Thursday, March 15, 2007
Critics
I've had many comments here and in person over the last year since I've been more open about sharing my affinity for Buddhism and my very Generous Orthodoxy. Most critics are Christians that have a misconception about what Buddhism really is about. I once thought that Buddhism was "something that could carry people away from Christ". Maybe even something demonic or evil. That seems so silly now that I understand. Since I've studied it in more detail and also studied the Bible in much more detail (not the literalistic approach I was taught as a child), I've realized that Buddhism is NOT something counter to Christ. It uses different language, metaphors, and cultural references but it isn't another way. It is the same way. It isn't a different path leading to the same point. It is a different set of metaphors describing the same path.
Jesus and Paul used different metaphors to describe the same path. Jesus used the metaphor of birth (being born again). Paul used the metaphor of death (dying to self). The Gospel authors often used the metaphor of resurrection. All of those metaphors are pointing to the same thing which is transformation out of selfishness toward otherness/Godness/Christness - moving from a life of pride and individualism to a life of sacrifice and community.
The key in Emergent Christianity is to stop worshiping the particular metaphors which feel like home and start living out the transformation. That is how we learn to see each other as valuable in our own traditions. One thing I've learned in my journey is that you shouldn't let the critics of a group define that group. For example, I wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh to define liberalism and expect him to capture its essence because the very reason he isn't a liberal is because he doesn't understand liberalism. If he could somehow understand liberalism then he would likely become a liberal.
If you are concerned with my exploration of faith, then please don't express your concern by trying to define something you don't know. If you are really concerned, then dig deep enough to have a conversation by doing some research on your own. But most importantly, don't expect a Baptist Preacher to give you a good summary of Buddhism or Progressive Christianity and I'll try to return the same type of respect for a healthy dialogue.
7 comments:
I think one fundamental difference between Buddhism and Christianity (and 1st and 2nd temple Judaism) is that buddhism seems to be human centered, 'look within to find the answers.' Christianity is always about looking to God and his revelation for these answers.
I promise I got that from an actual buddhist - not my pastor jk.
It has been explained to me how someone could be a Buddhist and Christian, but I wondered if you saw this as a point of contention.
Many of my friends and family are not followers of Jesus Christ. There was a time in my life that (although I was a believer) I searched for "supplemental spirituality." I read a lot of eastern philosophy. For years it kind of lead me in circles..."enlightenment" is really dizzying...I soon discovered that God reveals everything I need to know about Himself in Scripture, and I didn't know Scripture well enough. Instead of wasting time looking elsewhere, I needed to spend more time in His inspired Word!
Everybody is searching for something. In Christ, we have fullness of joy (Ps. 16:11), so why go elsewhere? We (believers in Christ) are His Bride, so why check out other dudes? Imagine if I took my wife on a date and didn't give her my full attention...it seems that our relationship might suffer, not be enhanced.
Check out Acts 17:22-34. Paul experiences the same thing- wise, good-hearted people searching...and he puts a name to the unknown god they so desire to worship- Jesus! In the same way in modern times, knowing the One in whom we have true enlightenment and fullness of joy, why waste time looking elsewhere...as if a journey with Jesus needed to have outside sources "spice it up."
Searching is good. I love what God Himself says in Jeremiah 29:13, "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."
Blessings...
www.reverendrockstar.com
Jeremiah,
That isn't really a difference if you thank about it on a deeper level. The differences are in the language. After centuries, the language starts to get a life of its own but really it is just words describing something abstract. If you realize that words "self" and "God" are both metaphors for things that we don't exactly understand then the differences fade away. Do you really think God is what you picture (imagine)? Whatever you think God is, it probably won't be right. Also, what is a self?
What would it mean in a very literal way to look within your "self" and what would it mean in a very literal way to "look to God for revelation"? I've always seen listing for revelation from God or having the Holy Spirit reveal meanings to scripture or experiences as "looking within". I've never gotten a burning bush revelation. All God revelations in my own Christian experience has been as a result of looking within.
Buddhists don't try to label or explain what it is that causes revelation or enlightenment once we start looking within. It is perfectly acceptable to label that God, G-d, YHVH, Elohim, Jehovah, etc.
Buddhism isn't atheism which has a strong belief that no God exists. Buddhism is silent on the subject of trying to name/explain it. If you feel a need to name/explain/imagine that source then that is fine. If I had to pick atheism or strict theism then I'd pick atheism, but luckily I don't have to pick.
If I narrowly define Christianity as your fundamentalist view then YES there are differences. It isn't that the two believe different things; they are different because one places all emphasis on belief and the other is a form of practice to generate transformation. Buddhism is a "how to" manual for cultivating the principles of Christ/logos/Buddha which existed long before Jesus was born.
