Thomas's theological motivation begins with the word
"world" because he bases his theology on the incarnation: God's
salvific plan to abandon his divinity and take on humanity. This, according to
Thomas, means that anthropology is the starting point of God's ultimate plan of
redemption. According to Thomas, 'the gospel is from God' and therefore 'the
gospel is for man'. For him, Jesus is the new humanity; God becomes man to make
men fully human and to give humanity to humanity; these are dehumanized fellow
beings.
Salvation and Humanization:
In Thomas's thought, salvation and humanization have a dialectical
relationship and cannot be seen in isolation. The theological assumptions
regarding the relationship between the concept of salvation and the search for
a fuller humanity make it clear that Thomas cannot agree with those who claim
that the message of the Gospel can be fully known in isolation from the human
search. "The humanization of our lives is becoming a hobby, a form of
communication, and even a standard by which to measure various elements of
salvation," Thomas said. Salvation remains eschatological, but historical
responsibility within an eschatological framework cannot but include the task
of humanizing the world of secular history. The mission of salvation and the
task of humanization are inextricably linked, although they cannot be
considered identical. Thomas says very clearly that "but there is no
reason why the historical destiny of man (anthropology) cannot be an entry
point for understanding the ultimate destiny of man in God's plan, which is his
eternal Salvation".[1] ]
Concept of Salvation:
First, Thomas roots his understanding of Divine Salvation in the
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, communicating the
message of Salvation requires understanding the language of human response in
their struggle for humanity. Thomas mentions that the missionary enterprise in
early India was fundamentally conservative, but nevertheless became a vehicle
for social and cultural humanization, because their very approach to outcasting
the gospel changed the spiritual foundations. Salvation in Christ became the
source of a new human community, at least in worship, and helped to eliminate
the unequal social structure. Thus, humanization in India was the preparation
of the gospel. Thomas believed that the concept of salvation should also be
viewed from an ecumenical point of view. He said: "There is a growing
recognition today that the salvation of Christ is so broad that it encompasses
the individual, the communal, and the world, and that Christ's victory does not
end in personal sin, but also over the principalities and powers of the common
life... " [2]
The relational discernment of Christ
After ten years of service at the WCC, Samartha developed a
new Christological position in the context of religious pluralism, which was
named "The Relative Discernment of Christ". Samartha understood
Scripture, God, Jesus Christ, Salvation and Mission. Experiences. According to
Samartha, Divine truth is always received in earthen vessels, and therefore
“all human responses to the Absolute, whether understood as Brahman or as God
manifesting, must be recognized as relative.
He adopted Raymond Panikkar's theory of the distinction between
the universal Christ and the particular or historical Jesus. It questions the
absolute finitude and universal normativity of Christ. No religious figure or
religion can be called the final and complete word. God himself is Absolute,
but all religions are relative. Christians need to move from "normative
exclusivism" to a position of "relational difference" of Christ,
"relational" because Christ does not remain without relation to
neighbors of other faiths, and "distinctive" because without
recognizing the difference of the great religious traditions as different
answers to God's mystery, mutual enrichment is not possible.
For Samartha, we can no longer speak of God's work among neighbors
of other faiths in a purely negative way. Rather, God's self-revelation in the
line of neighbors of other faiths and the secular struggles of human life
should be recognized as theologically significant. "The peculiarity of
Jesus Christ's rule of dealing with other attributes should be thought of as relationship,
not rejection". So we may have to relativize religion without denying
religious particularities; we may have to recognize God Himself as absolute and
consider everything relative. Christ is outside the Church. Christianity has a
place to Christ, but Christ does not have a place to Christianity. The
experience of the Hindu or Muslim neighbors that they received from Christ is
different. This builds relationships between different faiths. This is
considered the relative difference of Christ.
Revisited Christology in a Pluralist Context
Samartha takes a pluralist position to promote interfaith dialogue
in India. In his view, Christology must be revised for India and Asia.
According to him, plurality belongs to the very structure of reality, and in a
theological concept, plurality can even be the will of God for all life. The
basic character of a religiously pluralistic world is dialogical and
polymorphic. So the ethical quality of common regard in submission to the
dialogical rule is fundamental for living and working together. This is perhaps
the most significant element in today's new perception of religious pluralism.
But the exclusive demands of traditional Christology make dialogue with people
of other faiths difficult, making it difficult for persons belonging to
different religious traditions to live together in harmony. It is clear that
religious dimensions influence the current global situation, such as political,
social and economic life, and the ways in which people respond to the power of
science and technology. So in any Christological reflection today, the bond
that unites the community of Christians across the manifold differences of
time, space and culture should be acknowledged. Traditional Christologies are
imported from the West to the rest of the world, lacking a theological response
to the presence of other religions. This is because they are developed in a
completely different historical and cultural Asian and especially Indian
context. This reinforces the need for a relevant revised Indian
Christology.Samartha's Theo-centric/Mystery-center Christology.
