The Bulletin of the Conference on the Theological Task in India

Editors: Dr. Surjit Singh

Editorial

The Bulletin found its origin in the Conference on “The Theological Task in India” convened on December 17-19, 1942, at the Christa Prem Seva Sangha Ashram, Poona, by the Christian Council of India and Pakistan. The members believed that “to conserve what was achieved, to maintain cohesion among the members, to stimulate further study and thought, to serve as a medium of expression, to act as a link between one conference and another and finally, to give wider publicity to the efforts made through study, thought and writing by the members and others in sympathy with the main object, a Bulletin was a desideratum. Hence, the Bulletin.” These are the words of the first Editorial. In the intention of the Editors, Messrs. C.S. Paul and A.G. Hort, the Bulletin was further to become an all-India, non-denominational organ of theological expression,

It is a great pity that only two Bulletins have been published. Therefore, the aims and hopes enunciated above remain, to a very large extent, unfulfilled. But there is a great desire to revive theological activity and the Theological Education Committee of the Christian Council has already acted to that effect. As a result a third session of the Indian Theological Conference is scheduled to be held at the Leonard Theological College, Jabalpur from January 26-30, 1950. This issue of the Bulletin is being brought out in preparation for the Conference. The main purpose is to establish a sense of continuity between the proposed Conference and the previous ones. This Bulletin, therefore, serves a preparatory and an historical purpose. It is earnestly hoped that after the Jabalpur Conference another issue will be brought out which may carry us farther on the road of desired aims and ambitions.

SURJIT SINGH.

Contributors

Mr. P. Chenchiah, presided over the Second meeting of the Theological Conference at Serampore in 1946. His reflections, reproduced here, were published in the Guardian of Madras, October 31, 1946.

The Rev. A.G. Hort was one of the editors of the first Bulletin which appeared in February 1943. His article “The Significance of the Conference” was published in the Bulletin following the meeting at Poona.

Dr. R.B. Manikam has guided the affairs of the Theological Conference from the beginning. As one of the organising secretaries of the Poona meeting, and convener of the first Continuation Committee, he has had a close interest in this means of encouraging and exchanging Indian Christian Theological thought.

Dr. Surjit Singh, as Secretary pro tem of the Continuation Committee, has laid the plans for the third meeting of the Conference to be held at Jabalpur, January 26-30, 1950, and has edited this third issue of the Bulletin.

The Birth of the Indian Theological Conference

By R.B. MANIKAM

In recent years Christians in India, both national and foreign, have begun to rethink the Christian message in the context of the rapid changes of the modern nation. Spasmodic and uncoordinated efforts had been made by individuals here and there, but the National Christian, Council thought it wise to bring these theological thinkers together in order that they might make their contribution as members of an ecumenical Church through facing the common theological task in our day and generation. Therefore, a Conference on Christian theology in India was convened by the Council at the Christa Prem Seva Sangha Ashram, Poona on December 17-19, 1942. The Conference boldly faced the issues before it, and as a result a bulletin was published in February 1943. The members felt that to maintain cohesion among themselves and to stimulate further study and thought, a bulletin would be a good medium of expression, and it would act as a link between one Conference and another. Also, because of the Conference, the Rev. Marcus Ward who took an active part in it, wrote his book _The Theological Task in India.

A second Conference was held at Serampore, Bengal, on September 23-27, 1946, when the main theme was Revelation. Owing to various circumstances, another bulletin based on the discussions of that Conference could not be brought out. We have now an energetic Secretary who has been willing to give the time and thought to preparations for a third Conference. This is to be convened at Jabalpur on January 26-30, 1950 when we expect to have the inspiring presence of Dr. Emil Brunner.

It is our sincere hope that through conferences of this type an Indian Christian Theology can be worked out which will have relevance and meaning for present-day India, and which will, at the same time, be a contribution to the theological thinking of the Ecumenical Church.

The Significance of the Poona Conference

By A.G. HORT

“The significance of the Conference lies not in what it achieved but in what it initiated.” So the Editorial of the N.C.C. Review for February 1943 introduced the theological conference at Poona, of which this Bulletin is the offspring. And it may, perhaps help to carry on what that conference began, if an attempt is here made to crystallise something of the experience of our first meeting and the convictions engendered there, and to enumerate some of the lines for further thought and study which that meeting showed to be needed.

