Untitled Sermon
Upon reflection, the basic reason for my dissatisfaction is that the average Christian would hardly recognize the Christianity that is often presented in such works.
we also need more evangelical Christians involved in genuine dialogue with members of other religions.
Genuine dialogue can occur in a way that is faithful to historic Christianity while being willing to listen and genuinely respond to the honest objections of those who remain unconvinced.
This underlying premise for the current work serves to challenge the perspective of both conservative and liberal Christians for several reasons.
Conservative Christians and Interreligious Dialogue
A.
Dialogue is discouraged because non-Christian religions are dismissed out-of-hand as examples of human blindness and the fruit of unbelief.
Christianity is a faith for the world. It flourishes when challenged by unbelief, ridicule, and skepticism.
If that is your situation, these dialogues will introduce some of the key theological and ethical issues that separate Christianity from the non-Christian religions and will expose many of our own false stereotypes.
As anyone knows who has spent time in dialogue, it is in the actual give-and-take of a full conversation that our ability to understand the basis for an objection finally begins to emerge.
our confidence in the gospel demands that we can no longer give space to any kind of cultural, ideological, or religious apartheid whereby we conveniently isolate ourselves from the beliefs and practices of the world we live in.
until recently it has been all too easy to ignore the implications of this command for the Christian interface with world religions. There are two main reasons for the unique position we are facing in the twenty-first century.
First, to make light of the claims and challenges of non-Christian religions is to fail to recognize the changing religious context of the modern world.
First, to make light of the claims and challenges of non-Christian religions is to fail to recognize the changing religious context of the modern world.
a)
As for the Western world, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are now our coworkers, our schoolmates, and our neighbors.
Islam has recently passed Judaism as the largest non-Christian religion in North America.
Second, ignoring the challenge of other religions fails to take the biblical witness seriously.
b)
Undoubtedly, the earliest Christians understood what it was like to be a minority faith in a pluralistic context.
Liberal Christians and Interreligious Dialogue
B.
frequently they have conceded ground that lies at the heart of the Christian message. When this occurs, it is often because of several faulty presuppositions
First, books on interreligious or interfaith dialogue often insist that participants suspend their own faith commitment before coming to the table.
1.
When Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus on Mars Hill and engaged with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, he did not suspend his faith, he proclaimed it. Yet Paul did so with sensitivity to their concerns and their writings and proved himself to be an able listener.
I affirm the Zurich Consultation’s document on interreligious dialogue which states, “In the context of dialogue with men of other faiths, which demands genuine openness on both sides, the Christian is free to bear witness to the risen Christ, just as his partner of another faith is free to witness to what is most important in his own existence.”
The second presupposition frequently found in books on interreligious dialogue is an odd view of truth.
2.
Before anyone ever sits down at the table of dialogue, there is often an underlying conviction that there are no absolute truths.
Transcendent, absolute truths are demoted to the level of human perceptions in a form of dialogue called interior dialogue. The result is that anthropology quietly replaces theology as the focus of the dialogue.
The universality of subjective experience has replaced all claims to objective truth.
The third presupposition dominating much of the current literature on interreligious dialogue is that no one is allowed to use the “c” word—conversion.
3.
I fully expect Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists to do their best to convince me that they have more coherent worldviews and clearer visions of God or reality than the Christian faith has.
It is unprincipled to rule out from the start the possibility of conversion, since the very nature of the dialogue assumes we are discussing weighty matters of life-changing significance.
Spectrum of Views Regarding Christianity and Non-Christian Religions
C.
1.
A position is categorized as exclusivist if it affirms three nonnegotiables.
First, exclusivists affirm the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation and the norm by which all other beliefs must be critiqued.
a.
Second, exclusivists affirm that the Christian faith centers around the proclamation of the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the decisive event in human history (Acts 2:31–32).
b.
Third, exclusivists believe that salvation comes through repentance and faith in Christ’s work on the cross and that no one can be saved without an explicit act of repentance and faith based on the knowledge of Christ (John 3:16–18, 36; Mark 16:15–16).
c.
The most well-known and uncompromising defense of the exclusivist position was articulated by Hendrick Kraemer in his landmark book The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World.
He advocated what he called a “radical discontinuity” between the Christian faith and the beliefs of all other religions. Kraemer refused to divide revelation into the categories of general and special which might allow for the possibility of revelation outside the proclamation of the Christian gospel.
Ron Nash’s Is Jesus the Only Savior? Unlike Kraemer, Nash accepts the distinction between general and special revelation
Nash brilliantly exposes overly optimistic views of the salvific power of general revelation but does not clearly demonstrate how general revelation might assist or prepare one to receive special revelation.
