Last night, I spoke with a first generation Pakistani named Annis (that’s probably spelled wrong) whose son was serving community service at The Point.  We discussed religion (he’s an interesting mix of Islam, Hindu and Christian) and then we talked about death.

His mother had died a few years back and he told me how she saw the ghost of Muhammad before she died.  According to Annis, before people die they see apparitions of a religious figure.

In Pakistan, Islam is the predominant religion, but there’s a mix of Hindu and Christianity.  Nevertheless, most Pakistanis bury the traditional Islamic method: direct burial.

The body is washed.

The body is shrouded in linen.

The body is prayed over.

The body is buried.

So far, Annis wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t know.  Then he asked me, “Do you believe that the spirit dwells around the body after death?”

I replied, “I don’t know for certain there’s a spirit and I don’t know if it dwells around the body.”

He then asked, “When you talk about a newly deceased person at your funeral home, do you use present tense or past tense?”

I thought about it for a couple seconds and replied, “Present tense.”

“See!” he said.  “You believe the spirit is still dwelling around the body.”  And although I didn’t buy his logic, I did appreciate how he used this point to explain his understanding of direct burial.

“We believe that the spirit is only at peace when it is buried.  So we must bury right away and treat the body properly or the spirit will not find peace.  If a body is not treated properly, that spirit will not find peace.”

“Well,” I thought to myself, “that explains a number of burial customs.”

A spirit will only find peace when it’s body is buried properly.

This is easily the most disturbing death related news item that I’ve ever posted on my blog.

As I write this article there is a bill in the Parliament of Egypt that seeks to legalize necrophilia.

This bill originates out of the teachings of a Moroccan cleric named Zamzami Abdul Bari (pictured to the right).  The cleric believes that the marriage commitment remains valid after death.  Based on that assumption, he believes that a man, and a woman, should have the right to have sex with the corpse of their spouse.  He calls this “Farewell Intercourse”.

Idea’s have consequences.  And theology, as well as hermenutics, matter.

The Egyptian bill, if passed into law, would only allow a spouse to have sex with their deceased partner up to six hours after death.

I wonder how you’d enforce such a law?

Thankfully, Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) is petitioning the Islamist controlled parliament to vote down the necrophilia bill as well as another bill that seeks to essentially legalize pedophilia (lowing the marriageable age limit for girls to 14).

I wish this was a joke, but it’s not.  The world is sick.  And it seems to only become sicker when men seek to consolidate power for themselves.

The photo above is considered the oldest copy of the Qur'an. It is said to have been written in 651, only 19 years after Muhammad's death. The word "Qur'an" means "dictation" and is believed by Muslims to be the very dictation and final revelation of Allah (God).

God is a god of risks.

He risked when he created mankind.  He risked his name when he let Israel bear it.  He risked himself when he became a child; and yet the risk he took when he let the Church become his representation on earth was greater still.

******************************

Why didn’t Jesus just take the easy way out and just dictate or personally write his own book?

Like Allah via Gabriel via Muhammad, if Jesus would have just written a book there would be less plurality, less infighting, less misrepresentation and less bad PR and (possibly) more unity.

In a book, Jesus could have spelled out exactly what he wanted so that when the church fails to meet the standard, it would have been clearly the church’s fault … and not Jesus’ fault.

Instead we have an Old Testament that we’re not sure how to interpret as New Testament believers and which we’ve often used for our violent agendas; four often varying accounts of Jesus’ words and life, two of which are from people who weren’t even one of the twelve and to cap it off, we have Paul.  All written in different contexts, often in different languages by different people … and so we have different interpretations, thousands upon thousands of denominations and rarely the unity presented in Islam.

If only Jesus had taken the easy route of leaving behind his own words … his own interpretation of everything … like the Qur’an, which claims to be the EXACT dictation of God’s desires.   In fact, if you want to copy God’s literary style … learn the Qur’an.   If you want to speak God’s language … learn Arabic.   If you want to write like God … well, you get the point.

