Christianity and Cultures: Shaping Christian Thinking in Context

PREFACE

David Emmanuel Singh and Bernard C. Farr

Dr. David Emmanuel Singh is Research Tutor and Dr. Bernard C. Farr is Academic Dean of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, U.K.

Twenty-five years’ existence of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (OCMS) may seem minor in relation to the history of Oxford and its university but for those who have been part of this recent past these have been eventful and significant years of advancing holistic mission through scholarly engagement. This volume on Christianity and Cultures: Shaping Christian Thinking in Context is a way of marking this important milestone in the relatively short story of OCMS.

The papers contained in this volume have been exclusively sourced from Transformation: an International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies (formerly, An International Dialogue on Mission and Ethics) which is known to its subscribers and partners simply as Transformation. These papers date from the very foundation of the journal, roughly coinciding with the origins of the Centre in 1983/4, to the issues appearing in 2007. Transformation is owned wholly by OCMS but published and distributed by Paternoster Periodicals.

The impetus for the publication of this volume came last year as the management team at OCMS was brainstorming possible ways to celebrate OCMS’ 25th anniversary in 2008. It was originally decided to focus on papers on the theme of ‘the Bible and Culture’, which in itself was a worthy theme to highlight, in an effort to show the variety of contributions on the relationship between the Bible and its reception in different cultures and the equally diverse body of contributors ranging from practitioners to scholars. This theme was broadened in two ways: first, to include aspects other than the sacred Christian text by replacing ‘the Bible’ with ‘Christianity’ used in a generic sense in recognition of the plurality of cultural contexts where Christianity expresses itself and takes shape; second, by changing the word ‘culture’ to ‘cultures’ in recognition of the many cultures which Transformation represents.

This volume provides a tripartite view of Christianity’s engagement with cultures by focusing on the question: how is Christian thinking forming or reforming through its interaction with the varied contexts it encounters? As Christianity has taken and still takes shape in multiple contexts, it naturally results in a variety of expressions and emphases. One can gain an appreciation of these by studying different strands of theological-missiological thinking, socio-political engagements and forms of family relationships in interaction with the host cultures.

The three parts of this volume contain altogether nineteen papers. These papers represent different geographical regions including North America, Europe, Africa, South East Asia, South Asia and Latin America and both male and female contributors. The papers by Thomas and Hoole are being republished posthumously.

In the first part, the papers are concerned with the theme of Christian thought in the context of cultures. Carver argues that culture is a gift of God to humanity expressing a sense of the sacred and a communion with others. However, cultures are liable to imperfections and distortions which can be addressed by the reconciling work of Christ. Accordingly, Asian theologians ask difficult questions about the nature of the Christian faith and its place in Asian cultures. For example, Hwa Yung writes about the revival of Asian cultures and the positive role Christians can play if they embrace their host cultures and engage them in dialogue instead of rejecting them without serious engagement. Ranger demonstrates how the Christian use of idioms from the African culture enables African men and women to respond to Christianity more naturally. These uses of local idioms have had a tremendous influence on African churches, even though some churches went to extremes with the idea of embracing the host culture and despite the mechanisms that control these excesses internally without discouraging experimention with new ideas of inculturation. The process of the inculturation of Christianity into any culture can be both creative and syncretistic. Where local cultures are shaped by deeply rooted traditional religions, it becomes a more difficult issue. Change does not need to involve the rejection of the culture but rather its re-orientation to Jesus Christ. Inculturation should define, therefore, the nature and shape of this re-orientation.