Other views, still clearly within the exclusivist camp, are not convinced that maintaining the three nonnegotiables necessitates a position of such radical discontinuity or a completely negative assessment of other religions.
a)
Some who hold to the three nonnegotiables have also advocated a position known as fulfillment theology.
b)
the governing idea behind fulfillment theology is to demonstrate the continuity between human philosophies or religions and the supernatural religion of Christianity. While affirming the final revelation of Christ, fulfillment theologians saw God working through philosophy and non-Christian religions to prepare people to hear and respond to the gospel.
there were scholars and missionaries who adopted the fulfillment concept within an evangelical framework.
The fulfillment motif among evangelicals was largely snuffed out with the 1938 publication of Kraemer’s The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, which reasserted a more rigid, uncompromising stand toward world religions.
2.
Inclusivism affirms the first two of the three nonnegotiable positions held by the exclusivists.
What makes the inclusivists distinct from the exclusivists are their particular views regarding universal access to the gospel and the necessity of a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.
In other words, universal provision demands universal access.
inclusivists believe that access has been made available through general revelation, God’s providential workings in history, and other religions.
Inclusivists affirm that Christ’s work on the cross is ontologically necessary for salvation but that it is not epistemologically necessary.
In short, salvific grace is mediated through general revelation, not just through special revelation.
The belief in universal access to the gospel and the expanded efficacy of general revelation has led inclusivists to make a distinction between a Christian and a believer.
The most well-known proponent of inclusivism was the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who called these implicit believers “anonymous Christians.”
Two of the more prominent Protestants who advocate inclusivism are John Sanders in No Other Name and Clark Pinnock in A Wideness in God’s Mercy.
3.
Pluralism rejects all three of the nonnegotiables held by exclusivists.
They argue that christocentric views should be abandoned for a more global oriented theocentric view that allows all religions to participate as equal players.
D.
From my vantage point, the pluralist position is untenable for two main reasons.
First, the God of the pluralists is so vague that it cannot be known.
1.
Second, the pluralist position is ultimately based on the subjectivity of human experience, not on any objective truth claims.
2.
inclusivists have embraced additional views that are clearly at odds with historic Christian faith.
First, the inclusivist attempt to drive a wedge between the ontological necessity of Christ’s work and the epistemological response of repentance and faith cannot be sustained.
1.
Second, for the inclusivists to argue that the object of all genuine faith is Christ shifts the emphasis from a personal response to Christ to the experience of faith regardless of its object.
2.
Finally, to call Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists anonymous Christians has long been regarded as an insult to those within these traditions.
3.
The strength of the exclusivist position is that it affirms the authority of Scripture, the unique centrality of Jesus Christ, and the indispensability of his death and resurrection.
The problem with exclusivism comes when, in a desire to protect the centrality of these truths, it overextends itself into several potential errors.
First, in a desire to affirm the centrality of special revelation and the particular claims of Christ, exclusivism sometimes fails to fully appreciate God’s activity in the pre-Christian heart.
1.
Since all general revelation ultimately points to Christ, exclusivists need not be threatened by the signs God has placed in creation and in the human heart.
Second, exclusivists have sometimes taken a defensive posture and have been unwilling to honestly engage with the questions and objections of those from non-Christian religions.
2.
Of the three positions outlined above, I identify with the exclusivist position because I affirm without qualification the three nonnegotiables.
I prefer to use the phrase engaged exclusivist.
also includes the following two emphases:
First, this position emphasizes a more open stance regarding general revelation as a preparatio evangelica.
a)
while we must be careful not to allow general revelation to swallow up special revelation (inclusivism), we must not relinquish the basic truth that there is a continuity between the two.
Second, engaged exclusivism affirms the notion that good theology must be missiologically focused.
b)
The Distinctiveness and Format of This Book
E.
What makes this book distinctive is that it is more than a one-way defense of historic Christianity. The upcoming dialogues allow for a vigorous, two-way exchange of ideas.
World Religions: A Dialogue, Ninian Smart creates a fictional conversation between six participants: a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, and two Buddhists.
World Religions: A Dialogue, Ninian Smart creates a fictional conversation between six participants: a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, and two Buddhists.
the book’s fictional Christian moderator makes no attempt to represent or defend historic Christianity.
The present work, Christianity at the Religious Roundtable, seeks to emulate the give-and-take of Luther’s talks in an informal, noncombative way for the mutual edification of all who participate.
The church must now sit at a religious roundtable that is global in its dimensions if we are to engage seriously in the living context of much of the church of Jesus Christ.
this book presents fictional conversations between an evangelical Christian and members of the three largest non-Christian religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.
these conversations will focus on two key doctrines within each tradition.
these conversations will focus on two key doctrines within each tradition.