The Qur’an is written in one language, from the context of one man, at one time period and has the final authority on all things with little room for varying interpretations.

******************************

But instead of writing a book, Jesus formed a community. A community of differing approaches, differing (rarely deferring) personalities that have been bereft with plurality from its very incipiency.

And this community provides the interpretive lenses through which the world sees Jesus.

In a sense, the church becomes the incarnation of Christ, just as Christ became the incarnation of God.  We represent the Representation of God.  Moving and acting as Christ, just as Christ moved and acted as God.

Lesslie Newbigin writes, “The only hermeneutic of the gospel (to the world), is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it” (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society; 227).

The Body of Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the illumination of the scriptures, is the active work of Jesus in the world.

******************************

Do you think God’s ultimate witness to the world is His people … His church?

Let me know your thoughts by commenting HERE.

In the West, the Ying and the Yang are generally seen as a blending of good and evil. The concept, though, of Taoism isn't the syncretism of moral lines, but the learning to dance with the flow of life, and finding peace within that flow. Taoism is more concerned with learning to live the Way, instead of blending ethics into a "all is one" mantra.

That sounds both familiar and odd, doesn’t it?

Those of us who grew up in a Christian background have all read the scripture from the Gospel of John, chapter one, verse one:  “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Although there’s been some disputed difference about whether this verse should be translated as “the Word was God” or, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate, “the Word was a god” most Christians see this verse as supporting Jesus’ divinity.

The Greek word for “word” is “Logos.”  And, as many of you know, “Logos” has a Greek philosophical history to it.  It was first used by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535 – 475 BC) as a word that implied “universal reason”, or the “reason above man’s reasoning” as though it was a transcendent, ideal Reason.

St. John used a Greek philosophical term to describe Jesus.

Scholars who are in the know (of which I’m not one … my ability to memorize foreign languages is almost as good as my ability to jump over buildings), believe that John was writing his Gospel with the Greeks and Hellenized Romans as his intended audience; thus, his use of Logos as a means to communicate that Jesus was the transcendent representation of all that was reasonable (Paul said that the cross was foolishness to the Greeks, so apparently John and Paul may have disagreed on this matter).

Between  the time of Heraclitus and John the term “Logos” had undergone some change in meaning specifically through the attempts of Philo to synthesize the word with a Judaist understanding , and so we can only speculate about John’s conception of Logos and exactly what he meant by using it in reference to Jesus.

What we do know is that John attempted to perform some type of contextualization of Jesus to the Hellenized mind when he made use of Logos.

Interestingly enough, the Chinese Bible did a similar thing.

Instead of translating the term “Logos” for a Mandarin equivalent of “word”, they translated “Logos” into “Tao” (or “Dao”).  So that it reads, “In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God and the Tao was God.” Taoism (or Daoism), as you may or may not know, is the Asian religion that brought the Ying and the Yang into popular culture.

“In Chinese culture, ‘what is truth?’ isn’t the question being asked”  States Prothero, “Rather than asking after truth as did the Greeks, Taoism asks about where to go: what is the way to the Way?” For the Chinese, “The Way” is the Tao … it is the transcendent Way to life … to abundant life.  Prothero continues, “In fact, of all the great religions, Taoism may be the most allergic to doctrine … to be fully human is to dance with this Dao, moving in rhythm with its core values of naturalness, equanimity, spontaneity, and freedom.”  So that when the Chinese Bible says that Jesus is the Tao, they are saying that He is the personal Life force, with whom all of us need to connect.

(Eastern Orthodoxy has a similar conception of the divine dance.  I wrote about it some time ago.)

Does it come as a surprise that a large percentage of the world’s population isn’t seeking the Greek Truth, but the Taoist Way?

What do you think about the Chinese Christians translating Logos as Tao?  Is this a contextualization that’s gone too far?

Compared to other languages, honorifics play little role in American English.  Along with democracy, we can blame the King James Bible for our lack of honorifics.  When the KJV was written, “you” was the formal way to address a superior, whereas “Thou” was the informal and familiar term that you’d use for a personal friend.  But, the KJV didn’t use “you” for God, but the informal and personal “thou.”