One of the chief impressions made by our first gathering-at least on a comparatively new recruit to theology and to India-was the sense that the Church in India is only at the very beginning of its pilgrimage in the land of Christian thought. In Sister Gertrude’s telling metaphor, “When I think of the Theological Task in India today, I see a man standing with his back to the west greeting the rising sun.” Indian Christian theology is only now opening its eyes to the glory of its coming day and the greatness of its future task. That may cause some of us surprise and impatience. How is it that Christianity, which has been in India, as long, if not longer than in most European countries, has so far produced so little truly creative thought? That is a question to which we should give careful attention. But more important than analysing the failure in the past is to view the road which lies ahead, as it becomes clearer in the growing light, with deep realism and full humility. It was one of the many inspirations of our first meeting that we found each other taking the Theological Task in India-though not, we hope, the theologians! - so seriously and humbly. From this sense of the greatness of our task two deep convictions were born. First, that individual, isolated efforts are not enough to meet the demands of our time. We need to work out together, very carefully a concerted plan of advance. And above all, we need each other, for advice; for criticism and for co-operation. And second, that the task to which we believe we have been called is one where the measure of final achievement depends very largely on the original spade-work, the quiet, thorough, hidden workings which may never see the light of day. We must dig deep before we begin to build. Let us remember the words of the Rock, in T.S. Eliot’s pageant of Church-building,

    "I say: take no thought of the harvest,
    But only of proper sowing."

Another reassuring sign that the Church in India has set its hand to the theological plough is the growing unity of conviction among us that there is at the heart of Christianity, constant for all times, places and circumstances, what we variously described as “a central core”, “the given content of the Gospel”, “the facts by faith in which the Church lives.” We have not yet gone very far in defining what that something is; but there is a common recognition that it is there we must take our stand, if we are to stand together, and if we are to have our feet on the rock from which alone the Church can withstand the “angry shock” of hostile attack or the “shifting sands” of passing thought - forms and changing circumstances. This absolute, given element in Christianity is distinguishable though inseparable from its expression, interpretation and application, which “must both grow out of and meet the actual situation” in which the Church finds itself. Thus, “the theologian, standing within the living tradition of the Universal Church, has need for both humility and boldness. While the content of the Gospel may not be changed, in the field of doctrine there is room for freedom of interpretation in commending that Gospel to the reason and conscience of all men. It is here that the Church in India will make its own contribution to the thought and life of the Universal Church by a fuller apprehension of the unsearchable riches of Christ and by setting forth the eternal Gospel in a way which will be truly Indian.”

A third, and no less important, conviction impressed upon us by our meeting together is that the Church in India has to hammer out its theology in many differing situations and to meet many conflicting points of view. We have to set forth the Gospel in terms of Islam as well as Hinduism, and, of western secularism as well as eastern religion. For the Gospel is God’s Word to the Mussulman as well as to the Hindu, to the disciple of H.G. Wells or Karl Marx as well as to the disciple of Radhakrishnan. Nor may we lose sight of the fact that the Church in N. India faces a very different world from that in the South. This means that the Church must not commit herself finally, to any one technique, which might prejudice its success on some other front. Nor must we ever speak too glibly of relating the Gospel to “the Indian heritage,” as though the latter were a single, homogeneous, simple tradition of life and thought, and not rather itself a confluence of many currents of belief and ways of life. And so, if all India is to find in the Christian Faith the fulfilment - in its true, Biblical sense - of its past search for God, then Christian theology must do again what it did, for the Church and the world of the first centuries A.D., and forge its message to meet and satisfy all comers, all our modern Indian equivalents to Jewish law or Greek philosophy or eastern mystery religions or Roman social gospel.” Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