This volume also provides examples from different regions. Schmidt speaks of Afro-Caribbean religions as instances of the coming together of different religious traditions and the emergence of synthetic religious forms. In the Catholic tradition, for example, the presence of the practice of devotion to saints may indicate that these forms are uniquely Afro-Caribbean and, thus, do not simply constitute a Catholic cult. Many of these traditions incorporate elements from West Africa, Europe and Native America. Devasahayam reflects on the Indian context and suggests that underlying all Indian culture is the caste system. There are two significant theological responses to this system, both of which have historical roots. Whereas one accepts the caste system as part of Indian culture, the other rejects it from the Dalit or untouchable standpoint. Devasahayam believes the latter to be more holistic in its approach. Kirsteen Kim looks at the rediscovery of pneumatology and the contribution Indian theology makes to this discussion from a ‘Spirit-Christology’ rather than a ‘Logos-Christology’ perspective. Various terms, such as atman, antaryamin, and shakti have been used by Indian theologians, which suggest the contribution Indian pneumatology can make to international discussions on Christianity and cultures.

Several articles focus on Christian political thinking in different contexts. Thomas, who served as a governor of Nagaland, reviews the ideological crisis amongst the lndian middle class as manifested in the recent political success of fundamental Hindu nationalism. As an Indian Christian from the southern state of Kerala, he draws our attention to three Christian anthropological insights: the spiritual transcendence of selfhood, moral realism, and the interaction of individuals in society regarding the lndian crisis of secular democracy and global economics. In his view, as religious freedom safeguards other freedoms faiths must reach an understanding on divisive issues. Christians should not oppose the profit motive in modem market economics, but demand social development initiatives from the state which acts as the organ of the whole community. Thomas emphasizes two alternatives of Christian witness in politics: either a critical mainstream participation or a withdrawal to create ideal alternatives. His call is for Christians to choose the former model as he sees Christ at work there.

There exists a deeper relationship between rights, democracy and liberal economic principles than is often acknowledged. O’Donovan believes this to be important especially at a time when many Christians are beginning to entertain serious doubts about how global market forces affect the majority in the world. She finds that looking back in history is helpful and concludes that seen from this perspective the secular liberal-democratic rights culture is beginning to collapse. Furthermore, Gitari who is deeply involved in Kenyan politics as a powerful moral force, from a theological base reminds us that God creates and sustains His creation. God commands us to be participants in divine creativity in the totality of human life and history through the incarnation of the gospel.

There is a need for a wider debate, as Freston proposes, incorporating the two major continents which constitute the new heartland of Protestant political militancy. According to Freston, evangelicalism is overwhelmingly a Third World phenomenon. The examination of the historical and social background of Protestants in politics in Latin American countries, particularly Brazil, Guatemala and Peru, reveals not only parallels, but also significant differences. This also appears to be true in Africa although African countries have a more acute economic crisis, more non-evangelical Protestants and less experience of multi-party democracy. However, there is a correspondence between some African and Latin American cases which could illuminate the future.

Evangelicals today appear to have an increasing political influence in America but, as Sider believes, they lack a clear political philosophy. Inconsistency and confusion prevail and there is a need for a serious study of society, political philosophy, specific issues, and, most importantly, the Bible. For Sider, Jesus Christ is at the centre of Christian politics formed by certain Biblical paradigms, such as the sanctity of every human being, justice, a concern for the poor, laws promoting community and family values, the need to work and the right to life. Petersen focuses particularly on Pentecostals who have historically rejected political involvement (mainly because they have suffered under political repression) as the way to challenge social injustice. Their programmes have brought personal regeneration to the most disadvantaged sectors of society which may have far-reaching implications for both social transformation and, in our modern world, for politics. Petersen suggests that direct political action should begin initially with local structures, and involvement in national politics should occur only to bring change for the powerless through an integral ministry as exemplified by Christ.