Some groups, like the Quakers, caught onto this and figured that since their Bible didn’t speak to God formally, why should they speak to men formally?  So, they called those who had a higher status in society the informal “thou”, and omitted other formal practices considered obligatory to superiors at that time; all of which was considered “intolerable insubordination” and they often received beatings as a result (Story of Christianity; 254).

____________________________________________

In Asian culture, Confucianism has made hierarchy the modus operandi of society.  In fact, honorifics are mandatory when in a formal relationship or setting, and are so prevalent in their language that it would seem the entire language changes from formal to informal settings.  We have honorifics in our titles, but Asian languages often have honorific verb tenses and nouns.

And these honorifics extend to God.

For instance, Koreans – due to the nature of their Confucian culture – will never call God “You” as it’s considered entirely disrespectful.  Not using “you” in reference to God would effectively change almost all of our English worship songs.  They also add the suffix “Sir” to all their names for God, as seen in the graphic above.

____________________________________________

In older English, a person of lower position in society wouldn’t even use the second person to address a superior … a language device that communicated “I can’t speak to you personally because we aren’t supposed/meant to be friends.”  So, they’d speak to their superiors in the third person, such as: “What can I do for Your Highness so that I might please her?”

If these honorifics translated to how we speak to God, we’d pray, “How can I serve Your Holiness and please Him today?”

What do you think?  How would your relationship to God change if you always spoke to Him in formal language?

This is the character "Ren", which is used nearly 100 times in the Confucian scriptures and is often translated as humanness, benevolence, love and most accurately as "human-heartedness." This character combines two images: one is the image of the human being, with the other image representing "two"; thus, the idea of being in right relationships with others.

Back when I was in Youth With A Mission (YWAM) in Tyler, Texas, I was invited by one Troy Sherman to go hear the “most travelled man in world history” speak at a Korean Church in Dallas.  That most travelled man – a title others have given him — is Loren Cunningham, the founder and past President of YWAM.

Being that he spoke to a group of Koreans, he decided to speak on Asia and specifically China.  I honestly don’t remember too much about the message, except that he believed China would be the World Power in about 50 years because 1.) the “re-birth” rate is twice the birth rate and 2.) because of the respectful and intellectual nature of the Chinese people, which is instilled in them by Confucianism.  Factor in that China owns the majority of the United States’ debt, and it’s hard to ignore that Loren’s conclusion has some validity.

Out of the other two Asian religions I’ve looked at, Confucianism is probably the least “religious” by Western standards.  In fact, for the Chinese, it’s not even considered a religion, but a philosophy … a way of life.  For example, China officially recognizes five religions: 1. Buddhism, 2. Daoism, 3. Roman Catholicism, 4 Protestantism and 5. Islam.

Prothero writes, “To this day, Confucians are preoccupied with humans rather than gods, and with life before death rather than life after it” (106).  He goes on to state that Confucianism can almost be called a “religious humanism”.  He then makes this distinction: “whereas secular humanists insist on emptying the world of the sacred, Confucians insist on infusing the world with sacred import – on seeing Heaven in humanity, on investing human beings with incalculable value, on hallowing the everyday.  In Confucianism, the secular is the sacred” (108).    Tu Weiming, a Confucian thinker, writes that to be Confucian is “to regard the everyday human world as profoundly spiritual.”

THE HISTORY: “OVERCOMING CHAOS THROUGH CHARACTER”

Necessity is often the mother of development; such is the story of Confucianism.  During the Zhou dynasty, China was being torn apart by war after war; resulting in an intense desire among the Chinese for a harmonious society.  There were four schools of thought on how harmony could be achieved: 1) Realists sought harmony through law; 2.) Mohists sough harmony through universal love; 3.) Daoists sought harmony by retreating from society; and 4.), Confucian sought harmony through engagement, through ritual, etiquette and relationship.

