The Christian Doctrine of a Personal God:
Christianity and Hinduism
by Joel Stephen Williams
In the New Testament we are told: “Without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6). It is not enough to merely believe in a Supreme Being. It is also necessary to believe correctly about God and manifest a changed life due to that correct belief. If we believe that God exists, that God is good, and that God rewards those who seek him, then we should live accordingly. The doctrine of God is important, because few things, if any, affect our behavior more than our understanding of God. The purpose of this study is to encourage a correct understanding of God which will lead to godly living.
If we believe that God is unconcerned with human behavior, then we might not be concerned about our sin. During the Old Testament days, some of the Israelites had this sort of a concept of God. Through the prophet Zephaniah, God declared, “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who...say in their hearts, 'The Lord will not do good, nor will he do ill” (Zeph. 1:12). These Jews believed in the existence of God, but their concept of God was flawed. They believed that God was unconcerned with mankind's behavior. They did not believe God would punish evil; neither would he reward good. Their view of God led to sin and a dead religion.
In particular, the purpose of this study is to examine the concept of God as a personal being. God's existence is a basic assumption of this study. The question to be answered here is this: “Is God personal or impersonal?” If God is not personal, how can we relate to him? If God is simply a force or power like gravity or electricity, how can we communicate with him? If God were an object like a rock or a star, could we worship him – for example, sing reverent praises to him and pray to him – and have a relationship with him? The Bible teaches that our God is a personal God. He is the Supreme Being, a being who lives and exists. He can talk to us, hear our prayers, and appreciate our worship to him. He can know us and be known by us, the latter, to the extent that he reveals himself to us.
What is God like in relation to being or existence? God is personal. God is not a “thing” or an “it.' God is not an impersonal power that pervades the universe. Some of the terms that are used by theologians and philosophers to describe God are technically correct but quite impersonal. God has been called “The Ultimate Cause,” “The Prime Mover Who Is Not Moved,” “The Wholly Other,” and “The Ultimate Concern.” Each of these terms expresses a truth about God. For example, God is the “Ultimate Cause,” because he is the creator who caused or created everything. But these titles are very impersonal.
In order to let mankind know that God is personal, the Bible frequently describes God in human terminology. This type of language must be taken figuratively, yet seriously. It is meant to reveal to us that God is personal. God can know and be known. He is not some impersonal power like gravity or electricity. God speaks and can hear our prayers Therefore, the Bible describes God as if he had a human body with eyes, ears, a mouth, a heart, arms, hands, fingers, and feet. In the Bible God talks, writes, sees, hears, sits, rests, smells, whistles, laughs, walks, sleeps, awakes, and claps his hands. Emotions common to humans are ascribed to God also, thus God rejoices, grieves, feels regret, is angry, is disgusted, is zealous, hates (sin), repents, is jealous, and loves. This type of terminology, is called “anthropomorphism.” Based upon the Greek term for man, this term refers to describing God in human terms. It is not meant to be taken literally. The problem is that our limited, finite human minds have difficulty conceiving a great, infinite, spiritual being like God. So, God is described in comparative terminology that we can understand.
Anthropomorphic language should be used with caution. There is the danger of taking the symbolism too far and creating an idol. While man thinks of God in human or physical terms in order to try to understand God, God cannot really be described completely in such a manner: “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” (Isa. 40:18). God reminds us that he is not a human being: “For I am God and not man” (Hos. 11:9). Paul warned the Romans that the Gentile world of his day had “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles” (Rom. 1:23). At least twenty-eight times the Bible describes God as a “living” God. God is conscious and has a will or purpose. The ultimate lesson from anthropomorphic language to describe God is that God is personal. God is not a thing or an impersonal force like energy. God is a “Thou,” a “You,” not an “It.” “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psa. 90:2). God is one to whom man can talk and expect to be heard!
To illustrate this there is the story of a blind girl whose sight was restored through medical surgery. The girl was delighted at everything she saw, especially her parents. She watched every move her father made for weeks and weeks. The love of her father seemed even more real to her. A brief kind look from her father would bring tears to her eyes. She said, “To think that I have had this father for these many years, and never knew him.” She knew her father; but once she saw him, she came to know him much better. Likewise, our knowledge of God is not complete. God is too great for our finite, human minds to comprehend. In heaven we will come to know God even better than we know him now. In this life, we use figurative, anthropomorphic terms to try to express our understanding of God. These terms have their limitations, just as our knowledge of God is limited, but they help us to understand the truth that God is personal, not impersonal.