A reference was made above to the need for laws to promote family values. The section on the family includes contributions from Wright, a British Biblical scholar who sets the family within a Biblical moral framework by asking the question: is the family a good thing or not? He reviews what the Bible says about the family and concludes that it was created for good, but can often be distorted for evil. Glaser focuses on the positive role of the family in an individual’s spiritual life, but acknowledges that the link between family and faith differs from culture to culture. Writing from a Nigerian context, Kwashi agrees with Glaser in supposing that the ‘family is the most important factor in moulding a human being’ and, likewise, acknowledges that the very meaning of the family is variable. Such variability is not necessarily religion specific i.e. a Christian state does not necessarily guarantee an ideal family, as Chang-Him shows in the Seychelles where a good proportion of children are born out of wedlock. In many households, the father does not play a significant role in the family and leaves it to the mother to carry the full responsibility of bringing up the children alone. The father sees nothing wrong in relationships with other partners and with more children. Chang-Him believes that not only culture may have something to do with this state of affairs but also the experience of slavery in the nineteenth century. As Hoole suggests in writing from South Asia, the traditional notions of interdependence and stability in the traditional South Asian family life are breaking down. If the old kinship structure is to be redeemed, the gospel must be allowed to impact on the extended family so that the individual is able to participate in the new humanity of Christ. There is a need for re-socialization of people from broken families as individuals adopted by God and received into a new family of Christian brothers and sisters. This requires challenging the power of some institutions such as the caste system and the joint family. There may be a new opportunity for building a new family that will transcend the restrictions of the caste system.

This volume is evidence, therefore, of the extent and depth of the struggle of committed Christians from across the world to relate Christianity to their specific cultures. This is an unending story of the search for relevant and meaningful beliefs and practices. It is also a testimony to the adaptability of the gospel and its power to become variously incarnated. OCMS, through its journal Transformation, has been privileged for over 25 years to bring these struggles for intelligent and embedded faith to wider communities of interest and offers this volume both as a thanksgiving and as a celebration.

PART ONE

CHRISTIAN THINKING IN CONTEXT

CULTURE FROM AN EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVE

Carver T. Yu

Dr. Carver T. Yu is President and Professor at the China Graduate School of Theology, Hong Kong

Culture as a Gift for Fulfilment

Barth gives us perhaps the most succinct definition of ‘culture’: ‘Culture means humanity’.¹ In other words, humanity does not live in culture, but its very being is actualized and concretized as culture. In so far as humanity is a gift from God, culture is also a gift from God. At the same time, ‘seen from the point of view of creation, the kingdom of nature (regnum naturae), culture is the promise originally given to man he is to become’.² With that promise intrinsic to its being, humanity cannot stop striving to draw out and complete what nature holds for it. Even as sinners, as those who alienate themselves from self, they nevertheless strive for wholeness as if answering the call to a certain destiny. The French definition of ‘civilization’ as ‘the sum of the aims proceeding from human activity…’ and the German definition of kultur as ‘the idea of the final goal and the totality of norms by which human activity should be guided’ point to the directedness intrinsic to culture. All culture, no matter how inadequate, aims to achieve a certain degree of wholeness for human existence. The wholeness of humanity, however, can only be found in the fulfilment of human beings as the image of God. ‘The image is not in man; it is man’.³

Humanity Shares God’s Sanctity

As the image of God, humanity shares the sanctity that belongs to God, a sanctity, which confronts even God’s absolute freedom and power as its boundary, in so far as God has chosen to use his freedom to affirm it and not violate it. We can even say that humanity shares the kind of absoluteness that belongs to God. In this sense, it is quite understandable that early church fathers like Athanasius as well as Basil the Great, and subsequently the Eastern Orthodox tradition, have put so much emphasis on the idea of the ‘deification of man’. Athanasius if referring to the logic of Christ’s incarnation would say, ‘He was made man that we might be made god’. Basil would also put it thus: ‘man is nothing less than a creature that has received the order to become god’.⁴ Referring to the biblical tradition, Heschel points out:

It is an important fact, however, that in contrast with Babylonia and particularly Egypt, where the preoccupation with death was the central issue of religious thinking, the Bible hardly deals with death as a problem. Its central concern is not, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, how to escape death, but rather how to sanctify life. And the divine image and likeness does not serve man to attain immortality but to attain sanctity.⁵

