Living Buddha, Living Christ; Part 1

Before break, my Buddhist friend John and I traded books to read. I gave him a copy of Tim Keller's The Reason for God and he gave me Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh. I've decided to journal my thoughts on each chapter.

Thich Nhat Hanh was born in 1926 and is still an active Buddhist monk, teacher, author, poet, and peace activist. According to a quote from The Washington Post on the book's back cover, Hanh's message is that "peace, love, and compassion are central to the teachings of Buddha and Christ, and people of both faiths should be tolerant of one another." From what I know of Buddhist ethics, there is a significant amount of overlap with Christianity (as there is with most faiths), but there are some significant distinctions as well. I'm interested to see how much the book acknowledges these distinctions and, if so, whether it tries to resolve or dismiss them.

One thing that intrigues me is a quote on the back from Catholic writer and activist Thomas Merton. Merton says, "Thich Nhat Hanh is more my brother than many who are nearer to me in race and nationality, because he and I see things the exact same way." I don't know a lot about Merton, but I know a lot of Christians who admire his work. At one of my favorite blogs, Internet Monk, his name is mentioned frequently. He's a guy who is admired, read, and quoted by people who take the Bible seriously. If Hanh sees things the same way as Merton, I'm sure some of the Christians who admire Merton would admire Hanh, too. This makes me very curious about what Hanh has to say.

Introduction

The intro to the book (not written by Hanh), says that Hanh "does not take the easy way out of ecumenical discussion by ignoring disagreement." Hanh "expresses deep respect and appreciation for many elements of Christian tradition" but he "also points out elements of Christian tradition that foster religious intolerance and have led to religious hatred."

Hanh, the intro says, disagrees with John Paul II's affirmation that "Christ is the one mediator between God and humanity." He responds, "this statement does not seem to reflect the deep mystery of the oneness of the Trinity. It also does not reflect the fact that Christ is also the Son of Man. All Christians, while praying to God, address Him as Father. Of course Christ is unique. But who is not unique? Socrates, Mohammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogues and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination. It does not help."

I agree with Hanh that a theology of exclusivism can lead to religious intolerance and hatred. However, we need to recognize that it is impossible to avoid exclusivism altogether. An exclusivist is someone who holds that one particular perspective is correct, and the inclusivist does this, too. The inclusivist believes that all people who believe that there is only one path to salvation are wrong. Therefore, the inclusivist is also at risk for being intolerant or hateful toward the exclusivists, just as the exclusivist is at risk for being intolerant or hateful toward the inclusivists and/or other forms of exclusivism.

Hahn says that an attitude of exclusivism "does not help" in interfaith dialogue, but interfaith dialogue is not really interfaith dialogue if the faiths are not being truly represented. The fact of the matter is that traditional Christianity looks to the Bible as a primary source of spiritual truth, and within the Bible St. Paul writes the exact words that Hanh criticizes John Paul II for: There is but one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus (1st Timothy 2:5).

If Hanh is saying Christians must abandon the idea that Christ is the one mediator between God and man, is he also saying that we must abandon the idea of Biblical authority? Hanh says that he likes the idea of the Trinity, but the concept of the Trinity is derived from the Bible. If Hanh wants us to reject certain ideas in the Bible but embrace other ones, to what authority do we appeal in choosing between the ideas?

For the Christian, of course, Hanh's downplaying of Christ's uniqueness sounds warning bells. Yes, all human beings are unique, but Christian doctrine has always taught that Christ's uniqueness transcends all other uniqueness. He is not just another color in the box of crayons. He is the manufacturer of all the crayons.

However, I appreciate that Hanh appeals to more than just the ideal of religious tolerance in rejecting Christianity's exclusivism. He also appeals to ideas within Christianity. If God the Father and God the Son are one, he says, then doesn't the statement that "there is but one mediator between God and man - the man Christ Jesus" fail to acknowledge that oneness? In other words, if Jesus is God and Jesus is the mediator between God and man, doesn't it then follow that God is his own mediator? If God is the mediator between Himself and man, doesn't that mean that God could be speak to the world through many different words and concepts besides just the one we refer to as "Christ"?

I think there are several problems with this argument. As I already mentioned, it borrows a concept from Scripture (the Trinity) as the basis of its argument but then undermines that concept by using it to argue against the authority of Scripture. As C.S. Lewis would say, it is an argument that "saws off the branch on which it sits." The other problem is that it fails to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity does say that God the Father and God the Son are both God, but that doesn't permit us the freedom to substitute one name for the other - particularly in the case of 1st Timothy 2:5. I think Paul's point is not that God is His own mediator, but that the only way we can really know God is through God as expressed in Jesus Christ. There is but one mediator between God and man - and that mediator is the man from heaven who suffered and died on a cross. If we want to know who God is, we must have an encounter with this man.

