J.R. Chandran, S. Kappen and K. C. Abraham

 

J.R. Chandran, S. Kappen and K. C. Abraham

J. R. Chandran

J. R. Chandran belongs to the generation of Indian Christians who stand between the colonial period and the emergence of indigenized Christianity. As such he and his contemporaries were compelled to take up the leadership from the outgoing foreigners in all the Christian institutions and so were unfortunately bogged down in administrative and financial aspects of their organizations. He was born in Tamil Nadu in a Christian family. His theological studies in United Theological College, Oxford, New York and Chicago. He was appointed as a lecturer at UTC in 1950 and its principal in 1954 till his retirement in 1981.

 

His theological concern:

Chandran is described variously as ‘the theological teacher,’ ‘the theologian of the church,’ ‘the fighter for peace with justice,’ ‘the ecumenical man,’ and as ‘the Asian Christian.’ He is also known to be a person with vision.  The vision, which is his central thought, has four elements:

(i) A vision of human community that is inclusive: For him, the Cross of Jesus broke down all the barriers between human and human beings, and resurrection means that Jesus’ ministry continues through the people whom Christ indwells through the Holy Spirit. The church continues this ministry and is thus a foretaste of new humanity and therefore, an inclusive community. The theological basis for this inclusive interpretation which Chandran suggests is from Christ’ baptism. It was not a baptism of sinners but Jesus’ identification with sinners.

This inclusiveness of all mankind is based on the common humanity of human as human. This is the meaning of baptism: incorporation into the New Humanity of Jesus Christ, commitment to mission in the world, and identification with the world. Christian mission, for him, is making human being genuinely human, in other words, humanization. Jesus is the first fruits of the final inclusive destiny.

(ii) A vision of renewed community with a new style of living: Renewal of life is the second emphasis in Chandran’ thinking, which he takes from the New Humanity of Christ. Every time people have responded to the gospel there has been great transformation. This conversion, from the old complex of law, commandment, reward, punishment, sin, guilt, judgement and death, to the new complex of grace, love, forgiveness and life, has no fixed conventional pattern of operation. Further, this renewal is not just personal, the renewal of the church would imply taking societal concern. This means that ‘solidarity with the people of God, separation from evil, and being a community of love are some marks of this style.’ For Chandran, people of God are not just Christians but all people. So a selfless life is the key of this renewed life style, and love is the key of such renewal. His goal of theology is “the new inclusive humanity where Christ gathers every body into one family.”

(iii) A vision of a community where there is peace with justice and freedom with dignity:  These four concepts of peace justice, freedom and dignity are referred to by Chandran in almost all his sermons, articles and talks, for him, since love means concrete action ‘love has to be expressed in terms of justice, mercy and peace.’ There is no justice without political change, and the people of God are always on the move for changing. This means that political involvement is a must for every Christian, for the church. To restore every one to dignity and freedom – this is the meaning of biblical righteousness. Freedom involves openness for all, respect for dissent and responsible criticism. So freedom cannot be separated from human rights and dignity.

(iv) A vision of humanity in dialogue with commitment: Since coexistence and survival of mankind are at stake and since religion is a most potent source of human strife in this world, a religious dialogue is a must. Religious pluralism has only one answer: dialogue in depth with all religions. Such a dialogue must include a positive respect for all religions, and Christians must be humble enough to admit their limitations. It is only dialogue, which preserves the good in all religions. He asserts that it is a way of communicating Christ to others but not a relativisation of the Christian gospel. In dialogue there must be a give and take attitude in all-participating religions. Chandran makes the following four assumptions concerning inter-religious dialogue-

 

Only those who are committed to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour can enter any meaningful dialogue between religions. There must be willingness to reformulate our faith in the light of other faiths, listening is thus an essential element in dialogue. Each religion must be understood from its own point of view. Every participant must be open to the result of the dialogue.

Evaluation:

Chandran is passionately concerned about the welfare of human being – this is no arm-chair theology, but has a concrete implications all through. What is lacking is a biblical understanding of human being as sinner and there is not proportionate emphasis on human’ predicament, as the Bible gives. As such this anthropocentricity is in danger of turning into anti-theological humanity.

