TO
MENTAL MATURITY
How to be Christian in an adult way
in today's world of multi-religious
traditions and secular trends
Third Edition
Antony Fernando
Sri Lanka CHRISTIAN PATH TO MENTAL
MATURITY Revised edition: July
1999 Third edition: April
2000 All rights reserved
(C) by the author With permission
to Foundation Teilhard de Chardin
in the Netherlands for publication on worldwide
web
Typesetting : Inter-cultural Research Centre, Kadawata, Sri
Lanka.
Published by Inter-cultural Book Promoters, 21 G 4 Peramuna Mawata, Eldeniya, Kadawata, Sri Lanka
(e-mail: inculture@eureka.lk)
Part I. Religion: The clarification needed
1. Religion: Ambiguity of the Word
2. Religions of Today: Their Clan and Adult Forms
3. Understanding Religion in an Adult Way
4. Books of the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible)
5. God-belief in the Old Testament: An Enlightened Attitude to Life
6. Writings of the Christians: The New Testament
7. Jesus: The Universality of his Message
8. Religion according to Jesus
9.Religion according to Paul
10. Christianity: Its Diverse Forms
11. Beliefs about Jesus Christ
12. Rites and Celebrations
13. A Vision of the Fuller Self
14. Adult Attitude to Life
15. The Mission of Christianity Today
A book on Christianity, as one on any other religion, is usually meant for its followers; and since there are numerous denominations in Christianity, a book on Christianity is just for the followers of a particular denomination. That is how we have Roman Catholic books for the Roman Catholics, Presbyterian books for the Presbyterians, and Anglican books for the Anglicans. Since denominations have differences, to find a book on Christianity usable by members of all denominations is not easy. In such a background, to think of a book on Christianity which addresses itself not just to Christians of all denominations, but equally to non-followers of Christianity is almost impossible. Nonetheless, however presumptuous it may sound, this is such a book. It is an exposition of Christianity meant for people of any religion and even of no religion.
A book intended for a readership so broad as that is bound to raise a large number of questions in the mind of any reader. What could the purpose of the book be? With what intention could it have been written? What need of contemporary society does it expect to fulfil? Christians may further be curious to know what the writer's stand with regard to Christianity is and non-Christians what the attitude to their religions would be. That is why I feel that, in fairness to the reader, I should clarify at the outset itself what the book is really about.
There is no better way for me to respond to such a barrage of questions than to say how the book came to be written. Let me say straight away that it was not seated comfortably on an arm-chair that I compiled it. The book originated as a course in Christianity that I had to conduct (along with, to some extent, courses on other religions too) for nearly twenty years in a secular university of Sri Lanka. When it comes to courses on religion, university students are hard to please. They shun blind faith. They want expositions on religion to be logical and to conform to common sense; and what is more frightful they are not all of one religious affiliation either.
Having in front of me students of various Christian denominations, of various religious traditions and even of philosophies such as the Marxist, I had no alternative but to re-examine the Christianity I had inherited, had been brought up in and had done theological studies on. I had to look for the elements in Christianity that were of meaning and interest to more than just its followers.
But to find out what Christianity had that was objective and universal enough to be discussed with anybody, I felt I had to go beyond Christianity and delve into the notion of religion itself. I had to ask first what 'religion' was all about and what it stood for. That research of which the more salient elements I have outlined in the first part of this book helped me immeasurably to realize that religion was conceivable in two forms, one as an institution committed to the preservation of its own tradition, and the other as a system of values that anybody could beneficially use to build his or her life on.
In that second sense, or in its life-transormative dimension, religion stood for 'religiousness' and Christianity for 'Christianness'. I opted for the second as it fitted better the requirements of my multi-form audience. I felt convinced that a Christianity which could be used by anybody for his/her inner growth would be of equal interest to people of all Christian denominations and of all religious traditions. After I had decided on the dimension of Christianity to focus attention on, I had to look for the methodology to adopt for its presentation.
Obviously, I couldn't lean on the method traditionally used when a religion is presented to its adherents, namely Theology. Theology is a system of argumentation that is used by all religions to prove to their followers that their religious organization is the only one which is right and true. Theology as a result varies from religion to religion and denomination to denomination. Within Christianity itself, Catholic Theology is different from the Presbyterian and the Presbyterian from the Eastern orthodox. It was evident that in the secular context in which I worked, Theology was of little help. I had to look for a system which treated all religions equally and any religion as just one of the world's religions.
Theology, because of the patronage it extends to just one religion or just one denomination in a religion, is in scope "uni-religious". That is not to say that Theology has no justifiable side to it. In a world where society is compartmentalized into culturally distinct communities and each community has its own religious tradition, the uni-religious approach can be said to answer a practical social need of human beings. But it could not fit a multi-religious class-room and be used in teaching a religion as just one of the world's religions. The context called for a more cosmopolitan attitude towards religions, one which could be called "cosmo-religious".
A "cosmo-religious" approach could naturally be used for analyzing religion from any angle. Scholars of analytical sciences use it to analyze religion in aspects such as the sociological, historical, anthropological, and the phenomenological. In actual practice however, such scholars restrict their analysis to just the elements that are externally observable and so to mainly its material dimension.
But as anyone who looks at religion introspectively will grant, there is more to religion than what is externally visible and materially analyzable. There is a "religiousness" or a "spirituality" aspect to it. 'Spirituality' of course, is a term that modern people feel ill at ease with. This is quite understandable. Most books on spirituality have been written by monks, hermits and contemplatives. There the idea is given that spirituality or religiousness is the preserve of people who leave the world and lead celibate lives.
But spirituality taken as humanness at its highest stature is a pattern of behavior that is within the reach of anybody and which everybody should strive for. There is no need to get away from normal life in society for that. What a spiritual person has to give up is only 'worldliness', not the "world". In secular language to be religious or spiritual is to be mentally mature.
If religion had anything to it that could make people mentally mature, it is the vision of life and right living that it presents. Every religion has such a vision. What I myself had to look for and present was the vision that Christianity upheld. Once my mind became clear about the dimension of Christianity that I had to present, the methodology required for it began to develop automatically though gradually. This method which I like to refer to very simply as the "Life-vision approach in religious education" is what I used in my class-room. It is an approach that could be used for teaching the spirituality of any religion.
It is largely my course of lectures based on that method (abridged and revised as required) that I present here. If I thought of bringing it out in a book, it is because I realized that the mixed class-room of a secular university is actually a microcosm of contemporary society. Irrespective of the religion they follow, and even irrespective of whether they follow one or not, people today are interested in religion and are looking for ways of coming to know more of it.
At the same time, I can't be blind to the fact that traditional Christians will have difficulties with a book such as this which treats Christianity as just one of the world's religions. They would find the interpretations given to some basic Christian beliefs different from the Theological explanations they are used to and therefore, unacceptable. The book could appear to them as one which alienates believers from their religious affiliation.
What I mean here by 'traditional Christians' are those who have been born to parents belonging to a denomination such as the Catholic, the Anglican, the Baptist or the Orthodox and have grown up strictly in that tradition. Such Christians feel so secure in the secluded denominational community they have belonged to from birth that they don't see any need or purpose in stretching out to people of other religions, or even those of other Christian denominations. They would experience pangs of guilt if they associated with them closely and particularly if they thought of entering into marriage with one of them. With regard to knowledge of religion, they are satisfied with what the official representatives of their institution tell them to uphold.
It is not with any sense of scorn that I here refer to 'traditional Christians' and their sectarian attitude to religion. I couldn't scorn them, as I would then be scorning myself. There was a time when I myself felt safe and secure in my sectarian attitude to religion. I too was born to fervent parents of a particular Christian denomination. I adhered so strongly to the denominational tradition I was brought up in, that I saw no good in any other religion and no truth except in what the teachers, pastors and dignitaries of my denomination told me. To acquire knowledge of religion, I relied exclusively on books written by the theologians of my denomination. For nearly thirty five years of my life (I am now 65) that was my attitude to religion.
Happily however, the research into inter-religious matters that circumstances eventually obliged me to engage in made me realize that a religion could be practiced with either the mentality of a child or the mentality of an adult. Children of 7 or 8 look at their religion just as they look at their family. For them, there is nothing good or valuable outside their family or their religion. Adults are different. They love their family, but they know that the real world is not just their family.
Peeping into my sub-conscious pattern of behavior, I discovered that, though physically grown up, I was still practicing Christianity with the mentality of a child. There was nothing good and true anywhere outside my denominational institution. When I realized that, I felt the time had come for me to grow up in my attitude to religion. The decision initially was not without its heart-pains, hesitations and fears. But eventually I was happy to realize that while staying in the same religious tradition I could look at people of all Christian denominations, whether Catholic, Anglican, or Presbyterian, at people of all religions, whether Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist, and at people of all colors, whether black, white, or brown with an equal respect, for ultimately they were all one as human beings.
I know it is not prudent to be too personal in matters of religion. But if I have spoken of an evolution in my inner self, it is only to say that I understand the hesitation that traditional Christians could have about a book like this. I seriously doubt if I would have read this book had it come to my hands in that early era. My mind then was so much institutionally conditioned that I couldn't have read it without undergoing serious qualms of conscience.
There is one other question that could be asked about the book to which I feel obliged to give an answer. One could ask if there is any actual prospect of a book like this (which may not appeal to traditional Christians) getting into the hands of non-Christians, and in case it did, if it would be appreciated by them. That no doubt is an issue which deserves to be examined because there can be expectations that just end up as dreams. My feeling is that, granted the strange interest that contemporary people have about religion, it will. At least that is the conclusion I have been led to come to after seeing the positive reaction given by non-Buddhists, --mainly Christians-- to an earlier book of mine on Buddhism.
Since it was first published in America in 1983 under the name of "Buddhism Made Plain -- An Exposition for Christians and Jews" (with Leonard Swidler, Orbis, New York), it has gone to eight printings. It has appeared since in German, Italian, Spanish and French translations. Since people who speak these languages are of countries that are largely Christian, it shows that this book on Buddhism has been read by a reasonable number of Christians and also Jews and they would have read it because they found it personally useful.
If I have mentioned this book of mine it is not to give publicity to my writings but to cite a case in point that we can easily subject to analysis. My book was limited in scope. It did not deal , for example, with the diverse institutional forms of Buddhism. I just attempted to bring out what is at the heart of Buddhist spirituality in the way that the Buddha envisaged it. In other words, I dealt with Buddhism there exactly as I have dealt with Christianity here. What I want to point out thereby is that, if non-Buddhists could have found such a book on Buddhism useful, it is not impossible that non-Christians will find a book like this on Christianity useful.
Besides non-Christians, of course, I feel a book like this could be of use to at least some Christians. There are a number of them today who feel that, living in a world of multi-religious traditions and secular trends, they need to understand Christianity better if they are to practice it more genuinely and be able to discuss it with people of today's society openly without causing embarrassment to themselves or to others. Even though this book treats Christianity only as one of the world' religions, and so in a manner different from that of Theology, still because it concentrates on the spirituality of Christianity, it could be of use to such Christians.
However untraditional it may appear, there is no reason for anybody, even traditional Christians, to be disturbed by a presentation of Christianity such as this. That is because what it contains are purely reflections. There is nothing in it that a reader has obligatorily to accept. The presentation is such that it leaves readers free to take what appears to them to be in keeping with their common sense and conscience and reject what is not.
The book has no intention whatsoever of shaking the faith of believers in their religious institution or of turning them away from what they consider as part of their family tradition. Its only aim is to make them go deeper into that tradition so as to discover the teachings in it that are of universal value. The sole purpose of the book is to show what Christianity is as a path to mental maturity and that for the benefit of people of any Christian denomination or any religious tradition. Mental maturity as understood here is what helps individuals to look at life realistically, face its problems with courage and serenity, and acquire inner peace and contentment through a life of selfless service to the whole of humanity.
Antony Fernando
May 1999
There was a time when a religion was of interest only to its followers. If a religion was discussed, it was only among themselves. Followers of one religion didn't care for those of others. Hinduism did not mean anything to Muslims nor Buddhism to Christians. Today too it is largely so. There is nothing unusual in that. It is only natural that a religion be of interest to its devotees.
To write on a religion for just its followers is easy. The need to define the word "religion" or clear doubts about its meaning will not arise then. For the followers, there is only one, real religion in the world: theirs, -- the one they refer to as "our religion". In comparison to that, those of others are not real religions. There cannot be anything true or correct in them.
In the modern world we witness a second attitude too, one which is evidently much broader. More and more people are getting interested in religions other than their own. We see this particularly in secular schools and universities. In them we come across young people who study religions that they do not necessarily follow. The press and other media are aware of the interest of modern people in religions. That is why they report so profusely on matters of religion.
The study of other religions is however not easy. Sooner or later most students realize that they cannot understand individual religions at depth without a right understanding of what "religion" in general stands for. That difficulty is understandable. A person who does not know what the term "bird" means will find it difficult to understand what a pigeon, a sparrow or a parrot is. In the same way, a person who does not know what "religion" stands for will have difficulties in grasping Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. That is one reason why a book on religion meant for more than just the followers is obliged to start with an inquiry into the meaning of the word "religion".
There is still another reason why in a book on religion a clarification of the word "religion" is called for. Too many conflicts taking place both in society and in the minds of individuals seem rather strangely to have their source in religion. Conflicts are so profuse that many are beginning to ask if religion is as good and useful to human beings as is commonly assumed. A few examples are:
(1) Clashes between religions: There is a great number of established religions today. All preach love and tolerance but seem to be at loggerheads with each other. There are unceasing clashes between people of different religions.
(2) Problem of denominational divisions: Clashes today are not just between religions but also within religions. Every major religion consists of a number of independent 'denominations' or 'sects'. There is little agreement between them with regard to beliefs and practices and in their dealings with each other there is more enmity than mutual respect.
(3) Claim to superiority: Each established religion claims to be superior to all others. Within individual religions, the claim is made by each denomination. If only one group made the claim, it would be logical. But every group is certain about its superiority over others. This "We-are-above-others" conviction of each religion baffles thinking people.
(4) Disagreement between religion and science: There is a psychological war between religion and science. Scientists consider religions as illogical in their teachings and religion treats science as its opponent. Due to this clash between science and religion, many people leave religious institutions and few enter them.
(5) Clash with socio-philosophical systems: There are constant clashes between religious institutions and socio-political philosophies. Religions have been restricted if not banned in areas in which philosophies like Marxism prevail. In the fields of sociology and philosophy there are many who strongly hold that religions are more a hindrance than a help to the unity and progress of humanity.
(6) Conscience-problems of devotees: Then, we have the case of believers who have serious problems regarding their own religion. They are unable to reconcile what their religion prescribes as right and wrong with what their conscience declares as such.
Amidst such situations, it is not surprising if people ask: Is the religion which is behind such conflicts identical with the one which is said to make people holy, sublime and even divine? Other questions asked are equally baffling: Is religion a unifier of humanity or its divider? Does religion enlighten people or blind them? There is only one answer possible. There is an ambiguity in the word 'religion' as used today. The word cannot be one which is employed in one and the same sense always. Religion must have either different dimensions or totally different meanings.
It is consoling to know that many scholars of religion today are aware of this ambiguity and are looking for solutions to it. According to some the best solution is to 'drop' the word altogether and never use it in discussions on religion. One such is Wilfred Cantwell Smith who in his book "The Meaning and End of Religion" says: The word 'religion' has had many meanings. It would be better dropped. This is partly because of its ambiguity and partly because most of its traditional meanings on scrutiny are illegitimate" 1.
The suggestion to drop the word may not be actually workable, but the drastic nature of the proposal should make one realize what confusion and misunderstanding the word causes. That suggestion alone is enough to show why a prelude on religion is indispensable even in an exposition of Christianity. If not cleared up, the ambiguity in religion will invariably lead to ambiguity in Christianity. That is why we have set apart the first three chapters of this book for an analysis of the notion of religion and very particularly for a search into the source of its ambiguity.
The new view that I want to bring out here as a solution to the problem of ambiguity is basically a very simple one. What I want to show is that "religion" can be understood in a twofold way. With either interpretation it becomes a distinct reality having a goal of its own. The ambiguity comes from the fact that the two realities are not correctly distinguished when the word "religion" is used.
Of the two ways of understanding religion the one of which the boundaries are easy demarcate and so, more commonly talked about is brought out in the dialogue given below. This dialogue which we have taken from a course in the Sociology of Religion is imaginatively presented as taking place between a teacher and pupil in a French school.
Catherine, what is your nationality?My nationality is French.
What is your religion?
My religion is Christianity.
Catherine, what would your nationality have been, if you had been born in Tibet?
If I had been born in Tibet, my nationality would have been Tibetan.
What would your religion have been, if you had been born in Tibet?
If I had been born in Tibet, my religion would, very likely, have been Buddhism.
Catherine, what would your nationality have been, if you had been born in Saudi Arabia?
If I had been born in Saudi Arabia, my nationality would have been Saudi Arabian.
If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, what would your religion have been?
If I had been born in Saudi Arabia, very likely my religion would have been Islam.
Catherine, what would your nationality have been if you had been born in India?
If I had been born in India, my nationality would have been Indian.
If you had been born in India, what would your religion have been?
If I had been born in India, my religion would, very likely, have been Hinduism.
If so, Catherine, isn't it by chance that you and I are Christian and French? Isn't it in the same way that all people acquire their nationality and religion? If things are so, does it not imply that we who, as French people, are today upholding the supremacy of Christianity, would have been upholding the supremacy of quite another religion had we been born elsewhere? Does that not mean that we should re-examine our customary attitude to nationality and religion, whether of our own, or of others?
This dialogue has no doubt a hurting side to it. Its composer seems to have wanted to drum into his students a truth that many of us would prefer to see just left buried underground. It is not easy to muster the honesty and the humility necessary to look fearlessly at the roots of our religious affiliations. The fact is that the religion we take pride in adhering to, and usually hail as the best religion in the world, is something that each of us has got as accidentally as the color of our skin.
I am Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim simply because my parents were so. My religion is not something I have freely and conscientiously chosen. Before seeking membership in it, I did not submit it to any examination. I didn't weigh the pros and cons of its values. I was just born to it. This 'born-to' form of religion is what most people speak of proudly as 'our religion' and want established in the world as the only true religion.
An important point to be noted here is that the religion acquired at birth is not any religion but that of the parents. The religion of the parents being that of their ancestors, religion that is inherited is always that of the clan. A clan could be a race with a common ancestry or a nation with a common habitation. Each clan has a religion of its own just as it has a language of its own. As much as a common language, a common religion helps members of a race to understand one another and act in unison.
Inherited religion, of course, has a very comforting side to it. Followers of a religion feel that they are members of one clan or extended family. Religion imparts to its followers the happy feeling that they are not isolated individuals but an integral part of an intrinsically united community. That sense of belonging creates in members a feeling of solidarity, security and strength.
This sense of belonging in human beings can be said to have its parallel in animals who belong to one herd or flock. The clan-instinct of human beings and the herd-instinct of animals may have more in common than is generally assumed. Being instinctive, both operate at a sub-rational level. Based on the sense of belonging to one stock, both generate a feeling of group identity and group security.