Jeremy,
you said:
In Christ, we have fullness of joy (Ps. 16:11), so why go elsewhere? We (believers in Christ) are His Bride, so why check out other dudes?
I’m not “checking out another dude”. I’m practicing being Christ and finding language, metaphors, and techniques that do that more effectively. There is no “other dude”. The Buddha isn’t a person any more than Christ is a person. It is likely that there was a historical flesh and blood person (Siddhartha) whose teaching evolved into the legend of Buddha (nobody can be 100% certain). It is very likely that there was a person (Jesus) whose teachings evolved into the legend of Christ through Paul and others (nobody can prove with 100% certainty - lost tomb or not). Both legends are bigger than any one life and both would be the same even without a historical person behind them. Both involve a “collective consciousness” or in Paul’s terms, a “body with many parts”. Read how Paul describes Christ which is very different than the “physical person” Jesus. Christ is what Jesus became to his followers after his death. It is a concept of life through death; an example; a hidden power that lives WITHIN us. Jesus was quoted as saying “The kingdom of God is within us”. The Buddha said that the Buddha nature is already within you. That is what you are revealing by getting rid of your distractions and cravings.
The historical factuality of either figure is unimportant. What is important is the concept of transforming ourselves into the character of these “legends”. The character is the same even if the names and myths are different. We are to become Christ by taking on a new form (Paul talks in depth about being a new creature). We are to become a Buddha by cultivating our Buddha nature. Both are mental images of what we should become and are language for the same transformation with different names, metaphors and techniques.
Jesus was a Buddha because he was enlightened meaning that he embodied the logos (wisdom, reason) of God. I don’t think we should get hung up on the terms which in English are not even the real terms used in either tradition.
I think a big difference is that Buddhist meditation has an inward while true Biblical meditation has a God-ward focus. From my understanding, eastern meditation is an "emptying" and Biblical meditation is a "filling." Nirvana is becoming one with nothingness, while Biblical ascent means fullness in the presence of Christ.
As mentioned before, I did some reading and research into eastern philosophy for a while. This search for understanding led me to pursue a Master's in Biblical Languages. And yes, much is misunderstood in English translation- that's why I love the Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) passages of the Bible!
True God-ward/Biblical faith means trusting who Jesus says He is and leaning on the authority and sufficiency of the Scripture that He affirmed. We must trust that what He instructs is ultimately for His glory and our good- the two go hand in hand. My fear is that eastern philosophy may lead you to something that may seem good, but not truly glorify Christ. Likewise, many legalistic expressions of Christianity do the same.
My journey has led me to fully believe in who Jesus Christ is and that His Word is the final authority and sufficient for all of life. Does it explain everything about life? No. But it is sufficient.
And on a side note: I'm neither a critic nor a baptist! :)
For His glory and our good- jeremy
www.reverendrockstar.com
Thanks Jeremy. The Baptist thing is a running joke with me and Reggie. When I first asked him some questions about your church my comment to him was that you sounded like Baptists in sheep’s clothing.
I'm glad you brought to light your misunderstanding of meditation techniques. It is a common misunderstanding and if that is what you had learned, I see why you didn't follow through with it. Much of the core principles of Buddhism are renouncing "Eastern Philosophy". Buddha looked for answers in those traditions but found them to be unsatisfactory. That is how Buddhism started.
You said:
"From my understanding, eastern meditation is an 'emptying' and Biblical meditation is a 'filling.' "
Emptying is not the goal. It is a just a simple technique leveraging the way our bodies were “created” to work and deals directly with our preoccupations and distractions which hinder our progress. This practice is not unique to Buddhism. Thomas Keating, Thomas Merton, and Richard Foster have written a great deal about the contemplative prayer tradition in Christianity. Jesus likely prayed and fasted and legend tells us that he even did it for 40 days before he began his ministry.
How is looking "inward" different to what you call looking "God-ward"? Where is God if not "with-in" us? I haven't seen a burning bush but I've always felt a connection with what I learned to label as “God” and that connection always has come from within. For me looking inward in silence IS looking God-ward.
If I'm trying to make this transformation process described by Jesus a reality in my life then what could be more "glorifying" to Jesus? I can't imagine he would say, "stop trying to become like me and focus your efforts on learning to use the proper Greek terms and Roman Imperialistic ideals that were later used to piece together legends about me." I'm pretty confident his goal was the transformational process of individuals, communities, and systems. I think the language and particular characters are superficial.
On a side note I think it demeaning to Jesus if we think that he would have wanted to be glorified, deified or worshiped. That runs counter to every one of his teachings, even the most metaphorical Greek/Roman versions.
Post a Comment