Prothero (who doesn’t claim to be a Christian) states, “Like modern-day evangelicals, Confucians say that if you want to change society, you first need to change individuals” (110).  And how can individuals change?  The Confucian answer came through education, not just of the mind, but mainly of the character.

If we remember back to the first post I made on worldviews, the Confucian view of the world is the relational / network view, where the self is not an isolated atom.  There may be an self, but it is secondary to the network of family, community and nation, which is why Confucianism has such a strong emphasis on “proper” roles within a community.  This network outlook, and Confucianism’s value of roles is why Confucians have been more easily accepting of Communism and have also tended to devalue and narrowly define the roles of women.

REN AND LI

You can reference the definition for “Ren” in the caption for the picture I have at the top.

In addition to “Ren”, “li” is the second major feature in Confucianism.  In fact, “li” is such a major part of Confucianism that some Chinese refer to Confucianism as “lijiao”, or the religion of “li”.  If you know any Chinese who haven’t been Westernized, you’ve probably seen the struggle of “li” on their faces as they attempt to dicier how to approach you — the Westerner — properly.  It’s a visible struggle that occurs with something so simple as greeting them with an outstretched hand, and them attempting to dicier it it’s indeed proper to shake back.  ”Li”, writes Prothero, “means the proper thing in the proper way under any given set of circumstances”.  It is the daily struggle of being in the right.  It is wearing the right clothes, drinking your tea at the proper rate, allowing your teacher to speak before you do, not cutting in line and allowing everything you do to be done in reverence.

A CHRISTIAN CONFUCIAN

Out of the all the Asian religions that have been looked at so far, Confucianism varies with Christianity the least.  In fact, Chinese who become believers still latently engage both “Ren” and “Li” in their lifestyles, must the way a new American Christian can still retain their cultural sentiments of individuality and freedom.  Have you ever met a Chinese person?  The latent values of Confucianism are a major factor in what makes a Chinese person Chinese.

This can make us in the West uncomfortable, because the mannerisms and paradigm through which a Chinese Christian looks at the world (the network and relational worldview; at times, even the oceanic worldview) is very foreign from our own, so that a Chinese believer, influenced by Chinese culture, can, in a sense, almost seem un-Christian to us who are so used to the Americanized version of Christianity.

So, how much of the way we judge “who’s in” and “who’s out” determined by the American and/or Western part of us who are Western Christians?

For instance, our view of “sin” is Westernized, due to the atomistic nature of Western culture. We often see sin as largely personal, and so we see repentance as largely personal.  Yet the Hebrew culture — and the Old Testament — is largely based on a network view, so that their view of sin and even repentance is much more communal; even their view of judgment is much more communal (which is why we have problems with God wiping out whole cities, and the Hebrews didn’t).

So here’s the final questions of this “World Religions” series: Can you escape syncretism? And finally, is it possible to understand the Bible “literally” and “objectively” if our perspectives are often syncretic with our heritage and culture?

The many avatars of Vishnu. In reference to the snakes, in the biblical story they represent deception, but in the Hindu tradition they represent many things (power, freedom, etc.), none of which are deception.

Out of all the Eastern religions, Hinduism and it’s both/and mantra is possibly one of the more daunting religions for the West to understand.  It tends to co-op ideas, beliefs and gods into itself instead of creating boundaries for its beliefs.  Prothero writes that out of all the religions, “Hinduism is the least dogmatic and the most diverse.  Rather than repelling new influences, Hindus are forever absorbing them” (134).

And yet oddly enough, Hindus have little difficulty grasping the West, as they see little incompatibility between their religion(s) and the logic and scientific approach that is engrained in the West.

Prothero continues that Hindus commonly claim that “Hinduism is a way of life” rather than a religion.  Most Hindus are Hindu by birth and not conversion, much like Jews claim that they are Jews by birth.  In fact, the very term “Hindu” was in reference to the people group that lived in the Indus River Valley.  Hinduism (a European term that the Hindus had to accept while under colonization) is what Hindus think and what Hindus do; and Hindus do and think nearly anything and everything.