Inherited religion, however, is not the only reality to which the word 'religion' is applied today. There is still another to which the word is applied. One enters that religion only when one is mature enough to seek the meaning of life and look for a way to bring it to its fulfillment. The great founders of religions were concerned mainly about that adult form of religion. Religion as they understood it calls for reflection, judgment, decision. What that type of religion stands for becomes clear if we take a glance at the lives and teachings of just the Buddha and Jesus.
Siddhartha Gautama, who eventually became the Buddha, started at the age of 29 to search for the religion that he wanted for himself. When he did not find it in the schools of asceticism and meditation that he frequented, he looked for it on his own. When, at the age of 35, he actually found it, he referred to that moment of discovery as the 'enlightenment' or the 'awakening (of the mind)'. It was at that moment that he awakened to the reality of life and to the path that leads to genuine happiness. Ever after, the Buddha ("the awakened") preached that religion of "mind-awakening" (Buddhism) to those around him. His mission was to awaken people from the dormant state of their minds. That religion of the "awakened to" form is not one that a person can inherit or acquire at birth.
Jesus of Nazareth did not practice or preach what we called above the "born-to" type of religion. He referred to his form of religion as the one to which a person is "re-born". When Nicodemus came to him to find out from him the path to the Kingdom of God, Jesus wanted him to be "re-born". Taking the word literally, Nicodemus queried: "But how is it possible for a man to be re-born when he is old? Can he enter his mother's womb a second time and be born?" The answer of Jesus, though of a poetic nature, throws light on what we are to understand by religion of the "awakened-to" or the "reborn-to" form. He said: "Flesh can give birth only to flesh. It is Spirit that gives birth to spirit" (Jn 3:1-8)
The argument we have made above to show that "religion" is a word with two specific connotations is a very simple one based on common sense. But the light it throws on the intricate problem we are here tackling is by no means small. The idea that "religion" has two senses may not be one to which much thought has been given so far, but it is one which can no longer be ignored. Taken in one sense "religion" refers to an association and the common pattern of beliefs and practices that its members follow. In the other, religion is a personal matter and refers to the enlightened pattern of behavior of a mentally mature person.
To understand that distinction with a little more precision, let us turn to researches on religion done by Western scholars. For quite some time scholars have been striving to solve questions posed about the reality we refer to as "religion". They have conducted researches to find out how religions came to exist and what they actually do to people. Among them there are two who, though from two independent perspectives, have something very powerful to say about the issue we are concerned with, namely, the two forms of religion.
One is the eminent sociologist of religion Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). As can be seen from his book "Elementary Forms of Religious Experience" 2 Durkheim was strongly of the opinion that religion was a constituent element of the common pattern of life of clan-communities. According to him religions are there to ensure the unity and the solidarity of clan-communities. Durkheim may not have used the word "clan" as such but the community he implied by his term "society" was exactly that. He did not use the word "society" in the sense of the universal human family.
An idea of Durkheim which is typical of his sociological thought, but which an ordinary person may find unusual and even resent a little, is that religion has nothing more to it than what is contained in the concept of clan-community. But, of course, we must not forget that for him a clan was not just an agglomeration of individuals. Members were inter-related and the sense of affinity which this produced transformed the community into one moral body. In the way he implied, it was one body because it was animated by one soul. To designate that moral body he used the Judeo-Christian term "church".
. For him, religion was just "church" or an association in which members had a reason to feel inter-related. The code of beliefs and practices that the "church" upheld had no other purpose than to keep the community-group bound together and to give it an identity of its own. He put so much stress on the clan-community that he explained even the belief in God as an outcome of an individual's submission to the community.
"In fact, we can say that the believer is not deceived when he believes in the existence of a moral power upon which he depends and from which he receives all that is best in himself. This power exists. It is society" 3"In a general way, it is unquestionable that a society has all that is necessary to arouse the sensation of the divine in minds merely by the power it has over them. For to its members, it is what a god is to his worshipers" 4
It is not necessary for us here to go into Durkheim's explanation about God-belief. What is more important is his idea that religion is an integral element of a clan's community life. It is because religion and clan are inseparably linked that membership in a religion is transmitted by parents to children just as membership in the clan.
His idea can be useful also if we want to understand the peculiar way -- at times even fanatical-- in which most people behave in the matter of beliefs and practices. His idea that, in matters of religion, individuals act more according to the dictates of their clan consciousness than according to their personal conscience is a point that no religious educator or analyst of religion can safely discard.
It is unfortunate that Durkheim focused attention exclusively on one form of religion, namely, the one we have referred to as the religion of the born-to form. He overlooked completely that of the "reborn-to" or the "awakened-to". But to understand the problems and complications of religion in modern society, Durkheim's view regarding the clan-group and its hold on the religious behavior of individuals is invaluable.
The other authority whose views are fundamental for a deeper understanding of the issue in question is Rudolf Otto (1869-1937). He concentrated on the other version of religion. Judging from his book "The Idea of the Holy" 5 religion is rooted not in an individual's link with the clan, but in the intuitive awareness of the "Sacred" that every individual has in his or her heart. People are not only deeply aware of a most profound reality but also want to revere it and keep united with it.
Because of his close awareness of the Hindu-Buddhist religious systems of India --in which the idea of a personal God is not considered indispensable for the sense of the supernatural as in religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition -- Rudolf Otto abstained from describing the source of religion as "God-consciousness". He referred to it broadly as just "numinous consciousness" 6 since "numinous" was close in meaning to "higher life". According to him that consciousness of the "Sacred" is the basis of all religion. As he said:
"There is no religion in which it does not live as the real inmost core; and without it no religion would be worthy of the name" 7.
Rudolf Otto uses in his book a language that sounds mystical, but the religion he focuses on necessitates such holistic language. Religion for him is not, as for Durkheim, a form of "church" but a form of "spirituality". It represents a state of maturity that an individual aspires to achieve. The beginning of that state of maturity is a vision of higher life that one discovers through one's own experience of living.
Here again we have to say of Rudolf Otto what we said of Emile Durkheim. He too focused attention on just one sense of the word. He took it in the sense that we have referred to as "religion re-born-to" or "religion awakened-to". As a scientific exponent of that form of religion, we cannot think of a better person than Rudolf Otto.
As will be evident to anybody, the disparity between the interpretations of these two scholars is by no means small. For Durkheim, religion is purely a clan matter and its purpose is the safeguarding of the affinity between its members. All the features of a religion such as beliefs, rites, festivals, pilgrimages have no other purpose than to make members of a community think and act in unison. There will therefore be as many religions as there are such racially or quasi-racially united communities. The teacher-pupil dialogue cited above is thus quite in keeping with his view of religion. For the French, the Saudi Arabians, the Indians and the Tibetans to have religions that distinguish them from one another is just normal.
For Rudolf Otto, on the contrary, religion is purely a personal matter. It is what helps a person, to arrive at his or her highest stature as a human being. The yearning for the "sacred" or the "numinous" is so personal that there cannot be any barriers of race, region or religion to it. The aspiration to be human at its divine level is the same in the Frenchman and the Tibetan as also in the Hindu and the Muslim.
But the crux of the matter is that, however legitimate the two stands be, as a matter of fact, in the way contemporarily used, the word "religion" could refer to either. The word these scholars are trying to define -- like, for example, the word "file" which at one moment refers to a container of papers and at another to a sharpener of blades -- is equivocal. Religion working for the welfare of just one clan and religion working for the welfare of the whole of humanity can't be identical. Religion as submission to the demands of clan consciousness and religion as submission to the universal laws that make people more fully human can't be the same.
What could be really disturbing however, is the question that one is compelled to ask here: If scholars as great as these can take the word "religion" in two different senses, is it a matter for surprise if ordinary people mix up the senses when they use it? Is anyone to blame if at one time people wage wars under the name of "religion" and at the other engage in activities that promote peace and harmony? There is not the least doubt that much of today's conflicts within individuals and between individuals is due to the lack of precision with regard to the way "religion" is understood.
Benefiting therefore from the light that these great scholars throw on the two forms of religion, we have now to coin two names to designate them. Even though it may look somewhat arbitrary, we intend to use the name "clan-protective religion" or in short "clan-religion" for the first, namely, that of the "born-to" type. "Clan" no doubt has the derogatory insinuation of "tribal" and "primitive" But if we can keep that insinuation out, we can't think of a better word than "clan" for the type of community this form of religion caters to. The main aim of this religion is to preserve intact the ancestral tradition handed down within the clan from generation to generation and thereby to ensure the unity, identity and well-being of the clan-group.
The other which we referred to as the "awakened to" has as its aim the giving of a vision of life to people so that they can organize their day-to-day life fruitfully. For that reason we will call it "Life-vision religion" using a capital "L" for "Life" so as not to forget that the "Life" understood here is not just the physical but also the one that is above and beyond the physical, or in other words "Life" in its fullness. It could also be called "Adult religion", because its aim is to make people mentally adult.
By themselves, however, the names are of little importance. If more suitable terms can be thought of, they may be used instead. 8 Our purpose in proposing these names is to show how indiscriminate we are ordinarily in our use of the word "religion". We use it without concern for the distinct realities they represent. But on the other hand, we should be careful not to oversimplify the distinction and conclude that they are existentially separate or that they operate with no link with each other. The distinction is more subtle than that. To understand it more clearly we have to see how the two activate themselves within the religious traditions of contemporary society. It is that aspect we will examine in the next chapter.
1. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion
(London, SPCK, 1978) p.198
2. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Expe-
rience: A Study in Religious Sociology (George Allen &
Unwin, New York, 1915)
3. ibid. p.257
4. ibid. p.236-237
5. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy (Oxford University Press,
England, 1923)
6. ibid. p.6
7. ibid. p.169
8. A Buddhist reader of the first edition, for example, has sugges-
ted "mind-enlightening" as an alternative to "Life-vision".