Ensuring the sanctity of the human person as that which is holy to God is the most fundamental directive of culture as the manifestation of humanity. A culture, if it is to fulfil its task for the actualization of humanity, cultivates a sense of sacredness for his neighbour. ‘Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Leviticus 19:18) is an inevitable implication drawn from the fact that behind and above each human person, there is the absolute God. At the same time, humanity hears the call from God, ‘you shall be holy for I, the Lord, your God, am holy’ (Leviticus 19:2). Culture should also give expression to the sense of the sacred (or holy) intrinsic to humanity. A culture which cultivates commitment to the unconditional is being true to its task. In so far as God’s freedom expresses his absoluteness, humanity has a kind of freedom reflecting God’s freedom of self-determination, self-initiation and self-limitation. As God created Adam, a distinct individual, and not created a mass of humanity as the bearer of His image, the individual with a distinctive identity (with a specific name) and freedom is of supreme significance in the Christian definition of humanity. Yet the individual does not exist in abstraction from the ground of his being, nor from his intrinsic relation with other men. He has his identity only in the very act of communion with God as well as with others. ‘God created man in his image. Male and female he created them.’ The moment Adam knows his individuality, he knows it as something that bears within it the presence of others. Thus humanity’s being is in relation. Sociality and solidarity is basic to his humanity. God’s presence is intrinsic to humanity. Covenantal commitment and individual distinctiveness are inseparable correlates. Freedom is also exercised within this being in relation. There is no genuine individuality and freedom without commitment, and there is no true covenantal commitment without real individuality. Culture in its authentic manifestation of humanity brings freedom and commitment together as two inseparable mutual determinants. An authentic culture cultivates freedom as freedom-for. It cultivates a freedom that enables the self to transcend itself. The magnitude of self-transcendence is another measure of the authenticity of culture.

Individuals in Community

On the basis of humanity thus constituted, each person receives two mandates from God as part of the fulfilment, to administer the created order (Genesis 1:26–27) and to give names to the living creatures. Humanity is to till and guard what has been entrusted to him, so that the land prospers. Ensuring prosperity and enjoying abundance from it as the sign of God’s goodness is also a significant mandate of culture. To till and to keep, humanity is to bring out the values intrinsic to nature, to articulate nature in such a way that it gives glory to God and abundance to human beings. Material abundance is also a sign of authentic culture. At the same time, Adam is to give names to the living creatures. To give a name is to define and thus give meaning and allocate values. Meaning-and-value creation is another task of culture. This gives space for human creativity and imagination. God’s world can be explored and related to in many possible ways. In tilling and keeping, in naming and defining, humanity draws the land, the living beings and all into a unified structure of meaningfulness with God as the ground. Each person builds his/her world of meaning and values based on reality. This is the realm of knowledge, and wisdom mediates his relation with the created order. An authentic culture cultivates openness to the life-world in which each human being is being actively engaged by God’s created order. He does not stand outside the created order as subject over against objects, subjecting the world into a world-picture (world-view) of his sheer imagination. Rather he sees his reality as part and parcel of a totality.

Sin and God’s Promise

The reality of sin puts authentic culture on the defensive. What has been a promise now hangs over humanity as a judgment of their unfaithfulness. In so far as the freedom of humanity is a real gift from God, then their will to distort the promise of God is allowed with its full effect, even if it is contained in God’s providence. Thereafter the distortion of humanity sets in and permeates every aspect of culture. The land still prospers, but prosperity can become destructive. There will be thorns and thistles, which will block and disrupt man’s attempt for order and abundance. What should have been positive directives for fulfilment can now become vortices drawing every being into stifling cul-de-sacs.