Some religions can be explained in a nice easy five point summary, but not Hinduism.

There’s really no doctrine in Hinduism, so there’s no concept for “heresy” or “blasphemy.” In fact, there’s really no such thing as Hinduism … it’s more properly “Hinduisms”, as “it” contains a myriad of gods and a myriad of ways of viewing those gods.  Some Hindus believe there is one God, and all the others are his/her/its manifestations; other Hindus believe there are many gods, but one almighty God; while others think all the gods are equal; and still others think that the gods are just figments of our imagination.

FOUR LOOSE DENOMINATIONS OF HINDUISM

1. Vaishnavism: the worship of Vishnu, the sustainer, as the supreme god.  We might be familiar with some of Vishnu’s avatars, such as Krishna (the main character in the Gita) or Rama.  Vishnu has ten avatars, but only nine have appeared … maybe you’re the 10^th!

2. Shaivism: the worship of Shiva (the destroyer god).  Although he’s supposedly better at destroying, Shiva is also a benefactor whose nature is ambiguous and paradoxical.  Thus, many who follow Shiva are philosophically dualists.

3. Shaktism: is the worship of the Mother Goddess, who is full of energy and creation.  She is often seen as complementary to the male counterpart god, Shiva.

4.  Smartism: the worshipping of manifold gods.

THE PROBLEMS ADDRESSED AND GOALS IN HINDUISM

Even though the “theologies” of the Hindu people are difficult if not impossible to study, there is some commonality in the problems that the Hindus see and the religious goals they have.  The problem, like in Buddhism, is “samsara”, which is the vicious cycle of life, death and rebirth.  The ultimate goal is “moksha”, or release from this endless cycle.

The goal of moksha can be accomplished through the “Jnana” (wisdom) path, which is where the ascetic essentially realizes that the “Atman” is “Brahman.”  “Atman” is often translated as the soul of man.  “Brahman” is the uncreated, deathless and immortal, and when we experientially realize that our Atman is indeed Brahman, we achieve liberation from the endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth.  In other words – back to my worldview word pictures that I mentioned in my first post – our drop of human soul must become one with the ocean.

Another path to moksha is through “bhakti” or devotion to a god or gods.  Today, there are nearly a billion practicing Bhakti.  It is an easier and more simply way than the “Jnana” path because it relies on the god’s mercy and not on your own seeking of wisdom through asceticism. Prothro writes, “There is no requirement to renounce job and family and social life (as with the Jnana path) … as wisdom takes a backseat to love, release from the fetters of karma comes as a gift, and it is given to men and women alike, and to people of all social ranks” (153).

A significant part of Hinduism is the caste system, which traditionally includes five ranks.  In order of their importance, those ranks are as follows: Priests (brahman), Warriors (Kshatriyas), Merchants (Vaishyas), Servants (Shudras) and the Untouchables (Dhalitis).   It is a person’s dharma (duty) to fulfill their role in society.  The “Gita” is about dharma.  The Prince Arjuna is to go to war with the his cousin, but he doesn’t want to.  The Lord Krishna then encourages Arjuna that he must act as his role as prince and fulfill his dharma by engaging in warfare.

WHAT IS THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON HINDUISM?

That question is really the wrong question.  There can’t be “the” Christian perspective because there isn’t one Hinduism. Farthermore, if the Hindus are correct and “Hinduism” is simply anything the Hindus believe, then it becomes even harder to have any Christian perspective.  According to that definition of Hinduism, its then possible for Christianity to be Hinduism if a Hindu believes it to be true; but it wouldn’t be possible for a Western Anglo to be a Hindu.

Yet, there are major themes within Hinduism that find little acceptance within the Christian tradition.  Traditionally, reincarnation was deemed a heresy by the Second Council of Constantinople in 533.  Even if one entertains highly speculative interpretation paradigms, there’s little if any evidence for reincarnation in the biblical testimony.

