Thomas’ notions of salvation and humanization this chapter endeavors to move beyond
Thomas’ theology and aims at developing a Dalit theology which links Thomas’ ideas to the
particular plight and humanization of Dalits. His theology of humanization has a far-reaching
relevance for the development of a Dalit theology as well as for the mission of the church. Thomas’
theology of salvation and humanization revolves around Christology, anthropology and
ecclesiology and aims at the humanization of the marginalized people. The task of humanization
requires a clear understanding of the above three foci in theology for the humanization of Dalits
and their interdependence. The proposed triangular model is integral; it argues for an integrated
understanding of the salvation of body and soul, both historical and eschatological.

R.S. SUGIRTHARAJAH

Born in Sri Lanka, Sugirtharajah pursued his Bachelor of Divinity and Master of
Theology degrees at United Theological College, Bangalore (affiliated to the Senate of Serampore
College) in India before completing his Doctor of Philosophy degree at the University of
Birmingham in England. He is best known for his work in introducing postcolonial criticism to the
study of the Bible, in works such as Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and
Postcolonialism and Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation.[4] He is also known for
bringing to the foreground marginalized voices which are rarely heard in mainstream studies of
Christianity.

215
Hermeneutics
The Bible and Asia by the biblical scholar R. S. Sugirtharajah is therefore a welcome corrective.
In countering Western dominance of biblical hermeneutics, he tracks the various ways in which
Asian and European individuals have read the Bible and the cross-cultural conversations generated
by Asian interrogation of Christian scriptures. Following a brief introduction, the book is divided
into seven semi-independent chapters. In the first Sugirtharajah highlights an often-neglected
aspect of the Bible: the references to localities, goods, animals, and plants that can lie only in Asia.
Although he acknowledges that the depth of ancient connections remains speculative, trading
connections meant the exchange of ideas and cross-fertilizing influences, especially with India.
However, early Christian writings did not view Asia and Asians sympathetically, and the Acts of
Thomas (omitted from the New Testament) saw India idolatrous, poor, and intolerant as ripe for
evangelism. Chapter 2 introduces us to two men, John Holwell (1711–1798), a surgeon and
employee of the East India Company, and Louis Jacolliot (1837–1890), a judge in the French East
Indies. They were convinced that traces of Vedic texts were present in the Old Testament, and that
even the depiction of Christ revealed links to Hindu deities. They thus disagreed with other
European commentators, who contended that Indian religions were derived from biblical
traditions. In Sugirtharajah’s opinion, however, the two men were fundamentally Orientalist in
outlook. Despite their conviction that Christians should look beyond the Semitic heritage, they
were preoccupied with the stereotype of a “pure” Indian religious past that in their view had been
degraded by Brahmin priests. As Sugirtharajah points out, all three men envisaged the Bible as a
spiritual tool for Asian peoples, but they read the scriptures selectively in relation to their own
goals and interests. The Sinhalese nationalist Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933), who dismissed
the Bible as a mythical, irrelevant, and misleading text, unsuited to Asian societies. Although he
roundly denounced colonialism’s missionary allies, he also maintained that a drastically revised
version could bring biblical teachings closer to Buddhist ideals. Nonetheless, Sugirtharajah
reminds readers that the nationalist Buddhism Dharmapala promoted left little space for
cooperation with Sri Lanka’s Hindus and Muslims.
Dhwani reading
According to R.S. Sugirtharajah,“A dhvani reading of the scripture goes beyond the explicitly
stated meaning to the suggestive and evocative nature of texts, and to hold on the hearer, spectator,
or reader. It does not dispense with the gains made through the different critical methods such as
historical, literary, and rhetorical, but goes beyond them, adding not only the possibility of
aesthetic joy in the reading but also a strong commitment to social reconstruction.
Dalit Reading of the Scripture
Dalit Hermeneutic is involved in the dual task of reading both the context as well as the text., R.S.
Sugirtharajah speaks of the two eyes of Dalit hermeneutics; namely, the "eye behind," which looks
at past history and the people and the situations that were involved in the creation of the text, and
the "eye before," which looks at the current challenges and the historical reality of the present by
using the tools of social analysis and experience. Hence, Dalit heremeneutics is a process of
creative interaction and dialectical tension between what is seen by the two eyes, the world or
horizon of a text (or an event) and the horizon of the interpreter through which a new world of
meaning is brought into being. There is thus a fusion of horizons, which results in the correction,
reshaping, and enlarging of the interpreter's own horizons. The social, cultural, economic, and

216
political world of Dalits constitutes the valid hermeneutical starting point for reading Scripture for
liberation. The theologizing of Dalits starts from the experience of a denied humanity.
Adivasi readings of the Scripture
Adivasi is a Sanskrit word which literally means original inhabitant. It is the word by which the
tribals in India are known outside North East India. It is an umbrella term for a heterogeneous set
of ethnic and tribal groups claimed to be the aboriginal population of India. Adivasis or tribals
comprise a substantial indigenous minority of the population of India. They are estimated to be
around seventy million in the early 1990s. They constitute about eight percent of India’s
population. Adivasis or tribals can be classified under three major racial and linguistic groups: the
Austric Munda language family group; the Dravidian group; and the Tibeto-Burman Mongoloid
group. There are as many as 400 tribes in India. These people are found in almost all the states of
India. The adivasi people generally have lived through exploitative, oppressive and suppressive
social and political structures in India. According to Nirmal Minz, an adivasi theologian, they have
long been unacknowledged, unrepresented and unrecognized by the mainstream theologies of
India. The biggest problem among the adivasi people in India is alienation. Thus, a hermeneutical
paradigm addressing this issue has to be developed. The hermeneutical paradigm has to be drawn
from the experience and suffering of the aliens.

217