I also think Hanh is wrong to suggest that one who affirms Christ as the only mediator between God and man must necessarily believe that all other religious traditions are of no use. Even though I think we lack clarity in our understanding of God apart from Christ, and even though I think Christ's sacrifice is necessary for the salvation of any soul who ends up saved, I wouldn't go so far as to say I think that all other religious traditions are of no use. I believe many other religious traditions contain truth. I think that wherever there is truth, goodness, and beauty, the Spirit of God is involved, and no truth, goodness, or beauty is of no use. However, I don't think there is any other person or religious tradition in which "the fullness of God" has been revealed apart from Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9).

The writer of the intro agrees with Hanh's inclusivist perspective because of her "exploration into the earliest history of Christianity." In 1947, she says, a large collection of ancient Christian gospels and other writings were found in Upper Egypt. These were gnostic writings - books apparently salvaged from the library of the earliest Christian monastery in Egypt after the archbishop of Alexandria ordered the monks to destroy all books he deemed heretical. One of these supposed Gospels - the "Gospel of Thomas" - dates twenty years before any of the New Testament gospels were written (according to Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament at Harvard University). These books view Jesus "as one through whom the divine was manifested and through whose example and teaching one can hope for similar enlightenment." In other words, they teach a version of Christianity and a perspective of Christ that seems quite in line with Hanh's.

The intro writer goes on to quote passages from the Gospel of Thomas, arguing that Jesus did not teach that he was the "only begotten Son of God" (as John later insisted) but that "we are the children of God."  The Gospel of Thomas, she says, tells of a Jesus who said we need to look inside ourselves - not beyond ourselves - for enlightenment.

So, what is the traditional Christian supposed to make of all this? Is the Gospel of Thomas really older than the Biblical gospels? Does it really quote Jesus accurately? If not, why did the writer attribute false quotations to Jesus?

According to Wikipedia, not everyone agrees with Helmut Koester (in fact, most do not). There are two camps of scholars - one that dates the Gospel between 50-100AD, and one that dates it from the second century (after the canonical Gospels had been written). After a brief overview of the Wikipedia page, I can see that it would take more time than I have available to make any kind of qualified judgement about the historicity of the Gospel. I am confident, though, that if there ever was a group of people living in 30-150AD who were interested in preserving Christ's teachings accurately, that group would be much more qualified to pass judgement on the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas than me. If those people were the ones assembling the canon of Scripture, they did not see Thomas's Gospel as historical. The Wikipedia page says that several early church fathers (3rd century) openly dismissed the Gospel of Thomas. This fact should count for something.

Next time: Chapter 1.

Eustace and Aslan

But the lion told me I must undress first. Mind you, I don't know if he said any words or not.

I was just going to say that I couldn't undress because I hadn't any clothes on when I suddenly thought that dragons are snaky sort of things and snakes can cast their skins. Oh, of course, thought I, that's what the lion means. So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. And then I scratched a little deeper and, instead of just scales coming off here and there, my whole skin started peeling off beautifully, like it does after an illness, or as if I was a banana. In a minute or two I just stepped out of it. I could see it lying there beside me, looking rather nasty. It was a most lovely feeling. So I started to go down into the well for my bathe.

A Spark Lit a Fire

I won't wait, no, I won't wait for heaven

'Cause I believe heaven's coming my way.

While I'm alive I'll be gettin' on with living,
Like you're comin' my way.

More Thoughts From the Journal

Luke 3:1-20

Here we have the introduction to (adult) John the Baptist. I confess, I've always had trouble understanding the role of John the Baptist. Why does Scripture treat him like such an important figure? I mean, the opening of the Gospel of John starts talking about him in the sixth verse, right after identifying Jesus as the Creator of the universe and sustainer of all life and goodness. It sounds like an odd thing to talk about next. “There was the Word – the Creator of all things who came to the world to overcome darkness and evil...and then there was JOHN!”

Thoughts From My Devotional Journal

Where have you been?!

Luke 2:41-52

This is probably the only event recorded in the Gospels from Jesus' childhood. I wish the Gospels said more about Jesus' younger years, but I suppose if he refrained from doing miraculous things before he started his ministry there wasn't much reason for people to be taking note of his simple life before then.

The setting for this incident is the Feast of the Passover. When Jesus was twelve years old, Mary and Joseph took him to the Feast. The setting, I think, is important. The Passover was, of course, in remembrance of the moment in Israel's history when “the destroyer” passed over the first-born Israelites in Egypt because of the blood of the lamb on the family doorposts. It was at this time of remembrance – this acknowledgement of Israel's salvation on account of a sacrifice – that Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice for our salvation, started to make his presence known.

