MM

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