Feb
15
Not all holy books are the same
Filed Under General religion | Leave a Comment
When studying other religions it is important to understand how those within the tradition approach their sacred text(s). Different religious traditions have different understandings of revelation. Because of this, believers in the various traditions read their texts differently. We cannot assume that Muslims approach the Qur’an the same way as we approach the Bible or that Hindus approach the Gita as we approach the Gospels.
For example, in most Hindu and Buddhist traditions the historicity or authenticity of the stories about the Buddha or gods are not a matter of concern since the truths being taught is what matters. Since Hindus and Buddhists believe that these truths are eternal, it does matter if the actual events described in the text ever happened or not. This would not be the case for the Bible or the Qur’an, which are understood to be historically rooted. If events recorded in the Bible or the Qur’an were shown to not have happened (if this were actually possible) this would be a problem for believers within the two traditions.
Moreover, in some traditions, like in Christianity and Islam, there is one authoritative text, but in other traditions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, there is not an authoritative text. This is largely due to their understanding of revelation. In Islam, God dictated the words of the Qur’an to Muhammad, albeit through the mediation of the angel Gabriel. In Christianity, God inspired the biblical writers. Thus, although the texts contain the personalities of the various writers, God directed what they wrote. In contrast to the Muslim and Christian view, most Hindu and Buddhist traditions believe that their sacred texts were written by enlightened people who discovered the eternal truths of the cosmos.
Consequently, when studying other religions, especially their holy books, it is important to first investigate how insiders understand their own texts.
Jan
4
A few days ago I finished a study on the Gospel of Mark and realized just how many times Mark notes that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of people (18 different times from what I saw). Although many rejected Jesus during his three-year ministry, he always attracted crowds because of his teachings, miracles, and lifestyle. I think we can learn from this as we seek to communicate the Gospel to those of other faiths.
One of the most important things we can do is to point others, especially those in other religious traditions, to the life of Jesus. This would include not only encouraging them to read the Gospels, but also for us to fill our thoughts and words with Christ. As we live out a Christ-like life and point others to see the beauty of Christ in the Gospels, others will be drawn to Him.
This past summer I heard the testimony of a sister in Christ who left Hinduism after seeing Jesus’ moral superiority over the Hindu gods she had been worshiping. In a similar way, many Buddhists have been drawn to Christ because of his compassion and selflessness. Many Muslims have been drawn to Christ as they see his love and experience his forgiveness. Also, many animists have been drawn to Christ because of his power to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick. As during his three-year ministry, Jesus continues to draw people to himself.
For example, in China there are now between 50-89 million Christians and some estimate that by 2010 there will be 119.5 million Christians. Moreover, in 1900 there were only 8.7 million Christians in Africa (8% of the pop.); however, in 2000 there were 346.5 million Christians in Africa (44% of the pop.).
May Christ continue to build up his Church by drawing all the nations to himself!
*Stats come from Disciples of all Nations by Lamin Sanneh.
Sep
20
Buddhism in Thailand
Filed Under Buddhism | Leave a Comment
I just finished writing a paper on Buddhism in Thailand and I wanted to point out 2 ideas that are important in understanding Buddhism. These observations apply specifically to Buddhism in Thailand, but I think they also play a role in other contexts.
1. 2 ways of being Buddhist:
a. Monks:
- Seek to follow the teachings of the Buddha
- Observe a more philosophical and “textbook” form of Buddhism
- Study and follow the Tripitika (Theravada scriptures).
- Keep over 200 rules as part of the sangha.
- Have a strict moral code to follow
b. Laity:
- Unfamiliar with philosophical Buddhism
- Mostly unfamiliar with the Tripitika
- Concerned mainly with gaining karmic merit by giving offerings to the monks
- They worship the Buddha and a variety of gods and spirits
- They have 5 moral commandments to follow
2. Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs:
Buddhism in Thailand is a mix of Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism, and animism. Thais believe in karma and reincarnation, but they also devote much of their time in appeasing and worshipping local gods and spirits. These gods and spirits can bring them either fortune or misfortune in this life. Therefore, having the gods and spirits on one’s side is very important.
The image above is of a shrine on the grounds of a large hotel in Thailand. It is someone’s job at the hotel to go and place offerings at the shrine each day to ensure the prosperity and safety of the hotel. The usual offerings are incense, fruit, flowers, and soda in a bottle. Almost every house and business has a shrine where they place offerings each day.
Remember that…
First, Buddhism tends to have two ways of being Buddhist, one for the monks and one for the laity. “Textbook” Buddhism is often foreign to the average lay practitioner.
