The Bulletin of the Conference on the Theological Task in India

Editors: Rev. Dr. Surgit Singh and Rev. J.D.M. Stuart

Editorial

Those of us who have pursued with interest the fortunes of the Indian Theological Conference have been impressed by the degree of theological freedom and independence of thought achieved by it since 1942. At the Poona Conference in 1942 the theology of the “Schools” held complete mastery over the Conference. In 1946 at Serampore the “Schools” were represented, but “Orientalisation” had already set in. It was, however, at Jabalpur last year when eminent theologians of the “Schools” were present that the Conference showed a remarkable degree of theological freedom, not only from the “Schools”, but also to think out its own problems in its own way. This is not to say that we have developed a full-fledged Indian Christian Theology; but we are certainly on the way. The Jabalpur Conference has opened the door and pointed the way.

Some fear was expressed that theological freedom may lead to religious syncretism. But the Conference did not justify any such fear. It is, however, true that we still consciously try to relate Christianity to our national heritage. We have not yet come to the stage when we do it spontaneously and without effort. But in all this the Conference was quite concerned to find the true relationship between Christianity and the national background. In this instance it was more faithful in representing the true religious situation in India than the Bangkok Conference of Christian leaders.

A problem of first-rate importance was raised which was not solved in the discussions. This was the interpretation of Galatians 2:20. Does a believer become Christ or Christ-like? Some maintained that the believer becomes Christ-like while others argued that he becomes Christ The solution of this problem will not only decide the nature of Indian Christology but will also determine the entire Christian philosophy of life. Since the discussion of Christology is to be continued at the next conference, it is hoped that further thought will continue to be given to it.

An important feature of the Conference was the presence with us of the learned and devout Jesuit, Father P. Fallon¹. He has been associated with the Conference since 1946. He freely took part in our deliberations, making a very valuable contribution. We pray God that, in the midst of so much misunderstanding among Christians, our taking counsel together may in some small measure help to clear the air.

The really unique event was the presence of Dr. Emil Brunner and Bishop Anders Nygren. Bishop Nygren read a valuable paper on “Revelation and Scripture”. Dr. Brunner fully participated in discussions and generously contributed to the qualitative thinking of the Conference. The members were greatly inspired and the high level of discussion which was reached in a large measure was due to him. It would be a great thing if at every future conference it would be possible to have present an outstanding thinker from abroad. In this way Indian Theology will develop faster and the time may not be far in the future when it will be in a position to make its contribution to theology in general.

The question of theological terminology arose in several connections, and its importance was stressed. As a first step the Conference decided to publish in a future Bulletin two studies of Christological terminology: one from the Hindu and the other from the Islamic background. Although there are some concise studies of Christian terminology in the regional languages, the hope was expressed that a work comparable to Kittel’s Worterbuch might be undertaken to nourish and strengthen the body of Indian Christian Theology. God grant that this may become possible soon.

The following pages contain a summary report of the proceedings of the third Indian Theological Conference.

SURJIT SINGH

First Session: Friday Morning

The Chairman (Dr. A.J. Appasamy) opened the proceedings of the Conference by defining its objectives. It was to carry on the task of interpreting Christ in terms of Indian thought and in relation to India’s problems. Success in this task will be of interest for the whole Church, because the general understanding of Christ is enriched through pooling the insights vouchsafed to Christians of different lands and different traditions.

The standard of all interpretations can only be Holy Scripture, but any given interpretation is greatly influenced by the social, cultural and religious background of its author thus Archbishop Temple is typically Anglo-Saxon, Anglican and twentieth-century in his presentation of the Gospel.

So too, the Indian background is bound to tell, for we cannot dismiss our age-long religious quest as a meaningless groping, outside the purpose of God. The hand of God is to be discerned in India’s religion as in her historical development.

This is a matter in which western theologians are unable to help, being out of touch with oriental cultures, and knowing little of Indian conditions.

As an illustration of the value of the Indian tradition Dr. Appasamy quoted the case of his own father who sought for a closer fellowship with Christ. Finding no Christian who could teach him the art of meditation, he turned with profit to a Hindu Guru and under his guidance reached a deeper apprehension of our Lord. So for the many Indians who share these longings John 14-17 is of the whole N.T. the most natural starting point as well as culmination. Though others may prefer to start from the Epistle to the Romans, both portions, belong equally to Scripture, and a preference for St. John must not be put down to Hindu or Neo-Platonist bias.

Various questions arise, if we start in our Christology from the Farewell Discourse:

1. Who is the Christ who abides in us? What is His personality, character, relation to the Spirit?
2. What is His abiding? Is it found in ethical conformity with His precepts, or is there a place for contemplation?
3. What is the relation between the historical Jesus and the ‘living eternal Christ’ who abides in us? Is not the latter too difficult for simple people to grasp? There is also the danger of obscuring the unique revelation of

God in the historic Incarnation, if emphasis is transferred to the ‘eternal Christ’.

To start from John 14 does not mean to reject Romans 5-8. If one starts from the search for God, then the discovery of Christ’s holiness will soon reveal one’s need for Christ the Redeemer. So for Indian theology this aspect of Christology finds its place not so much as an essential preliminary to all further dealings between God and man, as an element within an established relationship (the human family).

Finally, ‘let us guard against syncretism, but also preserve our theological freedom as against Western prejudices’.

Address by Dr. Emil Brunner

Dr. Brunner apologised for not offering a survey of recent Christology (as he had been asked), explaining that his continual travels during the previous four months had made it impossible. Instead, he had some questions to ask.

First, concerning the place of Christology:

During the past thirty years a great change in theology has occurred; it has become ‘Christological theology’ with the recognition that no doctrine of God is legitimate, which is not Christological. From this point of view Christology embraces all dogmatics, and Creation, Providence, Man, all have to be seen in the perspective of Christ. But what of the doctrine of Christ’s Person itself? Is there a Christological Christology? Yes, and it is concerned with the question, Why do we believe in Christ? A question which is scarcely raised in theology, because it is simply presupposed that we believe because of the Bible.

But the Bible is not the basis (presupposition) of faith, but the source from which we take the material of faith. I believe in Jesus Christ, because of Jesus Christ Himself, not because Paul or Peter says, That is Jesus Christ. He explains Himself.

There are two errors, an orthodox scriptural one, which sets the authority of the Bible over that of Christ Himself, making it an absolute presupposition of faith; and a liberal one, which never gets to Christ, but stops’at Jesus the man.

This means that faith is autonomous. It is based on Christ’s encounter with me, when He tells me who He is. But of course I only meet Christ in the scriptures. They are not an authority per se, but I cannot meet Christ without them.

The N.T. contains both history and apostolic interpretation, both of them necessary for ‘meeting Christ’ The distinction, though useful, is artificial, for there is no biography of Jesus in the N.T.; the story is told by believers, is itself marturia, witness. Nonetheless, we must begin with the Synoptic Gospels, the story of the Life. So God started, and here first I meet with Jesus Christ. (Here Dr. Brunner admitted that The Mediator failed to show the importance for faith of the historical Life.)

After the upheaval of historical criticism we have returned to the acceptance of the Markan story. (This was Schweitzer’s intuition.) There we meet the Historical Jesus. And the Christ? The historical Jesus of Nazareth IS He! The distinction between ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus’ should never be made.

And the apostolic testimony is like the art teacher’s stick which is used to point out to students the beauties of an Old Master. It does not create the beauty, but helps them to see it. So the Apostles help us to see Jesus for ourselves; but we believe in Him because of Himself.

Second, Who is Jesus, What means Christ?

Most western theology (including The Mediator) is untrue to the N.T. by starting from the Person instead of the Work of Christ. But his earliest titles are all functional - Lord, Christ, Son, Mediator. (‘This is to know Christ, to know His benefits’ - Melanchthon.) And so we are driven back to the O.T. to learn Christ according to God’s order - O.T., Jesus Christ, the Apostles. (Here Dr. Brunner emphasised the importance of the study of O.T. and Hebrew for the Indian Church, as a safeguard against the temptations of the Indian genius for assimilation.)

So Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King, all ancient functional titles. He sums up and fulfils prophecy, being more than a prophet but rather the divine Word made flesh, who says not ‘Thus, saith the Lord’, but authoritatively, ‘I say unto you’. Again in him the O.T. king ruling in God’s name has come to fulfilment. The prophets looked for one in whom God Himself may reside among His people, the Messianic King. This Jesus is, and from the first is proclaimed as kurios, the Lord. And He is Priest, i.e., mediator, reconciler, a function in connection with which the N.T. most explicitly shows its relation to the O.T. (especially in Hebrews). Though the O.T. priesthood seems very remote to us (because Christ fulfilled and ended it), the Levitical cult remains a pointer to the need for something to be done for man in order to restore his relation to God, something which Christ perfectly did. (N.B. the Passion of the Lamb of God is central even in the Fourth Gospel, and John 14, is a spiritual exercise preparing for Good Friday.)

Third, after the three-fold function, the question of the Person.

Who then is Jesus? Not the ethical preacher of nineteenth century Ritschlianism; ‘the Jesus of History never lived!’ Not the residuum of Bultmann’s destructive scepticism. Not a Jesus distinct from the Christ, either in the form hinted by Dr. Appasamy or in a Hegelian form. The N.T. testimony is quite simple - Jesus of Nazareth IS the Christ; and, whether you start with John 14 or anywhere else, the N.T. knows no other Christ than Jesus.

Lastly, the place of the Cross.

Something is wrong in the relation of man to God. Are we truly God’s family? Scripture rather says that we are enemies of God and only become His family through Christ; and the family relationship is only established at the Cross.

Some would say, however, that forgiveness is only negative, and that the real thing is what follows. But man needs salvation because his ‘person’, i.e., his relation to God, needs it. The restoration of that relationship is the vital thing, and in it are contained all the graces as a matter of course. So the Cross is central to the N.T., and from the Cross comes the Holy Spirit.

This is no melancholic exaggeration. Rather, to take guilt seriously is to take man’s ‘person’ seriously and is a great compliment from God. If personal relations are so important, then naturally their restoration is the essential thing. Here is the uniqueness of Christianity and the sense of a historical revelation. Forgiveness, either does or does not happen, and if it does, it is unrepeatable. So Christ’s death is the Gospel.

Discussion

Mr. Chenchiah opened the discussion by saying that Indians look at these problems with different eyes, asking, Where is Christ, and How is He to be met? They are not satisfied merely to hear about Him, even in the Gospels. Jesus was the Christ for the disciples, but where is Jesus now? Again, the East looks for identification with Christ, not merely for a relation to one who remains a separate being. So, he asked, why make incarnation stop in Jesus? Is it not a continuous process? He prophesied that Hinduism will assimilate Christ, -and will itself change in the process, just as has already happened in its relations with other religions.

Dr. Surgit Singh agreed with Dr. Brunner’s criticisms of The Mediator, but wondered whether his present position was any improvement. It is impossible to separate history from interpretation anywhere in the N.T. and wrong to try; for the whole is Christological. Nor can one start from God and man in mutual isolation. The Resurrection is the true starting point, for there we see Jesus as the Christ, and God at one with man.

Dr. V.E. Devadutt asked how Dr. Brunner distinguished between the Bible as the basis of faith and as the source of its material. One must of course meet Christ personally, but there is a grave risk of exalting one’s subjective experience above the source from which its authority is derived. Otherwise, how distinguish between Brunner’s Christ and the modernist’s?

Dr. Brunner replied that he felt that the differences between himself and Dr. Surgit Singh were due to misunderstanding. He certainly would not separate history from interpretation, but we must have the Story about Jesus if we are to know who He is. If we only had the Apostles’ testimony, there could be no personal faith in Jesus Himself. Only as He stands before me in the Gospels can I know that He is the Christ.

To Dr. Devadutt he repeated that he was opposed to all forms of fundamentalism, but yet did not feel free to pick and choose with regard to the Bible. Its authority is one of testimony, and we meet Christ only by taking the whole testimony seriously.

But more than misunderstanding lay between him and Mr. Chenchiah, if he wanted a living present Christ over and above the Jesus of Scripture. Where is Christ to be found, if not where God has placed Him -at the historic Cross and Resurrection? And how is He met? Surely in the personal experience of acknowledging myself a sinner who needs Him? Mystical religion always asks for something more immediate than the historical revelation, yet what could be more important than getting into the right relation with God through the Mediator’s Cross? Mr. Chenchiah’s preference for identity over communion is a preference for Vedantist advaita over the biblical goal. But if God is Personal, and we are persons, communion is the closest we can go without abolishing personality. And what more does one want than to be the child of God through Christ?

Second Session: Friday Afternoon

The Present Position in Christology²

By DR SURJIT SINGH

The New Testament picture has two sides-one divine and the other human. To put it figuratively there is a two-fold movement in the New Testament of which Jesus Christ is the meeting-point. There is God-manward movement, and it implies the coming of God in our midst - the Emmanuel and the Word-become-flesh. The other is man-Godward movement, implying that in Christ is summed up everything, and He is subjected to God so that God be all and in all. The essential task of Christology is to preserve both of these aspects of the New Testament picture. It is here that many theologians have erred and separated “Jesus” from “Christ.”

But if the Gospel story is read back from the perspective of the Resurrection the result will be quite different. For in that way we would be able to see the totality of the life of Jesus Christ in so far as it is possible to see. What the resurrection discloses is neither God as such, nor man as such it discloses the God-man. Therefore, in that evaluation of Jesus Christ we neither start from man nor from God. These two starting points are not at our disposal. The Resurrection rightly and truly presents a unitary person, the Godman, man, the quickening spirit; Jesus, the Christ and Lord.

The relation between the divine and human in the very person of Christ as revealed by the Resurrection can be explained in terms of ‘mutual involution’, ‘interaction’, and ‘interpenetration’; there being one unitary and integral person who is at once. God and man.

Discussion on Present Position

After Dr. Surgit Singh’s paper, the discussion was opened by Dr. Emil Brunner, who expressed his admiration of its scholarship and originality. Among other things one observation he felt bound to make was that here was a real contribution to Indian Theology, which was so precisely because it had been made without consciously thinking about the ‘Indian background’.

Mr. Chenchiah asked if the paper really made Christ clearer to us or helped us to analyse Him. From the point of view of Indian thought one does not get to understand a person by looking at him from outside, but rather through a process of yoga by entering into his mind. The only way similarly to comprehend the Incarnation in Christ is if Christ incarnates Himself further in Christians: Thought cannot comprehend Him, it is only possible by having His life in us.

Dr. Surgit Singh protested that this position was only possible to one who regarded personality not as something unique, but as a relative. Mr. Chenchiah’s position implies that ultimately all persons are identical, or will become so; in which case, what is the point in living? Besides, both history and philosophy insist that persons are unique and are never simply interchangeable, however similar they may become.

The Rev. P. Fallon, S.J., pointed out that the imitation of Christ, important as it is, is not the whole of the Christian life; there is also that aspect, to which Galatians 2:20 is the classical allusion, of becoming alter Christus, another Christ. This is indeed a mystery, only conceivable because Christ is not a particular human person, but the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity; if He were only a human person, then He would be one amongst others, and no question of mystical identification with Him could arise. We cannot speak in India about the Incarnation without reference to the Mystery of the Trinity; indeed the two Mysteries are one, and cannot be separated. We should see an analogy between the communion of the Three Persons in the unity of Their Nature and the communion between Christ and the Christian. The individual nature of the Christian remains, but it is super-naturalised, and so we can talk (with the early Fathers) of ‘divinisation’ without danger of pantheism. He stressed that there was a valuable point in what Mr. Chenchiah was saying; otherwise Christianity would be reduced to morality alone.

Dr. Brunner agreed that speculative theology is no help to the ordinary man, and that Mr. Chenchiah is after something vital, though seeking it in the wrong place. Both Chenchiah and Brunner wish to see clearly what Christ should mean for them personally, and are agreed that simply to consult the Book is insufficient; but the idea of a prolonged incarnation is a blind alley. Still Christ must make a fundamental change in me, and it is clear how this must happen. Paul’s mystical experience (‘if we must use the word!’), begins in Galatians 2:20, ‘I am crucified with Christ …’ And so at the place of the historical reconciliation my life in Christ becomes meaningful. In our need we thank God that the Cross is supremely historical; for when we are identified with ‘that criminal’ on the Cross, God makes us His sons in Him.

In answer to a plea from the Rev. V.D. Sahayam that we should see the Cross not as absolutely unique, but as reflection for a brilliant moment of the mind of God the ever-forgiving, and as a revelation which has also been seen by others, not least in India, Dr. Brunner said that this was not a Christian word, but that of one looking at Christianity from outside. But we cannot shirk the scandal of Christianity, even in commending the Gospel to outsiders. Admit preparation, especially in the O.T. (Psalm 103), by all means; but redemption must not be treated as a timeless possibility, divorced from the actual event.

The Rev. S.W. Savarimuthu noted Dr. Brunner’s automatic reaction to words mystic, ism, and a tendency to state only one side of a question. He wished to emphasise that the N.T. justifies such language as the patristic ‘God became man, that man might become God’, which is just what Mr. Chenchiah wants to hear. But unfortunately he seeks to replace faith by yoga, the very opposite of faith.

The Rev. R.N.S. Craig urged that the conference should not divorce its study of Christology from the doctrines of the Church and the Sacraments. The parable of the Vine in John 15 suggests a doctrine of unity of nature in a communion of persons, our Lord is the Vine, and we are ‘in Him’, but are not simply identical with Him. So too, the teaching on eternal life through feeding on the flesh of the Son of Man in John 6 hints at ‘community of nature’. Paul’s metaphor of the Body of Christ, with its implication that there is an extension of the Incarnation in the Church, is not a mere metaphor. This approach must not be neglected.

Dr. Devadutt emphasised the need to clarify our language. Words like unity need careful definition. To a Hindu it suggests something like ‘identity’, involving annihilation of the self; to a Catholic it means something into which pantheism certainly does not enter. What does the idea of my ‘becoming Christ’ mean to Mr. Chenchiah? A new being like Christ, a dissolution of his personality, or what?

Dr. Surgit Singh spoke of the two different views of mysticism, ethical and pantheistic. All present presumably accepted the former, the N.T. type, which is contrasted with a transformation of substance. Ethical mysticism preserves a relationship, but in identity, strictly understood, there is no relationship; Galatians 2:20 is of course an ethical mysticism, as the two terms, Christ, and. I, still remain.

Third Session: Saturday Morning

God, History and Personality³

By DR V.E. DEVADUTT

The speaker said that he would deal with preliminary considerations, which, though perhaps superfluous for the convinced Christian, whose starting point is Christ Himself, are yet of value in clarifying the relations between Christianity and other faiths and in presenting it apologetically.

1. A basic presupposition of the Incarnation is that God is at once Personal Being and ultimate Truth. Hinduism however divorces these two aspects; e.g., Sankara says that Ishwara only comes into being, when Brahman is defined by maya; and though Ishwara is active in creation and providence, he is phenomenal and temporary and is only worshipped by those who have not attained to the Real. (Radhakrishnan attempts a synthesis - the Absolute is personal for religious faith, but impersonal for philosophy, which apprehends pure reality.)

   But if we treat the Incarnation seriously, we must believe not only that God is Personal, but also that He is the ultimate reality. On the advaita view the Absolute cannot be incarnated, because Brahman is self-identical, cannot move or have a history, cannot take form or have any outside relation to the world.

2. The Christian faith is that God entered history in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. The N.T. proclaims not that a man was divinised, but that God became man. (Outside Christianity other different doctrines of incarnation can be found; Gita iv for a classical statement, especially the word ‘sambhavami’, I cause myself, make myself happen.)

   Some theists (e.g., Unitarians, Sivaites) believe that God is personal and yet reject the idea that He can be manifested in a finite existence. So too philosophers who regard finite and infinite as irreconcilable reject the possibility of a genuine, as opposed to a docetic incarnation.

   The trouble arises from tying up philosophy with physical concepts, so that infinity is conceived materialistically. - (Spinoza’s finite substances and limitless infinite; for him God is Nature unconditioned, the physical universe freed from limitations and so tied to, though contrasted with, physical entities.)