The significance of this study for Christians in India is evident by an examination of the teachings of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975), one of the three most important writers of modern Hinduism.[1] Radhakrishnan studied at Madras Christian College (M.A.), so he had significant contact with Christian thought. He distinguished himself as a teacher and as a statesman. He desired to restate Hinduism in a different way to make it stronger and to prevent more Indians from becoming Christians. Radhakrishnan taught that all religious beliefs were genuine attempts of humans to strive after God. None were false in his opinion, although some were more correct than others. Some religious beliefs were superior to others; therefore, some were more useful and closer to the truth. Radhakrishnan had a scale of validity of religious beliefs.
According to this Hindu thinker, the highest religious belief is that God is impersonal. He argued that personality is a limitation, therefore, God has no limitations. Of course, he claimed Hinduism, in the Upanisads, was an expression of this highest form of religion. The next highest form of religion was belief in a personal God. Some expressions of Hinduism fit in this category and Judaism also. The third level of religion, according to Radhakrishnan, was a belief in incarnation. A human figure of God of some sort was necessary for some human beings who were unable to conceive of God in an impersonal manner, he claimed. Because of the Christian teaching of the incarnation of Christ, he placed Christianity in the third category. The fourth and lowest form of religion would be the worshippers of idols and spirits.
Other Hindu philosophers have similar teachings about God being impersonal. Some Hindus do not think of God as Creator, Ruler, or Savior. They do not pray to Brahman. They meditate on him, or rather, they meditate on “it.” Upanisadic thinkers contend that God is without qualities. Others have a two-fold Brahman. One, Brahman (neuter gender), is the impersonal absolute, while the other, Brahma (masculine gender), is the existing, visible world.[2] Still other Hindus like Ramanuja (1100s) have taught that God is a personal being, a concrete person who is loving and merciful, and that his name is Vishnu.[3] Bhakti Hinduism centers around devotion to a wide variety of personal deities.
Modern Hinduism exhibits a broad tolerance, because of these varied approaches to the nature of God we have just outlined. For example, while one form of belief in God may be better than another, Radhakrishnan claimed all were valid in their own way. He pleaded for tolerance and cooperation between religions rather than competition. The true Hindu could supposedly join in any of the above forms of worship to one degree or another. One could even join in a lower level of worship out of respect for friends who were unable to think on a higher level. With this approach religion becomes very relative and subjective, and this approach to truth is quite common among many Hindus. Truth can vary from person to person. It is not absolute or unchangeable in Hindu thought.
How should a Christian respond to the teachings of Radhakrishnan and others on the personality of God? Is it a lower form of religion to teach that God is a personal being? Many Hindu thinkers have answered, “Yes,” to this question. They contend that personality is a limitation. They claim personality imposes limitations on one who is unlimited. Study carefully the following reply from Stephen Neill to this argument:
Christians understand personality as a principle not of limitation but of freedom. The living being has a freedom denied to the nonliving. The rock will remain forever where it is unless some force from outside moves it. The animal is freer than the plant, since it has the capacity for movement. Man, with his gifts of experiment and creativity, is freer than the animal....God...is perfect freedom, except so far as he has limited himself by accepting relationship to the beings whom he himself has created and to whom he has given a measure of freedom.[4]
The Christian affirmation that God is personal is not an attempt to place limitations on God. God is infinite and eternal. Instead, the declaration that God is personal is the beautiful truth that God can hear us when we pray, that he can see us when we are in trouble, and that he can feel our sorrow when we mourn. As Matthew Henry once put it, “He hath heard Thy prayers, he hath seen thy tears.” The truth that God is personal was never expressed in a more beautiful way than when Christ taught us to pray, “Our father who art in heaven” (Mt. 6:9). The incarnation of Christ was a limitation on God, as the Son, self-imposed, but it was done for a special purpose (Phil. 2:5–8). It was done to reveal God to mankind and to accomplish the salvation of mankind from sin. Imagine, the infinite God being born as a baby in Bethlehem! So, let us glory in the fact that our God is a personal being. We can speak to him. He hears our prayers. We can know him (2 Tim. 1:12). We are known by him. He even knows the number of hairs on our head (Mt. 10:30). He is so much aware of his creation that he even knows when a tiny sparrow falls to the ground (Mt. 10:29). Great is our God![5]
____________________
[1] Information on Sarvepalli Radhakrishnari was taken from A. Lipski, “Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,” Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, ed. by Keith Crim (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981.), 598; and Stephen Neill, Christian Faith & Other Faiths (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 105–09.
[2] John A. Hardon, Religions of the World (Westminster, MA: Newman Press, 1963), 57.
[3] John B. Noss, Man's Religions, 4th ed. (London: MacMillan Company, 1969), 206.
[4] Neill, Christian Faith & Other Faiths, 114–15.
[5] Lightly edited from an article originally published in a paper for evangelists in India as Steve Williams, Progress 2, no. 2 (November 1989): 7–10.
No comments:
Post a Comment