Second, Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs. Buddhism in Thailand includes elements from Hinduism and animism. Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China is a mix of Buddhism and Taoism. In Japan, Buddhism and Shinto are often intertwined.
Aug
26
Sign at Lotus Temple
Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments
As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:
“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”
As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”
The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.
I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.
Jul
2
Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part II)
Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 3 Comments
Second, Mason rejects the idea that there is only one way to God for a variety of reasons, but I wanted to respond to a couple of them. He says about God, “you are un-namable, unknowable, all we have is metaphor.” I agree that the human mind is incapable of fully grasping God. Thus, he is incomprehensible, but that does not mean that we can know nothing about God. In his song Mason actually claims to know a lot about God.
I also agree that much of our language about God must be in metaphor since God is completely above and beyond us. We must use figures of speech, yet this does not mean that the differences between religions are simply linguistic differences. For example, monotheistic religions believe that God created the universe and is distinct from it. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no creator God because the universe has always existed. God is either identical to the universe or he does not even exist. These differences cannot be explained away by appealing to semantics.
Moreover, Mason, as religious pluralists must do, must reject the idea that God has objectively revealed himself. If God has not revealed himself to humanity then all differences between religions can be attributed to people holding false ideas (i.e they made it up or just got it wrong).
However, if God has revealed himself and has taught truth about himself and creation then we no longer are at liberty to say that all religions lead to God unless he has said so. If God has revealed himself, what he has said about the way to him is very important. For example, according to Islam, Allah teaches that the way to heaven is earned by following the 5 Pillars or by becoming a martyr. In contrast, according to the New Testament the way to heaven cannot be earned but is received by trusting in Jesus Christ’s death for one’s sins. Moreover, in the Qur’an, Allah says that he has no offspring (i.e Jesus is not the Son of God) and that the worst sin one can do is adding anything to Allah (i.e Trinity). In the Qur’an, Allah condemns Christian doctrine. On the other hand, when Jesus was on earth he said that he was the only way to heaven; thus, he excluded all other paths to God. Repentance of sins and trust in him are the only ways to heaven. The Qur’an and Jesus cannot both be right. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right since they clearly contradict each other.
Ignoring these differences is an affront to both religious traditions. The main problem with those who hold to religious pluralism is that they do not take any religion seriously and they somehow think that they can stand above all religious traditions from the past and present and say to them “You are all pretty much the same. You are simply different paths to the same God.” They accuse religious exclusivists of being arrogant simply for believing what their sacred texts say while they see themselves as humble when they place themselves above all religious traditions and declare them all equally valid.
Jun
26
Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part I)
Filed Under General religion, Religious Pluralism | 5 Comments
In his newest album, In the Ever, Mason Jennings includes this provocative song:
“I Love You and Buddha Too”
Oh Jesus, I love you
And I love Buddha too
Ramakrishna, Guru Dev
Tao Te Ching and Mohammed
Why do some people say
There there is just one way
To love you God and come to you
We are all a part of you
You are un-nameable
You are unknowable
All we have is metaphor
That’s what time and space are for
Is the universe your thought
You are and you are not
You are many, You are one
Ever ending, just begun
Alright, alright, alright
I love you and Buddha too
Mason Jennings is probably my favorite musician. I have listened to him for years and always enjoy his songs. Actually, my favorite concert of all time was a concert of his I went to in Tucson, Az a few years back.
In “I Love You and Buddha Too” Mason is clearly promoting Religious Pluralism, i.e. all religions are equally valid ways to God. The problem with Religious Pluralism and with Mason’s view is that many religions contradict each other. Thus, Mason is forced to reshape the teachings of various religions in order to make his point.
1. First, he incorrectly applies the Christian teaching about loving God (i.e by loving Jesus) to other religions. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, never taught that people should love him. This would imply desire and attachment, which is the opposite of what he wanted. The Buddha actually diverted attention from himself at all cost.
I am not sure why Mason included “Tao Te Ching” (maybe because it fit in the song) because this is the title of a collection of works from philosophical Taoism. There is no concept in Taoism about loving “Tao Te Ching.”
Although there is the concept of loving Muhammad in Islam, especially in the hadith, it is not equivalent to Christians loving Jesus. Muhammad is the last prophet, the perfect man, but he is not to be an object of worship (at least in orthodox Islam).
Mason adopts the Christian belief that God is a personal deity that is to be loved and erroneously tries to apply it to other religions.
Jun
13
Is it ok to “baptize” the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths?