According to him, "clan-protective" and "mind-enlightening"
indicate better the functions of each. The suggestion itself is
enlightening.
From what was said in the last chapter the conclusion to draw is clear. "Religion" is a common word for two distinct realities each with a precise function of its own. Clan-religion serves one particular clan-community and its main function is the securing of the unity and well-being of that community. Adult (or Life-vision) religion is for the whole of humanity and its main aim is to make individuals mature enough to be able to act rightly and responsibly on their own.
The fact that the two realities are distinct does not imply that they operate in isolation and without relation to each other. As a matter of fact, they are generally found to be operating from within one and the same religious tradition. If we take just the major religions into account, since it is with those that we are mainly concerned here, their mode of operation is such that they have the power to create two versions of one and the same religion. As a result, any religion today, can be conceived in both clan and adult forms.
A second outcome of their mode of operation is that it makes it possible for people to follow a religion with one of two mentalities. A person today has the possibility to practice a religion with either a clan-mentality or an adult mentality. All that goes to show that the clan-adult distinction we are bringing out here is more intricate than it appears initially. But the intricacy clears up if what the two notions represent is examined realistically, and dispassionately.
Of the two forms of religion introduced here, the one that many would find new and even intriguing is clan-religion. That is because the concept is never given importance in the traditional system of religious education. When a religion is taught to its followers, it is taken as one whole and so the need for pointing out the two dimensions is not generally felt. But today those studying religions are not just their followers.
To understand what clan-religion represents, we must go back to the earliest days of human history when tribes lived apart from each other, and each tribe or clan had a religion of its own. Religion was part of the clan's culture. In that era, culture clearly consisted of six basic elements. All the members of the clan shared a) one geographical habitation or place they considered their motherland, b) one ancestral history, c) one language which they considered their mother-tongue, d) one localized pattern of economic sustenance, e) one political chief, and last but not least, f) one religion. The role of culture was to provide a suitable environment for the clan to be stable and develop in. In the process it gave the clan an identity which made it distinct from other clans. Being an integral element of culture, religion too was intent on protecting the clan.
The religion of any clan contained everything that is generally associated with the notion of religion such as beliefs, rites, festivals, code of conduct, records of history (remembered or recorded) and a system of religious instruction. Even in their primordial form, all religions, -- and this is a point we should never ignore-- contained within them not only elements that were meaningful to just the clan, but also elements that had a universal significance. Those elements could uplift the spirit of people of any clan. To illustrate what we mean, we can take the example of two religions of today whose origins go back to ancient times, namely, Judaism and Hinduism.
The two religions belong to two long-standing clan-communities of our time, the Jews and the Indians. A characteristic feature of such age-old clan-communities is that their religions have no proper names. The name of the religion is the very name of the clan. The word "Jew" points to membership in both a clan and a religion. It is the same with Hinduism. To be "Indian" is to be "Hindu". The only difference between these two groups is that the Jewish sense of clan-community comes from the oneness of their ancestry and that of the Hindus from the oneness of the region they inhabit. Both these religions are endowed with a voluminous scripture coming down from early times. The scripture of the Jews is called the "Bible" and that of the Hindus the "Vedas". For our purpose, we take up just one teaching which is contained practically in a parallel way in both the scriptures, namely, that of Creation.
According to the Jewish story of Creation given in the book of Genesis (Gen 1:1-2:1) God created the world in seven days. The story has been devised in such a way as to fulfill both clan and adult functions at once. On one side, the idea that the world is the work of a good, almighty God, and not the outcome of aimless hazard gave the Jews a vision which enabled them to look at themselves as also at everything existing as endowed with meaning and purpose. That lesson of the Creation-story was universal in value and belonged to religion of the "Life-vision" or "adult" form.
But that was not the only function that the story was to fulfill. The story also said that the work of Creation was executed by God in six days. God took rest on the "seventh" day. Saturday or the seventh day was the weekly holiday (Sabbath) of the Jews. The example of God working for six days and taking rest on the seventh was meant to show the Jewish people how they should organize their weekly work and weekly rest. The function of that part of the story was the structuring of the Jewish society in a way conducive to the socio-economic well-being of the Jewish race. That teaching pertained to clan-protective religion and was not meant for non-Jews. Nothing prevented non-Jews from taking their weekly rest on Fridays or Sundays.
Like the Jewish story, the Hindu poem of creation 1 contained in the oldest book of the Hindu Scriptures, the "Rig Veda", also had two dimensions or themes. According to the first part of that poem the universe with all its seasons and living beings was the result of the sacrifice that the lower gods made of Purusha, a personified divine entity. The poetic idea of a universe originating from the sacrifice of a divine being made Indians accept a universe which came into existence endowed with divinity. The idea made them see a dignity and value in their existence. They were part of God. That teaching, like the parallel lesson in the Jewish story, was of universal value and belonged to Life-vision religion.
But like the Jewish story this poem had a typically clan function too to fulfill. The poem aimed at structuring Indian society so as to ensure its socio-economic well-being. According to the second part of the poem when the Purusha was sacrificed, Indian society consisting of four castes came into existence. From the mouth of the sacrificed deity came the Brahmana, from the arms the Rajanya, from the thighs the Vaisya, and from the feet the Sudra. The caste system was devised to ensure the division of labor and thereby the socio-economic stability of the Indian society. But that part of the poem was just clan-protective and was of no value to non-Indians.
What is true of Judaism and Hinduism can be assumed to be true of all religions in their primordial form. But the peculiarity of a religion rooted in its culture is that both Life-vision and clan-protective elements are inseparably joint together to form one "tradition". That tradition then becomes a heritage exclusive to the clan and to be handed down intact from generation to generation within the clan. Thus, taken in its primordial sense, religion was essentially a clan-tradition to be preserved intact within the clan.
From religions in their primordial form which are actually religions exclusive to people of one race or region, we have now to pass on to those called "major religions" and which are spread out in many lands. The best known among them are Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism too could be included in the category, since in recent times it has begun to spread in Western countries. Still, there are many reasons that make one ask if with regard to the link between religion and culture, these major religions are really different from religions restricted to one race or region.
The multi-culturalness of the major religions is a matter that has to be approached with great discernment as appearances can be extremely deceptive. There are two factors to be given consideration. First, major religions are not as uniform as they are imagined to be. According to the impression created, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are religions with one fixed form. But that is not so. In reality, there are many Hinduisms, Buddhisms, Christianities and Islams. Buddhism of Tibet, for example, is different from Buddhism of Japan, and Buddhism of Japan from that of Sri Lanka. Christianity is the same. The Greek Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Protestant versions of Christianity are vastly different from each other.
When one particular religion is found in such diverse forms, we naturally ask what the cause of such diversities and even divisions could be. Is it possible that all these forms have been invented and initiated by the same founder? Could it be that both the Theravada and the Mahayana forms of Buddhism were initiated by the same Buddha, and that the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant versions of Christianity were started by the same Jesus?
There is no doubt that the religious thought of the great visionaries, in spite of the fact that they themselves lived in fixed cultures, was supra-cultural and so universal. But as soon as their thought was accepted by a clan, nation, or even an empire, it was not taken in exactly its original intent. Just as a cloth is cut and sewn to the size of an individual's body before it is used as a garment, religions were tailored to the cultural shape of the communities before they were accepted by them. Taken from that angle we have to say that the major religions have lost part of their original thrust when getting shaped to fit the requirements of different cultures.
But there is another side to it too. Most cultures, specially those of smaller races and nations have not succeeded in re-shaping in-coming religions to fit their culture. What has happened in larger part is the reverse. Small races and nations have had to accept the religion along with the culture within which it had developed and to which it is inseparably linked. Every major religion has such a culture, -- one that could be treated as its mother-culture. That of Christianity, is European culture; of Islam, Arab; of Hinduism, Indian; and of Buddhism, diverse units of Asian culture.
Those mother-cultures have thereafter acted as a mould reshaping the cultures of the nations into which the religion was introduced. With regard to Christianity, a brief glance at its history makes this clear. Though Christianity was born in the land of the Jews, already in its infancy it entered the Western world. At first, it was not welcome. It was banned in the Roman Empire for three full centuries. The situation changed only when Emperor Constantine embraced the religion in 313 AD. Not long after that it became the state religion of the empire allowing itself to be shaped according to its culture. The Christianity that we know today is Christianity with the trappings of that state religion.
It was in that Roman (eventually European) shape that Christianity was later diffused in the rest of the world. The vestments worn by the Catholic priest at ceremonies have little to do with Jesus Christ. They are derived from the vestments of the dignitaries of the Roman empire. Even the hierarchical system of the Christian churches largely goes back to the administrative system of the Roman empire.
The role played by major religions in diffusing around the world a particular culture, -- the one they consider their own-- becomes clear even when we look at other religions. Their present shape is due more to the culture of the country in which the religion originated than to the visionary teachings of the founders. The turban of the Sikh, the cap of the Muslim, the robe of the Buddhist monk or the garb of the Hindu swami have roots more in the mould-culture than in any directives coming from the founders. The very tendency of religions to lean on the mother-tongue of their earliest ancestors,--Hebrew and Greek in Judaism, Latin and Greek in Christianity, Arabic in Islam, Sanskrit in Hinduism, Pali and Sanskrit in Buddhism, -- has the same basis.
All that goes to show how closely linked even major religions are to a particular culture. In their link to a culture, and particularly in their role of protecting one particular clan-community, major religions (taken just in the aspect underlined here) are not different from clan-religions of the past. Major religions may be multi-regional but they are not multi-cultural. They are predominantly uni-cultural. As much as clan-religions which are restricted to one race or region, major religions which are diffused in different lands look at religion basically as a tradition to be handed down from generation to generation within the clan. The tradition's aim is to keep the clan's past, present and future generations united together as one large family.
In comparison to clan-religion, "Adult" or "Life-vision" religion is easier to grasp. At least in theory, religion has always stood for "spirituality'" and "religiousness" -- which we consider the sense proper of religion. Adult religion has its own goal which, unlike that of clan-religion, is not to make a person, a perfect Frenchman, a perfect Saudi Arabian, a perfect Indian or a perfect Tibetan, but to make anybody, Frenchman, Saudi Arabian, Indian or Tibetan, a perfect human being. Rather paradoxically however, humanness is not something that people acquire at birth or by the simple fact that they are endowed with a human form. People are born only with the potential to be human. That is how the achievement of humanness at its perfect level becomes the ultimate goal of human beings.
The elevation of the individual from the "not fully human" to the "fully human" is what is referred to in religion as "liberation" and it is also what religion of the Life-vision form is concerned with. But many today are at a loss to realize what religious liberation implies. They appreciate more easily the liberation that doctors offer humanity by healing people from their sicknesses, that teachers bring about by ridding people of their ignorance, that social welfare workers effect by saving people from their poverty.
If they are unable to appreciate the work of religious educators as much as that of doctors, teachers and social workers, it is because they cannot picture correctly the sickness, the ignorance, and the poverty that religion redeems people from. One reason for it is that the redemption effected by religion is not of the physically visible body, but of the invisible mind. It is hardly possible to physically distinguish a mentally liberated person from a non-liberated one. Externally they will be the same. A saint and a criminal are not different in their facial features.
Of the numerous explanations given to religious liberation, the one that a modern person will find easy to comprehend is that given by the Buddha. For him the liberation that human beings needed most was from the stunted state of their minds as this is what brought pain and anxiety to people. The human mind in its initial unenlightened state is controlled by emotional desires. In that state they fail to see what brings them true peace and joy and they run after sleazy objects of enjoyment which ultimately bring them more sorrow than contentment. That is why the Buddha made "right understanding of life" the basis of his path to liberation.
The Buddha's explanation makes it very clear that liberation is a matter which pertains to the realm of the mind. To be liberated is to have a mind which is no longer wrongly oriented. For the mind to be rightly oriented all that it needs is a right vision or understanding of life. Through its intuitive powers and particularly the power of judgment which we refer to as the "conscience", the human mind can acquire that vision on its own as long as it receives the right guidance. The role of religion is to work for liberation of that most needed form, and that by giving people the guidance they need.
If a religion is conceivable in clan and adult versions, then it is to be expected that a religion would be able to be practiced with clan and adult mentalities. The two mentalities however, are so far apart that any element of religion could take two different shapes when looked at through them. For purpose of illustration, we select just four elements that are generally considered to be constitutive of religion. They are a) Faith (beliefs), b) Rites and festivities c) Community or church and d) Law or code of conduct.
Both within human beings and outside them, there is a realm that argumentative reason cannot reach. That realm is approached by faith or belief. Matters of faith have from ancient times been expressed in a picturized language. In keeping with their goals, clan and adult religions approach this language of religion differently.
Clan-Religion: In clan religion, beliefs are part of the ancestral tradition and they have to be professed by everybody uniformly whether what is believed is from the individual's point of view plausible or not. Clan-religion tends to attach greater importance to the pictorial formulation of doctrines than to their visionary content. Uniformity is easier preserved that way. Pictorial affirmations of ancestral days were, in course of time, formulated into dogmas and assembled into creeds. Creeds are declared to be revealed and so unchangeable and unchallengeable.Adult Religion: Here what is important is "belief" and not "beliefs". Belief is the same as insight. Insight is what shows human beings how to live rightly and according to their conscience. Belief is in no way a blind submission to a handed-down tradition. It is what provides the vision, the courage and the strength to cope with the problems of life. Adult faith cannot be developed into creeds to be professed uniformly. Faith is a creative and joyful way of looking at life and its responsibilities.
Rites and celebrations are a way of acting out or dramatizing the inner feelings and sentiments individuals experience before the mysterious dimension of life. Rites are common to both forms of religion, but the focus of attention in either is different.
Clan-Religion: Like beliefs, rites too are a group matter. They are different from clan to clan. Fidelity of members in the performance of rites is generally taken as a sign of faithful adherence to the community. Disregard of rites is taken as a sign of disinterest in the community. Rites are to be performed by every member exactly in the same way. Since rites are primarily meant to ensure the unity and the identity of the clan-group, participation in rites of other clan-groups is strictly forbidden.Adult Religion: Rites here are seen as an aid to people to keep related not just to their clan-community but to whatever they have to be related, namely to humanity as a whole, to the universe and to the invisible power that sustains life. Taken as a whole, rites are an expression of the understanding that people have of themselves and of their responsibilities before the total reality of life.
The notion of religion is intimately linked with the notion of community. The feeling of oneness with others is embedded in the religious experience. In the two forms of religion, however, the idea of community is understood and expressed differently.
Clan-Religion: Behind every religious institution of the clan-form, there is a clan-community in which the members are, if not ethnically at least quasi-ethnically, related. In such a community the acquisition of membership is more by birth than by personal choice. Once in it, a member has obligatorily to accept its creeds, perform its rites, accept the laws enacted by it and be submissive to the authority.Adult Religion: Membership in the community is not by birth but by conviction; and the religious community one belongs to is as large as humanity itself. Individuals who search to be mentally adult, whatever clan or culture they may belong to, form a noble, though exteriorly invisible community of their own. The boundaries of this cosmopolitan Church or "the world-community of the mentally adult" cannot be demarcated in a visible way
As much as the notions of belief, rites and membership, that of law is intrinsic to the notion of religion. In religion what is not in accordance with the law is considered wrong and so sinful. In the two forms of religion, we find two approaches to the notion of law.
Clan-Religion: Even though there are in all clan-codes some laws that are universally valid, the larger number are of value only within the clan. Those vary from institution to institution. Most laws are prohibitions and are meant for preserving the purity in lineage of the clan-members as also the uniformity of the handed-down tradition. Communication with other clans in matters such as marriage and worship is strictly forbidden. These laws are presented as delivered by God or a quasi-divine authority. To break such laws is to commit sin. Sinners have to undergo penalties imposed by the institution or forfeit their membership.Adult Religion: In the way adult religion understands law, its purpose is to uplift the personality of individuals by making them independent in judgment and responsible in action. Laws that make people independent and responsible cannot really be formulated or written down. They have to be discovered by looking at the way nature operates and by listening to one's own heart or conscience. The wisdom of the great sages too could be illuminative.
However sketchy, this comparative analysis could be of help for understanding introspectively the two mentalities with which any religion could be followed. It could equally well be of benefit to those who feel the need to straighten up their attitude to religion. Not everybody, however, will feel that need. To see the type of persons concerned, we can take the case of just Christianity.
Christianity today is composed of numerous denominational traditions. A Christian may be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Presbyterian. A common characteristic of Christian denominations is that they all claim to conform to the Christian community as it was founded by Jesus. The claim may be justifiable if we take only what a denomination has in common with all others, but not if we take into account their differences. Historically, their diversity is due to the socio-political developments, and especially divisions, which occurred in the countries that originally constituted the Roman empire. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire three centuries after Christ.
Among Christians of the various denominations there are some who have no difficulty whatsoever with the institution they have been brought up in and which they regard as part of their family tradition. Being sure that theirs is the only right religion, they do not see any purpose in being concerned about other religions or even other religious denominations.
Poles apart from these are those who are so disgruntled with their religion that they don't practice it any longer. They consider themselves nominally Christian or more frequently just agnostic. Their argument is that the demands of Christianity are in no way compatible with modern life. Their number is increasing everyday.
But between the two extremes, there are a number who love their institution but have problems with it. They find, for example, that some of its beliefs and practices are not rationally defensible. They also feel that the exclusive link they have to maintain with their institution restrains them from being in close relationship with people of other denominations, other religions and, in general, with humanity as a whole. Some find the situation so disturbing that they are uncertain as to whether they should stay in or get out.
It is to such individuals that this distinction between the clan and adult forms of religion becomes particularly beneficial. It opens their eyes to the fact that their denomination too, whatever it be, has both tendencies. The elements that don't seem to tally with common sense and tend to keep individuals segregated come from the clan-protective version. In its Life-vision form, Christianity stands for --as we shall see with greater clarity later-- Christian-ness, which is a stature of life lived according to the standards upheld by Jesus. A basic teaching of Jesus was love for all people irrespective of caste or creed.
Christians who are ready to accept that their denomination contains both versions will have no difficulty in seeing the right way to solve their difficulties with religion. All that they have to do is to observe the right priorities in their response to the demands made by each of them. Fidelity to right values is what has to be given primacy. Fidelity to tradition has to be subordinate to that. If the right priorities are maintained they will see that it is possible for them to be truly Christian and aspire to highest humanness along with all other human beings without losing one's link with one's particular denominational community. But if the order is reversed, and tradition, on one side, is made more important than right living and the institutional community, on the other, more important than humanity, what is likely to happen is that they will be very conspicuously Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Presbyterian, but very little Christian.
----------------
1. Griffith, R.T.H. (trans), J.L. Shastri (ed) The Hymns of the Rig
Veda, Book X, hymn XC, (Motilal Banassidas, New Delhi
reprint 1976)
We have examined the clan-protective and Life-vision (or adult) forms of religion and also seen how important it is to present religions in their Life-vision version in the modern world. But to present a religion, including Christianity, in its Life-vision form is not easy. Many obstacles have to be overcome. Among them the most formidable is, without doubt, that of language.