For the sake of consistency and a common reference point, the doctrine of God or ultimate reality (however that may be defined within the tradition) will be explored with all participants in all three non-Christian religions.
a)
A second doctrine will then be discussed with each religion.
b)
Special care has been taken to select a doctrine that is of particular importance to that religion and is of special significance in the history of Christianity.
The format of each section will be as follows.
First, a general introduction to the theme will be provided.
1)
Second, the latter half of each chapter contains a section titled “Religious Roundtable” where dialogue takes place.
2)
the conversation begins with my offering a single point that demonstrates why Christianity, in my view, is distinctive from the non-Christian religion.
i)
The proponents who are then present will, of course, be given ample space and time to defend, refute, or clarify points that I have made.
ii)
if something needs to be clarified or if a caricature of the opponent’s position is being addressed rather than the actual doctrine, then everyone is free to interrupt and ask for or provide the necessary clarification.
iii)
After the non-Christian rebuttal, I will be required to respond to their points.
iv)
Further questions or clarifications may be raised by either side in the form of a rejoinder at the conclusion of the central exchanges.
v)
Four ground rules will be rigorously adhered to in these dialogues.
First, all differences of opinion or perspectives should be shared honestly without being pejorative.
1.
I also believe that in the context of listening to the objections and questions of those from other religions, believers will be forced to examine their own faith from angles that, heretofore, have been left largely unexamined. In this way, our own faith may very well be enriched because of the encounter.
Second, no one is permitted to exploit abuses present in a religion that are at odds with widely accepted beliefs and practices.
2.
Third, the questions, responses, clarifications, and rejoinders must all pertain to the central theme being discussed.
3.
One of the first questions some may raise concerning these dialogues is why the doctrine of salvation is not discussed.
i)
I strongly believe it is virtually impossible to really explore this question without understanding it within the larger worldview and context of the religion. Thus, these dialogues will not discuss the issue of salvation.
Finally, while it would be disingenuous for any truly Christian communication not to earnestly desire that all persons come to know Jesus Christ, I freely accept the famous Muslim dictum in the Qurʾān that says, “There can be no compulsion in religion” (sūrah 2:256).
4)
After the three dialogues are complete (parts 1–3), part 4 will focus on three case studies that highlight key features of the relationship between Christianity and the non-Christian religions.
4)
Throughout history the church’s mission has been effective only so far as it was properly rooted in good theology. Yet proper theology alone cannot preserve the church if it is not engaged in mission with the world.
As my colleague Peter Kuzmič is fond of declaring to his classes, “Good missiology must be theologically grounded, and good theology must be missiologically focused!”
The One and the Many
A.
Most Western Christians commonly assume that Hindus believe in a vast pantheon of gods and goddesses.
Not only is India noted for its gods, but also for its goddesses.
Not only is India noted for its gods, but also for its goddesses.
the reason why the Western assumption that Hindus are polytheistic is not as simple as the observations of a casual visitor to India might indicate.
these major philosophical and theological traditions, while acknowledging the diverse theistic traditions in India, assert there is but one supreme God.
This theme is of particular interest to those who study the Upanishads, because it is in these texts that the theology of the one Ultimate Being, known as Brāhman, is most clearly expressed.
The two largest and most challenging to the Christian worldview are known as advaita (nondualism) and viśiṣṭādvaita (modified nondualism).
Advaita Vedānta
B.
The first school of Vedānta, and by far the most familiar to those in the West, is known as advaita or nondualism.
The most important thinker in the history of advaita was the late seventh- and early eighth-century philosophical theologian Śaṅkara.
Nirguṇa-Saguṇa Distinction in Advaita
1.
According to Śaṅkara, this tension is resolved by the recognition that the Upanishads speak of the Supreme Absolute in two ways or, more accurately, at two different levels of reality.
The highest level is known as nirguṇa Brāhman.
a)
The lower level of reality is known as saguṇa Brāhman.
b)
Brāhman is the designation in Indian thought for the Supreme Absolute. The terms nirguṇa and saguṇa are added as a prefix to the word Brāhman to distinguish between the two levels.
On the highest level, Brāhman cannot be spoken of as having any qualities or relationships.
When Hindus speak of Brāhman in this way, they are speaking of Brāhman as nirguṇa Brāhman, that is, Brāhman without (nir) attributes or qualities (guna).
Whenever the Upanishads speak of a multitude of different gods with various qualities or attributes, they are speaking, according to Śaṅkara, on a lower level of reality.
it is designated as saguṇa Brāhman, that is, Brāhman with (sa) attributes or qualities (guna).