SEEING MYSELF IN HINDUISM

Lesslie Newbigin was a missionary to India for 30 plus years, and came to realize, as he served in India, how much of his assumptions about the Gospel were culturally conditioned.  He began to ask himself how he could analyze his Western culture the same way he had analyzed Hindu culture, thus the birthing of today’s missional paradigm.

Newbigin writes how Hindus willing “accept” and “worship” the Jesus of the foreign missionaries, but

the foreign missionary knows that this is not the conversion of India but the co-option of Jesus, the domestication of the gospel into the Hindu worldview.  He only slowly begins to realize that the same thing has happened in the West.  Jesus is understood in the light of the assumptions which control our culture.  When ‘reason’ is invoked as a parallel or supplementary authority to ‘scripture’ and ‘tradition’, what is happening is that Jesus is being co-opted into the reigning plausibility structure. But the business of the missionary, and the business of the Christian Church in any situation, is to challenge the plausibility structure in the light of God’s revelation …” (Page 96).

Newbigin then asks, “How is this to be done?”  If you want to know Newbigin’s answer, check out his book called, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.”

But his challenge is one we should take personally.  It’s easy for us to look at the syncretism of Hinduism and condemn it; yet, as Newbigin came to ask when he was away from Western culture, how much of our understanding of the Gospel is unknowingly syncretic with ideas that are foreign from the biblical paradigm?

And, how easy is it for us to condemn the plethora of gods for the Hindus, and I wonder how many gods I hold?  We in West have gods of money, politics, success, etc. that in many cases are not only on par with Jesus, but in certain times in our life, worshiped higher than Christ.

If we look, we can see ourselves in Hinduism.

I hope this post sparks discussion not controversy.

Before Christians discovered the religions of Asia, many felt rather smug about their virtues, and how those virtues were supported by their view of God.  That smugness was soon to be challenged as they became familiar with Asia, where there were not one but two religions that sustained people’s virtuous lives without any God.

An example of this can be seen in two recent disasters, one disaster found in the “Christian” America, and the other found in the “god less” Japan.  While New Orleans suffered from looting and chaos, god less Japan has thrived on acts of respect and dignity after the tsunami.  And while it wouldn’t be entirely fair to blame the looting after Katrina on Christianity, it is fair to say that a large facet in the self-government of the Japanese people after the tsunami is due to their latent background in the virtues of both Confucianism and Buddhism.

A SHORT HISTORY

Buddhism, as many of you know, began with one Siddhartha Gautama, who left his opulent wealth and beautiful family in a search for answers to life’s heavy question.  After six years as an ascetic, he found himself sitting under a tree for forty days and at the end of the fourty days

“awakening came upon him.  In one of the great moments in world history, he saw that all things are impermanent and ever changing.  He saw how we suffer because we wish the world were otherwise.  And through these insights he saw his suffering itself wander away.” God Is Not One; page 171

At this point in time, Siddharthat Gautama received the title of “Awakened One”, or “The Buddha.”

His first sermon contained the heart of Buddhist teachings … the “Four Noble Truths”, which are: 1. Life is full of suffering.  2. But suffering has an origin.  3. Because it has an origin, it can be eliminated.  4.  It can be eliminated by the Noble Eightfold Path.

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism didn’t spread because of a new holy book or a new god, but because it told of a narrative of one who had awoken, and forsook his attachment to the world and found peace.  Today, roughly 445 million people adhere to Buddhism and it’s principles of compassion and nonviolence, making it the fourth largest religion in the world.

SOME COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DHAMMAPADA AND THE GOSPELS

When comparing scripture to scripture, there is similar emphasis from both Jesus and the Buddha on various virtues.  Verse five of the Dhammapada states that “Hatred ceases by love.  This is an eternal law”.  Jesus states, underscoring a similar virtue in the Sermon on the Mount that, “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44).

There is a similar thread of denial of self between Jesus and the Buddha, although the wording is different.  The Buddha states, “Therefore let no one be attached to anything” (211).  By attachment, the Buddha means the desiring of one thing for another.  For the Buddha attachment is the opposite of love, as love is becoming one with another and losing one’s self in the other (66).  Jesus states, “He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39).  Jesus prays in the High Priestly prayer, “that they may be one” (John 17:21).  There are some major differences here, but the idea of denying oneself and becoming part of a greater whole have some commonality.