   But if all the attributes of substance are derived from physical objects, no moral character can enter in. When philosophers work up to Being empirically by abstraction from manifested things, then qualitative attributes are eliminated, starting with the moral and spiritual ones. If Being is thus beyond change and dynamic qualities, only negatively physical ones are left to the Infinite. Philosophy should revise its concept of Infinity. Reality should embody values, a qualitative infinitude, supremely moral and spiritual.

   Granted such a philosophy, the Incarnation would not imply squeezing into a place that which is infinitely extended, but rather the local presence of qualitatively distinctive excellence (eternal life), which is not incompatible with a finite medium. Again, if the Infinite is independent and the finite dependent, the former need not be thought to negate the latter, seeing that finitude is ontologically rooted in the Infinite. The Infinite may therefore reveal itself through the finite. (Ramanuja criticised Sankara for making Being entirely non-qualitative, by ultimately dissolving all qualities in a substance beyond quality; on the other hand Western empiricism since Locke has too sharply distinguished substance and quality; though in fact a substance is that from which essence and attributes are inseparable.)

   The Incarnation is not only possible, but even necessary, if it is granted that reality is Personal; for the nature of personality is self-communication, which cannot be done through impersonal media. The Personal God must reveal Himself in personal encounter or in Incarnation. (This statement might conceal a docetic interpretation, unless one adds that the ‘finite medium’ employed is not a pure ‘accident’, whose character is of no significance.)

3. Unless we believe in the reality of History, the Incarnation loses its significance. It is more than play-acting or symbolism. On the other hand for Hinduism, Prof. D.S. Sarma says, The Hindu Scriptures deal with the ideal, not with historical fact, the avataras are illustrations of God’s help to man at different stages of his evolution. If the Incarnation were ideal, its history would naturally be unimportant; but a real event must belong to history, or it cannot be taken seriously.

   If we accept history as real, we are involved in accepting its limitations and its tragic character. Yet even so God can still enter it. Here Christianity differs from the position of other religions and philosophies, which will not face tragedy, but slide off into a ‘transcendental optimism’. In Christianity the tragedy is met by the Incarnation.

   We indeed have to read history in the light of the Incarnation itself. It shows that God first accepts history but also rejects it; for the End of history lies beyond history. Prophetic and apocalyptic strains are interwoven in the Bible history, in the Gospels and in the early Church. God the Creator does not abdicate, but continues to govern history, even if the End lies beyond.

These three presuppositions are essential to any Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.

Discussion on History

Fr. Fallon stressed the need for an Indian Christian philosophy, admitting that the question fell outside the scope of the present conference. Philosophy cannot replace theology, but we shall always need concepts, and therefore words, for dealing with our problems. He noted how differently such words as substance were being used in the conference, which was a source of misunderstanding. We need to study Indian philosophy and therein all elements that may be useful, and so acquire a ‘method of discourse’. This of course does not involve taking over complete systems. In connection with difficulties over finite and infinite, he referred to Analogy as a useful bridge, which is neither qualitative nor quantitative.

Western philosophical terminology is far too loosely used in Indian contexts and this too leads to misunderstanding. Is it correct, for instance, to say that in Sankara’s doctrine of Brahman ‘nirgun’ means ‘non-personal’? A better translation would be ‘non-related’, ‘non-personal’ suggests the modern western sense of personality, which is psychological; in this sense Brahman is of course not personal, but then neither is the Holy Trinity to be so understood as personal. In Sankara’s God are ‘sat, chit, ananda’ and though there is a great difference between his doctrine and that of the Trinity, we do no service to mutual understanding by dismissing it as ‘impersonal’. On the other hand the personality of Ramanuja’s God is anthropomorphic and rightly understood is even further than Sankara’s from the Christian God.

Mr. C.S. Paul supported the last point and also referred to the concept of man whose nature is regarded by Hindus as tripartite and quite differently conceived from the West. For instance, to the West mind is ex hypothesis conscious, but this is not the case in Hindu thought; again our bodily nature is said to come to us in samsara, birth and death, but the atma is not created and persists, though sects differ on whether it is or is not identical with God. He also warned people against oversimplified characterisations of Indian thought, whether of the type made by Radhakrishnan or that of Schweitzer (e.g., ‘Christianity is world-affirming; but Eastern religions are world-denying’). Opposite difficulties are caused by such usages as applying the word avatara to Christ.

Dr. Brunner noted that there are some amazing parallels between the problems raised in the Vedantic tradition with those found in western Neo-Platonism.

He asked whether the time had yet come to speak of an Indian Christian Philosophy. First become Christian, then philosophise. In any case, what is a Christian philosophy? If it exists, it must derive from the Christian Faith and use faith to tackle the problems which lie outside it. The first stage is to prepare a vocabulary,

Our theology and our whole Christian thought, even the N.T. itself, need a process like Bultmann’s ‘demythologising’; because myth is untenable in this age. Bultmann however errs by replacing myth with a Hegelian idealism, in which philosophy is made parallel to religion at a higher stage. But still there is truth in his criticism of details (e.g., a view of the universe implying a pre-Copernican outlook): In the crucial case of the Incarnation, however, he is shown up as succumbing to a non-Christian Weltanschauung.

As regards the meaning of the Incarnation for the understanding of history, he would go further than Dr. Devadutt, and say, Only if you have the Incarnation do you know what history is; for in distinction from the natural and the cosmic, the Incarnation is the Unique. The radically unique event gives meaning to history and shows it to be linear and irreversible, as opposed to the mythical circle. Greeks and Indians have produced no philosophy of history, because to them history does not matter. Why has history only been thought about since Christianity? Because Christ’s appearance at one point is like hanging a weight on a circle of wire, which pulls it out straight. And so for Christians time is serious, for within time a decision has to be made for eternity, and there is no time to lose.

It is also notable that the Ich-Du relation was discovered in Christian philosophy, which is the only scheme in which personality is defined as co-relation. We do not ask, Is God a substance? Is He a speaking I? Both His and our personality is an I-Thou relation. Personality is not a psychological reality, but an addressing being. This of course does not make God dependent on His creation to provide the needed Thou, because being Trinity He Himself is the ultimate locus of the I-Thou relation.

Dr. Devadutt, agreeing with Fr. Fallon’s plea for an agreed vocabulary, expressed the hope that this conference would stimulate work on a theological vocabulary common to all the Indian languages. But the point about Sankara he felt to be disproved by examination of Sankara’s Bhashya on Brahmasutras, Part II. 2. And according to Sadananda in Vedantasara, ‘sat’, etc., are negative terms.

Fourth Session: Saturday Afternoon

The Christology of St. Paul

By REV. MARCUS WARD

Taken together the evidence suggests that in Paul’s total experience of Christ there are certain main elements which may be described roughly, and for purposes of argument, as the moral, the mystical, and the institutional. Each of these is reflected in the account, implicit and explicit, which he gives of the meaning of Jesus and may now be examined briefly.

The MORAL element gathers around Paul’s assurance, of forgiveness in Christ, which produced in him a sense of new ethical power. We have already noted the deep moral conflict in the soul of Saul. Romans 7:7-23 contains the autobiography of a divided self, wherein the knowledge of what was right struggled with impotence to do it. From the misery of a high ideal unrealised, Christ had delivered him. When he surrendered to him as Saviour, the bond of cancelled sin was broken. Pardoned and empowered, Paul was henceforth able to triumph over the broken enemy. (1 Corinthians 15:55-57.) On this basis Paul declared Christ to be the Saviour, and offered to all who would accept Him as such the same release and power which Christ had won for him. By the great act of self-sacrifice unto death Christ had broken, once and for all, the power of sin and brought salvation within the reach of every man. Jesus, sinless Son of Man and incarnate Son of God, had offered Himself willingly to death for man’s sake and in his stead. Henceforward God forgives sins without compromising His righteousness. (Galatians 3:1-14; Romans 3:21-26 and 5:1-11; Ephesians 2:11-22.)

Who then is Jesus? He is Saviour from sin for all men. He died for our sins according to the Scriptures. He gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God. In Him, we have our redemption. The saving effect of His death is available to all on the ground of faith. And not merely for all, in a general way; it has intimate personal meaning for each believer. Paul never ceases to extol, in wondering gratitude, the Saviour who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

The MYSTICAL element - and I use the word with reservation - consists in the consciousness of personal fellowship with the risen Christ. This began for Paul when Jesus spoke with him on the Damascus Road, and it never left him. Here is no occasional ecstasy but a permanent and personal relationship between Paul and Jesus so close that Paul henceforth lives, in Christ and Christ in Him. (Galatians 2:20.) This is not union in the sense of man’s absorption into the divine but communion, the intimacy of fellowship between two distinct persons which honours the integrity of each. Above all, it is morally conditioned because it has been granted to one who has been crucified with Christ. When Paul accepted Christ as his Saviour, he died to sin and rose again to a new life of goodness. (Romans 6:1-11.) This new kind of mysticism imposes a divine imperative to serve and suffer with Christ, and imparts a joy and power such as the world can neither give, nor take away. It is a union bringing a peace of God passing knowledge. (Philippians 4:7) Nor is this a privilege for Paul’s private enjoyment. It is freely open to every believer and to the whole Church. The new life is life in Christ for individual and community; (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 3:28.) Henceforth, Christ is at once the new environment of Christians - they live in Christ as the fish lives in water - and a personal power living and active within them - not their own conscious communion with the divine, but God’s work in them. (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17.)

Who then is Jesus? Not only an external object of worship, but an indwelling presence, living and active in each believer and the Church; divine and spiritual; at once free from all the limits of finitude and able to enter into the closest personal relation with those who accept Him. Who else is this living and present Saviour but ‘life-giving Spirit’? (1 Corinthians 15:45.)

The INSTITUTIONAL element relates to Paul’s life in the Church as missionary and pastor. From the beginning of his life in Christ, Paul was an active member of the society of those believing in Jesus as Lord. Here was a fellowship open to all without any restrictions. (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11.) To all it offered free salvation by bringing them into direct relation with God through Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:18) Out of Paul’s full-hearted participation in the Church’s life of worship, moral endeavour, theological formulation, missionary expansion, came his vision of the meaning of it all. Christ had re-constituted the Church as the New Israel of God, in accordance with God’s eternal purpose, by His self-sacrifice. He controlled it and inspired it with the gift of His Spirit. Its mission was to reconcile all men to God. When this task had been fulfilled, Christ would reign over it in glory. It was in virtue of this relation to Christ that the Church, of many members and in many places, was one and indivisible. Thus, the Church according to Paul, is neither an aggregate of individuals nor a federation of local groups, but an organic unity in which Christ lives and through which He works in the world. It is a Body of which He is Head, and of it all Christians are members, each having his own part in the work of the whole, which is sustained by the divine Head from whom it receives its life and who uses it as His agent. He will continue to work through the Church until it has fulfilled its mission, and He can return as Lord of a redeemed mankind. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; 15:20-28; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 4:11-16.)

Who then is Jesus? The knowledge of Christ as Lord of the Church raised explicitly the question of His ultimate nature, already implied throughout. The fact of Christ as supreme in the Church raised necessary questions as to His final relation to God and the world. The first Christians had called Jesus ‘Servant’ and ‘Son’, and had worshipped Him as Lord. Of the religious estimate of Jesus from the beginning there can be no doubt, but they had not seriously faced the theological implications of it all. Paul however could not leave it there; the demands of his own soul and the needs of the Church impelled him to grapple with the implications of belief and practice. There could be no easy solution for one whose passionate and unqualified monotheism ruled out any idea of a second God or of God’s separation from the world. Yet if Christ is supreme in the Church and if the Church is the agent of God for the redemption of the world. He must stand, in the end, in a special relation to both! It took many years and much bitter controversy, before the Church solved this problem-many hold that it has not yet been solved - yet it is certain that Paul, at least, took a long step towards the solution by a bold leap of thought and faith towards the end of his life.

Discussion on Christology

Dr. Emmanuel asked if we had necessarily to follow Paul in interpreting Christ from a Jewish point of view. Most modern commentaries fail to help. For the study of conversion he recommended the South Indian saints.

Mr. Chenchiah claimed that in Paul there is a double background and two Christological strains, Jewish and Gentile. He regretted that the Gentile converts accepted the former and discarded the latter, which he held was typified by 2 Corinthians 3:18. Perhaps we can do better?

Dr. Brunner’s writing The Divine-Human Encounter ‘contains the essence of Brunnerism’ and valuably asserts that our interest is not God in isolation and man in isolation, but their encounter. India too is more interested in the ‘trail’ of God’s action, than in special acts. Becoming, not Being, is our right interest. What are God and man becoming?

Dr. Surgit Singh asked if the conference agreed that the essential message of the Gospel is contained in the N.T., or whether it was thought that interpretation might be allowed to change its structure ? In Christ Jew and Gentile are of secondary importance; they have become Christians.

Dr. Radhakrishnan accuses Christians of not appreciating the deeper things in Hinduism, but he forgets the Alexandrian tradition which goes back to Clement of Alexandria. His complaint lacks force, because, though Christians would accept an Absolute, he himself denies the reality of particulars. But perhaps Indian Christians should go further along the Alexandrian line ?

Fr. Fallon recalled the need to distinguish between two distinct pursuits; the re-stating for better realisation of the Christian Faith which is found in Scripture and tradition; and Christology proper, in which human intelligence grapples with the problem of Christ’s Person and may reach very varied results. In the latter field Indian theology may properly be original; but the two need careful distinction.

Dr. Soper emphasised the need for us to understand clearly, what Paul said about Christ’s work and the difficulty of stating it effectively in this age. The three main elements are deliverance from evil spirits (in whose existence modern folk do not believe), deliverance from bondage to the Law (which no longer binds people), and deliverance from bondage to sin (no longer a personal matter, as it was to Paul). Still we have to get Paul’s meaning clear, and then see how to apply it. Again, how are we to express Paul’s insight into man’s condition (which he describes as being a slave, a prisoner, an enemy of God, a sinner) so that Indians may appreciate his meaning?

Dr. Appasamy distinguished the understanding of Paul’s doctrine (which he agreed was important, but should not be the main concern of our theological teachers) from the application of his teaching to the needs and problems of India. He was disappointed that the paper gave him no help in the latter sphere, which is necessary for vital thought. How are the many strands in Paul’s rich thought to be used?

Johannine Christology⁴

By Dr. P.D. DEVANANDAN

The keynote of the Fourth Gospel is found in this verse: ‘These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.’ This claim is in full accord with early Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. But this writer goes further and says that the Messiah is God’s revelation to all mankind.

The Gospel, therefore, insists on the transcendent nature of our Lord, and his consciousness of a unique relation to the Father. This does not mean that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is portrayed as an isolated figure unrelated to the common experiences of human life, its struggles and limitations; on the contrary the humanity of Jesus is brought out, in some respects, with greater vividness in this Gospel than in the synoptics.

We turn now to the Johannine Logos. To the evangelist the Logos is a person, in himself Divine, who mediates in the creation of the world, and enters human life by becoming flesh in order that he may reveal the very heart of God.

There are three important statements made in the prologue in regard to the Logos:

1. He existed from the beginning;
2. He was in living personal relationship with God;
3. His place was within the Godhead.

The fact, however, remains that the Logos conception as such does not colour the Johannine theology as a whole. The characteristic Christological idea of the Evangelist is the idea of our Lord as the Son of God. It is this idea that is identified with the Logos.

Eastern Christology

By DR C.E. ABRAHAM

My main aim in this paper is a modest one. I do not intend to give an historical sketch of the development of Eastern Christology from the beginning to the present time; I wish only to pick out two or three thinkers in the 3rd to the 7th century and express their views on Christology.

Origen

Origen followed the lead of the Apologists and spoke of Christ as the Logos, the Wisdom, and in this way accepted what light he could find in both Jewish scriptures and pagan thought to set forth the glory and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. He developed his thought along two lines:

1. Relation of the Logos to the Son of God; and
2. Relation of the Logos to man.

The first line of thought he developed against the gnostic background of aeons and demiurges and taught the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son: The Son, Origen said, was no creature, no minor God, no depersonalised deity, no mere emanation, but one who was God as God is God and who is eternal as God is eternal. Origen thus maintains the subsistence of the Son alongside of the Father, oneness of essence (ousia); co-equality, co-eternity, and co-inherence.

The second line of thought is equally illuminating. Origen was one of the first thinkers to emphasise the full humanity of Christ. The two natures, divine and human, remained distinct and yet one in essence, so that the Son is not only consubstantial with the Father but also with man. Origen was the first to describe the union of God and man by the compound word God-man, theanthropos.

Athanasius

Athanasius’ contribution to Christology is understood best against the background of the teaching of Arius, his contemporary and fellow-citizen. The doctrine of Arius contained two main points:

1. The Son is not co-eternal with the Father;
2. The Son is not of equal status with God the Father.

Against this the two chief ideas of Athanasius regarding the person of Christ are that there is unity of essence between the Son and the Father and that the participation of the Son in the Father is complete and not partial. Another point of interest in his Christology is the shift in emphasis from the conception of Logos to that of Son. By being attached to the conception of the Redeemer and Saviour, the Logos received a new content.

Chalcedonian Formula

This doctrinal formula is another landmark in the definition of the Person of Christ. It largely serves the purpose of steering clearly away from heretical pitfalls; but its wording gives a mechanical or even material flavour to the Person of Christ:

John of Damascus

He is called “the Registrar of Greek Orthodoxy” He was faithful to Chalcedon in maintaining that Christ was perfect God and perfect man with all the natural attributes of each, i.e., two modes of volition, a human and a divine; two natural operations and two principles of free choice. The two natures were united in one hypostasis so that Christ’s humanity has no independent subsistence. It is when the relation of the two natures is discussed that a special feature in John’s Christology comes into view in the union between the two natures there was a reciprocal interchange of properties and permeation of the one by the other.

In conclusion, I should like to make a few observations regarding our relation to different Indian religions:

1. We should not be afraid of using categories of thought borrowed from the religious and philosophical heritage of India if they can serve the Christ.
2. The conception of God and man which is revealed in Jesus Christ should be the norm by which we test the conception of God and man we find in other religions.
3. We must humbly recognise that the mysterious Christ is something, that transcends all definitions of logic and philosophy and therefore our attitude to Him should be that of worship.

Western Christology

By THE REV. PETER MAY

Fact and interpretation of fact cannot be separated from each other. In thought, it may be possible but in practice it is not possible. In the sphere of Christian thought the fact of Jesus of Nazareth and the interpretation of that fact together make up the phenomenon that we know as Christology. It is, however, open to a theologian either to emphasise the fact of Jesus or the interpretation of that fact. His choice will determine his method and the course of his Christological thinking. It is obvious that both of these methods are to be seen at work together in the New Testament. It is clear for example that the Apostles came to the interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth through His historical appearance in Galilee; but it is equally clear that all our New Testament writings are, in a sense, of a later stage than apostolic, in that their writers, in forming these Gospels and epistles, are compelled by their interpretation to mould and select the facts that make up Jesus of Nazareth. These two factors have always been of importance in understanding the person and work of Christ, and the characteristic marks of Western Christology are in fact to be found in the different variations and proportions given to fact and interpretation in the whole event that is Jesus of Nazareth.

Western Christology for the last two hundred years until comparatively recently has concerned itself primarily with the fact of Jesus.” And the phrases most prominently used have been “the Jesus of History” and “the Historical Jesus.” Certain results ensued from this approach. In the first place it was recognised that our Lord’s knowledge was limited by the fact that he was a man. Secondly, that Jesus’ miracles are the result of the co-operation of the power of God with human faith of the highest order. And thirdly, that our Lord’s moral and religious life was essentially human.

Let us now turn to the second method of approach adopted in the West. This is epitomised in the famous words of Melanchthon, ‘To know Christ is to know His benefits, not, as they (the school men) teach, to contemplate, His natures, and the modes of His Incarnation.’ A number of consequences follow from this approach: first, we are moving away from the mere Jesus of history, in the sense that, when we talk about Christ’s benefits, we are including in the fact of Christ the life of the Church from Pentecost to the present day. Second, we must move with caution, because the phrase “to know His benefits” can very easily deteriorate into mere value judgements.

Western Christology has therefore two things to say to Indian theologians: first, that no Christology is true to the teaching of the New Testament which does not take seriously the historical Jesus, and second, that no Christology is true to the teaching of the New Testament which does not find its core in the saving work of Christ, in whom God was reconciling the world unto Himself.

Discussion on Western Christology

Dr. Devadutt asked for information about contemporary Eastern theology, for instance that of the Jacobites, from which he hoped to learn much. He believed that they teach a divine community of God, Christ and believers, simultaneous interpenetration without loss of distinctions; and that this interpenetration is so vital that the terms are not understandable in isolation.

Mr. Savarimuthu was reminded of a Sivaite scene at Chelambaram Temple, which shows the dancing Siva with Oomadev and little Subaramanion. The latter is frightened, but his mother’s gesture both encourages him and shields his eyes from seeing Siva in a wrathful mood. Some would say that Sakti is in Siva and vice versa, and that both are in the saints, and the prayer ‘Please make me one of thy saints, so that I can have joy in thy presence’ involves a Sivaite doctrine of a divine society.

With regard to the programme of the conference, Mr. Chenchiah said it would be logical to settle first what are the problems which agitate Indian minds, rather than to start with purely historical study. He stated one problem. A new type of Man (Christ) has appeared, whom we wish to know. Western Christology is based either on the disciples testimony or on other peoples personal experience But to Indian minds that is imperfect, because they need to become one with Him, to enter His consciousness. Why can I not understand a dog? Why can I understand a friend? Because in the latter case I share a common spirit.” So we need to ‘become Christ’, and to take more seriously His teaching about the Holy Spirit. What part does the Spirit play in our thought?

Fifth Session: Sunday Morning

Christological Reconstruction and Advaitic Philosophy

By MR P. CHENCHIAH

Indian Christianity is slowly taking shape. It is primarily Indian apprehension of Jesus, i.e., primarily Christology and not theology. In India Christians ought to give preference to Christology over theology for theology depends upon Christology. Indian Christians should build their Christology around the personality of Jesus, i.e., derive their conception of God and man from him.

The human mind moves around Jesus because it perceives that something new has entered humanity through Him. Jesus was a human being; yet a different, new human being. He was Adam, but a new, or second, Adam. In Christology, we have to grasp and understand, not Jesus the man but Jesus the new man - not God, but God-man. What Jesus embodies was neither God as He is nor man as he is, but God and man as they became one in the creative process. To define the man in Jesus and make that the cornerstone of a new Christology is the task of Indian Christian Christology.

In any such formulation the sources from which we may get help are mythology, western and eastern Christian theology, Hinduism and psychology. I believe we derive more help from mythology in the reconstruction than from Advaita. In other words we are likely to be more faithful to the fact of Jesus, if we interpret Him in the terms of primary, primitive longing than in the light of highly intellectualised speculations of philosophy and theology.

The significance of the fact that if you take incarnation seriously you have to modify radically the Sankarite position has not yet been realised. The history of Advaitism shows that all, different types of it except that of Goudapada are forced either to hold two contradictory concepts together and refuse to connect them, or, when they bring the Brahman and world together, experience, gains reality, and ultimate personality. The Gita has no difficulty in holding that the paratma is a purusha. This fact itself points to the need that Advaitism should be reconceived on a new and non-traditional basis.

Christology operating through the categories of Greek philosophy and Roman administrative ideology has not only lost sight of the subject, but has developed a neurosis against it. Krishna Chaitanya - the consciousness of Krishna - is a vital term in Krishnology. But notwithstanding the Pauline injunction, ‘Let that mind which was in Christ Jesus be in you,’ western theology ceased to speak in terms of psychology. Christology must take a baptism by full immersion in psychology before it can answer any deep and relevant longings of the Indian mind. The primacy of the Holy Spirit as an indwelling consciousness forces on us the task of stating how It relates itself to human consciousness. Western theology avoids problems of the nature of the divine and human personalities in the integration of the Incarnation.

Only when we restore psychology to western theology, in the reconstruction and arrive at a new conception of the ultimate as unity in the light of later criticism of Advaita by Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita and Jainism, shall we be in a position to indicate what contributions western Christianity and Hinduism can make to Indian Christian Christology. As things stand the common denominator of advaitisms, and therefore their contribution, lies in the insistence of unity as the insignia of reality That much has survived all the changes of Hindu religious thought. Creation is a sacrifice of separation. God distributes his fullness and content in creation. Evolution is the struggle of the divine to recover fragmented oneness.

In the light of the above considerations we may try to form some idea of Christology as it may take shape among Indian Christian theologians:

1. We have to get the material for reconstruction from Christ Himself by determining what was new in Him in consciousness, and personality. The aid we may get from psychology and from Hinduism in general and Advaita in particular does not add anything to Jesus; but only, reveals what was there already but was not perceived.
2. The data of Christology is the whole of the fact of Jesus, which consists of His birth, growth, teachings, acts, death, resurrection and ascension. What saves, redeems and perfects humanity is the whole of the life of Jesus. And no single fact should be declared as the fact as is done in present day western theology. We should use the phrase Son of man to describe the significance of the fact of Jesus. Our theology should be the theology of the Son of man.
3. The function of the Holy Spirit as a new life-force which gives birth to new humanity has also been neglected in western theology by reason of his incorporation into trinity and his becoming an object of worship. The relation of the Holy Spirit in the forming of the fact of Jesus has not been a subject of investigation or elucidation in western theology. It should be the basic study in Indian Christian Christology.
4. The crucial terms that should go into any conception of Jesus are spirit, love, begetting, etc. (John 3:16,18). The union of God and man is expressed by the crucial word ‘beget’.
5. The Incarnation stresses the significance of body in salvation. If incarnation unites spirit and matter, it cannot be this human spirit and ordinary matter. It must be Holy Spirit and new matter. In the Gita we have a suggestion which corresponds to resurrection or the spiritual body of St. Paul, i.e., body not made of Satva of the Trigunita, but Suddha Satva or Yoga Maya.

Discussion on Christological Reconstruction

Mr. R.C. Das, after complimenting the writer of the paper, said that one who has found new life in Christ cannot be satisfied with living the rest of his life beneath the Cross, even though the Cross is eternal. It is the start, not the end, of the Christian life. As we grow in this life, we must pass beyond into the Resurrection experience and Pentecost and life in the Church. It is here that Chenchiah’s words about becoming Christ have their relevance. Dangers indeed need to be indicated, lest men go astray; e.g., the Hindu or the nominal Christian may seek to become like Christ through yoga without the Cross, and may rest satisfied with this; yet how can one become like Christ without new life gained through faith in His self-giving on the Cross? Still, he suggested, ‘my stake shall be the Cross, and my rope, a long one, all round it’.

If aspiring to be like Christ without the Cross produces a kind of Christianity, what of those who seek to be like or to become Christ through service? There are many religions in India, and also many possible forms of Christianity. Men who serve humanity can become like Christ also, which is not an intellectual business, but a case of expressing Christ in life.

Dr. Surgit Singh said that great caution was necessary in the use of mythology for Christian theological interpretation. We must distinguish ‘between the “higher myths’, as in Plato or Genesis, and the kind advocated by the paper. The former are stories which capture truths not to be described in literal terms; but myths which change realities into physical terms have no relevance to the Christian message.

He welcomed the reference to ‘union and communion’ in the paper, even though Mr. Chenchiah would not call it a ‘relation’; yet how can it not be, unless he still thinks of identity, amalgam or constituent union?

The idea of the New Race is common in the N.T. It is ‘in Christ’ not spatially ‘in’, but in a relation to Him like that described in Romans 6. The New Race was originally mythological, but in the N.T. all the crude physical expression is eliminated (John 1:13). Esoteric interpretations which get away from the N.T. are dangerous. In putting on Christ, we do not displace Him.

Dr. Brunner said he was both deeply stirred and shocked by the paper. Digestion (‘assimilation’ in the first discussion) has: two senses: the first is right - we must appropriate the Gospel for ourselves; but Mr. Chenchiah consciously attempts to change the Gospel, and that is a different matter.

This, he warned, will lead nowhere; it is simply a shifting of the Gospel into the whole Hindu scheme of thought and theology. The West is not waiting for this, an adulteration of the Gospel, but rather for the Gospel itself seen afresh from a new locus. Indeed, he feared that the West has already experienced such extraneous admixtures in the Gospel.

He then felt bound to say that the discussion called for a final decision (so far deferred in the West) concerning the relation of the Incarnation to the Virgin Birth. The latter he held is mythological, Matthew and Luke trying to say how the Son of God was born; and he saw in it a dangerous opening for the physical myths of Mr Chenchiah. He argued that it did not occur in the Apostolic Preaching and that Paul and John rejected it (John 1:45, the son of Joseph). Even if it is not a heresy in the N.T., it has had the effect in the Church of obscuring the Incarnation.

Our problem is focussed by Mr. Das statement about going beyond the Cross to something greater. Let us forget theological terms, and consider, I am a sinner, yet despite this God loves me - that is the whole Gospel. God says so, and makes it possible: through the Cross. We need not make ‘infused’ and ‘imputed’ grace exclusive alternatives, but one must come first. It is clear that for Paul and John (15:3) the latter is first. God tells me, I am thy Father-that is grace. If I accept this grace in the Word, which is Christ, that is all; I do not expect more. Then the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, then we have peace with God. The New Creation is to have the spirit of adoption. God’s grace is His: will, His relation to me when He calls me and makes me His Son. This is the whole story.

How different this is from nature mythology about heaven and earth becoming one. In the light of comparative mythology one may find some vague resemblances in the Gospel, but in itself it is essentially anti-mythological - ‘God is God and man is man, and Christ is the outstretched Hand of God to me’; yet once the Gospel is accepted, you find that the deepest longings of the myth have been fulfilled. But let us not abandon the Cross to seek for ‘greater revelations’.

Fr. Fallon, while welcoming the deep Christianity in much of what Dr. Brunner said, pointed out that he did not give the whole Faith, and now in a crucial instance he rejects part of the Word of God. He questioned Dr. Brunner’s interpretation of Paul and John, and argued that the pattern for the New Birth of man in John 1:13 (‘not of blood …’). Can only be the Virgin Birth of Christ. Further the four Gospels are not mythological, yet they contain the Virgin Birth. What is left of the authority of the Bible, if Dr Brunner is justified in posing such a drastic choice as he does? And if after two thousand years the Church’s traditional interpretation is to be put in the wrong, what is left but private judgement?

Nor is there any confusion between the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth in the Catholic doctors (though there may be in some books of “Catholic teaching”); they perfectly distinguish between the two, and Aquinas, asking whether the Virgin Birth was necessary to God’s plan, decided that it was not necessary, though entirely fitting.

To speak of rebirth in Christ runs the danger in India of being taken physically. Yet it is clear (the recent papal Encyclical on the Mystical Body) that rebirth in Christ involves neither pantheism nor physical identity. When God loves me He does not change, but I do. And yet I remain a sinner. It is a help to understanding, if we distinguish ‘sinfulness’ from ‘sin’; the former remains in us through life, but the latter, being rebellion against God, has to be conquered, if the process of rebirth is not to be thwarted.

Dr. Devadutt remarked that Mr. Chenchiah had identified revelation with Scripture, which is correct for Hindus, but not for Christians, whose Scripture is the record of revelation. For followers of advaita Reality is impersonal, but for those who start from the Cross of Christ, all has to be evaluated in the light of a Personal Reality. D.S. Sarma is a theist, and yet he says that Hindu Scriptures only deal with ideal truth, as is well illustrated by the avatars. The crux about a doctrine of incarnation is whether it is to be taken as a true fact or as an idea; and if the former is chosen, then Christ is the only claimant for our faith.

No international theology is possible unless God is regarded: as the highest and only reality. Shankara on Gita iv. 6 says that Krishna’s birth is only apparent, which is quite consistent with regarding the personal God as merely phenomenal.

Mr. C.S. Paul quoted the orthodox doctrine of man as created in the image of God, fallen yet capable of being redeemed, and needing the free gift of divine grace in the Redeemer. But there is also the desire and tendency towards God even in fallen man, which Indian Christians stress. So there is a double search, God for man, man for God. Both are necessary, as we cannot be saved against our will. God’s immanence in man follows from the doctrine of the Image; as Hogg said ‘We are not damned goats, but lost sheep’, and only our ultimate rejection of God could destroy this character.

Mr. Chenchiah, summing up, said that his Indian (Hindu) nature was there in his mind, and was not extraneous. He pleaded to be left alone with Christ. ‘We shall work out something satisfactory to both.’ There is no need for the company of Moses, Sankara or any western theologians. We do not know what may happen.

Sixth Session: Sunday Afternoon

Christological: Reconstruction and Ramanuja’s Philosophy

By Dr. A.J. APPASAMY

The first question which arises as soon as we begin to consider this subject is. What is the connection between Christology and Ramanuja? It is necessary to make it perfectly clear at the very outset that the Word of God is our standard authority for Christological doctrine. For us Christians there is no book or system of thought which can be more compelling than the Bible. In the Bible we have not merely a’record of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ which we find nowhere else, but also an interpretation of them which is of binding value for us.

It is but natural that the Word of God be interpreted by us according to the influences we have received from our heredity, background and environment. For instance when William Temple interprets the Word of God he is certainly influenced by his Anglo-Saxon origin and his training in European culture and philosophy. In like manner students of the Word of God in India would be influenced by their Indian background and training. God has been disclosing Himself to mankind continually. Here in India with its earnest search for truth, a few men have appropriated and made their own this revelation of God. Among these Ramanuja stands pre-eminent. He realised with great clearness and certainty that God is a personal God whom we should worship with love and devotion. Ramanuja lived in the twelfth century and his influence on the course of religious thought in India has been profound.

From the point of view of Christological reconstruction three possible attitudes can be adopted towards Ramanuja:

1. We may say that Christian thought and Ramanuja’s philosophy are entirely different in so far as the latter gives a prominent place to the doctrine of karma, the practice of idolatry and many other things which are quite alien to the spirit and genius of Christianity.
2. If we believe that God has not left Himself without witness in any nation, we must accept that there are many longings in the Indian heart which have been planted there and which need to be met. A study of Ramanuja enables us to discover some of these really important and worthwhile aspirations.
3. We may even go further and say that in Ramanuja we do not merely see some of the deep-rooted desires of the Indian soul, but also discover the way in which the all-loving God, in His abundant goodness and grace, has met and fulfilled these longings. These are survival values of the utmost importance which need to be taken into the structure of Christological doctrine in India.

It would be well to make the Farewell Discourses of our Lord in St. John (Chapters 13-17) the point of departure for all our Christological thinking in India. The Discourses are not merely a part of the Word of God; they are an essential part of the Word of God; indeed I would go to the length of saying that they are the most essential part of the Word of God. The verse Abide in me and I in you is the mahavakya of the Christian religion. It is our heredity and environment which urge us to make the Farewell Discourses, rather than Romans 5-8, the starting point of our Christological thinking.

Ramanuja teaches that God is an ocean of love and forgives the sins of all those who surrender themselves to Him. He becomes incarnate in the world to meet the ardent longings of His devotees for a vision of Him. His intimate contact with the world is not confined to those points in time and space when and where His incarnation takes place. It is a continuous and intimate relationship of immanence.

We have to try and understand from the Word of God whether the purpose of the Incarnation of Christ is to grant His devotees a vision of Himself. The teaching of John 14:1-10 is quite clear. Philip said to Jesus, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us.’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father’. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ took place in the world in order that the deep and passionate longing of the human heart for God might be fulfilled. I noted the depth and intensity of such a desire in my father, who as a young man of twenty-four became a convert to the Christian religion after a considerable searching of mind and heart.

If the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is to make God clear to men, we need to go further and ask whether it is the only purpose of the Incarnation or whether it is the primary purpose, there being other purposes such as the object of redeeming man from his sins. What is the relationship between Christ the Revealer of God and Christ the Redeemer? The passionate yearning of the soul is for fellowship with God; but sin intervenes. The supreme meaning of the Cross of Christ is that sin has been overcome and that now we can have communion with. God. Theologians have sometimes pointed out that St. John exalts the entire life of Jesus, whereas St. Paul concentrates his attention on the suffering and death on the cross. Like all such distinctions, this distinction between St. Paul and St. John may not be quite accurate, but it contains a genuine measure of truth. Another thing which we should keep in mind is that, clear as is the manifestation of God in the human life of Jesus, there are probably heights and depths in God which could not very well be brought out under the cramping conditions of a life on earth.

We are taught in the Word of God that we should abide in Christ, and He would abide in us. Who is this Christ who thus abides in us? It cannot be the Jesus of history. It must be the living and eternal Christ who dwells in our hearts and purifies us with His mighty, power of love. Any Christology which develops in India should lay considerable stress on the living Christ, as distinguished from the Jesus of history.

Christological reconstruction in India would also have to consider carefully the relationship between the living Christ and the Holy. Spirit. There is this vital difference, that the living Christ continues to do, age after age and in human heart after human heart, what Jesus did in Palestine. Christ is born in the human soul, grows to maturity in the human soul, ministers in the human soul, is crucified every time we sin, and rises again to glory. This wonderful experience is repeated in every human heart that throws itself open to the entrance of the living Christ.

Discussion on Reconstruction

Dr. Devadutt suggested that the next conference should make further studies in the sphere of Vaishnavism, wherein might be found both things worth learning and contacts waiting to be made.

Apart from the dualist systems, most Indian philosophies assume unity in substance between Reality (God) and the created realm. But in Ramanuja is found a sharira relation. Matter and spirit are related through Brahman in a way analogous to body and soul. Is there an unbridgeable gap between the assumptions of Christian theism and those of a philosophy which maintains continuity between God and the world?

Post-Ramanuja Vaishnavism is a fruitful field. Ramanuja’s followers built up their well-known doctrines of grace (the ‘cat’ and the ‘monkey’) and the doctrine of prapati (surrender). In a striking scene the sinner (essentially the independent rebel) falls helpless at Vishnu’s feet, while his consort, Sri, pleads for him. Vishnu is faced with a dilemma; the sinner deserves punishment, yet Vishnu is merciful. It is resolved when, at Sri’s request, Vishnu becomes Srinivasa, in order to save the sinner. Yet of course such forgiveness by ’grace” is purely ideal, and there is a great gulf between it and the Cross.

The Rev. H. Spencer suggested that the conference, by giving no place to Islamics, lost both in intelligibility and evangelistic effectiveness. He noted how Muslim mystics resembled Hindus in their language, and aspired similarly to unity. Islam had to deal with the same problems as those raised, in the Sankara-Ramanuja controversy over the attributes of Brahman - Are the attributes of Allah separable? Are they eternal? Is Allah life? The same problems of language are raised for Christians who have to borrow a vocabulary from Islam as for those who borrow from Hinduism. It might have illuminated the discussions to have seen where and why Muslim thinkers agreed with or differed from Hindus.

Dr. Surgit Singh assured Mr. Spencer that a place had indeed been planned for Islamics, but readers of papers had not been forthcoming. The need was certainly not overlooked.

Mr. R.C. Das said that, as an evangelist, he found the last part of the paper interesting. When Christ is presented to thoughtful Hindus they often complain that we are offering them someone who has been dead for two thousand years. To them Christ is absent, and they say, Why not speak of God? But Ramanuja’s teaching is suggestive. Does not Christ come into our own personal lives? Does He not really come when there is a historical crisis? Is He not lovingly present in His Church and in His saints? Hindus demand to be met in such ways, and their demand drives us back to the Bible, that we may interpret it afresh.

Mr. Chenchiah said that an earlier generation of Indian Christians were satisfied with the presentation of the Christianity which they received, but not so their sons. Is this because an incomplete Christ was offered?

What is the true drama of spiritual life? Orthodox Christianity, he said, represented it as a ‘police-court affair’, in which God is the magistrate and Christ our scapegoat. According to Hindus, there is an age-long contest between dharma and adharma; sometimes the latter imperils creation, in which case Sri Krishna comes to save the world (N.B., not just individuals). Mr. Chenchiah claimed that a third view is to be found in Paul; nature in travail with an emerging evolution (nature-man-Christ-the sons of God). He welcomed this Mother-idea’ in Paul, but asked which of the three alternatives is correct? India wants to know the real Christ and His work here and now. Any system like the first mentioned is untrue to Him; God calls Indians to reject such an interpretation and to seek a better.

Dr. Brunner said he was interested to hear about Ramanuja, but was disappointed by the second part of the paper. It is one thing to point out the incompleteness of most theological expositions of Christ, but quite another to suggest that Christ Himself is incomplete and that someone else needs to be called in to supply His lack.

Those points of exposition mentioned as incompletely taught certainly find place in Brunner’s own interpretation of Christ. For example the relation of Nature to God is well represented both in the Bible and in many great hymns. (In passing, Dr. Brunner noted with regret the preference of Indian congregations for nineteenth-century hymns, composed at a period when men had lost the secret of singing to God.)

But the suggestion that something more is needed than Christ, that in him is not the fullness of God - that is not a question about Ramanuja, but a serious question addressed to Scripture. Can the paper really have intended this?

Chenchiah’s caricature of the orthodox doctrine, and his ‘Pauline’ construction alike worried Dr. Brunner. The latter construction was a rationalism which owed little to its ostensible peg in Romans 8. Let us use Ramanuja to show up where we do not fully understand Scripture, but suspect Chenchiah’s original, courageous mind-delighting as he does in heresy!

Is Paul’s doctrine insufficient? Why does the Church stick to the historical Christ-not of course the dead Christ? We should distinguish between what we believe and what happens to us when we believe. Paul holds that by looking at the historical Christ, He will be born in him; but that is very different from the idea that the Incarnation is something over and done with and that now we must look about for something more.

The crux of Mr. Das’ difficulty seems to be that the Hindus fail to see Christ in His Church; if so, then that is bad, not for the faith, but for us.

He ended with a warning against a Bergsonian Gospel. Ramanuja and others may contribute accusations of our failure, but this is a pastoral, not a theological, problem. The Church’s Christology is not so much defective as badly used.

Dr. Emmanuel said that he still had doubts. Some are trying to reconstruct Christology using Sankara’s terms to throw light on the relation of Christ to God. Others would borrow from Ramanuja the idea of the whole universe being influenced by God, as body by soul. What way are we to think for the best? Guidance is needed by the ordinary member of the Church, who asks such questions as these.

Mr. Paul hoped that all would agree that Christ is the fullness of Truth; but our problem is to fathom, that Truth. Some would suspect that western thought is one-sided in its emphasis on the distinction between God and man, and the divine transcendence. Typically, Indian is the thought of His immanence, as is shown by four out of five of Ramanuja’s attributes. Here again is danger of exaggeration and both sides need to be held together.

Dr. Appasamy, summing up, explained that his interest in Ramanuja was not as a possible supplement to Christ. But he seeks to understand the Gospel, and at the same time finds that the power of the Indian classics moves him. His own reaction to Dr. Brunner’s teaching is that of all the attributes to which Ramanuja draws attention only the third (incarnation) comes in for a full treatment. But India is calling for a fuller exposition of the Christ.

Seventh Session: Monday Morning

Revelation and Scripture

By BISHOP ANDERS NYGREN

The first thing that is necessary is to examine what revelation is, in the Christian sense of the term. It happens very often that the concept is used in a way quite other than the original Christian meaning. We have to distinguish between two different ways of viewing revelation:

1. The Biblical, realistic, active concept, and
2. The intellectualistic concept, which came as a heritage from Greek thought and has held sway for the most part since the Enlightenment.

Part 1

When revelation is spoken of, and it is said that the Bible contains such, we are prone to think that God was hidden at first. He concealed Himself behind a veil, and man could neither know Him nor what He is like. And then came revelation, by the drawing aside of the veil, disclosing Him who had been hidden behind it. Then God is no longer unknown to man. Henceforth, man knows Him and His attributes. Man has a knowledge now that he formerly lacked. Such is the intellectualistic concept of revelation.

When the Bible speaks of revelation its meaning is quite different from this. We may give two examples one from the Old Testament and one from the New. In Isaiah 52:10 we read, “The Lord has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all nations.”! And Isaiah 53:1 asks; “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?”. This is a striking expression of the Biblical concept of revelation. Revelation means that God enters in, lays bare His arm and deals with us. Revelation is an active intervention of God. God does not sit still as the passive object of our observation. In revelation He is dealing actively with our existence, laying His hand on it and changing its circumstances. In this connection it may be interesting to recall one of the characteristics of the history of art, to which attention has often been directed. During the earliest Christian times men held firmly to the prohibition of images or likenesses. Hence, there are no graphic representations of God from that age. When people wished to present a likeness of God, they showed “the arm of God”. That is the way in which God reveals Himself to us men. “Underneath are His everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27). That presents the Biblical concept of revelation.

And now we turn to the New Testament illustration, in Romans 1:17. This is the extraordinarily important statement which serves as theme and summary for the whole epistle. Here Paul says, “The righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, He who through faith is righteous shall live.” - “The righteousness of God is revealed!” There again is the concept of revelation. Closer examination of this passage discloses the meaning of the Christian concept, in contrast with the intellectualistic and static view.

In this brief verse the Apostle has brought together four extraordinarily important concepts: gospel, righteousness, revelation and faith. It is striking to note how the intellectualistic, static view of revelation has been able to construe these terms according to its own presuppositions, thereby giving them a meaning quite different from Paul’s. For instance, the word ‘gospel’ has been interpreted as if it meant only a doctrine or the proclamation of timeless religious truths. “The righteousness of God” is presented as a static attribute in the Divine nature. “Revelation” is thought of as the theoretical communication of formerly hidden knowledge. And by “faith” is meant the affirmation and acceptance of this doctrine, of such universally valid religious ideas. But one must discard that static and intellectualistic view at every point, if he would understand Paul. Not a fibre of its roots must remain. “The Gospel” is not merely the proclamation of certain ideas, but - as the preceding verse says - a Divine dynamic, “the power of God unto salvation” by which He snatches the victims of sin and death from their thraldom and brings them into the new relationship of righteousness and life. “The righteousness of God” is not a static attribute of God, but His mighty intervention into our existence, resulting in a complete change in its conditions. “The righteousness of God” is an actuality which He has effected in our midst, through Christ. In verse 18 Paul says that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” That is an actual and potent fact. And the righteousness of God in the new age is just as real and potent. When Paul says that this righteousness is “revealed”, he is not thinking of revelation as an intellectual, enlightenment. His concept of revelation is not intellectualistic and static. His concept, like that of the Old Testament is dynamic. A Divine dynamic, a power of God takes a hand in our existence. Revelation is an action originating in God. Paul does not start from a view of God as unknown, hidden from us by a veil. He does not think of revelation as a parting of a concealing veil, so that man may come to know what God is like, that God is righteous. Revelation is rather the mighty manifestation of God’s will-at one time of His wrath, and at another of His righteousness. Just as the wrath of God comes down from heaven on the ungodliness of men, so too, the righteousness of God has come down from above through Christ and is given to everyone who has faith in Him. And “faith” is not merely an intellectual assent to the ideas of the Gospel; it is rather the fact of being laid hold of and constrained by the power of the Gospel, thereby borne into the new age of life with Christ.

Part 2

Revelation is the action of God, coming to its highest in the fact that He sent Christ into our world and thereby bestowed His righteousness on us. But what is the Bible then? It is both the message of that action and its continuation. A message is indeed an objective proclamation, announcing that something has happened; but it is more than that. In the message there is something of a transforming character; and it is in that fact that the message comes to be a continuation of the action, being, as it were, a very part of it. A convenient illustration may help.

In May 1945 came the message, “Denmark is free! Norway is free!” That news was a message in the most proper sense of the term. But when 100 or 200 years hence men read about the liberation of those lands, that history will no longer have the character of a message. It will then be simply the repetition of an objective historic fact. What does it mean that it first came as a message? Primarily it means that something real had come about. But it also means that which was reported was of crucial importance for him who heard of it. A power mightier than the invading enemy had come and deprived the foe of his sway. That was the objective fact. But by that fact the subjective situation of every individual had been mightily changed. They who before had been driven underground by fear of the conqueror could now come forth. Their law which had been pushed aside could again function. The time of arbitrariness and disregard of law was past. Man could breathe again and begin to live.

In such a case one can easily see how the objective and the subjective are bound up together. If the objective fact had not happened, if a greater power had not come and put down the usurper, all would have remained as it was force, lawlessness and fear would have continued to hold sway. There would have been no basis for a new message; for the message can proclaim only what has actually occurred. But-and now we see the other side of the situation - as long as the message about what has happened has not reached him who is in prison or in hiding, it is for him as if nothing had happened. He continues to live in fear and constraint. Life wears its old aspect and tyranny still holds power. Only after the objective victory has been won, and the message thereof has gone forth over the land do the fetters fall and the fears vanish; only then can one return to a life worthy of man. The change in the objective situation brings change in the subjective; - or, as it might be better to say - it brings an objective change in the status of the individual. He can say, “The restoration of my country’s freedom has restored my freedom too.”

This illustration is not just a vague analogy with the fact of the Christian message. There is an actual correspondence. Our human life is by nature a life under alien powers. How that came to be we may not be able to see clearly; but that it is so is a manifest fact. If we did not know that before, recent years have made it evident. Humanity has done everything to destroy itself. Men have literally poured down death on each other. Man, has turned his back on God, and we see what his situation really is. How realistically the Bible judges man when it says he stands under the dominion of sin and death. Sin is the common guilt of the race, and we all share it. Sin is not-as men are prone to think-just certain moral failures for which we must bear the responsibility. Sin is a mighty power which holds us and all our race in its grip. When one gives himself to sin, he likes to think he is master of his own action, and that another time he can do good if he chooses. But that is an illusion. He who sins is the bond slave of sin, Man is not master over sin; sin is master over him. By nature, we stand with the whole race under this terrible dominion. Only a superficial view can hold that man can do good or evil as he chooses. It is about as if one said to one who lives in a subjugated country, “It is entirely up to you and your own volition whether you live in freedom or under oppression.” Much does indeed depend on our choice. When we act against God’s will, we cannot excuse ourselves, saying that we had no choice, that we were constrained against our will. On the contrary, when sin takes possession of one, it does so by possessing his will, with the result that he sins willingly. And yet it is not in the power of our choice to decide whether, we shall be sinners or not. It was not our choice that made us members of our sinful race. We were born into that relationship. Nobody asked us as to our will or for our consent. And because of sin the race stands under God’s condemnation. We live under a condemning law and under death. The wrath of God, sin, the law, death - in these four terms the Epistle to the Romans describes the terrible powers of destruction that rule over man’s life.