Culture thus contains implications of the curse from God as well as the working of humanity’s sinful design. In the face of the reality of sin, all cultures, including those deeply touched by the Christian gospel and even those which claim to be Christian cultures, are mixtures of what is reminiscent of God’s promise, God’s preserving grace and human distortion. All encounter God’s judgment and God’s affirming grace so that when Christians are confronted with cultures other than their own, they ought to be humble, knowing that no culture, including the culture in which Christianity prospers, can claim to be true to God’s promise. Even Christians cannot but live in cultures which are still under the judgment but also the preserving and redeeming grace of God. All cultures are to be judged by the Word of God and are to be affirmed by the Word of God as God’s gift, even in their corrupted form. The distortions and frustrations of God’s promise work themselves out in a variety of cultural forms.

Culture thus becomes the arena where humanity acts out his disobedience and rejection of God. In various degrees, institutions in culture may violate the integrity of humanity’s being human. There may be cultural forms which blatantly deny the sanctity of each person, treating them as an object or commodity, or as means to certain ends. There may be cultures where human freedom is structurally stifled, and their individuality is dissolved. There may be cultural forms in which alienation is the condition of existence, where humanity’s communal and communicative character is seriously hampered. There may be cultures in which human solidarity with nature is damaged, and desacralization of nature is a fact of life. There may also be cultures which polarize humanity’s spiritual and physical dimensions. Humanity is either reduced to the physical or his spiritual quest for liberation from the world displaces all concerns for the well-being of worldly life.

God’s Judgment and Grace

Where do we begin to identify these distortions? As each person is bestowed with the gift and the mandate to create meaning and values on the basis of reality, it is the structure of meaning and values that provides the magnetic centre and directive for all cultural syntheses. It is in these structures of meaning – their inner contradictions, the discrepancies between the ideal and the real – that we sense the deviations from the promise of God. To put it in another way, when the creative structure of meaning and value is turned into ideology, we see clues to the problem. It is the ideology of each and every culture that has to be identified, to show the inner contradiction and discrepancies, to see how God’s promise, his preserving grace has been distorted in the light of the crisis of God’s Word. Despite humanity’s wilful distortion, God’s grace continues, his promise still stands. Here we share Barth’s conviction when he says, ‘This gift, his humanity, is not blotted out through the fall, nor is its goodness diminished’.⁶

This conviction is based on the humanity of God revealed in Jesus Christ, that ‘in his sovereign decision, God is human. His free affirmation of man, his free substitution for him – this is God’s humanity.’ ‘From the point of view of reconciliation, the kingdom of grace, culture is the law in reference to which the sinner, sanctified by God has to practice his faith and obedience.’⁷ Culture seen from this perspective has now become God’s instrument as a preservation order preventing humanity from falling into total chaos. From then on, culture is a mixture: it contains God’s original promise and human rebellion as well as God’s providential reference for preservation. The church fathers see laws and government (even the persecuting Roman government) as necessary evils under the providence of God to prevent men from consuming each other.

In this sense, culture has to be affirmed. As an instrument for preservation, culture contains a curse, which is also a blessing in disguise. Humanity is subjected to toils and labour, to the adversity of the created order, which questions his dominion, to disciplines of life which call his freedom into question. Even in this way, culture reflects the preserving and redeeming grace of God. As Augustine puts it in his City of God:

There is a common use among both kinds of men and households of things necessary to this mortal life…For the earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace; and interests itself in the harmony of rule and obedience among its citizens to the end that there may be a certain agreement of men’s wills regarding the things that pertain to this life. But the heavenly city, or rather that part of it which only makes pilgrimage in mortality and lives by faith, is likewise obliged to make use of this peace…Hence while it continues to live in the earthly city as a captive in its pilgrimage … it does not hesitate to conform to the laws of the earthly city whereby are administered the things suited to the maintenance of mortal life; and since this mortality is common to all, a harmony is preserved between the two cities in respect of things which pertain to it.⁸

As preservation order, culture has in many ways become reactive attempts to sustain rather than to create. At the same time, the distortions and aberrations of what originally belong to God’s promise work their way into all aspects of man’s life, even affecting what had been intended as part of the preservation order. Culture has now become at once both a pointer to the fulfilment of God’s promise, a preservation order, and a stifling structure of man’s sinfulness.

Critique of Culture

The contingent ‘absoluteness’ of humanity bestowed by God to ensure his sanctity has in one way or another been distorted in cultural forms as human self-absolutization. The deification of humanity as a possibility in Christ is taken over by the human spirit. ‘Man becomes god to himself.’ Such self-absolutization of humanity comes to its height in the form of the structure of meaning in which the transcendent is radically denied. In such cultures, the saeculum, the present or the facticity of human existence is taken as the totality of meaning. Anthropocentrism prevails, and ‘the whole creation has been groaning’, ‘for the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it’ (Romans 8:18–23). Such deification has appeared in history time and again. However, radically secularized modern culture coming out from the ‘Christian’ west and the postmodern narcissistic culture as an outcome of the radicalization of the Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment is a form of self-absolutization that is most damaging to humanity and to nature. Within such a culture, humanity gets shut off from the sense of transcendent mystery and the sense of the sacredness of being. This ultimately undermines man himself as the foundation of meaning. Reason and freedom thus conceived, the two pillars of the cultural project of the Enlightenment, finally become highly problematic and threaten to break down completely under the full impact of skepticism and subjectivism.

Human Persons and Divinity

Freedom bestowed by God can also be misconstrued in a totally individualistic way. Freedom is taken as freedom without commitment. The social evils coming out from the market economy reveal the true nature of such freedom. Here again, functional rationality has undermined the personal realm of being so much that the values vital to the development of capitalism are withering. In the social dimension, social fragmentation has become so severe that modern society is in danger of the total collapse of the public realm. The integratedness of humanity as a unity of diverse dimensions is also violated. Under the pressure of positivistic reductionism, humanity is reduced to their physical realm of being. Humanity thus becomes one-dimensional. The spiritual dimension is disregarded. What is supposed to be a creative construction of meaning and values based on reality becomes an ideology – ideology as false consciousness. Again, this creates a pervasive sense of spiritual predicament in modern culture. The validity of science itself is in question as scientific truth itself can be reduced to an epi-phenomenon of biochemical reactions. Scientistic reductionism in the final analysis negates itself. We can see from the above analysis that within a culture that absolutizes itself, or violates the integrity of humanity, an inner dialectics of self-negation always sets in, until finally it collapses under its own weight.

We can see that outcome as a principle designed by divine providence, to reveal to humanity their inauthentic existence. However, even in such a situation, culture as a gift from God and as the preservation order provided by God to sustain sinful beings so as to keep them open for redemption is set to work. The deep yearning expressed in various spiritual forms point them to their spiritual predicaments, and thus to the unfulfilled promise of what he should be. The rule of law, the various advances for the enrichment of humanity, the various movements in response to personal and social fragmentation, the prophetic calls for justice and liberation, stand as signs of God’s affirmation of culture as the fulfilment of his promise for humanity. Indeed, before we look at Asian cultures, it is the West, developing out of its abandonment of the Christian tradition, placing human rationality and freedom at the centre of the universe that ought to be radically criticized. If we fail to criticize western culture, we have discredited ourselves for the prophetic claim of the gospel. While we encounter human beings in the West as secular anthropocentric individuals, we encounter them in Asian traditions more as homo-religiosus. The sense of the sacred and the sense of sanctity of life are relatively stronger. Society is structured more as a communion than as an association. Covenantal commitment takes precedent over individuality. The awareness of cosmic solidarity stands out rather clearly.

The drawback of Asian tradition when placed alongside the technological power of the West seems to be the inner inertia hindering scientific development. Also, from the missionary-evangelistic perspective, their religions confront the gospel as closed systems. In Asian cultural traditions, we see the promise as well as the judgment of God. In so far as the sanctity of humanity is affirmed without losing sight of his dependence on the transcendent, Asian humanistic insights to this effect have to be taken as a sign of God’s original gift. At the same time, insights about the contingency of human existence can also be taken as a sign of gift from God. In Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, the nothingness of human existence is stressed. This understanding of the nature of human existence in itself agrees in a profound way with the Christian belief in creatio ex nihilo. It depicts the condition of man in alienation from God. Humanity is keenly aware of the fact that existence grounded on their self is nothingness so that attachment to the self is a delusion leading only to suffering.

Humanity and Jesus Christ

From the evangelical perspective, however, the nothingness of the differentiated human person does not have the final word. In Jesus Christ, humanity is created to be real. The sanctity and integrity of the human person has, of course, its ground in divine reality, but divine reality does not absorb the human person, thus rendering it an insignificant epiphenomenon of the unfolding divine drama. No, God takes human existence so seriously that he became a human being, so that humanity may become as holy as God, i.e., as that which is ‘separated’, but ‘separated for’ divine-human communion. In the Christian tradition, genuine communion goes hand in hand with the act of covenanting. The very act of covenanting ensures the integrity of both parties.

The Hindu tradition as a life-system in many ways reflects the promise for authentic humanity. The utter devotion to the Absolute, the calm self-surrender, the non-attachment to the fruit of one’s self-sacrifice, and the single-minded discipline for the quest of deliverance, reveal a deep awareness of humanity as they are and what they should be. It would seem rather arrogant for Christians to brush it aside as valueless paganism. With such deep spirituality, however, one is puzzled as to why Hindu culture is riddled with extreme poverty, with a vast gap between the rich and the poor, and with a caste system which has for centuries been so inhuman and yet well justified by the same spiritual tradition which calls for our deepest admiration. Where has been the prophetic judgment of social injustice and inhumanity? Why is there no inner dynamic for social change? What is the intrinsic problem to the historical and social process? The problem of Hinduism, however, lies not in what appears to be polytheism, for in fact it may be regarded as intensely monotheistic:

To admit the various descriptions of God is not to lapse into polytheism. When Yajnavalkya was called upon to state the number of gods, he started with the popular number of 3,306, and ended by reducing them all to one Brahman. This indestructible enduring reality is to be looked upon as one only. These different representations do not tell us about what God is in himself but what he is to us. The anthropomorphic conceptions of the divine is relative to our needs.⁹

The problem lies in the fact that it is a system of self-absolutization in another direction. It stresses the identity between God and humanity so much that on the one hand the world and the self is so relativized that it may even be interpreted as maya, as the great samkara would express it, or as moments in the life process of Brahman, as Radhakrishnan would express it. On the other hand, this amounts to the affirmation that whatever is, is Real and Divine. Let us quote from the Upanishad:

There is nothing that is not Spirit. The personal Self is the impersonal Spirit. It has four conditions. First comes the material condition – common to all – perception turned outward…This is known as the waking condition. The second is the mental condition, perception turned inward … wherein the Self enjoys subtle matter. This is known as the dreaming condition. In the deep sleep man feels no desire, creates no dream. The undreaming sleep is the third condition, the intellectual condition. Because of his union with the Self and his unbroken knowledge of it, he is filled with joy; his mind is illuminated…He is neither that which is known nor that which is unknown…The only proof of His existence is union with Him. The world disappears in Him ….¹⁰

If the phenomenal world, the world process, and the self are moments in the drama of divine unfolding, then each moment is absolute and necessary. All events in the historical process, or all structures in the social process, may then be justified as part and parcel of the Absolute. It is the drama of the poor to remain poor, as the lot is fallen to them in a designated scene of the drama. The oppressive caste system would appear totally justified. It is not the individual person who is absolutized, but the historico-social process. With this absolutization, the society closes in on itself. Transcendent critique proves unnecessary and impossible. In contrast, a society touched by the gospel would acknowledge distance between God and humanity, the historical and social processes around man are not completely determined by the divine but to a large extent reflect humanity’s own making. As soon as humnaity also acknowledges their sin, there is openness for a transcendent critique of society.

The Poor among Us