Apologetic as part of theology is a different kind of art. It is not mere apologizing to give reasons for changing one’s faith. This is well stated by Dr. Hoefer as he said, ‘“apologetics” is a technical theological term that many people would misunderstand, thinking perhaps that it is connected with apologizing.’ (Personal communication). Of course no apologist writes with an aim to win others to their point of view, but to demonstrate their view in a reasonable way. However considering the sources available and new evidences coming out, no apologist could write without paying a cost for it. What Clooney says about this clearly conveys the point:
…Strong arguments in favor of one’s own tradition often go along with critiques of others’ theological positions, and theologies are often confessional and apologetic at the same time, testifying and criticizing, explaining and arguing, persuading and disproving. But even criticism need not be a problem if it is offered respectfully and professionally. That is, the theologian must actually know something about the theological tradition being criticized, become engaged in a receptive dialogue with theologians of that other tradition, admit that areas of disagreement are probably far fewer than areas of consensus, and concede that one’s own theology is not beyond criticism. Such is the high price for a useful apologetics today. { Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001. p. 11}
After this introduction in the following pages I began by saying that apologetic alone created some interest to read more about Muktiveda and Hinduism; but I began this journey without proper guidance as a lay person. However the first thing I learned is that we should be aware of the poor understanding and shallow scholarship about one’s faith and that of others. To illustrate this I high light few such shallow scholarships both in Hinduism and Christianity. Once they created a dogmatic view about one’s own faith and that of others they present all kinds of shallow argument which will amuse even a lay person, which every sincere and serious student of any faith will reject. As the Enlightenment challenged the Christian world, Orientalism challenged the Hindus to present their apologetic both to defend their faith and present it to others. In this process the major attempt in Hinduism was to make it to look universal by homogenizing it, whereas it presents divorce, and of course contradict views. In this process they even try to make Hinduism scientific one. All the proofs which they provided more entertain one than providing clear evidence.
Though in apology we try to make our faith reasonable still it need not remain rationalistic all the time. Mere reason alone won’t help in apology. Then I shared my journey in apology which never remained an easy task without having any academic discipline (and proper knowledge both in English and Sanskrit). Then I shared the challenges in using Indian/Hindu terms (like dharma, karma, bhakti etc.) in this endeavor. Then I tried to present the Universal nature of the gospel (provided if it is allowed to incarnate in every culture and tradition). After sharing my conviction I showed some advantages as a Hindu in this area of course pointing out the cost that I have to pay for that.
As I have limited space in my blog, I am not going to post the entire chapter on Apologetic. Those who want to read it, kindly contact me. I can send it to your personal email. Thanks.