MM
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
the diverse needs of the situation. We must think in terms of Christologies rather<br />
meet<br />
Christology. Each type will have its own apologetic problems … The Indian religious<br />
than<br />
is more prone to emphasise the divinity of Jesus at the cost of his humanity …<br />
tradition<br />
peril from secular temper is that it might deprive Christ of his divine nature.”(24)<br />
The<br />
preference for contextualising Christology again underlines Thomas’ theological<br />
His<br />
of moving forward and backward between social and religious analysis<br />
methodology<br />
extensively developed his Christological reflections in relation to Renascent<br />
He<br />
The primary question in this dialogue is the relation between the universality<br />
Hinduism.<br />
particularity of Jesus Christ. Several Hindu thinkers do not have difficulties with the<br />
and<br />
of Christ.<br />
universality<br />
Gandhi affirmed the universality of the message of Christ. The sacrificiallove<br />
Mahatma<br />
by Christ gave full support to Gandhi’s principle ofahimsa.But Gandhi,<br />
proclaimed<br />
observed, did not “move through the principles to the Person”.<br />
Thomas<br />
(25)<br />
essence of incarnation is that Jesus Christ was fully divine but at the same time fully<br />
The<br />
In order to emphasise the particularity and historicity of Jesus Christ, Thomas<br />
human.<br />
stressed the need to locate him in the prophetic tradition in the history of the<br />
frequently<br />
people.<br />
Hebrew<br />
inter-relation between universality and particularity of Jesus Christ is important for<br />
The<br />
way in which one understands his crucifixion and resurrection. Thomas never<br />
the<br />
the theological view of thedivine absence in the event of the cross. He rather<br />
supported<br />
the cross as a moment of divine revelation. One can find this interpretation<br />
understood<br />
in his meditations of the 1930s; it was still the core of his understanding the<br />
already<br />
and 1980s. Reflecting on Revelation 13:8, he explained that “the Book of<br />
1970s<br />
speaks of the Cross as the eternal reality in the life of God, with the Lamb<br />
Revelation<br />
from the foundation of the world”.(26)<br />
slain<br />
cross reveals God as a suffering God whose very nature is self-giving love.However,<br />
The<br />
than in the 1930s, he later gave a far more critical dimension to this<br />
different<br />
more critical interpretation was certainly influenced by his deeper involvement in the<br />
This<br />
economic and political struggles in India. It was certainly also influenced by the<br />
social,<br />
debates on liberation theology and people’s theologies. In a sermon on ‘The<br />
ecumenical<br />
of the Cross for our Times’ on Good Friday 1972, he said: “The Cross is the<br />
meaning<br />
of God with the suffering of the poor and the oppressed, of the refugee and<br />
identification<br />
disinherited, of the Negro and the outcaste, and is therefore a source of hope for their<br />
the<br />
clearly shows how Thomas saw a great value in liberation theology as it<br />
This<br />
the divine solidarity with the suffering of human beings.<br />
emphasises<br />
and theological reflection.<br />
interpretation of the cross.<br />
liberation and their future”.(27)
Change language