Filed Under Buddhism, Communicating with those of other faiths, Great Commission | 4 Comments
The Buddha’s teachings can be boiled down to The Four Noble Truths and The Eight-fold Path. The Four Noble Truths are:
1. Life is dukkha (suffering, dislocation, transience. Life is not the way it should be)
2. Dukkha is caused by tanha (desire, thirst for permanence)
3. Dukkha can cease when tanha is removed…cessation of tanha is Nirvana.
4. Tanha is removed through the Eight-fold Path:
1. Right views
2. Right intent
3. Right speech
4. Right conduct
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
In “Evangelism in the New Millennium: An Integrated Model of Evangelism to Buddhists Using Theology, Anthropology, and Religious Studies” Ubolwan Mejudhon advocates presenting the gospel to Buddhists with a Christian version of the Four Noble Truths.* His “baptized” Four Noble Truths are:^
1. Suffering is a fact of life
2. The cause of suffering is sin
3. The cure for sins is the suffering of Christ
4. The way to deliverance is through faith in Jesus Christ
At first I thought it was a clever idea. However, I then began to question my initial judgment since these Four Noble Truths clearly do not contain the full gospel message. They contain truth but not the entire truth. Nevertheless, I still think these “baptized” Noble Truths can be useful in communicating the gospel to Buddhists as long as they are supplemented with the rest of the message.
*Article is in Sharing Jesus in the Buddhist World, edited by David Lin and Steve Spaulding (2003).
^He credits J.T. Seamand with this version of the Four Noble Truths. Seamand, J.T.. Tell It Well: Communicating the Gospel across Cultures (1981).
Jun
10
The Gospel in Chinese
Filed Under Chinese Religion, Communicating with those of other faiths, Great Commission | Leave a Comment
I just finished reading a great book on Christianity in China. In Confucius, The Buddha, and Christ: A History of the Gospel in Chinese Ralph R. Covell presents an outstanding history of Christianity in China. He discusses the traditional Chinese worldview, Nestorian Christianity in China, the various methods missionaries have used among the Chinese, how Christianity has interacted with Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, and modern attempts of making Christianity Chinese.
Although the book is dated (1986) and only includes limited discussion of the underground house church movement and the amazing growth of Christianity in China since the 80s (some estimate over 100 million Christians in China), it is still a great work for those who are planning on working in China or among Chinese in the Diaspora. The book is even a great resource for those who are not planning on working among the Chinese people. Throughout the book Covell discusses the issue of contextualization, which all cross-cultural communicators of the gospel must deal with. At times Covell does advocate too much contextualization for my theological liking, but he does raise some good points. I would recommend this book to anyone planning on engaging in cross-cultural gospel communication.
May
28
Syncretism- Jesus and Hindu gods
Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths, General religion, Hinduism | 2 Comments
A few years back I went to India to do some ethnographic research. A national Christian led us around as we did our research. In one of the villages we walked through he took us to the home of a woman who had started attending a small group Bible study he was leading. Upon entering her home I noticed that she had pictures of Hindu deities on her wall just like every other Hindu home I had entered. However, as you can see, her wall was a little different. Instead of just having the traditional Hindu gods and heroes like Shiva and Hanuman, she added a framed picture of a “Catholic” Jesus. Some religions, like Hinduism, are more syncretistic than others yet syncretism is common in all religious traditions.
Syncretism often takes place when animistic cultures adopt a foreign more dominant world religion. In South America, many Catholics have exchanged their traditional gods and spirits for the Virgin Mary and saints, but have essentially kept their animistic worldview. In Africa, many Muslims have added outward forms of Muslim dress and ritual, but have kept their traditional beliefs creating a form of folk Islam. Some scholars contend that up to 75% of Muslims actually practice a form of folk Islam. In Thailand, the heart of Theravada Buddhism, Buddhists are supposed to be practicing the purest form of Buddhism yet most live their lives worshipping local spirits that determine their health and wealth.
Animists in these cultures tend to see Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism as having to do more with the afterlife, but the everyday life is still about the local spirits. In order to have a successful crop or successful business, and to avoid illness animists must gain the favor or appease the spirits that control their everyday lives.
When ministering to those of other faiths it is important to remember that most Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on do not live the religion that is typically described in textbooks. Although studying the “textbook” form of a religion is necessary, it is equally important to understand the animistic worldview that the practitioner might have.
For more information on syncretism, animism, and folk religions see The Myth of the Eternal Return by Mircea Eliade, The Unseen Face of Islam by Bill Musk, Understanding Folk Religions by Hiebert, Shaw and Tienou, and Communicating Christ in Animistic Cultures by Gailyn Van Rheenen
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos