Appasamy regards Jesus as the avatara of God; however, not like avataras in Hinduism.44 In Hinduism avatara is of a recurring nature, incomplete and comes
to the destruction of the wicked.45 However, for Appasamy Christ is the only
purna avatara, in whom the fullness of Godhead dwells bodily (Col.2:9). The
incarnation of Christ is once and for all and is unique.46
Christ came to seek and save the lost and sinful. He regards the Hindu avatara as theophanies, rather than
ocese. He died in ome again and again, Yuga after Yuga, for the protection ches to the Knowledge of Christ,’ Indian Journal of
41
Boyd, An Introduction, 111. Moreover, in this system, jnana marga and karma marga are being rejected for salvation; instead bhakti marga is seen as the best way.
42
Boyd, An Introduction, 112.
43
‘Let no one ask a man’s caste or sect;’ ‘Whoever adores God, he is God’s own.’ Quoted by Boyd, An Introduction, 111.
44
Appasamy was born in Tamil Nadu on 3 September 1891. His Father had been converted from Shaivism. He studied philosophy and religion at Harvard and later at Oxford where he received a doctorate of Philosophy. The influence of great scholars such as Farquhar, B.H. Streeter, B.F. Von Hugel, R. Otto, led him to learn from the experience of the bhakti writers of India. Another influence was that of Sadhu Sundar Singh. After returning to India in 1922 he became an editor of the Christian Literature Society. He had constructed his theological system using Ramanuja. He associated himself to the ‘Rethinking Group’, of which P. Chenchiah and V. Chakkarai were the leaders. In 1946 he became archdeacon and served from 1951 until his retirement in 1959 the Church of South India (CSI) as bishop in Coimbatore Di
1975.
45In
Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, ‘I will c of dharma and the destruction of evil.’
46
V. P. Thomas, ‘Indian Christian Approa
Theology 18/1 (January-March 1969): 90.
incarnations; consequently not historical. Appasamy emphasizes the reality of
s the essence of his oneness with the Father. Appasamy’s xplanation was intended to show that Christ and the Father are not ‘one’ in the
advaita sense.
humanity and historicity of Jesus.47
5.2.2.1 Christ and God
Appasamy rejected the Chalcedonian formula that Christ is metaphysically one with the Father. Instead, he expressed the union between Christ and Father as one of deep communion.48 How is Christ related to the Father? Is the relation one of identity of substance? The Chalcedonian solution says that the Christ is the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. Accordingly, there is a metaphysical unity between the Father and the Son. Appasamy challenges this view and holds that the union of the Father and the Son is a moral unity. The Son from all eternity is so conformed to the Father’s will, that the two persons are one, but in a moral rather than a metaphysical way.49 He brings this view to refute the advaita philosophy’s monist tendency which claims that Christ and the believers are one in a metaphysical way. The relation between the Father and Christ is not one of identity but rather of a completeness of harmony in thought and purpose.50 In Gethsemane, Christ surrenders his will entirely to the Father. The doing of the Father’s will wa
e
51
For Appasamy, similar to Christ's union with his Father, the union of believers with Christ is a moral union based on love and obedience (Jn.14:28; 10:30). In
47
Thomas, ‘Indian Christian Approaches,’ 90.
48
Sumitra, Christian Theologies, 101; Appasamy takes John 10:3, ‘I and my Father are one’ as moral union not as a metaphysical unity.
49
Boyd, An Introduction, 120.
50
A.J. Appasamy, What is Moksa? (1931), 59.
51
Boyd, An Introduction, 121.
Jn.17:20 Jesus prays, “… that they may be one, as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”. This ‘as,’ according to Appasamy, implies that the two relationships are of the same kind. That is, Christ and the Father are ot one in the advaita sense. There is a difference of function and a difference of person too.
ed that, He then entered e same’. Appasamy holds that because men have not understood Him, even though He is immanent in them, He has become flesh.53
t of sin-bearing, but a positive fact of n
Appasamy also connects the Johannine idea of logos and the Hindu idea of immanent God- the antaryamin, in-dweller. He exegetes Jn.1:10; ‘He was in the world’ and interprets this as the immanence of Christ, the presence of the logos in the world even before his incarnation.52 He supports this idea with Ramanuja’s commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad, ‘Having creat
th
5.2.2.2 The Work of Christ
Christ’s life of selfless love, which leads to suffering and death, is the supreme illustration of God’s love. As a result, humanity is morally influenced by it to a life of faith-union with Christ and to a life of bhakti.54 According to Appasamy, the cross indicates the universal need of suffering. Human sin brought suffering and the death of Christ on the cross. However, he interprets the suffering of Christ in terms of moral influence, rather than vicarious suffering or sin bearing. The central fact of the cross is not a negative fac
52
Sumitra, Christian Theologies, 102-103.
53
Boyd, An Introduction, 124-125.
54
Thomas, ‘Indian Christian Approaches,’ 91. 157
faith-union with Christ. This union is strengthened and given added depth by the revelation of suffering love on the cross.55
It is obvious that the Christologies of the bhakti strand attempted to present Christ in the light of the religiosity and devotion of the common people, like Christ as the avatara God. They also rejected highly philosophical categories which might sound inaccessible to the ordinary people. In this effort, however, they seem to closely to the stature of a