INTRODUCTION: At the dawn of modern India stands a great figure: Raja Ram Mohan Roy, prophet of Indian nationalism and pioneer of liberal reform of Hindu religion and Hindu society. He found that love of neighbor was woefully lacking in India. He was looking for a cure and found it in the teachings of Jesus. Ram Mohan Roy is said to "flow with love and reverence" when he comes face to face with Jesus in his writings.
RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY:
Ram Mohan Roy served for some time as a financial officer in the
East India Company. In 1814 he retired from civil service with the intention of
devoting himself to the reform of religious and social conditions in India. In
1833, the titular tycoon emperor of Delhi appointed him as his envoy to England
and conferred on him the title of Raja. Ram Mohan Roy instinctively felt that a
noble human life must rest on two pillars: love of God and love of fellow man.
He felt that love of God was strongly inculcated in the Hindu religion, but
love of fellow man was woefully lacking. He was therefore looking for writings
in which love of neighbor would be effectively taught. In order not to
sidetrack people with historical and dogmatic questions, he decided to teach the
moral teachings of Jesus in the New Testament from other things in it and
published it as a separate booklet entitled: Jesus' Precepts, a Guide to Peace
and Happiness.[1]
Ever since the precepts of Jesus were published, the idea of
"seva" of service to one's fellowmen has gained more and more
prestige in India. The love of God must be expressed in the love and service of
our fellow man. All pujas are only hypocrisy to God and unacceptable if the
heart of the sacrificer is not right with his fellow man.[2]
ROY'S INTERPRETATION OF CHRIST: It
is clear from the title of Roy's writings that he was not so much interested in
the person of Jesus as in his teachings, his commandments. This is a typical
Hindu approach in two respects: (1) they put principles above the person, and
(2) they are more interested in Jesus than in Christianity as a religion. He
seems to reject the glorified view of John's depiction of Christ, but prefers
the more realistic picture of the Synoptic Gospels. Roy rejects the divinity of
Christ and accepts the Arian Christology that Jesus was nothing more than a
created being and not a creator. For Roy, the primary argument was that Jesus
Christ betrays his "natural inferiority of the Son to the Father"
because he argues
1. The Son is dependent on the Father and is his subject;
2. The Son has submitted his will to the Father, and is thus in
moral union with the Father, and not in identity of being;
3. He is the mediator and the messiah as the firstborn of all
creatures.[3]
The main dispute between Roy and the Serampore missionaries, and
Marshman in particular, concerns the nature of Christ. Roy does not deal with
the monistic concept (the Father and the Son are one and the same) or the
Nicene formula of one essence in three persons, but affirms moral unity. But he
converted Jesus as unfallen Adam. He thought he was affirming the virgin birth
and miracles and even the bodily resurrection, but he emphasized none of
these—but only the teachings of Jesus. For this reason, they also do not see
the salvific meaning of Christ's life, namely the cross and resurrection. For,
he argues, there is no biblical evidence for such a doctrine of the cross as
the all-sufficient means for our salvation—but instead, repentance is the only
means. It ascertains divine injustice if God inflicts suffering on an innocent
person for the benefit of others. Obviously, this kind of Christology also
negates the doctrine of the Trinity. For Roy, the Son and the Holy Ghost,
belong to the lower sphere. The worship of the Son and the Holy Spirit would be
tantamount to primitive Hindu worship. Roy did not appear to be interested in
other aspects of the Christian faith, such as the church, which his follower
Keshub Chunder Sen took most seriously. So when it comes to the truth contained
in the sayings of Jesus, Roy finds the uniqueness of Christ. [4]
THE PERSON OF CHRIST:
Ram Mohan's attitude towards Christ is one of reverence as the
great teacher and "messenger" of God, but he denies that the title
"Son of God" ascribes divinity. It is clear that Ram Mohan takes an
Arian position here, which is not surprising given his monistic background,
Islamic studies, and his association with Western Unitarianism, even at the
height of the Arian controversy. in England, Ireland and elsewhere. He cites
many passages of scripture to prove what he calls the 'natural subjection of
the Son to the Father', and holds that Jesus is merely entrusted with power
from God, but does not inherently possess that power. He accepts the title
"Son of God" and other titles of Christ from the scriptures, but