It's funny to me that Jesus' parents left Jerusalem and traveled for a day before realizing that Jesus was not with them. This gives us an interesting insight into Jesus' childhood – he spent time with relatives and friends. Most parents would check to make sure they had their 12-year-old with them when leaving a major city, but if your son had a habit of spending time with relatives and friends and many of those relatives and friends were traveling in the same caravan as you, you might just assume he was tagging along with them. It sounds like that's what happened here, because when Mary and Joseph couldn't find Jesus they “began looking for him among their relatives and friends.”

Of course, he wasn't with them, so they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. It took them three days to find him. Three days! That means they didn't see their 12-year-old son for at least four days. That must have been scary. I wonder if Mary feared that he had been attacked or killed. She must have. After all, Simeon had said to her, “a sword will pierce your own soul.” Did she continue to have faith in God's promises (promises that were yet to be fulfilled through her son), even in the midst of a crisis like this? How much did she doubt?

When they found Jesus, he was sitting in the temple courts listening to the teachers and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed, including his parents.

Like any normal parents, Mary and Joseph were upset. Mary said, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Jesus replied, “Why were you searching for me? Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?”

The exchange is fascinating. First of all, did Jesus fail to “honor his mother and father” as the law commands? I know if I had run away from my parents for days and then responded to their questions with, “Why were you looking for me?” I would have been severely reprimanded. Jesus seems flip in his answer.

I think we need to trust, though, that Jesus really means what he says here. He's not trying to be flip or disrespectful. He really DOES think it's odd that his parents were searching for him. He had to be in his Father's house. How could they not know that?

Theologians often like to make the point that Jesus was not omniscient (at least not during his earthly life). As it says at the end of this passage, Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature.” He didn't know all things the moment he popped out of the womb.

But Jesus did have special knowledge. The Father gave him revelation about many, many things. But omniscience was not something the Father gave to him – God emptied himself of himself when he became Jesus. He had fullness of God's character but not of His power (or so many theologians argue).

I think Jesus knew he needed to be in the temple because his Father had revealed it to him, but I don't think he realized that his Father hadn't revealed this to Mary and Joseph.

I think young Jesus heard the Father's instructions clearly, knew following those instructions was his first priority, and then followed them. I'm sure he was concerned about honoring his earthly parents in addition to following his heavenly father's instruction, but he may have never even considered the possibility that he was dishonoring them because he probably assumed the Father would tell them the same thing he had clearly told him: that he needed to be in the temple.

So, in my opinion, we shouldn't be asking: why was Jesus so rude to his parents? He wasn't. What we should be asking is: why didn't God the Father reveal the same thing to Mary and Joseph that he did to Jesus? I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's possible he did everything he could but Mary and Joseph just weren't listening. It's also possible that the Father wanted to teach them that they can't hold on too tightly to their son. Jesus is supposed to honor his parents, yes, but his first loyalty is to his heavenly Father, and his true home is in his Father's house.

The Brotherhood of Man

All day, since your haircut in the morning,
You have looked like a painting, even more than usual
We are in the wind, planting the maples
We meet an older man who seems to know 

I miss my dad.
And he smiles through the limbs.
We talk easily with him
until the rain begins.
This is the brotherhood of man.

Waiting at the airport on my suitcase
a girl traveling from Spain became my sudden friend,
though I did not learn her name.
And when the subway dimmed

a stranger lit my way.
This is the brotherhood of man.

I never can say what I mean
but you will understand,

coming through clouds on the way.
This is the brotherhood of man.

By Karen Peris (C) 2006 Umbrella Day Music

I really like The Innocence Mission (and this song in particular). Sufjan Stevens once said (in reference to another Innocence Mission song - although I think it applies to this one as well):

I'm in awe of big songs, national anthems, rock opera, the Broadway musical. But what I always come back to, after the din and drum roll, is the small song that makes careful observations about everyday life. This is what makes the music by The Innocence Mission so moving and profound. 'Lakes of Canada' creates an environment both terrifying and familiar using sensory language: incandescent bulbs and rowboats are made palpable by careful rhythms, unobtrusive rhyme schemes, and specificity of language. What is so remarkable about Karen Peris' lyrics are the economy of words, concrete nouns - fish, flashlight, laughing man - which come to life with melodies that dance around the scale like sea creatures. Panic and joy, a terrible sense of awe, the dark indentations of memory all come together at once, accompanied by the joyful strum of an acoustic guitar. This is a song in which everyday objects begin to have tremendous meaning.

Right on, Sufjan. 

Tell Me a Story

I absolutely love this album. Love, love, love it. It is magic.

M83 is not a Christian band by any stretch, but there is one song on Hurry Up, We're Dreaming that reminds me of the Gospel every time I hear it. The track is called Raconte-moi une Histoire (Translation: "Tell me a story"), and it features a little girl fulfilling the title's request. The first time I heard it, I thought it was just nonsense. I thought it was a throwaway song - you know, one of those extra tracks between the "real" songs that pretends to be a novelty but is really just there to make potential buyers think the album has more substance than it really does.