My latest offering has appeared at Episcopal Café.
It relates to a previous entry on this blog too.
Here is a thought. Suppose God decided to raise up a man in South Africa, relating him to the struggle there for equality and against power. Then the man was transferred to India. By his writings, his speeches, and his actions, we can say that he reveals what God is like. Indeed he does this so much we associate this man with God. The God-man worked in India at the time of a bankrupt Empire and was able to remove it, but for his liberating effort he was both shot dead by one of his own and the chaos of partition resulted.
Thus I have here presented Gandhiology. Up front it connects Gandhi with God and revelation. It shows God working out his purpose, and if you want to see God look at Gandhi.
Yet no one sees the need to do this. People are content with allowing historical accident to come about and allowing history to do his unfolding. Gandhi's own religious tradition - though he was one of its modernisers - is that of the rolling dramatic story rather than a claim about history.
Why is it therefore necessary to have a Jesus kerygma? There is a kernel of the Gandhi story that we can arrive at through the contingencies of history. History and social anthropology does not allow us to turn Gandhi into one of the Godhead, but then no one is so bothered about that. Indeed Gandhi specifically said he did not want a movement after his name.
Why is it not sufficient to have the contingencies of history regarding the Jesus story, that loses none of its mythology as a good read, and why does it have to receive up front preferential treatment in terms of a kerygma?