In Chandran’ understanding of dialogue the Christian distinctiveness can be easily lost, in spite of his plea to the contrary. There is also an unwarranted inclusion of political involvement as an essential part of the church’ mission, that is, there is really no biblically developed support for this aspect in Chandran’ writings.

Chandran is also fascinated with the great visions of the contemporary ideologies of futuristic outlook, and unconsciously, at least Marxism seems to have molded his programme of action. In the statement of EATWOT he affirms the task of the Indian Christian theology as follows-

We want Indian Christian theology to be a service to the Indian people in our common search for full humanity in an open fraternal fellowship. Indian theology seeks to discern, eliminate and support people's struggle for human wholeness in freedom and dignity. Its endeavour is to make a meaningful contribution to the march of our people toward human completion in a just society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. Kappen

S. Kappen has made significant contributions to Indian theology with his well-articulated plea for integral human liberation in the Indian context. His contacts with the university students and social activists, and his keen perception of Indian social reality with its oppressive and d1ehumanizing structures have influenced his reflections on Jesus and his message. In the context of the suffering of the Indian masses due to various forms of oppression – especially religious, social, cultural, economic and political – Kappen believes that the challenge of their integral liberation is the concern of all citizens of India. In this common concern for the liberation of the masses the responsibility of Christians is great, as they claim to be the co-workers of Christ is the liberation of human being. In India where religious traditions play an important role in the lives of the individuals what contribution can a religious tradition make for the liberation of the Indian masses? Kappen admits that many historical forms of religion in the past have played and continued to play a reactionary role in legitimizing the systems of unfreedom. But it is his basic conviction that ‘authentic religiosity can be a potential for liberation.’ Therefore, Christians must seek in their religious tradition the source of their commitment to liberation, which is their Christian vocation. The true disciples of Jesus cannot escape from this challenge of liberating their brethren.

Basic assumptions of Kappen: In reinterpreting the message of Jesus for today Kappen warns against the possible mistake of past generations in distorting the message of Jesus in order to safeguard their particular interests and to escape from the challenge of following Jesus radically. To avoid such mistakes, one must be critical in one’s interpretation of the message of Jesus.

For such a critical approach Kappen provides two criteria.  The first criterion is one’s fidelity to the original Jesus phenomenon and the second is one’s responsiveness to the God who reveals himself in history.

According to him the Christians of the first century could not have applied the first criterion because they were children of their age and so they tended to mythicize reality. They considered myth as history. They raised Jesus to the status of a mythical person. Kappen assumes that we have gone beyond this stage of primitive myth.  Our interpretation is to be in the nature of a response to the historical phenomena as we encounter them, without failing to be critical in our interpretation of reality.

The second criterion in interpreting the message of Jesus demands that we distinguish between the absolute and relative dimensions of the message of Jesus. Kappen says, “the absolute dimension can be explained only on the basis of his encounter with the Absolute, with God.” This encounter took place in history but its significance transcends historical limitations. The message of Jesus, then, is that this God whom he encountered is at work in history. Faithfulness to this original encounter of Jesus demands that we encounter the same God in our historical situation.

According to Kappen the point of departure for all theological reflection should be the reinterpretation of the message of Jesus in the light of the self-revelation of God in history. This self-revelation of God took place in the person of Jesus and this God continues to reveal himself in history. But Jesus as proclaimed in India could not assist the liberative function through us because of the alienation he suffered in the course of the development of the Christian faith. If Jesus is to function as the liberator, he must be liberated from the alienation that set in Christian faith and practices. This alienation took place along four principal lines:

1. Jesus – alienated through cult

2. Jesus - alienated through dogmas and catechism

3. Jesus - alienated through institutionalism

4. Jesus - alienated through Indian religiosity

 

Presence of the Divine in history:

The Divine, according to Kappen is a gift we receive when we experience the transcendence. These experiences may be space and time-bound but they ‘open a window into that which is beyond the beyond.’ It is because this experience of the presence of the divine is also an experience of an absence of the divine as no finite experience can capture the fullness of the Divine. Thus, in the encounter of the Divine we experience both our glory and our nakedness.  In the privileged moments of this encounter we are invaded by the absolute Other and we experience wholeness. But we encounter the Divine in our nakedness, frailty, sin, guilt, and being unto-death, exploitation, etc.