Religion uses a language of its own to express the vision it offers to people. That vision is, on one side, so sublime, and on the other, so much at a sub-conscious level that it cannot be expressed in the common day-to-day language of people. Religion has no alternative but to use pictures, images, myths and symbols for it. Imagery is usually a help to understanding. But the problem with religious imagery is that it has been created long ago, and has been retained in that ancient form ever since. The result is that modern people have great difficulty in understanding what religions are saying. The incomprehensibility of religious terminology, and the consequent imperceptibility of the message of religion, are probably the factors that have most contributed to the alienation of modern people from religion.
To help modern people overcome that barrier of language is a serious obligation of today's teachers of religion. To illustrate how this could be done, we take up for analysis here one doctrine that people have most difficulties with, namely, revelation. "Revelation" is a term pivotal for a right grasp of any theistic religion. All theistic religions affirm that their scriptures are revealed by a divine being.
In the modern world there are many who are not at ease with the idea of a Being or beings from another world talking to human beings. They have difficulties with the idea of the other-world altogether. Quite a few ask whether God/gods, heaven and hell are not just concoctions, or result of the imagination of primitive people. The two most pronounced answers given to that question take such an extremist stand that they bypass the real issue.
One is that of the "rationalists" for whom there is nothing true outside what the senses perceive. They put so much faith on the power of logic that for them no knowledge is possible outside the analytical sciences. For them what is not science is fiction. The second is the group, found practically in all religions, referred to as "fundamentalists". They insist that God/gods, heaven and hell exist in the same way as described in their books, traditions and creeds. The descriptions have to be taken word for word because they are "revealed". It is not surprising if "rationalists" and "fundamentalists" have always been at loggerheads with each other.
What both these extremists fail to see is that religious language is poetic and imaginative. They forget that even in day-to-day matters, what is affirmed with the aid of images is only partly true. We can take a simple statement such as "She is a rose" made about a pretty little girl standing near-by. Such a statement does not make anyone look for rose petals on the girl's face. Everybody knows that what is meant is that the natural attractiveness of the rose is in her face too. But people do not use that sense of poesy for interpreting religious terminology.
Let us take the words "heaven" and "hell". In the imagery used, heaven is a place "up there" where everything that is good, attractive and pleasing on earth can be found at a highly intensified degree. Hell is a place "down under" where all that is bad, repulsive and unpleasant on earth can be found equally intensified. If taken literally, nothing is more untrue than hell and heaven. But on the other hand, nothing could express the mind-ennobling power of right-living and the personality-destructive power of wrong living as heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are pictures purely of the mental level in which human beings can spend their present life. Therefore we should say of religion what Pablo Picasso said of art. "Art is a lie which makes us see the truth". Hell-heaven talk therefore is very relative but, as long as human beings are human beings, it cannot be done away with.
Talk about God or gods is not very different. The god-idea is common to all religions, and in all religions it is built up on the human image. Like human beings, God-gods have life and intelligence. They possess the ability to love and be loved. They have even the tendency to get angry, hate and take revenge. They can help as well as hurt. The only thing they do not have, except in stories of incarnations, is a body. This is because the body is associated with corruption and death. Nonetheless, they can be male or female and even get married. The Judeo-Christian concept of God as a father has the presupposition of God being male.
If human beings have given their own shape to God/gods, this is because that is the only way in which they can express the mysteries of life that argumentative reason cannot penetrate. As Xenophanes, the Greek philosopher said, "If horses and bulls had hands and could draw, horses would draw god as a horse, and bulls as a bull".
There is no gainsaying the fact that the human concept of God/gods is purely a creation of the imagination. But, on the other hand, no one can deny its usefulness, and its justifiability. It is unfortunate that teachers of religion have not taken the trouble to distinguish between the picture and the reality portrayed by the picture. As a result many interested in religion find themselves in a quandary. They are in the situation of the man who, holding a cup in his hands, says: "Can't drink it because it is hot; can't throw it out because it is milk". It is with such a double feeling that many today look at the beliefs they are accustomed to profess. They can't accept them because they look so anti-intellectual, they can't reject them because they are so appealing to the heart.
With that general introduction to the other-world language of religions, we can now examine what the message is behind the picture of divine revelation. As a general rule all established religions uphold that the teaching they propagate has been revealed by a divine or quasi-divine person.
To grasp what revelation implies, we have to begin by asking what the reality is which is so much beyond human comprehension as to necessitate revelation by a supra-human power. There is in fact such a reality. It is not something far away from human beings. It is so close to them as to be within them or part of them. It is their life. To any human being, his/her life is a mystery. Human beings are in possession of what they refer to as "life". But what life is and how to live it correctly they do not know. To all human beings their life is extremely bewildering. We may look all around us without seeing anywhere proof that there is any lasting purpose or goal to our individual existence. Everybody starts life on earth, coming as it were from nowhere, and ends life on earth, going as it were nowhere. Human reason based on the physical senses is at a loss to provide an answer.
But the strange fact is that though analytical reason, which is generally taken to be the supreme source of human knowledge, is incapable of giving an answer, still, somehow or other, human beings are in possession of the answer to the mystery of life at least to the extent that it is necessary to bring their individual life into fulfillment. If the discovery was not made by analytical reason, what could the source of the knowledge be? The seemingly logical answer which is in keeping with the popular belief in God or gods, is revelation by God.
As a picture, "revelation" is very meaningful. It says that there is more to the reality of life than what analytical reason can penetrate. But if the word is taken as referring to the actual event of a God coming down to divulge some truth at a particular moment to a particular person, then it can lead to incongruities.
A case in point is the way the word is generally used in reference to the three religions of Middle Eastern origin, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three believe in one God and they all claim that their religion in the institutional form found today has been revealed by the same God. Still they differ much in their teachings and are, as history testifies, always in rivalry with each other.
Another incongruity comes from the fact that, while those religions of Middle Eastern origin resort to revelation to prove the authenticity of their beliefs, those of Indian origin such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism do without. Such incongruities arise if one forgets that "revelation" is actually an imagery used to express a reality that is not expressible in customary concepts.
It is also important to note here that revelation is not the only image that has been used to express that difficult-to-express source of supra-rational knowledge. That of "wisdom" imaginatively personified as a female deity existing from time immemorial is another. The image of the Goddess Wisdom enlightening human beings and showing them the path to true happiness is common to many religions notably to Judaism and Mahayana Buddhism. In the Bible book of Proverbs she is shown calling human beings to follow her path to true happiness:
Hear how Wisdom lifts her voice,and Understanding cries out...
The Lord created me the beginning of his works,
before all else that he made long ago...
at the beginning long before earth itself...
Now my sons, listen to me,
listen to instruction and grow wise, do not reject it,
Happy the man who keeps to my ways,
Happy the man who listens to me,...(Pro 8: 1, 22-23, 32-34).
In the Pragna-paramita Sutra (treatise on Wisdom-Virtue) of Mahayana Buddhism, we see human beings addressing Goddess Wisdom:
Homage to Thee Perfect WisdomBoundless and transcending thought,
All thy limbs are without blemish,
Faultless those who Thee discern....
Teachers of the world, the Buddhas,
Are Thine own compassionate sons.1
The image of "Goddess Wisdom" as seen here is not different from that of "revelation" when taken as a pointer to the supra-rational nature of the human knowledge about what it is to live rightly. In the same way we can assume that if introspectively understood, the secular terms "insight" or "intuition" are as much usable to point to the supra-rational nature of the knowledge implied. But for that we have to understand how insight differs from analytical reason while being related to it.
Insight though different from analytical reason originates in the same mind and so the two are inter-connected. The fact that they are distinct does not imply that there is any disharmony or opposition between them. Like the two actions of hearing and seeing of the external senses, intuition and reason of the internal mind are different. But like hearing and seeing, intuition and reason cannot be at disparity with each other.
The main point to remember here is that both reason and intuition have human welfare as their ultimate goal. But they look at it from different angles and approach it in different ways. Reason is concerned with the human being in its physical or quantitative form; intuition, with its behavioral or qualitative aspect. Both forms of knowledge, as also what they lead to, namely, science and religion, understand human welfare as liberation from some form of pain or suffering. Science attempts to liberate human beings from physical aspects of suffering; religion, from mental or internal. Both forms of relief are needed and so the two functions are complementary.
Reason and Intuition however activate themselves differently. Reason can operate even in a person who is self-centered. Intuition arises only in those honestly seeking after right living. Reason explores reality by looking from the outside; intuition, by looking into one's experience of life. Reason argues things out and discovers new possibilities. Intuition contemplates and in contemplation realizes anew the value of age-old truths regarding life and living. For the same reason, the certitude or the conviction the two engender about any matter is not identical.
An example could illustrate the point. According to reason, two halves are better than one. Two halves of a bun are more filling to a hungry stomach than one half. But let us suppose that a hungry person who has broken his bun into two finds next to him a child who also seems to be hungry. He shares his bun with the child giving him one half. He just senses that this is the better thing to do.
What is the mathematics that justifies such a decision? This person's intuition tells him he will be more filled with one half of the bun than if he had eaten both. Intuition, from the angle of reason, is illogical. But the logic of intuition operates at a different level, the level not of entities but of values. Because it is concerned with values, intuition is what the conscience is built on. It is the conscience which tells a person what, in a given circumstance, is the right thing to do.
The classic example of the inexpressible way in which intuition acts is the experience in the life of the Buddha referred to as the "Enlightenment". At the age of 29, Siddharta Gautama started an intensive search for a way to overcome "suffering" (dukkha) or anxieties of life and to arrive at peace of mind. For six years he had gone to schools of rigorous asceticism and teachers of ecstatic meditation without success. It was while restfully meditating under a large shady tree that he finally found what he sought. That discovery is referred to as "enlightenment", "awakening" or "illumination". Enlightenment is what intuition brings about.
