Religious Pluralism Near and Far – Part 3
B. The Religious Dialog in India
- Before engaging the responses of Christianity in India to Hinduism we need to discuss the importance of Christology in the pluralist debate.
1. The Importance of Christology
At the heart of pluralist debates stands the issue of Christology. Christianity derives its very name from the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who is hailed by his followers as being the central figure in all of human history. In a general sense the heart of all Christian theology is really Christology. This is particularly true when we come to the issue of religious pluralism because it is the person and work of Jesus Christ who form the distinctive aspect of Christianity over and against all other religious claims, even that of Judaism and Islam the two religions most closely related to Christianity.
Thus in a theologians engagement with Hinduism the primary question which must be wrestled with is what to do with the person and work of Jesus Christ. All of the responses of the church in India ultimately revolve around what is done with the person of Christ.
2. The Responses of the Church in India
a. Stanley J. Samartha: Christ in this oikoumene[1]
Stanley Samartha represents one response of Indian Christianity to religious pluralism. Samartha states that “the distinctiveness of a religious community cannot truly be defined without reference to other communities of faith in God’s oikoumene.[2]” Samartha desires to move the debate away from Christocentrism and instead focus on theocentrism.[3] What Samartha means by theocentrism is made clear when he states, “Theos in this debate should not be taken as the personal God of Christians, but as Ultimate Reality or Sat or Truth or God.[4]” Samartha goes on to include even secularism in this idea by writing, “the ‘secular’, in the sense of laukika, this-worldly, is indeed not outside the concern of the Theos.[5]”
Concerning Scripture Samartha writes, “no single individual or group can claim to be its [Scriptures] sole custodian.[6]” Samartha, a self professed Protestant, thus effectively negates the authority of Scripture and places it on a level playing field alongside the holy writings of other religions.
Finally, what is most disconcerting for orthodox believers is Samartha’s statement that it is “necessary to recognize that Theos by its very nature has to be left undefined, because if it is defined it ceases to be Theos or Mystery.[7]” Samartha is here attempting to level the soteriological playing field in the same manner that he leveled the field of scripture previously. To be fair Samartha states that “for Christians Jesus Christ is indeed the window into the very heart of God.[8]” But this is merely placing Jesus in a buffet menu alongside other windows into the heart of God. Christ is seen as one among many for Samartha, just as the Christian Scriptures are seen as one among many, and the Christian conception of God is seen as one among many. For Samartha there is nothing final about the teaching of Christ or Christianity as he clearly states by writing, “In this temporary oikoumene we have to live with the full assurance of his lordship, but its realization can only be partially understood in this world of particularities.[9]” This statement is clarified by Samartha’s claim that “all religions including Christianity have an ‘interim’ character.[10]”
b. J. N. Farquhar & Raimundo Panikkar: Christ of Hinduism
Another major position taken by Indian theologians is a syncretistic blending of Christ within Hinduism. This position is in places difficult to comprehend. On the one hand Christians must contextualize the message of Christ so that it speaks to the culture context of people. However, this contextualization of the message needs to be distinguished from the syncretism of Farquhar and Panikkar who place Christ within Hinduism. The essential claim of Farquhar and Panikkar is that Hinduism finds its ultimate explanation and consummation in Christ.[11] Farquhar states that salvation can be achieved through any religion and that the condition for salvation is merely turning towards the light.[12] However, he then goes on to claim that while Christianity may not contradict these other religions, it is the best suited to meet all challengers.[13] The effect is then not to negate other religions but merely to claim that Christianity is the truth which all other religions are seeking, or rather that Christianity is the best expression of the truth which all religions seek.
Panikkar follows this line of thought later in the 20th century and writes,
The differences between the two religions, however, are very often complementary. To put it succinctly, if Hinduism claims to be the religion of truth, Christianity claims to be the truth of religion. Hinduism is ready to absorb any authentic religious value. The genuinely Christian attitude is to call forth that ‘truth’ of Hinduism without destroying the latter’s identity. To Christianity, Hinduism in turn offers the authentically Hindu gift of a new experience and interpretation – a new dimension, in fact – of the Mystery. The ‘catholicity’ of Hinduism calls forth the true ‘catholicity’ of Christianity, while the truth of Christianity calls forth the truth of Hinduism. The passage from a narrow catholicity and an exclusive ‘truth’ to a full catholicity and to recognition of the fact that Truth can be neither limited nor monopolized is the Paschal adventure of every religion. A growing Christianity is also a Christianity moving towards greater fullness. This is the mystery of the Cross.
The effect of this statement from Panikkar is to make Christianity and Hinduism partners in the search for truth. Christianity and Hinduism work together to approximate the Truth. This view is distinct from that of Samartha who simply denies exclusivity. Farquhar and Panikkar find a solution by making the religions complimentary, denying any ultimate discontinuity between them.
c. Ramachandra: Recovering Jesus & the Gospel
Vinoth Ramachandra is a fine expression of another response of the church in India, and South Asia to religious pluralism. Ramchandra who is responding to pluralism broadly but also specifically to Panikkar, counters pluralist claims by showing “that the unique story which the Bible tells reaches its climax in the incarnation, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God.[14]” Rachmandra sees the claims of Christianity as being unique, being rooted in historical events itself.[15] It is the uniqueness of Jesus within history that also gives the Christian message a unique status among the religions of the world. The work of Christ cannot merely be the culmination of all other religious events because the different religions are substantially different in their historicism.
Rachmandra also provides a detailed response to the claims of Samartha. Two of his points seem especially helpful here. The first is that if Christians are wrong in their claims about who Jesus is then Jews and Muslims have been right in their denunciation of Christianity and we are guilty of horrendous idolatry.[16] The second point Rachmandra makes is that Samartha and his fellow pluralists are guilty of “religious elitism”.[17] In short religious pluralism is guilty of the same dogmatism and arrogance which they accuse Christianity of having had for the last 2,000 years.
Rachmandra is most helpful however, not in deconstructing the positions of other but rather in proposing a helpful paradigm for the proclamation and practice of the gospel. Rachmandra expresses the need to recognize cultural pluralism while dismissing religious pluralism.[18] Rachmandra also emphasizes that gospel proclamation must be carried out with respect, humility and done in an incarnational manner.[19] Rachmandra also sees the ultimate expression of the gospel to be in the realm of ethics. The gospel must be proclaimed just as clearly by how Christians live within a pluralistic and fragmented society as by the words of the message itself.[20]
[1] Samartha, Stanley J. Courage for Dialogue (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1982): 103.
[2] Samartha, Stanley J. Between Two Cultures: Ecumenical Ministry in a Pluralist World (Geneva: WCC, 1996): 146-147.
[3] Ibid., 146.
[4] Ibid., 147.
[5] Ibid., 147.
[6] Ibid., 148.
[7] Ibid., 148.
[8] Ibid., 148
[9] Samartha, Courage for Dialogue, 103.
[10] Ibid., 103.
[11] Farquhar, J. N. The Crown of Hinduism (New York: Oxford, 1915): 54-55.
[12] Ibid., 26-29.
[13] Ibid., 32-33.
[14] Rachmandra, Vinoth The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1996): 265.
[15] Ibid., 76-104. See chapter 3 of The Recovery of Mission for a detailed response to the religious philosophy of Raimundo Panikkar which underlies his teaching.
[16] Ibid., 32.
[17] Ibid., 33.
[18] Ibid., 268.
[19] Ibid., 270-278.
[20] Ibid., 279-282.