Advaitins designate this personal God with the name Īśvara,
Īśvara is merely a projection of imperfect and limited human descriptions of God.
In summary, the nirguṇa-saguṇa distinction serves two basic purposes within the theistic framework of advaitism.
First, it is a way of reconciling the monotheistic and polytheistic statements of the Upanishads into a consistent, unified system of thought.
a)
Second, it serves as a firewall to protect the great mystery of God’s nature, the mysterium tremendum that, according to advaita, defies all explanation or description.
b)
What are the implications of this distinction for the Christian doctrine of theism?
First, any propositional truth statements that appear in Christian theologies, such as “God is Almighty” or “God is the Creator,” will be relegated by the advaitin to the level of saguṇa, which is illusory and not ultimately real.
a)
Revelation does not make statements of facts or truths with clear boundaries; it only points to mysteries that transcend human description.
Arundhatī Principle in Advaita
2.
a hermenutical principle known as Arundhatī. Arundhatī is an interpretive device that allows Hindu theologians to make what seem like direct, positive statements about Brāhman while still clinging to the mystery of Brāhman who is nir-guṇa—without qualities.
“pointing to the star.” Arundhatī is actually the Indian name for a dim star in the Great Bear constellation. A normal observer finds it difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to see the star because it is so dim.
Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
C.
The second major way Vedantic theologians have reconciled the tension between the one and the many is through a system of thought known as viśiṣṭādvaita or modified nondualism.
This system of thought was articulated by the eleventh-century Indian philosopher-theologian named Rāmānuja.
There are three key areas in which Rāmānuja challenges Śaṅkara’s advaitism.
The Nirguṇa-Saguṇa Distinction Is Rejected
1.
In short, Brāhman is one, but contains within himself all of the plurality and differentiation of the universe.
Rāmānuja’s theology is based on his exegesis of the third chapter of the Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upanishad,
Brāhman Is a Personal God with Countless Attributes
2.
Rāmānuja describes Brāhman as possessing a “host of auspicious qualities, which are countless and of matchless excellence.”
Rāmānuja, in contrast, sees the theistic many as located within the one Brāhman. The term nirguṇa, according to Rāmānuja, should not be interpreted to mean that Brāhman is without qualities, but only that all the attributes and qualities are united in the one Brāhman and that no quality or attribute can ultimately exist apart from or detached from Brāhman.
Descriptive language that ascribes qualities to God is no longer an entanglement of ignorance; actually, it is essential to true knowledge.
For Śaṅkara differentiation is the essence of ignorance; for Rāmānuja it is the basis for true knowledge. Indeed, this is a fundamental dividing line between Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja.
Brāhman Extends Grace and Receives Devotion and Worship
3.
Rāmānuja even opens the boundaries between Indian castes by providing a way for all to enter into relationship with God.
For the masses, Rāmānuja recommends a form of complete surrender (prapatti) whereby one simply trusts in God alone in an act of faith for salvation,
D.
The intense opposition, often antagonism, between the two groups has not diminished over the centuries.
Religious Roundtable
E.
Śaṅkara’s Advaitism
1.
I want to begin the conversation by acknowledging several ways in which Śaṅkara’s writings about theism in the Hindu context have helped me as an evangelical Christian.
First, I want to commend Śaṅkara for his unwavering commitment to the absolute freedom of God (Brāhman).
1.
Second, Śaṅkara reminds me of how much evangelicals have neglected the aseity of God in our theologizing.
2.
Aseity is a category of theology focusing on God as he is in himself, apart from us or anything specific he has done on our behalf.
aseity is concerned with God’s ontology, that is, God’s being apart from God’s doing.
Objection #1: Advaitism is overly pessimistic about the adequacy of human knowledge to speak about God
a.
First, Śaṅkara’s theology does not permit divine revelation that can be spoken of with assurance and confidence.
i)
Śaṅkara’s theology isolates the nature of God from human knowledge.
Our position is that human language is an inadequate vehicle for describing true knowledge about God only at the highest level, namely, nirguṇa Brāhman.
he would be equally firm that a bhakti Hindu or any other Hindu who speaks about God descriptively cannot be assured that he or she speaks accurately or meaningfully.
These objections have raised two serious points.
The Adequacy of Human Language in Theologizing
a)
Evangelicals have been accused of putting so much emphasis upon defending the written words of Scripture that we have forgotten the Christian faith is not about words written in any book (including the Bible), but about the historical intervention of God in human history, culminating in Christ himself.
This debate has resulted in two different views of revelation.