According to Samartha, a theocentric or mysterious Christology
provides more theological space for Christians to live together with neighbors
of other faiths. He claims that throughout the Bible the priority of God is
taken for granted. The ontological priority of God is taken for granted by
Jesus himself and his listeners in the New Testament. He argues that if Jesus
points to God and is himself theocentric, then the only way to be
Christ-centered is to be God-centered. But in a religiously pluralistic world,
Christ-centeredness is not the only way to be God-centered. Theocentric
Christology perceived in this way "does not compete with Buddhism, but
complements it". In his revised Christology, Samartha portrays Jesus as
the liberator of mankind.
According to him, the revised Christology is an attempt to recover
the historical Jesus and save him from the slavery of the "spiritual
slogans and intellectual abstractions" of the church. Belief in Jesus is
bound by the limits set by our knowledge of the historical Jesus, if a portrait
of him can be gleaned from the testimony of the New Testament. However, Samartha
does not depend entirely on the N.T. in formulating a revised Christology. He
argues that the "truth" behind this testimony must be the deciding
factor in interpreting the writers' testimony. He declares, “The being or truth
of Jesus behind the testimonies is greater, deeper, and more mysterious than
any portrait that can be painted with the brush of scientific study. Therefore,
the being or truth of Jesus must remain the decisive factor in interpreting the
testimony of the writers.
According to Samartha, the person of Jesus is significant only in
the light of God's activity in the life of the historical Jesus. He claims that
the revised Christology is a Christology from below against a Christology from
above. Christology from below emphasizes only the humanity of Jesus and rejects
the two natures of Christ. Samartha rejects the deity of Jesus and says that
the ontological equation of Jesus and God is not taught in the New Testament.
He quotes Paul's writings such as 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:14 a.m.; 3:23 a.m.;
15:28; Eph. 1:10, etc., to show the inferior position of Jesus before God the
Father.
He understands that the teaching of Jesus' preexistence is a wrong
idea about the Christian community. He completely rejects the doctrine of
incarnation. According to him, Jesus was only a man appointed by God and
anointed by the spirit for a specific calling. He then goes on to equate Jesus
with Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Ambedkar and Gandhiji. Samartha explains the
meaning of kenosis as the self-denial of Jesus, through which he revealed God's
love to all mankind. It is this kind of self-denial that brings Jesus into
relation with other liberators like Ambedkar and Gandhiji. Hence, the genuine
meaning of kenosis isn't that he was first divine and after that got to be
human. According to him, the ontological equation of Jesus with God is a later
distortion of the N.T that leads to a narrow "Christomonism" that
prompts Christians to say that Jesus is our God. According to him, such
"christomonism" not only goes beyond the N.T, but also cuts off
conversation with people of other faiths.
View of the Incarnation
Samartha minimizes Jesus as just an incarnation that we can see in
other theistic religions. The secret of God is uncovered within the
incarnation, which too serves as an implies of salvation. The Incarnation
becomes the bridge that connects the divine and the human, and various attempts
are made to understand this divine-human relationship in the person of God
incarnate. It is easier to talk about Buddha and Jesus together, partly because
they are both historical for good reasons, partly because both Buddhism and
Christianity have crossed their respective boundaries. Both Christ and Buddha
were mediators of liberation and both acted with compassion for the poor and
oppressed.
View of the Divinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ
Samartha suggests that the incarnation of Jesus Christ should be
understood in terms of "divinity" rather than "divinity".
It is one thing to say that Jesus of Nazareth is 'divine' and quite another to
say that Jesus of Nazareth is 'God'. Jesus Christ is holy, this is the
testimony of the Bible. To claim that God, the creator of all mankind, is
identical with Jesus of Nazareth, or that Jesus of Nazareth is ontologically
equal to God the Creator, not only goes beyond the evidence of the New
Testament, but also cuts off all conversations with neighbors of other faiths.
God present in Jesus Christ is God Himself. It is not that Jesus in his own
being is identical with the God who is present in him. It does not mean to deny
the divinity of Jesus Christ as professed by the religious community, but to
reject the view that Jesus of Nazareth is ontologically identical with God.
Samartha says that creeds were formulated and adopted within the constraints of
the historical, social and political needs of the church in the West. It can be
used for Christian liturgical use, and when it comes to the question of the
basis or authority for a revised Christology, today the authority of the
scriptures becomes more important than the authority of the creed.
By referring to various passages of the New Testament,
Samartha tries to prove his conjectures concerning the divinity and divinity of
Christ. Regarding Acts, it is said that Jesus was called Lord (1:21) after
kingship and Christ (2:36) after Pentecost. In the community of believers in
Jerusalem, Jesus was called Jesus Christ of Nazareth (3:16) and the holy
servant of God (3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). Thus, there is a different view of Jesus
in the early Christian community, but he is not considered a pre-existing
being, but a man appointed by God and anointed by the Spirit for a specific
calling and destiny.
0 Comments