It is not for any one individual to map out the course which theology must take in any given age or situation. Living theology is not made that way; nor is truly creative thought the produce of committees. What follows is only an attempt to sketch some of the things which the experience of our first meeting suggests should be tackled. We need to work on two levels. The first, and in many ways the most important, is what I have called “digging,” the work whereby alone sound and solid foundations may be laid, the renewed and patient study of the Scriptures. Many questions here suggest themselves as being particularly pertinent to our condition; such as, What is the real relation between the Old and New Testaments? What is the full New Testament teaching on the way in which the Gospel fulfils the Law? Does this have anything to teach us of the right relation between Christian theology and non-Christian systems of thought? Or again, What is the distinction if any, between the Pauline and the Johannine understanding of the Christian Gospel, and what are the real grounds, if any, for supposing that the latter provides a more suitable approach than the former for the Indian disciple? Then again there is a whole question of inspiration, which is crucial for our work with Islam. These are but a few of the issues which demand much more thorough attention. And then beyond the Bible lies the almost wholly neglected work of the Patristic period and of the Eastern Church. We have here a treasure house of wisdom and experience on which we have hardly drawn at all. As Prof. J. Foster has brought home to us in his recent book, Then and Now, “the Younger Churches are the Early Church of our day.” Clement and Origen of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Augustine speak to us not as voices from a dead past, but as comrades and champions of the fray today. Their problems are our problems, and while we need not accept uncritically their admittedly partial solutions, yet we have no right to expect the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the future when we neglect His evident inspiration in the writings of the Fathers which the Church has preserved for our benefit. But besides digging such foundations and learning from the past, there is also other spade-work to be done, the making of good materials for future building. Any presentation of Christian truth whether to Islam or to Hinduism demands a common medium of thought and expression. We must learn the mental association of particular words and ideas in the minds of those with whom we deal. In the past too much has been left to the limited knowledge and experience of individual workers. Words have been used to convey Christian truth which can do nothing but confound it. Much still remains to be done in the realm of patient study of terms and ideas in other religions, so that we may find at least a vocabulary which will not wholly obscure our meaning. Only so will we provide future generations with the bricks wherewith to build.

Alongside the spade-work there must go the planning of the Indian house of faith. Here again we must not be too ambitious or eager for quick results. We must first consider our resources and our essential needs. After all the job of a theologian is to ask questions as much as to answer them. To know what is the real question is half the answer, The following very tentative suggestions are examples of the sort of question which should first engage our attention, because they seem to the writer to be the real questions which lie behind the difficulties and differences which we encountered at our first meeting. If we do not face these, we shall not be intelligible to one another. One group of questions centres on the obvious problem. What is Theology? What is the given element in Christianity, and what is the relation of the theologian to it? Granted it is true that “any stigma is good enough to beat a dogma,” what is dogma and need we be dogmatic about it? What is its relation to the Word of God, the Gospel, and what is its relation to doctrine and systematic theology? Is theology the exposition of dogma or the analysis of experience or both or neither? A second group of fundamental questions are those which give rise to our differing views of the relation between the Christian revelation and other religions. It is the old problem of Grace and Nature. Is the Christian message in a non-Christian world simply a “stone of stumbling and a rock of offence”? Does sin deface or destroy the image of God in man? What, if anything, are general revelation and natural theology, and what is their relation, if any, to the Truth of God revealed in Christ and to Christian theology?

It will be seen that both these sets of questions lie in the field of Prolegomena. But that surely is where we must begin. We have first to view the Task of Theology in India as a whole into which our own small contributions must severally be brought. Only when we have some idea of the ground-plan shall we begin to see where our particular piece of work fits in and how best it may be done. Others may be able to suggest different and more important issues on which we should begin to work. Let us know them.

The Serampore Conference

By P. CHENCHIAH

The true interest of conferences in India lies not so much in the papers read or in the discussion but in the contacts made, talents discovered and links of fellowship forged. The Serampore session of the Indian Christian Theological Conference was no exception to the rule. As you heard the papers and followed the debates, you felt that everything thing was proceeding on safe, ordained text book lines, and that the dangers of deviation from the main road, even out of curiosity did not exist. “Revelation” was the subject. The good old things were said about it in the good old manner. The distinction between natural and revealed religion, between general and special revelation, no longer of any moment were drawn as the text books do. The perturbation caused by the suggestion before and after Tambaram that the Old Testament should not be regarded as integral to Christian Scriptures has not evidently died out. Arguments not altogether convincing rallied to the support of Judaism in the name of Jesus who did more to over-rule than consummate it. It was equally significant that Sankara should prove a red-rag to Indian theologians, and it was left to a Catholic Father to defend him,

This Sankara business is rather amusing. The Western theology of the Roman Catholic type derives its philosophical and theological support from two pagans, Plato and Aristotle, who remain the Gurus of Western theology and philosophy, even as they are parents of its culture. German philosophy, generally anti-Christian, was always absorbed by Christian theology. Existentialism as pure philosophy was not only pessimistic but also non-Christian. In the latest literary developments in France “Existence” is regarded as essentially irrational. These philosophers however are woven into the texture of Christian theology by the magician Barth without any offence to the sensitive Christian conscience. Was it not a fashion till yesterday to swear by Barth, in the theological colleges? Some of the papers at the Conference did not get rid of the Barthian neurosis.