The first view argues that revelation is fundamentally the acts of God in history.
i)
A second view insists that revelation is about God speaking words of knowledge to humanity in a free act of self-disclosure.
ii)
Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. These neoorthodox theologians argued that revelation can never be limited to information about God expressed in propositional truths in a book; rather, revelation is a dynamic, existential, personal encounter with God in one’s own life.
it is clear that if the neoorthodox theologians are correct, then our ability to respond to Śaṅkara and the advaitins is significantly weakened.
Propositional Truth Defended
b)
There are three reasons why this attack on propositional truth is unwarranted.
First, the whole debate mistakenly assumes it is an either-or question.
i)
it is not possible to separate the events themselves from the statements about those events. Revelation is both personal and propositional.
Second, if revelation is personal and not propositional, how does God reveal himself personally?
ii)
We find that he reveals himself through truths about himself and also directly.
Finally, the position is logically self-refuting. The statement that God does not reveal himself through words but only through personal encounter is itself a propositional truth statement about God.
iii)
Clearly, personally appropriated truths are closely linked with propositional truth statements.
Advaitism and Eastern Orthodox Theologizing
c)
Eastern theologians do agree that it is impossible to comprehend God’s essence, but they believe we can have a true knowledge of him, even if incomplete.
Objection #2: Advaitism marginalizes Jesus Christ before dialogue begins
b.
Three major implications arise from this.
First, the whole basis for a genuine dialogue with advaitism is seriously eroded.
i)
All serious dialogue between religions has been demoted to a secondary category because any truth claims or theological boundaries, however important or decisive for dialogue, are ultimately lost in the sea of saguṇa.
The second implication, as mentioned earlier, is that all propositional truth claims about Jesus Christ are automatically rendered out-of-court.
ii)
The third implication of the nirguṇa-saguṇa framework for theism is that all possibility of a relationship with God has been foreclosed because Śaṅkara has severed religious experience from true knowledge.
iii)
As an advaitin, let me point out that the statement “Brāhman is impersonal and cannot be known” is only arrived at indirectly and intuitively, not because any particular truth claims can be proven false and this one alone proven true, but because Brāhman transcends the smallness of our insights and utterances.
We argue that revelation brings about a certainty of knowledge, even though incomplete.
Finally, the whole analogy is flawed because there are actually six men in the famous parable, not five.
The sixth is, obviously, the narrator of the story who objectively observes the five men and who sees the entire elephant and how the men are blindly experiencing only a part of the whole.
c.
If a person asks whether Brāhman is more like Mother Teresa or Adolph Hitler, the advaitin can only say, “Neti, neti.” If the same person asks what the Christian God is like, we can point to the person of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.
Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita
2.
As with Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja has several praiseworthy elements in his theistic scheme.
First, Rāmānuja extols and worships a God with innumerable attributes and qualities.
a)
Second, I appreciate Rāmānuja’s emphasis on our utter dependence upon God.
b)
Third, Rāmānuja affirms a more viable perspective concerning revelation than Śaṅkara does.
c)
Finally, we must commend Rāmānuja’s respect for the vast religious traditions in India.
d)
The Hindu search for salvation is normally divided into three separate paths: the way of knowledge (jñāna), the way of works (karma), and the way of devotion (bhakti).
Rāmānuja was able to unite all of these paths together, for in his view the way of works and the way of knowledge are useful aids to bring the devotee onto the path of devotion.
There are, however, two serious objections that I would like to pose to the followers of Rāmānuja.
Objection #1: Rāmānuja’s theism is relativistic
a.
He is only concerned with how each of these referents inspires the believer to more dedicated devotion and to a deeper understanding of total dependence upon Brāhman.
How one is moved to this devotion is completely relative, since all worship is found within Brāhman.
Rāmānuja taught that Brāhman may be known by five defining attributes: reality (satya), knowledge (jñāna), bliss (ānanda), purity (ānalatva), and infinitude (anantatva).
Rāmānuja has quietly turned a theology of God’s self-disclosure in the incarnation into a form of anthropology concerning our witness about Jesus Christ
Objection #2: There is ontological confusion in Rāmānuja’s theism
b.
Rāmānuja’s theism does not make a clear ontological distinction between the Brāhman who receives worship and the devotees who offer the worship.
The I-thou relationship so fundamental to true worship turns out to be only functionally real, because in the final analysis, there is no ontological distinction between the Brāhman who is worshipped and the person who is worshipping.
It is a regular feature in Hinduism for the gods to take on human form and become part of the creation.
I will point out three vital differences between the doctrine of avātar and the Christian doctrine of incarnation.
First, avātars are repeated endlessly throughout each cycle of history, whereas the incarnation is a unique, singular act in history.
i)
we do not believe in any avātars, because, unlike Hindu avātars that arise out of epic mythology, the incarnation is fully historical.