The encounter of the Divine is both a gift and challenge. The response to this gift-call of the Divine is Theandric practice. It is not only the discovery of the divine in contemplation and celebration but is also creates the truth about the Divine in the historical situations, which calls his presence into question. It is a participation in the revelation of the Divine in history.  Human being is not only a passive receiver of the supernatural Divine revelation but also is called to be active in discovering the Divine presence in his/her personal and social history and the history of the world.

 

The traditional theological understanding of the Divine obscures his living presence in history, Theandric practice calls for a Copernican revolution in the theological discourse. It is the recognition of the Divine presence where love or truth is experienced, where widow and orphan, the poor and the exploited are defended. It is the way of discovering the Divine wherever there is a struggle to be free from all alienation and to be free for communion and creativity. Thus, the intuition that the Divine continues to reveal himself in the challenges and experiences of secular life prevents us from discoursing about the Divine in dead concepts. Theandric practice restores the function of prophecy is not only speaking about the Divine but also pointing to his presence in contemporary history.

Evaluation:

In all the theological reflections of Kappen there emerges a genuine concern for interpreting Jesus in a language which is meaningful and relevant to the Indian and Asian context. It is his basic conviction that Jesus and the commitment to his message can bring about a total liberation in the Indian context provided we are ready to discover the historical Jesus freed from the trappings of cult, dogma and institutionalism and take up the challenge of moving from security of orthodoxy to orthopraxis.

 

In the context of dialogue with the Indian religious, cultural, socio-economic and political situation with the faith-conviction that Jesus can transform the society. Kappen’s begins with the conviction that the faith of a Christian in the person of Jesus as the absolute meaning of his life demands that the Christian must identify with the values Jesus stood for and which cost him his life. He proposes an interpretation of the significance of Jesus in the Indian context based on the NT testimony about the historical Jesus.

 

One might wonder what place there is for the Christian confession of Jesus as Lord and saviour in Kappen’ interpretation of Jesus in the Indian context. The absence of the confessional title of Jesus as Christ is very conspicuous in Kappen’s writing.

 

 

K. C. Abraham

K. C. Abraham was born at Kodukulanji near chengannur in Kerala.  He earned his doctorate from Pinceton Theological Seminary (USA).  He served as the presbyter of St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bangalore.  He was also the president of the Ecumenical Association of the Third World of Theologians (EATWOT)  and former director of South Asia Theological Research Institute (SATHRI). His cluster is theology and ethics, used to teach in  UTC and other universities.

In his perception, the theology and ethics are integrally related the transformation of structures is one of the key concerns found in him.  He believes that faith should have a liberative dimension.  He argues that church has the responsibility to share the Gospel in wholeness, his theology and ethics are closely linked to the contemporary issues and he tries to formulate a response to them.

He is very concerned about the poor and the marginalized.  He envisages their liberation.  He urges to have solidarity with the marginated and to bring justice to them.  He firmly stands for the human dignity and the rights.  He was quite aware of the bad effects of globalization on the poor.  His theology takes seriously the Asian realities such as poverty, exploitation and oppressions.  It is committed to the dalits, tribal, women and the ecology.  It is a life affirming theology.  He looks for a community rooted in equality and justice. He challenges the  traditional abstract theology and formulate a contextual and people oriented theology.  He feels that a paradigm shift is necessary for the theology and ethics in order to them relevant for the context.

He views that mission is the struggle for justice.  Justice is an important dimension of God’s redeeming activity.  According to him when we involve in the struggles for justice we are participating the greater God who challenges the oppressors.  Christ inspires us to form communities.  His theology and ethics are political.  He also  sees it as an ecumenical vision.  He argues for communal harmony, unity of the church and urges Christians to join with the other communities and organizations for the liberating activity.  According to James cone for K. C. Abraham “mission is making solidarity with the poor people in their fight for justice.”  For him eco justice is also our mission.  In his liberative solidarity model, he states that church is in solidarity with the weakest with that part of the  whole creation.