Nehemiah Goreh

Thought:

In a nut shell Goreh’ thought can be summarized as Church-in-witness-and-defense theology. His primary mission was to give an apologetic against reformed Hinduism such as Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj, though not the militant Arya Samaj. Thus Goreh comes in direct confrontation with Max Muller, the liberal orientalist who was infatuated with anything Hindu.

In his apologetic Goreh finds the doctrine of creation ex nihilo as the most important for theology. In all the Hindu philosophies, the world has both existed from the eternity as well it has an ultimate material cause. As such none of them really understands Brahman or God as omnipotent; only the biblical account of creation out of noting makes God totally sovereign. If the world is an illusion, then God’s power and authority are less real! The final reference of Hindu system is a dilemma: if only Brahman is real, then to make the world of false and illusion and at the same time to say the world is Brahman is a logical inconsistency. Therefore it must be rejected by thinking persons. Goreh’s rigorous logic is also applied to the concept of Brahman: the Nirguna-Brahman, as he/it is quality less, it is in fact Zero! (Saguna Brahman, being a part of world of maya, is in any case no more than nothing, illusion). Brahman is unknowable, because he is not! But as for the personal God of the Bible, being the world’s creator, support and end, nothing higher than him is imaginable. Goreh’s logical method is best illustrated in his dealing with the vedantic assertion that Atman is Brahman.

 Goreh’s own answer to Hindu anthropology is a biblical one: Man (sic) is only a part of God but also of maya. More than any other thinker he emphasized the Fall and the fact of sin with utmost seriousness. He approves that “the frightful nature of sin deserves a punishment whose severity is beyond the reach of conception.” But such punishments are not just for good but primarily to satisfy the justice of God – it is God’s due. Sin is a positive evil force not just privative good. The Hindu concept of karma making both virtue and vice lead to bondage lacks such serious understanding of sin. For Goreh, sin is serious but it is on this account that he turned to Christianity.

His idea of salvation is also impeccably orthodox. For him salvation from this terrible power of sin over man from wrath to come is purely by God’s grace through Christ’s atoning death, appropriated by faith. Christ as a lamb of God was sacrificed once for all for our sake, as a penal substitution in our place. It is through the death of Christ that we are made partakers of God’s nature as Church – and not like Vedantic identification of Atman with Brahman. He dares to ask whether such identification was really a misunderstanding, though preparatio evangelica.

This brings to us another vital theme Goreh dealt in his writings – the relation of Hinduism with Christianity. Though Goreh attacked Hindu philosophy mercilessly, like all eminent Indian thinkers he too was wholly indigenous in his approach and in content. He rejected western lifestyle in all its varieties. “The western trappings of the church repelled him”. He felt himself wholly Indian, and believed that in a hidden manner God is preparing them through Hinduism to respond positively to Christ.

He finds this preparatio evangelica in the Gita’s teaching of Ananyabhakti (undivided devotion), Vairagya (renunciation of the world), Namratha (humility), Kshma (forgiveness) and the like. On the higher level, incarnation (as avatara) miracles are also a foreshadowing of the Christian gospel. Anticipating Farquhar, Goreh says that Christ is the fulfillment of Hindu longings; this is the divine light which was to light every man who cometh into the world, namely, the light of reason and logic. To logic he turned heavily in his defense of the gospel.

Evaluation:

Since Goreh unquestionably in the main line orthodoxy, it is difficult to find fault with his theology. But his emphasis – unlike the modern de-emphasis – was undoubtedly on the Church and its sacraments. Since he grapples with the issues of brahmoism and the Hindu philosophies his theology is also most relevant and has a cutting edge. Like any of his contemporaries, he also accepts without questions the genuineness and the ultimate authority of the Scripture for the Church. And finally, almost uniquely Goreh adheres to the heart of the Christian gospel – the penal substitutionary understanding of Christ’s death and parts company with most of the Indian Christian theologians of repute.

There are also couples of loop-holes in his thinking. For example, in spite of all his refutation of Hindu thinking, Goreh never mentions the crucial Hindu doctrine of Karmasansara and re-incarnation. And further there is an element of in-built antipathy to Hinduism, and almost nothing is positive in Hinduism for him. Goreh seems to be the Indian Aquinas of all the Indian Protestant theologians; it is he who has used Aristotelian logic rather extensively. Some times this approach gives the reader the impression that his theology is based on reason than on Scripture. But if we remind ourselves that Goreh’s audiences were Hindus and Brahmos who required a particular kind of argumentation, then such a “rational refutation” falls into place without jeopardizing the authority of the Bible.

Father Goreh has led many significant personalities to Christ including the Rev. Ranthonji Navaroji of the CMS of Aurangabad, Rev. Khasim Bhai of Satara, Mr. Shahu Daji Kukade and others. But the most prominent was pandita Ramabai. At a time when she had decided to reject Christianity, there came an unexpected letter from father Goreh, which seems to have answered the queries of Ramabai at the time and so accepted Christ on that basis. Later on she writes that none else could have caused to change her mind except father Goreh.