The Buddha emphasized the middle way, which was neither a life of asceticism nor of extravagance (vs. 7 – 8).  And although Jesus doesn’t necessarily assert a “middle way”, from various interactions, including his conversation with the rich young ruler and his life of seeking the kingdom, where moth and rust do not destroy, Jesus lived a “middle way” life.

There also seems to be a similar hatred of suffering.  Suffering has a different cause in both Buddhism and Christianity.  There is also a difference between how that suffering is relieved.  Nonetheless, the nirvana of Buddhism and the Kingdom of heaven of Christianity share a similar hope of freedom from suffering. The Buddha writes, “Some people are reborn.  Evildoers go to sorrowful existences.  Doers of good go to happy ones.  Those who are free from all worldly desires attain nirvana” (126).  And of course the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths begin with suffering and end without suffering.

Jesus, in relation to suffering, offers the Kingdom of Heaven which both “saves the world” (Jn 12:47) and offers eternal life to those who believe.

THE CONTRASTS BETWEEN THE DHAMMAPADA AND THE GOSPELS

The major difference between the Buddha and Jesus is the titles they are given. Buddha means “the awakened one”, while Jesus was given titles of “Christ”, “Savior”, “Messiah.”  “The Buddha” is a title given to Siddhartha Gautama, but he’s not a god, or a savior; he is simply the founder of Buddhism whose intention is to lead others to enlightenment so that they in turn can become buddhas and bodhisattvas themselves.  Christ, while he is intending to initiate a following and is indeed trying to replicate himself in others, isn’t calling us to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  He laid a path for us to follow, but He accomplished some things that we could not.

The differences between Jesus the Christ and Buddha the Enlightened One are due to the nature of the problems they are attempting to solve. The Buddha is attempting to solve the suffering of samasa (birth, death and rebirth) through Enlightenment while Jesus is attempting to solve sin and separation from God through His death.

The Buddha writes, describing an Enlightened One, “Those who are free from illusion, who have seen the infinite void, who have ceased to cling to impermanent things, who have removed temptations, and who have renounced desires – they indeed are the greatest ones of all” (97).  The problem is ignorance.  The solution is Enlightenment.

Jesus states, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4).  The problem is pride in this instance.  And the solution: “Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

CAN YOU BE BOTH A BUDDHIST AND A CHRISTIAN?

About one third of those who attend Bibilical Seminary with me are South Koreans, so many of them have a background in Buddhism.  Being that Buddhism doesn’t have a god as a major part of it’s paradigm, I asked one of my Korean friends, “Is it possible to believe in Jesus and be a Buddhist?”  Without batting an eye, he replied, “Yes.”  I’ve read Thomas Merton, who was a Christian, who, later in life would meditate with Buddhists.  And I’ve read different articles that explain how Buddhism is not atheistic, but non-theistic. The difference, they say, between an atheistic religion vs. a non-theistic religion is that the first denies God’s existence as one of its tenants, while the latter simply has no God in it’s construct, but isn’t opposed to one.

So, based on some of the definitions I’ve provided, as well as the similarities and differences I’ve shown, do you think it’s possible to be both a Christian and practice some form of Buddhism?  Is this syncretism at it’s worst? Is it possible because Buddhism is without a deity?

Maybe another question could be, “If you were a Christian missionary, what message would you bring to a group of Buddhists?”  And how would you expect the Gospel to change a Buddhist?

I figured that “Christianity and World Religions” would be a compare, contrast and condemn type of course (I don’t mind the compare and contrast part).  A course where we’d lift Christianity up by using other religions as its footstool … where misunderstandings of the others would be perpetuated and little attempt would be made for studying the religions themselves with some context, grace and generosity.

I was wrong.