Second, an avātar comes forth because of accumulated karma and is therefore not a free act of God, whereas the incarnation is an expression of the freedom of God to act and to save.
ii)
Third, an avātar is a mixture or “blending of the divine and human.” In contrast, the Christian incarnation is a union of two natures, divine and human, into one person who is fully man and yet fully God.
iii)
Jesus Christ is fully identified with the Supreme Absolute in an eternal and ontological sense, and in that capacity he comes to earth.
In the final analysis, even though the deities of viśiṣṭādvaita are given an ontological foundation in the body of Brāhman, they are actually only types that have no inherent eternality.
the doctrine of dependence actually compromises Rāmānuja on both ends of the spectrum.
On the one hand, it ties Brāhman to his own creation and compromises the freedom and independence of God.
a)
On the other hand, the deities are not given any independent ontology.
b)
c.
on the Hindu doctrine of creation because, as is so often said, Hindus do not even believe that the created order is real. So they consider this doctrine a nonstarter as far as dialogue is concerned.
In fact, I am convinced this is one of the more fruitful places to begin since the discussion serves to unmask many common misconceptions regarding Hindu thought and cosmology.
there are two dominant streams of thought that must be explored and with which we must be familiar before we can engage a Hindu in any serious discussion about the nature of the created world.
Identification of God with Creation
A.
Vedic Cosmology: Cosmic Puruṣa Man
1.
Hinduism traces its origins to a series of migrations from central Asia into the northern plains of India by people groups known as Aryans.
spoke an Indo-European language that eventually developed into Sanskrit, the classical language of Hinduism.
a major stream of Hindu thought concerning creation traces its origin to the Vedic period.
Indra, the warrior god, Varuṇa, the guardian of the cosmic principle of order (ṛta), and Agni, the god of sacrificial fire, are three of the most prominent of the Vedic gods.
One of the key themes of Vedic literature is the role of ritual sacrifice.
The hymn in Ṛg-Veda 10.90 is widely regarded as the most important Vedic creation hymn because it links the creation of the physical world to the emergence (or sanctioning) of the caste system.
For our purposes, the most important aspect of this cosmological hymn is that the universe is not made by a Supreme Being,
Cosmology in the Upanishads
2.
The text declares, “I indeed am this creation for I produced all this. Therefore, he became the creation.” There is clearly an identification between the Creator and the creation.
Emphasis on the immanence of God and the continuity between God and creation found its full flowering in the theology of Rāmānuja.
Brāhman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe.
However, Rāmānuja’s doctrine of creation must respond to two potential problems if it is to be consistent with his doctrine of God.
First, how can Rāmānuja reconcile a God who does not change (immutable) with a world that is constantly changing?
a)
Second, how does Rāmānuja reconcile his belief in a personal God known through the purity of his five defining attributes with a creation filled with misery, pain, and suffering?
b)
Rāmānuja answers both of these concerns through the development of the Sanskrit word līlā, which is central to his understanding of creation. Līlā (pronounced lee-lah) means “sport” or “play.”
Creation is a form of spontaneous self-expression. It is like a divine dance or dalliance, not characterized by grand planning or logical sequences, but spontaneous and unpremeditated.
Thus, the doctrine of līlā is the way Rāmānuja seeks to avoid Brāhman’s culpability in the problem of evil.
The problem of evil can only be explained if God is not good and is therefore unconcerned about the presence of evil or if he is all-good but lacks the power to change it.
Separation of God from Creation
B.
Any nondualistic (monistic) worldview, which affirms that Brāhman is the only reality, must account for the seeming plurality of the universe.
Śaṅkara maintains his nondualism and the absolute independence of Brāhman from creation through his own development of the word māyā, which has been called “the key concept around which his entire system revolves.”
The word comes from the root ma meaning “to measure, fashion, make, or exhibit.”
Śaṅkara, however, uses the word to argue that the world only has the appearance of reality.
For Śaṅkara, only Brāhman truly exists.
Religious Roundtable
C.
Rāmānuja’s Identification of God (Brähman) with Creation
1.
the theological point of the identity theme is intended to avoid the dangerous consequences of a world separated from its creator.
The border crossings between the world of the senses and the unseen world have been closed, and most people live out their lives unaware of the immanence of God in creation and the daily ways we enjoy his sustaining grace.
Objection #1: The identity view confuses the creation with the creator
This confusion of the creation with the creator seems to tilt the scales so far toward the immanence end of the spectrum that one might wonder if this position is pantheistic.
Identity objection:
a.
there is an important difference between affirming that the divine is all and affirming that all is divine. The former makes no distinction between Brāhman and the universe; the latter acknowledges that the universe is contained within Brāhman but that the fullness of Brāhman also transcends the universe. This is not pantheism, but panentheism, that is, all is in God, but not all is God.