It is not impossible that traditional theists will have difficulty in seeing revelation equated to insight. Their objection would be that intuition is from within the individual whereas revelation is from outside. But should we take intuition as an activity that starts and ends within the brain of an individual? Such a question may sound strange and even fanciful, but it is one that the well-known psychoanalyst Carl C. Jung thought worth posing. His answer deserves to be given thought. His opinion is that intuition is not so much the result of the activity of an individual mind as that of a universal psyche operating through a personal mind.
This is the reason why I differentiate between that which I have produced or acquired by my own conscious effort and that which is clearly and unmistakably a product of the unconscious mind. Someone may object that the so called unconscious mind is merely my own mind and that therefore such a differentiation is superfluous. But I am not at all certain whether the unconscious mind is merely my mind, because the term "unconscious" means that I am not even conscious of it...My psychological experience has shown time and again that certain contents issue from a psyche more complete than consciousness. They often contain a superior analysis or insight or knowledge which consciousness has not been able to produce. We have a suitable word for such occurrences: intuition. You do not make an intuition. It comes to you. 2
In this regard even the way that the Buddha, a non-theist, looked at his own enlightenment is illuminative. Even though he was engaged in an intensive personal search, he did not look at the enlightenment as something he personally brought about. Of that moment of mind-awakening he said, "Knowledge and vision arose in me. Unshakable is my deliverance of mind". 3 The idea of a vision "arising" suggests that there is more to intuition than can be explained purely as an activity of the individual mind.
This short explanation shows that, if introspectively understood, intuition could well be the reality implied by the pictorial image of "revelation". Such an interpretation is of great value to understand in an adult way what is meant when it is said that the scriptures of religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are revealed. They are "revealed" because what they contain is not what has been found out through analytical reason by ordinary self-centered people. They are insights of extraordinary men who have understood life at depth. The Hebrew Bible thus contains the insights into life and right living of Moses and the prophets, the New Testament of Jesus and Paul, and the Koran of Mohammed.
Revelation is of course just one aspect of the belief in God or gods that we generally refer to as "God-talk". If we are to understand god-talk rightly, we must realize that anything said with the word "god" in it is symbolic. Expressions such as "God speaks, God listens, God creates, God protects, God pardons, God punishes" if taken in themselves are only poetry. What is of value is the reality and the message behind the poetic expression. The meaning of such expressions, specially in their application to Christianity, will be examined in the course of this book.
As we come to the end of the first and preliminary section of the book, let me now make clear the pattern I follow in this study on the message of Christianity. In this preliminary part we have searched for the meaning of the word "religion". We have also made some reflections on how religious language should be interpreted. From what has been said, there cannot be any doubt as to what perspective I should follow. It is that of Christianity taken in its adult or Life-vision form.
The methodology of presentation has naturally to fit that perspective. As is evident we cannot follow the uni-religious method of traditional theology which assumes that Christianity is the one and only true religion and which is used when Christianity of a particular denomination is taught to Christians of the same denomination. The method adopted here is cosmo-religious. It looks at people of all religions with equal respect, but is concerned exclusively with the "spirituality" or the Life-vision dimension of Christianity.
It is also based on the Bible as any exposition of Christianity has to be. It regards the Bible as one of the greatest books that have inspired people to aspire after a life of right values though not as the only such book. The interpretations given here of the Bible are in no way arbitrary, but they are not intended to be obligatorily accepted. Their purpose is only to make readers think and make decisions on their own. Respect for a person's freedom of mind is a requirement of religious education when taken in its adult form.
It is thus an exposition of Christianity to be read more meditatively than argumentatively. That is also why the text has not been burdened with too many footnotes, giving references to authorities. The authority valued here is the reader who has the ability to make judgments and draw conclusions on his own. That is also why the need has not been felt for the inclusion of a bibliography. That I think is the only way in which a book on Christianity can be submitted to not only Christians of all denominations but even to non-Christians for their personal reflection.
The special characteristics of a presentation of Christianity in its Christianness form is that by its very nature it is supra-cultural and supra-institutional. And so, a Life-vision presentation permits a non-Christian reader to benefit from that religion without having to give up one's own religio-cultural tradition. This idea of accepting the values of a newly- learnt religion without having to give up one's own traditional religion is not just a theoretical possibility, but a reality that is becoming very common today.
In Western countries for instance, there are a large number of Christians who benefit from the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism and adopt elements such as methods of meditation in their personal life. They do not think it necessary to give up their Christian traditions to benefit from the Hindu or Buddhist insights into life. If Westerners could do that with regard to non-Western religions, it goes without saying that non-Westerners too could do so with regard to a religion such as Christianity which took much of its present form from Western culture. A Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or agnostic of Asia or Africa should be able to adopt Christ's vision of life and benefit from Christian insights without having to become institutionally Christian or culturally Western.
This, in any case, is also what is actually happening. There are, for instance, today great Hindu thinkers and teachers who value the spiritual message of Christianity and even make it known around them without giving up in any way the religion of their culture, Hinduism. Purely for the purpose of illustrating this fact, we give below a brief extract from the booklet "The Christ we Adore" by the revered Hindu "guru" or master, Swami Ranganathananda of the Ramakrishna Mission, Calcutta. The introductory paragraph of the book is as follows:
We in India have learnt through our religion to look upon great teachers with a heart open to the inspiration which they hold for all humanity. The approach of our people to the lives of all teachers has something refreshingly beautiful about it; It is hard for non-Hindus to understand how we, professing a different religion, can open our hearts, with equal fervor, to receive the inspiration of this great Son of Man, Jesus. India's approach to religion is experiential and not dogmatic. It is spirituality that India seeks in its religious quest and not a creed or dogma.This is also the approach of Jesus Christ to religion, as we shall presently see. It is this approach that explains the spiritual hospitality of the Indian mind. This broad all-inclusive approach will be increasingly appreciated and accepted by the thinking people of the world in the coming years. What is now the cherished possession of a national culture will eventually become an integral part of human culture and civilization. Such a consummation will help to release the Christ-spirit from the shackles of a narrow sectarian creed in which it has been stifled for centuries. This will be the service that the spirit of India will render in this age to the religion of this great Master. 4
This statement of a revered religious teacher of India is extremely profound and contains a thought very relevant to our issue. We cannot find a better thought to spotlight as we conclude the preliminary section of our book and to underline the perspective with which we will be examining Christianity in the pages which follow.
.......................
1. Conze, Edward, Buddhist Scriptures, (Harmondsworth, 1959)
pp. 168-171
2. Carl Gustav Jung, Psychology and Religion (New Haven, Yale
University Press, 9th printing 1955) pp. 46-49
3. For more details see Buddhism Made Plain Antony Fernando
with Leonard Swidler, (Orbis, New York)
4.Swami Ranganathananda, The Christ We Adore (The
Ramakrishna Mission, Institute of Culture, Calcutta, '60) pp.1-2
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Chapter Four
No religion of today can be properly understood without some knowledge of the religion or religions that preceded it in the same locality. Many religions are either a revival of a pre-existing one or a reaction to it. That is why we cannot understand fully what the Buddha taught without having some idea of the state of Hinduism or Brahmanism that prevailed in his society, or what Mohammed taught without some notion of the religious forms including Judaism and Christianity that existed in Arabia of his day.
But probably no religion is so closely dependent on another as Christianity is on Judaism. Christianity actually grew out of it. Judaism is what gave birth to Christianity. Jesus, Christianity's founder, was born and died a Jew. He never abandoned Judaism nor did he dissociate himself from it. In the ministry, his primary concern was to correct the wrong ways in which his people practiced Judaism.
Christians of today do not talk much of their Jewish roots. When explaining their history, they do not, as a rule, go beyond the life-time of their founder. They prefer to ensure the distinctness of their institutional identity. To begin the history of Christianity from Jesus would be as incorrect as to begin the history of Protestantism from Luther. Protestantism is a reform of Christianity as Christianity is of Judaism. Christianity cannot be understood without taking into account Pre-Christian Judaism. The inner affinity between the two is well established by the fact that the Scriptures of the Jewish religion are an integral part of the Christian Scriptures. Christians have taken over the Jewish Scriptures exactly as they are without making even the smallest alteration in them.
The Jewish Scriptures are commonly referred to today as the "Hebrew Bible". The word "Hebrew" points to the language in which they were first written. "Bible" comes from the Greek for "book". The Jews looked at their scriptures as the book par excellence. Keeping to the practice of the time, Jesus referred to it either as "the Law" or "the Law and the Prophets". He conformed to what was stated in it. He did not want to change anything in the Hebrew Bible.
Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened (Mt.5: 17-18).
We can't think of any other religion that has taken over in all its entirety the scriptures of another religion. The Christian Scriptures however are not restricted to the Hebrew Bible. Christians have a collection of their own writings too. These contain information about the life and activities of Jesus as well as about the community of the first Christians. The two parts, the Jewish and the Christian, are today commonly treated as one book.
In size the two parts are far from equal. The second is much smaller than the first. If we take a common size Bible such as the popular version of the "New English Bible" 1 (from which incidentally quotations in this book are taken) the first or the Jewish part extends to as many as 1164 pages but the second or the exclusively Christian part has only 313 pages, which means that the first part is more than three times that of the second. The Christians name the Hebrew Bible, the "Old Testament" and their own writings the "New Testament".
In the religious language of the Jews (known in early times as Israelites) "testament" meant "covenant", "contract", "treatise" or "bond". They believed that they were a people joined to God by a special bond. Such a claim is not exclusive to the Jews. Most ancient communities claimed that they had a special link with a god or goddess, and that this was their protector. In the way the Jews understood their testament, God had to protect the Israelite people and the Israelite people had to observe the Law of God.