So far, it’s a course where we are attempting to understand the distinctive beliefs without flippantly dismissing them as devil progeny.  So far we’ve read the Buddhist “Dhamapada”, the Hindu “Gita” and the Islamic “Quran”.  And over the next week – as a fulfillment of an assignment and for the purpose of exposure — I’d like to highlight those distinctive beliefs without demeaning them.

And before I do that, I’d like to define some world view paradigms, and define different Christian approaches to other world religions.

BE PREPARED TO BE DISAPPOINTED

I also want to forewarn you: if you expect me to be easily dismissive of other religions, you’ll be disappointed.  My greatest strength and probably my greatest weakness – and the trait that makes me a decent funeral director – is that I have a great interest in other people … their thoughts, their experiences and their perspective.  I am what you might call a compassionate person, who wants to know the other so much that I can feel with them.  I’m not compromising myself when I do this; in fact, I’m being myself.

I also want to forewarn you that if you’re looking for me to blend every religion together, trying to find a unifying thread, such as “Love”, “Peace” or “Unity” you’ll also be disappointed … as I’ve yet to find that thread.  There’s a reason religious leaders like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama have affirmed that “the essential message of all religions is very much the same.” Specifically, that reason is to help alleviate the tension, fighting and even killing that often occurs from one religion to the next.

Stephen Prothero comments on this type of blending pluralism.  He states,

“I understand what these men are doing.  They are not describing the world but reimagining it”.  He continues, “While we need idealism, we need realism even more.”  – God is Not One; Page 7.

And the realism is this: the world religions are very different.

We need both compassion and recognition of difference.  And often, the most uncompassionate and destructive thing we can do is ignore those differences because we’re convinced that either the other religions are of the devil or they’re all just the same as the next.

WORLD VIEW PARADIGMS

A helpful starting point in understanding the worldviews behind world religions comes from Dr. Harold Turner.  Giving us some distinctions that are as reductionist as they are helpful , Turner states that we can understand worldviews as atomistic, oceanic or relational.  The atomistic world view is representative of the West (that’s us), where our starting point is usually the individual (or we think in blocks and/or boxes), so that the religious experience is for the individual.  Thus terms like “personal salvation”, “make your decision for Christ”, “systematic theology” etc. The oceanic view is representative of those who see all things merging together into one.  The atma is Brahma school of thought where both/and is a lifestyle.  The third view – the relational, or network view – is the mindset where life is viewed through the matrix of relationships.   This is the mindset of many Middle Easterners and Africans, who are more concerned with who you know than what you know.

FOUR CHRISTIAN VIEWS ON THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD

Christians have four basic outlooks towards those of other religions: exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism and the agnostic position.  Typically, exclusivists believe that in order to be saved, a person must believe the essential Christian beliefs. The pluralist, on the other hand, believes that God is working through all religions equally.  The inclusivist believes that Jesus is the only way and affirms that His saving work can extend outside the visible church.  While the agnostic position says, ”I simply don’t know what will happen to those who have never heard the Gospel.  God is just and good, and that’s all I need to know.”

Understanding both your worldview and your outlook on other religions has practical consequences in your approach towards the other.  For instance, if you’re Western, if might be hard for you to not only understand a relational religion, but it might be hard for you to understand a relational Christian.  On the other hand, if you’re oceanic, you may see the individualistic tendency of Western Christianity to be flat out wrong.

If you’re a pluralist, you may dislike the idea of pointing out differences, as “they will only cause farther division.”  If, on the other hand, you’re an exclusivist, you may think the study of other religions is a dangerous enterprise because it’s too easy to fall to syncretism.  An inclusivist could find himself or herself beginning to question the value of the church, evangelism and/or missionary activity.  While the agnostic view could by your “Easy Button” that you hit because you don’t want to think too hard about the whole subject.

Maybe it’s all just too uncomfortable for us to realize that there are other people who are totally different than us, view the world differently than us and are convinced that they are absolutely right … just like we’re convinced that Jesus is absolutely right.  In fact, there are many in this world who love their God(s) more than we love Jesus.

How do you view other religions?