Evangelical reply:
b.
Panentheism still maintains that the creation was not made out of nothing (ex nihilo) and that matter emanating (a word that literally means “to flow out”) from God in the form of creation is, in fact, coeternal with God, even if we concede that it is not the sum total of God’s being.
The emphasis in both the Old and New Testaments on God’s word bringing forth creation closes the door on any notion that God merely fashioned the world through preexisting materials or that it emanated from his own being.
The alternative is not to identify the universe with God or any part of God, but to affirm a transcendent God who is immanent as the sustainer of his created order.
Objection #2: Creation as līlā or divine play does not satisfy the problem of evil
Even though a game has no real purpose outside of our own enjoyment, all play is preceded by purposeful decisions.
Either God is all-powerful or all-good; he cannot be both, for if he were all-powerful, he would eradicate all evils.
Essentially, the Christian response to the presence of evil in the world is to affirm two truths.
First, God in his sovereignty has chosen not to shield us from the consequences of our free choices, even when the result may be disastrous for ourselves and for those around us.
a)
Second, Jesus Christ is the only truly innocent sufferer in the world.
b)
Identity reply:
a)
clarify a few misunderstandings about līlā before we proceed any further.
First (and here is another example of the Arundhatī principle), it is too harsh to characterize līlā as purely purposeless, as if that completely captures the heart of the concept, for indeed, there is some level of purpose even in play.
1)
The doctrine of līlā falls somewhere between purposeful and purposeless.
Second, the doctrine of līlā is intended to describe creation from Brāhman’s point of view only.
2)
From the perspective of creation, all evil and misery is the result of karma that has been incurred due to our actions.
Evangelical clarification:
b)
The law of karma states that every action in a person’s life has effects that must be reaped in either this life or the next.
The implications of this doctrine are profound. Indeed, if any and all evil can be attributed to karma and not to Brāhman, then there is no longer a problem of evil.
Evangelical reply:
c)
this solution only raises a new question as to the origin of karma.
the first creation or emanation should have been free from all injustices, inequalities, and evil.
Identity objection:
d)
This line of reasoning, so common among Christians, is based on a Western reckoning of linear time, and thereby it appears to trap the Vedantists into the logical fallacy of an infinite regression argument.
Evangelical clarification:
e)
need further clarification about the precise meaning of the statement, “There is no beginning.”
Identity clarification:
f)
Traditionally, Hindus teach that the world passes through four successive stages, known as yugas, one thousand times before the world is dissolved by Brāhman and returns to its subtle state within Brāhman whereby the cycle begins all over again.
Evangelical reply:
g)
it was pointed out that such linear origins are not acceptable. The karma solution remained intact because in Hindu cosmology an argument of infinite regression is plausible, for we are not arguing back along a line but round and round in a circle.
Hindus reject the doctrine of creation ex nihilo because they will not accept a time when matter was not.
this position does not seem to preserve a changeless Brāhman, for if individual souls make daily decisions that are constantly altering the state of karma, then Brāhman must also be subject to change, and change is inconsistent with the perfections of God in both Hindu and Christian theologies.
The doctrine of līlā creates a dualistic smokescreen. It tries to reap the benefits of a dualistic system while remaining non dualistic. The doctrine of karma tries to sit on the human side of this false dualism and leave the divine side untouched.
return to two key Upanishadic texts and clarify their meaning in light of Rāmānuja’s position.
First, when the Upanishads declare that “in the beginning there was One only, without a Second” (Chāndogya 6.2.1). it appears that this verse is roughly equivalent to the opening four words of the Bible, “In the beginning God.” It is now clear that the “One” actually refers to Brāhman who eternally contains innumerable souls within himself, making creation ex nihilo an impossibility.
a)
Thus, the expression “without a Second” does not mean that Brāhman alone existed apart from the countless souls that make up the observed order.
the second Upanishadic text, found in Taittrīya II.6.1: “May I become many, may I grow forth.” This passage is cited to support the one Brāhman becoming many in the creation.
b)
In the course of his argument, Rāmānuja admits to four differences between the “I” of Brāhman and the “I” that has grown forth in creation.
There is a difference in time.
i)
There is a difference in shape.
ii)
There is a difference in the appearance of the number.
iii)
Finally, there is a difference in language.
iv)
Either the souls are united to Brāhman in pure nondualism or they are not, and we must have the honesty to concede that this is a form of dualism.
Identity reply:
h)
A liberated soul does not become free from evil; it merely recognizes its true nature which is free from evil.