Yet the theologians, showed and manifested all the symptoms of dengue at the mention of Sankara, Why? Is it prejudicing or panic? The point to be noted is that the papers kept to Barth and did not pay homage to Sankara. So all should be well. Barthian cliches, I admit, were not so much to the fore as in the first conference which seems to have sworn fealty to them. Some Indian theologians even made a public confession that they are not Barthians and that rethinking is within the pale of decent society, notwithstanding, it had the temerity not to throw incense before Barth but looked with love and reverence towards Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa. We heard no doubt of the “wholly other” uttered with all the mystic solemnity of a tantric as though it were an essential postulate of all sane religious theology. But while “the other” was heard, is it not a portent for Barthians that the vertical descent on the horizontal flow of history was not as much as whispered? The paradox nevertheless remains. Why do Indian theologians who swallow the camel of Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Husseri, Heidigger, neorationalists who are first cousins by blood to Sankarites, strain at the gnat of Sankara and Ramanuja - philosophers of equal rank with the above? Is it due to an inherited neurosis?

In the selection of delegates much thought had been spent, and the success of the conference was mainly due to its representative character. Theological colleges, the foremost of them, were represented in Rev. H.H. Harrison of Bangalore, Rev. G.H.C. Angus of Serampore, while professors of theological colleges came in the persons of Messrs. Deva Dutt, Shah, Thomas, Russell, Surjit Singh, Wilson, Moses and Estborn. The Rev. R.C. Das represented the Benares School of Hinduism. The Church of England came in through the Bishop of Chota Nagpur and the Rev. Peter May. Even the Bangalore Conference and the “Re-thinking Group” were represented by Mark Sunder Rao - and your humble servant, the writer of these notes.

The impression I got from the European group is that our theological teaching is in safe keeping with them. Most of them welcome Indian Christian theology though all of them are slightly nervous about its getting away from ancient moorings. Dr. Harrison, with whom I travelled, was a Mithabashi and spoke with due deliberation and thought. I am sure he is looking forward to signs of original thought in his students. Rev. G.H.C. Angus, a Scot to the hilt, observed the proceedings with silent interest. But when he spoke at the morning services, one felt that he had the gift of detachment extolled in the Gita and a depth of thought that comes from silence. He gave me the impression that he looked at the panorama of the conference as Greek gods looked upon the agitations of history. The Bishop of Chota Nagpur was deeply interested and took copious notes. He was always ready to give a helping hand at framing resolutions which showed signs of giving trouble. The Rev. S. Estborn of Gurukul entered into the debates with the zeal of a crusader and while keeping the hearers in good humour, drove his points home. Mr. Ryder was a Britisher after my heart, cheerful and ebullient. He sought us and gave us his hospitality and friendship. He has a splendid library and is an expert in Semitic languages. Though assigned to recording and thus prevented from speaking, the Rev. Peter May of Bishop’s College had the gift of recording even the erratic speeches and occasionally improving them. I dare say the speakers were thankful to him for the latter service. Father Fallon, S. J. never spoke without contributing materially to the discussion. His recent pioneering effort to formulate a Christian theological vocabulary in Bengali received a good press and this formed a link of fellowship between himself and the southern group who are endeavouring to construct a similar vocabulary in Tamil. His presence, we hope, is a happy augury for a possible fellowship between the Roman Catholics and Protestants in theology.

Of Indian theologians, mine has been an adventure of discovery. Mr. Deva Dutt is certainly one of our coming young men. Patriotism, deep learning and secretarial diplomacy are so well-balanced in him that it was always a pleasure to hear him talk. If he is not taken hold of and absorbed in the National Christian Council Secretariat, I foresee in him a welcome accession to the small group of Indian thinkers on theology. Mr. J. Sadiq, the sole representative of Islam, as a convert had all the clarity and clearness of an Arab theologian for whom I entertain great respect. His paper was a tribute to Muslim theology. While we were wallowing in the confusion between revelation and inspiration, seeking refuge in one when the other seemed untenable, the Arab theologians were found to have different names for them and to have kept them separate. The Rev. J.K. Shah kept the light of his liberalism under a bushel. But at tea talks I found him a radical after the manner of the Christo Samaj group. The Rev. R.C. Das, as becomes one who lives in the bracing spiritual climate of Benares, had an emancipated mind. He accepts Christ but is not willing to wear cheerfully the chains forged in European theological smithies. Of thoughtful Sundar Rao, learned Savarimuthu and open-minded Russel I shall not write. They are my friends and think with the stalwarts of the Bangalore Continuation. This much I may say, you are likely to hear more about them in the future.