always in a qualified sense, implying that each of them is a special gift given
by God, not his right.[5]
Ram Mohan curiously accepts the doctrine of the virgin birth,
though he is careful to separate it from any belief in the personality of the
Holy Spirit, as it would appear. He does not violate the miracles of Christ,
even the resurrection, but insists that they are unimportant, and points out
that in India, where so many other miracles are believed, they carry little
weight in Christian apologetics. His argument for rejecting the belief that
Christ's nature is divine as well as human reveals the common Hindu (as well as
Gnostic) notion that God can have no direct connection with matter. It follows
that either of these conceptions would be wholly unacceptable to those Hindus
who might hope to convince of the divinity of Christ. [6]
THE WORK OF CHRIST:
The salvific work of Christ, Ram Mohan Roy believed, is
accomplished by his teaching, and his death is simply the supreme illustration
of those commandments, the communication of which was 'the sole object of his
mission'. The ideas of vicarious suffering and sacrificial death are rejected,
and Ram Mohan uses his arguments simultaneously to attack the doctrine of two
natures. God is inaccessible to him, so for Jesus to suffer in his divine
nature would be very inconsistent with the nature of God which is 'above being
subject to death or pain'. If, on the other hand, Jesus in his human nature
suffered vicariously, the innocent for the guilty, this again contradicts God's
justice. Jesus did indeed suffer, innocent as a lamb, that 'symbol of innocence
exposed to persecution', but Ram Mohan considers it an unscriptural attempt 'to
portray human blood or the blood of God in human form as indispensable
atonement for sin'. if we fail to follow the teachings of Jesus - which we
inevitably will - the solution lies in repentance, which is "the most
acceptable atonement on our part to the All-Merciful for having failed in this
duty". This is the closest to the doctrine of repentance, faith, grace and
forgiveness.[7]
ATTITUDE TOWARD JESUS CHRIST:
Roy was impressed not only by the teachings of the Upanishads, but
also by the moral teachings of Christ. They believe in a universally
understandable minimum morality found in all religious traditions. Roy believes
that salvation comes through the worship of a God attainable by human reason
and that morality is similarly universally comprehensible, which is in direct
contradiction to the teachings of both Hindu adhikara and Baptist missionaries
in the 19th century. In 1820, Roy published The Commandments of Jesus. The
purpose of this book was to extract from the Gospels the ethical core of Jesus'
teaching and to show its universal appeal, especially when reconciled with the
monism of the Upanishads. The Asiatic Christ of whom Roy spoke was not the
second person who emphasized a higher and purer form of Christianity which was
originally in harmony with the Vedas but, like Hinduism, became corrupted over
time. As might be expected, the Serampore Trio strongly opposed the release of
Jesus' Precepts. Their view, made clear through extensive published disputes
with Roy, was that his taking the moral teachings of Jesus out of the context
of their gospel was unwarranted and dangerous. [8]
CONCLUSION:
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a watershed in the Indian interpretation of
Jesus Christ in several ways. He was the first to separate Christ and
Christianity, and to refuse the latter the place of precedence of the former;
the first to criticize the Hindu socio-religious system, that too on the basis
of truths found in the Bible; the first which emphasizes the ethical components
of Hinduism; and also the first to start the syncretist movement, the Brahmo
Samaj. Roy and many thinkers after him fail to see that Jesus' call to men was
to himself - and that in Jesus the kingdom of God came to man in a decisive
form. But Jesus clearly claimed to be an object of human faith. Like
Unitarians, they also overlook Jesus' claims to divinity, such as his
acceptance of worship, power to forgive sins, power over the material world as
its creator - Lord, preexistence, etc.
[1] Hans Staffner S.J., The
Significance of Jesus Christ in Asia (Anand: Anand press, 1985), 5-6.
[2] S.J. Staffner, The Significance
of Jesus Christ..., 6.
[3] Sunand Sumithra, Christian Theology From an Indian Perspectives
(Bangalore: Print Process, 1990), 39.
[4] Sumithra, Christian Theology ...,
40.
[5] Robin Boyd, An Introduction to
Indian Christian Theology (Delhi: Cambridge Press, 2014), 22.
[6] Boyd, An Introduction to Indian
Christian Theology, 23.
[7] Boyd, An Introduction to Indian
Christian Theology, 23-24.
[8] Timothy C. Tennent, Building
Christianity on Indian Foundation (Delhi: Cambridge Press, 2000), 65-66.
0 Comments