Evangelical reply:
i)
In the identity view, suffering, cruelty, and evil are not real but are only external experiences that do not touch our true natures. For the evangelical, this is an unacceptable diminishing of the reality of evil and suffering in the world.
we have seen a system that utilizes a subtle distinction between manifested karma attached to bodies and forms and unmanifested reality unattached to bodies and forms.
Śaṅkara’s Separation of the Creation from God (Brāhman)
B.
Faith and Faiths
A.
For Hogg, faith is not an intellectual assent to certain creedal formulations. Faith must be personal and existential. It reflects a dynamic, living trust in God.
The various beliefs that make religions so radically different arise because of the different ways cultures experience faith.
Hogg’s Missionary Method
B.
Hogg developed a missionary method that encouraged a careful study of how non-Christian beliefs contrast with Christian beliefs.
His goal was to demonstrate how Christian beliefs are more cogent and consistent than those of other religions and are therefore better able to sustain faith.
This method stands in stark contrast to the approach that was popular in Hogg’s day (as well as ours), which seeks to downplay the differences and harmonize the various beliefs of the world’s religions.
To the careful reader, it may already be evident that Hogg was deeply influenced by the German theologian Albrecht Ritschl.
Content and Occurrence of Revelation
C.
Viewed in context, Hogg was clearly seeking to steer a course between two extremes.
On the one hand, Hogg rejected the harsh view of Hendrick Kraemer, who recognized no revelation of God in the world apart from that which has been self-disclosed in the Scriptures.
a)
On the other hand, Hogg was not prepared to travel down the path of the fulfillment theologians and an emerging group of pluralists who seemed to make no radical distinction between Christianity and other religions, except one of degrees.
b)
For the fulfillment theologians, the seed of Christianity is already present in all religions.
According to Hogg, Kraemer focused exclusively on the imperfect human responses to revelation, and therefore he saw only discontinuity.
1)
The fulfillment theologians had focused too much on the doctrinal content of revelation and missed the radical uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
2)
Application to World Religions: Buddhism
D.
Even a cursory reading of the Pure Land literature and popular songs about Amitā reveals that at the heart of the whole movement are a desire to eschew one’s ability to save oneself through good works and a strong belief that the only hope is to have trusting faith in Amitā/Amitābha.
The obvious parallels between the faith of evangelicals and the faith of Pure Land Buddhists make it an excellent choice to test and apply A. G. Hogg’s views.
it is safe to conclude that Hogg would make the following two points when applying his perspective to Buddhism.
First, Hogg would certainly affirm that Buddhist doctrines have emerged because of the universal occurrence of revelation whereby the Living God has truly sought to reveal himself to Buddhists.
a)
Second, Hogg would acknowledge that, for many Buddhists, the doctrine of Nembutsu produces nurturing faith in the heart and life of the worshipper.
b)
Hogg’s emphasis is not so much on widening the scope of general revelation per se, but on expanding the scope of special revelation in non-Christian religions.
Thus, this case study highlights several keys issues, including the nature of faith apart from an explicit knowledge of Christ;
the extent, purpose, and role of general revelation;
1)
the relationship between propositional truth statements (what Hogg refers to as faiths or beliefs)
2)
the personal revelation of God in the lives of believers designed to produce faith.
3)
5. It has been said that the most important contribution of A. G. Hogg was his theory of disturbance. This is the view that the presentation of the gospel upsets or disturbs the spiritual equilibrium of non-Christians.
This book is based on the premise that genuine dialogue can occur in a way that is faithful to historic Christianity and yet is willing to listen and respond to the honest objections of those who remain unconvinced.
Just Say No to Pluralism
A.
Pluralism seeks to censure all truth claims as imperialistic, dogmatic, and divisive.
It is not fair to any religion to allow it to be ensnared in the swamp of religious pluralism, which concludes that we are all saying the same thing.
Dialogue As Persuasive Witness
B.
Many of the proponents of dialogue reinforce this idea by insisting that any desire to convert another person is a fundamental violation of the mutuality inherent in dialogue. The result is the advocacy of a dialogue without persuasion.
Dialogue Stimulates Our Own Understanding of Truth
C.
dialogue is always a two-way encounter.
I have discovered over and over again that I am enriched by the mutual exchange.
True witness to someone of another faith means that we must understand his or her actual position, not a caricature of it.
Postmodernism and the Gospel: The Opportunity of the Present
D.
if the Enlightenment symbolizes the overthrow of revelation and the enthronement of reason, postmodernism seeks to overthrow both reason and revelation.
The only remaining arbiter for truth is the sole perspective of an autonomous, vacillating individual.
William Inge has wisely stated, “He who marries the spirit of the age today will be a widower tomorrow.”