I have kept my real discovery to the last as I want to spring a surprise on you. Surjit Singh is a young man of twenty-eight and just comes right from theological institutions of America and England. He is up-to-date with the latest phases of philosophical developments and his paper was a striking testimony to his capacity for independent thought. I have not met a young man among Christians who has so much flair for abstract thinking as he. He could talk for hours on the Philosophy of Relations much above the heads of a normal theological audience. He admires Dr. Radhakrishnan and therefore criticises him - always with respect and constructively. He realises that in him, we have a great mind that offers a wedge between Hinduism and Christianity. I had, through his courtesy, a glance at his forthcoming book which will make some theologians sit up and rub their eyes and some other theologians to exclaim, “Wah, wah, Sabash!”

The source of my optimism for Indian Christian theology springs from my discovery of him. If a Brahmin convert from the South and a Sikh convert from the Punjab both feel like interpreting Christ as the Prototype of the new man, may we not foretell that Indian Christian theology will take its first form as the formulation of the New-Adam theology? I welcome Surjit Singh into the group of promising theologians of India. Not by design, but by accident a layman and a non-theologian presided over the Serampore Conference. If Indian Christian theology is to be founded by laymen who have the vision of laymen’s Christianity have we not already indicated to the world that we are going to rescue theology from ecclesiasticism? In Hinduism theologians were all laymen. Another straw to indicate how the wind is blowing.

The Jabalpur Conference

By SURJIT SINGH

As already announced the third session of the Indian Christian Theological Conference will be held at Jabalpur from January 26-30, 1950. The subject under discussion will be “Christology.” There will be about ten papers read on different aspects of Christology. They will deal with the Biblical, historical, philosophical and theological aspects of the Christological problem. A special, feature of these presentations will be a section on Christological reconstruction against the background of the philosophies of Shankara and Ramanuja. If possible; a paper on Christological reconstruction against the Islamic background will also be presented.

It is hoped that Dr. and Mrs. Emil Brunner will be with us throughout the Conference. We are quite sure that we shall all profit greatly by our fellowship with the famous Swiss theologian. It is quite possible that Dr. and Mrs. Andre Nygren may also be able to join us. In this way the proposed Conference may turn out to be quite significant for Christian work in modern India.

We thank Principal Marvin Harper and the staff of Leonard Theological College for kindly inviting the Conference to their great institution. We are also grateful to them for underwriting a large share of our hospitality expenses.

Please remember the Conference in your prayers.

The Indian Theological Conference

(Sponsored by The Christian Council of India and Pakistan)

Third Session

DATES: Jan. 26-30, 1950
PLACE: Leonard Theological College
Jabalpur, C.P.

Subject: Christology

1. Preliminary Considerations:

   1. Present position in Christology … (DR. SURJIT SINGH)
   2. God, History and Personality … (DR. D.G. MOSES)

2. Biblical Christology in:

   1. The Synoptic Gospels … (REV. S.W. SAVARIMUTHU)
   2. The Pauline Epistles … (REV. MARCUS WARD)
   3. The Johannine Writings … (DR. P. DEVANADAN)

3. Historical:

   1. Eastern Christology … (DR. C.E. ABRAHAM)
   2. Western Christology … (REV. PETER MAY)

4. Reconstruction of Christology in the light of Indian thought and experience:

   1. Reconstruction of Christology in the light of Advaitic tradition - Sankara and others … (MR. P. CHENCHIAH)
   2. Reconstruction of Christology in the light of Vishishtadvaita and sectarian Vaisnavism - Ramanuj, Vallabha Chaitanya, etc. … (DR. A.J. APPASAMY)

PRINTED IN INDIA AT THE WESLEY PRESS AND PUBLISHING HOUSE, MYSORE CITY