To us who live in the realm subjugated by sin, condemnation, the law and death, God now proclaims His message in Christ God has made a new beginning for our race. He has made Christ the head of a new humanity. By belonging to him all who believe in Him are freed from all these forces of destruction. They are free from the wrath of God, not through their own accomplishment, but through Christ’s atonement. They are free from sin, not in the sense that they rise above moral failure, but in the sense that sin is no longer their master; they are subject to another Lord, Jesus Christ. And in the same sense they are free from the law and from death. That is the central meaning of the gospel as Paul presents it in Romans 5-8. The great transformation from sin to righteousness, from the law to grace, from death to life, took place when God sent Christ into this lost world and when Christ gave Himself for us. That is the great objective thing that happened.

Thereupon many have reasoned as follows, If this has actually happened, if atonement has been made once for all, if release from the powers of destruction has been won, nothing further is necessary. The status of the human race has been changed, and in that change we share as members of the race. But such conclusions are entirely wrong. It is true that from beginning to end salvation is an objective fact which God effected through Christ. But this is not an objective drama, in the sense that it happens without us. What would be the result for one who had been driven underground, if he never heard that his land had been freed or if he did not trust the report? That would not undo the fact that liberation had come; but he himself would have no part in it. He would go on hiding himself. He would always live under the old fear, subject to the power that had actually lost its power and authority over him. That is the reason why the Word of God comes to us, not merely as a universally valid doctrine, but as a message, as a word directed personally to him who hears it. God has acted through Christ. If I believe, I share in what He has effected; if I do not believe, I do not share; and it means nothing for me.

What we have said can be summarised concisely as follows:

Revelation is the activity of God, His active and effective intervention in human life. It reaches its height in God’s action in Christ. The Bible is the message about this action; but this message is itself an action of God. When it is proclaimed the fact is that God continues and completes His action in us. When the Gospel is preached, God releases men from the dominion of the powers of destruction and makes them members of a new humanity whose Lord and head is Christ.

Indian Christology?

By THE REV. P. FALLON, S. J.

What might be an Indian Christology some time in the future? I am not going to plan out what is to be left to the Holy Spirit living in, and guiding, the Church in her dogmatic progress and theological pursuits. Yet I think that I can say already that the Indian Christology of the future will tell us much more than we are actually conscious of about the Spirit of Christ, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost or ‘Paritra Atman’, as we call Him in our Indian vernaculars, the Soul of the Body of Christ. Is India not providentially prepared to approach Christology along this line; not sacrificing anything which the Church has gradually realised of the Christian Mystery, yet probing deeper into the ‘spiritual’ mystery of our oneness with Christ in the Holy Spirit?

St. John, coming after the Synoptic writers, did not sacrifice or change or suppress anything of the previous accounts given by Paul, Luke, Matthew or Mark. But he went deeper into the inner mystery of the God-Man, and he is the Apostle who wrote most beautifully about the Holy Spirit.

This Indian theological inquiry need not be suspected of undue subjectivism; India has never been ‘subjectivist’ in her approach to Reality along this line, the inquiry into the ontological mystery of the Atman. I do not contend that the Atman, as realised in the Upanishadic tradition, is the Spirit of Christ as revealed in the Farewell Discourses of Jesus and as graciously communicated to the young Church of Jerusalem through baptism and the breaking of bread. But I believe that this long preoccupation of the best Indian souls with the Atman is a preparation, and a providential preparation, which will make the Indian Christian more receptive to this gracious communication and more understanding as to its nature and working in the soul.

I would also suggest that, together with the Fourth Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, which have often been called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit, the first account of the Mystical Christ living on in His disciples and the Church, may become the favourite object of meditation and contemplation to the Indian Church.

I also think that Indian theology may reflect more than the West ever did on the mystery of the divine Sonship of the God-Man and on that our eternal pre-existence in Him as thought and uttered eternally by the Father together with, and in, that Divine Word to whom St. John witnesses in the Prologue of his Gospel.

Contrary to what seems to have been the case in some parts of the Eastern Church, there will be no danger here in India of over-emphasising in the God-Man the divine at the expense of the human, because Indians are already deeply in love with the sacred humanity of Christ, and because of the sacramental life and the whole sacramental character of Catholicism. The way to this contemplation of the Blessed Trinity will always remain the way of St. John, the disciple who knew best the Heart of the God-Man as revealed in the Farewell Discourses, the one who understood best the mystery of the Eucharist and the vivifying power of Christ’s Flesh, the one who most intimately knew Mary the Virgin-Mother of Jesus. Indian Christians will never forget the Sacred Humanity of Christ because they love and venerate our Lady.

But it may be the role of the Indian Christian to show to the Advaita Jnanin and to the Dvaita Bhakta how Christianity, and Christianity alone can transcend and solve the fundamental antinomy which has torn India’s thought and spirituality, I mean the antinomy between the Indian search for absolute Reality beyond all relativity and the longing for a personal saviour, the God of religious souls. Only in the God-Man, who is by nature the Eternal Word, the Son consubstantial with His Father, the perfect expression and image of the Absolute Being, but by nature also consubstantial with us, the Man in whose Name we are all saved; only in that one theandric Person can come to an end the age-long quest of India. And when India’s quest will end in humble Christian adoration, this adoration shall reveal to India something, or rather some One infinitely more beautiful, more true, and more loving than all her mythologies or systems had ever dreamt or thought of.

Discussion on Indian Christology

After papers by Bishop Nygren and Fr. Fallon had been read, Dr. Brunner was asked to speak.

He said how grateful he was for the conference, which had both impressed him and filled him with confidence for the future. It was good to see signs that the Indian Church had taken the first steps towards making an original contribution to the Church as a whole. He hoped his ‘irruptions’ had not given a wrong impression; it was far from his intention to play the westerner coming with his yardstick to measure the orthodoxy of his Indian brethren.

He congratulated the conference on the privilege of having in its midst a man like Chenchiah, a lay theologian; it was a happy augury for the time to come. Such a man constituted a standing reminder that theology must be so presented as to interest the men of our age. When Chenchiah spoke of Hinduism, he often really meant the modern age, and faced the conference with the same problems as are found in the West; the West too needs such theologically-minded laymen with a similar daring and courage in thinking.

From Dr. Appasamy’s last words on Sunday he derived a guiding idea for his own work, for they pointed out the empty spots in our Christology. It is true that Christ as transcendent, creative and indwelling has been too little attended to in recent Protestant theology. He had at first mistakenly inferred from Dr. Appasamy’s words that the link-up with Indian thought might lead to the separation of these other aspects of Christ from Christ as Mediator (which would be a false Indianisation). And he urged that work should be done on all these aspects in the closest connection with each other; in such an approach Indian theology may have capacities to see things hidden from western eyes. But, once more, he felt sure that this would make better progress, if less conscious attention were paid to Ramanuja - ‘Go ahead, you are Indians!’

Finally, he compared the conference with a small group, which had quietly worked on in America for the last fifteen years and had brought about a great change in the theological climate of the U.S.A. So he looked forward with great confidence in those who are at work in India.

Dr. Appasamy said how much he had appreciated the simplicity of Fr. Fallon’s paper. For general interest he noted that Brahmabandav Uppadhya’s life is now available in The Blade by Animananda.

In connection with Bishop Nygren’s paper, there was a brief discussion of the respective meanings of righteousness and dharma between Dr. Emmanuel and Dr. Devadutt, the latter emphasising their difference for theology.

Dr. Brunner in a final word said that the ‘theology of the dictionary’ is of the highest importance. The Reformation itself came out of Luther’s rediscovery of the correct sense of ‘righteousness’, which was a lexicographical discovery. Recently his opinion had been asked about the worth of J.S.M. Hooper’s work at Madras on comparative translations, and he had no doubt that it was great. One reason is that in the act of translation you discover the very uniqueness of the Gospel, because translation is impossibly difficult. So he advised the conference to learn from Kittel, and to repay the debt in the attempt to translate the biblical words into Indian tongues.

The Next Conference

The Conference decided to continue the discussions of Christology, and, if possible, to hold another conference during the autumn of 1951 with the following as subjects for discussion:

1. The Indwelling Christ
2. Christ and the New Creation
3. Hindu Aspirations for Incarnation and the meaning of this for human need
4. The Christ according to Islam and the Gospel
5. Relation of the absoluteness of God to the Incarnation
6. Salvation through Christ:

It was also voted that a special Bulletin containing two studies of Christological terminology (Hindu and Islamic) be published before the next conference.

The following members were present at the Conference:

1. Dr.and Mrs. Emil Brunner (guests)
2. Bishop and Mrs. Anders Nygren (guests)
3. Dr. A.J. Appasamy
4. Mr. P. Chenchiah
5. Rev. S.W. Savarimuthu
6. Rev. Sydney Craig (in place of Rev. Peter May)
7. Rev. Dr. C.E. Abraham
8. Rev. R.C. Das
9. Rev. Father P. Fallon, S.J. (guest)
10. Rev. John Sadiq
11. Rev. Dr. R.W. Scott
12. Dr. V.E. Devadutt
13. Rev. Harold Spencer
14. Rev. James Stuart
15. Mr. C.S. Paul
16. Rev. Dr. M.H. Harper, the Faculty and students of Leonard Theological College
17. Rev. Dr. Surgit Singh
18. Many visitors from Jabalpur and around also attended the Conference

Letters of apology for absence were received from the following

1. Rev. Dr. R.B. Manikam
2. Dr. David Moses
3. Dr. P.D. Devanandann
4. Rev. K. Yohan Masih
5. Rev. Dr. M.H. Harrison
6. Rev. Marcus Ward
7. Miss Nora Ventura

The Conference elected the following as members of its Continuation Committee:

1. Dr. C.E. Abraham
2. Rev. S.W. Savarimuthu
3. Rev. R.W. Scott
4. Mr. P. Chenchiah
5. Rev. Harold Spencer
6. Dr. Surgit Singh (Secretary)

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