Accepting the same term, the Christians called the Hebrew Scriptures the "Old Testament" and their own writings the "New Testament". The word "old" here should not be taken as meaning "outdated" or "obsolete"; It only means that the Christians, while respecting the Jewish conviction that they, as one tribe of the world, had a special covenant with God, believed in another covenant-- one more universal -- that God had with the whole of humankind.
From what has been said it is evident that a good grasp of the Hebrew Bible is important for the understanding of Christianity. Therefore in this chapter, we will examine the structure of the Old Testament and the nature of its books. In the next we will examine its idea of religion particularly through its teaching on God-belief.
It is not always easy to find the order in which the books of the Old Testament are best examined. The grouping followed from ancient times by the Jewish teachers is considered simple and practical. According to this Jewish tradition, the Hebrew Bible consists of three parts, i) the Law, ii) the Prophets, and iii) the Writings. This is the order that is commonly followed in Christian studies on the Bible too.
The first part of the Old Testament called "the Law" consists of five books: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, and 5) Deuteronomy. These five books are regarded by the Jews as one whole and so are at times referred to as the Pentateuch, a Greek word meaning the "five-book unit". If they are more commonly referred to as "the Law" it is because in the pages of these books are contained the basic elements of the religio-political constitution of the Jews. Though called books of the Law they are valuable also as books of history, and of spirituality. For that reason, the Pentateuch must be looked at from all those three angles.
The heart of the Law is the Ten Commandments which the Jews believe to have been given directly by God himself. The number of the commandments was kept to the figure ten as a memory-aid. In the Law books, the commandments are not only just enunciated. They are also extensively commented on and explained. The explanations include many practical details. The Jewish Law gives great prominence to the social obligations of the individual. Some of the social laws have been so well thought out that they could be equally applicable in any community. A few of them taken from the book of Exodus (Ex 22:22-23:8) are (in the abridged form of the "Reader's Bible") as follows:
You shall not afflict any widow or orphan; if you do, I shall surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn; I will kill you, and your wives shall become widows, and your children fatherless. If you lend money to any of my people who is poor, you shall not exact interest. If you take your neighbor's garment in pledge you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down for that is his only covering; in what else shall he sleep? ...You shall not revile God nor curse a ruler of my people. You shall not utter a false report. You shall not follow a multitude to do evil; nor shall you bear witness in a suit, turning aside after a multitude, so as to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his suit. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds officials, and subverts the cause of those in the right.
The value and opportuneness of such laws impress any modern reader. Still, some readers could be taken aback by the tone of some of God's utterances. An expression such as "..my wrath will burn; I will kill you, and your wives will become widows, and your children fatherless" could appear as ill-suited for the lips of a holy God. Such statements, however, are shocking only to those who have an unrealistic understanding of what Revelation means. The idea that God is the author of the Bible should not be interpreted fancifully.
The laws declared here are presented as God's. But it is Moses who through his visionary insight identifies them as in keeping with the mind of God. The language and the drama-script are from Moses. Besides being a visionary, Moses was also a clever and strong-handed leader of his people. He understood well that a hot-headed clan like the one he led couldn't be controlled or disciplined without using death-threats. He had, as the popular saying goes, to "put the fear of Moses into them". He wanted discipline in his people. That is why he depicted God like a rigorous disciplinarian who was ready to cane mischief-makers wherever necessary.
The Jewish Law contains not only prescriptions regarding human dealings between members of the Jewish community, but also rules of ritual. The book called "Leviticus" for example, contains a detailed exposition of the rites and rituals that the Jewish people had to observe as well as the feasts and festivals they had to celebrate. It contains a lengthy account of the duties of Jewish priests too. In Jewish society a particular clan, the one that derived from the family of Levi, was set apart for priestly work, a custom not very different from that followed in Hinduism where a caste, the Brahmin, is set apart.
Though they contain several collections of laws, one should not consider the Pentateuch exclusively as books of Law. What it contains more extensively is the history of the Jewish people. To find out anything about the earliest stages of the history of the Jewish people it is to these books that one has invariably to turn.
When speaking of this history, we have first to remember that those who are today called "Jews" have not always been called so. Throughout their history, they have been known by a number of names. From the father of their tribe, who had incurred the nick-name "Israel", they were in their very early days known as the "Children of Israel" or in short as "Israelites" or "Israel". The nick-name "Isra-el" literally "fighter with God" could have been a humorous allusion to the courage, daring or endurance for which among his neighbors, Jacob was reputed.
Among the neighboring nations they were also recognized by the Hebrew language they spoke. Hence they were called the "Hebrews". But in the Bible itself because of their belief that they were a people chosen by God, they are referred to as the "People of God".
From among the books of the Pentateuch, the first two, namely Genesis and Exodus, are specially revered by the Jewish people because the story of their origins is contained and preserved in them. Genesis contains the story of their origin as a large family or tribe and Exodus of their origin as a race. According to the book of Genesis, Jacob had twelve sons and the twelve sub-tribes that constituted the Israelite people are said to have derived from them. Jacob was the son of Isaac who in turn was the son of Abraham who is assumed to have lived about 1800 BC. Abraham has always been considered the first and chief patriarch of the Jewish people.
The second book, Exodus, develops the history of this people up to the time they became, under the leadership of Moses, an independent race. Moses liberated his people when, under the kings of Egypt, called Pharaohs, they were used as slaves for the construction of big buildings and roads and underwent great suffering and hardship. Rebelling against the Egyptian rulers, Moses made his people escape from Egypt into a desert region, there to recover their dignity as a free people and develop into an independent race. This escape of the Jewish people from Egypt is called the Exodus (exit) and is believed to have taken place around 1250 BC.
As in the case with all ancient tribes, the account given in these books is seen exclusively from the side of the tribe or clan and so are not impartial records of history. They instilled into its members a love for the clan as also a strong pride in it.
The first five books can be looked at also as books of spirituality because they contain some of the deepest spiritual insights of the Jewish people. It is in these books that we find the account of the Creation of the universe by God. The creation story has played an immeasurably great role in making people recognize with humility their creatureliness and with a sense of responsibility their dignity as beings made in the image of God. Then again in these books we find the story of the spiritual quest of Abraham. Abraham is presented as the model God-believer. He knew what it was to listen to God. Of equally great importance is the story of Moses who taught the Jewish people through his codes of Law and his visionary idea of the Covenant what belief in God had to be.
What is to the greatest credit of Judaism is that, while being basically a religion of the clan-form, it contained within it elements of adult religion at a very sublime level and which people who were not Jews too could cherish and adopt. That is how their form of monotheism became ultimately the foundation for two multi-racial religions, Christianity and Islam.
The "Law" or the Pentateuch is the most ancient part of the Bible. At a very early stage it constituted the complete Bible. In fact, in a group that broke away from Judaism called the Samaritans, it is still today the complete Bible. For one who studies the Old Testament to find out what Christianity has inherited from Judaism, the Pentateuch can easily be considered the most revealing part of the Old Testament.
The second important group of Old Testament books is called the "Prophets". The word "prophet" deriving from a Greek root meaning "speak for" was applied by the Jewish people to certain individuals whom they looked at as "God's spokesmen" or "speakers for God". Prophets prefaced their message with statements such as "The Lord of Hosts has revealed himself to me" (Is 22: 14) or "These were the words of the Lord, the Lord of Hosts" (Is 22:15). These individuals, out of a deep love for their community, pointed out in public the wrong doings that they saw prevailing within it. While doing so, they also warned of the unhappy consequences that would follow if these misdeeds were not amended.
The notion of prophet and prophecy that we find in the Old Testament is no doubt a Jewish one. Nevertheless, prophecy is not something exclusively Jewish. Prophecy exists wherever there are honest people who are courageous enough to point out to their society its misdoings and injustices. It is thus not restricted to a particular nation, time or religion. Men like Martin Luther King of America and Mahatma Gandhi of India who denounced the injustices perpetrated in their society can also be considered prophets.
Genuine prophets have been appreciated by people of all cultures and times. But still prophets have never been so much appreciated by anybody as by the Jewish people. They often recognized the value of the prophets more after their life-time than during it. But when they recognized their value, they treated their utterances as pronouncements of God himself, and collecting them together preserved them for the benefit of their progeny. That is how we have today an important section in the Old Testament called the "Prophets".
The number of books contained in the "Prophets" is very big. Because of that, the Jewish teachers divided them up into two groups, the first called "Former Prophets" and the second "Latter Prophets". The "Former Prophets" consists of the 4 books, a) Joshua, b) Judges, c) Samuel (I-II) and d) Kings (I-II). The "Latter Prophets" consists of 15 books. Of these the first three bigger books, namely, a) Isaiah, b) Jeremiah, and c) Ezekiel, are called the "major" prophets and the shorter twelve, the "minor" prophets. The minor prophets are 1. Hosea, 2. Joel, 3. Amos, 4. Obadiah, 5. Jonah, 6. Micah, 7. Nahum, 8. Habakkuk, 9. Zephaniah, 10. Haggai, 11. Zachariah, and 12. Malachi. In the Jewish Bible, the 12 minor prophets, because they were copied in one scroll, are customarily treated as integral parts of one book, but in Christian Bibles they are treated as 12 separate books.
Just as the section called the "Law" did not contain only laws, "Prophets" does not contain only prophecy. The four books called the "Former Prophets". for example, have little to do with prophecy. They are primarily books of political history and cover the history of the Jewish people from the death of Moses onwards. They contain the story of the struggle the Jewish people waged first to acquire a foothold in the land of Canaan, later known as Palestine and thereafter to have in the same land a government of their own. The "Latter Prophets" however, are different. These comprise actual utterances and even the writings of the prophets themselves. With regard to the prophets, a reader will notice that at times their utterances are very nationalistic in character. They are seen even cursing enemy nations and invoking God's vengeance on them. Such behavior is not unusual in a religion restricted to a clan.