So I’m studying for yet another exam. Religion education.
One of my probable exam questions will be: “explain the hindu conception(s) of God”. The lecturers have been pretty clear about their liberal views, so I’m pretty certain about what they want. The broader and more inclusive the answer the better. My answer should be something like:
“Hindu conceptions of God are incredibly diverse and enigmatic. Elements of pantheism, panentheism, polytheism and monotheism are evident…”
This would be followed by long explanations which I wont bother you with, except to make some observations about the nature of ‘holy’ texts:
The Upanishads depict God in Pantheistic terms in a few places:
“Now if a man worships another deity, thinking that the deity is one and he another, he does not know.”
Panentheistic:
“He who is this (Brahman) in man and he who is that (Brahman) in the sun, both are one.”
Then, in the Bhagavad Gita, we have statements strangely similar to the sort of ‘jealous’ monotheistic God expressed in the Judeo-Christian traditions:
“Give up then thy earthly duties, surrender thyself to me only.”
Finally, especially in the rural areas of India, there are many hindu devotees who jealously worship only their own deity among all those they recognise in the hindu pantheon. Theological and apologetic approaches to explaining the relationship between the deities and Deity itself matter very little to them.
Now, all this is very interesting from an external reference point. I’m sure my lecturers will be very happy with the breadth of my conceptualization of hinduism… I’m not so sure that practicing hindus would be so enthusiastic.
Which brings me to my point:
If I asked a hindu student to have a quick, inclusive study of Christianity, using only the biblical text, what would they come up with to answer the question: “How do Christians understand God?”
The answer to this question might make proponents of evangelical conceptualizations of biblical sufficiency a little uncomfortable.
Here’s what I think: I love the bible. I believe that the bible is inspired by God… But I’m starting to doubt that the bible is sufficient to bring us to knowledge of the full story of God’s story. Christ is the one who reveals God to mankind. Only a personal disciple-relationship with Christ can bring us into a meaningful knowledge of God. He is God’s Word to humankind. The life, words, and continuing ministry of Christ is the foundation of the church. Not the Bible.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 7, 2010 at 5:27 pm
cobus
I like this, but obviously have to problematize it (what did you expect?) 😉
This approach can take us in two directions, either narrowing things down so that only a very specific pious form of experiencing Christ is considered sufficiently revelatory, and then is allowed to triumph over scripture, tradition, reason, and all other things which the church has considered to be “revelation” in the past.
In another direction, this approach can open up revelation to a vast mystery, since we acknowledge that that which we call Christ can never be bound by either scripture, reason, tradition, or any other aspect of what we’ve called revelation in the past.
When we say that the bible is not sufficient, do we mean that something else should take its place as some new form of fundamental source of final revelation (which is becoming a popular thread, especially in some sectarian groups which claim some privileged knowledge of the workings of the Spirit), or do we mean that the bible is “not enough”.
The way you unpack it, I assume you mean the second, but then the final sentence have me wondering. It might simply require some clarification. “Christ is the foundation of the church. Not the Bible.” has a strong foundationalist ring to it, although ” The life, words, and continuing ministry of Christ” opens it up to the mystery.
But the “personal disciple-relationship with Christ” again has me wondering whether this is taking me back to some individualized pious relationship with Jesus. On the other hand, describing the bible is not sufficient implies a continued revelation (I use revelation very broadly, and not necessarily in the supernatural sense of the word), and again gives the feeling of being open to something broader than what would traditionally be defined as a “personal disciple-relationship with Jesus” (yes, the Christ/Jesus play is intentional).
Anyhow, I’m writing too much. In short, I like what I hear, just wondering what it means.
November 7, 2010 at 6:10 pm
michaelrowancurle
Certainly don’t believe any other text could solve the problem, so you can rule out ‘continued revelation’. I believe the bible is absolutely and foundationally necessary, but only in that it reveals who Christ is. It’s a way of looking at the bible without worrying too much about specifics of inerrancy etc. I dislike the wording of ‘individualized pious relationship with Jesus’. In that vein, I guess I envisage a Christocentric view of faith and scripture – ala John Stott. Although there is an aspect of personal mystery experientialism ala Wesley and the Moravians… I guess I’m not 100% sure what I envisage. I just know that I can’t buy into traditional american evangelical concepts.
November 9, 2010 at 11:46 am
Mark Penrith
I guess part of the answer can be found in Christ’s words, ”Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Isn’t that the “relational knowing” you’re speaking of?
That relationship is surely not a mysticism; a fancy, lacking of substance; rather it’s fed by God’s Word, “Man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
The question is what of God can we know apart from Scripture. The answer is much. You know Romans 1:20a, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” but the purpose of that general revelation is Romans 1:20b, “so that they are without excuse.”
So, what then is the point of Scripture? Does it bring one to “knowledge of the full story of God’s story”? No, rather it’s to “give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”, to ensure that the man of God is “adequate, equipped for every good work” and have been written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
There remains much mystery in “the full story”. Paul says it best, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. ”
November 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm
michael
The question is not whether the Gospel is truth or that scripture is valuable. The question is, how should we approach this mystery?