Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism as Methods of Christian Apologetics
When many Christians think of Asian philosophy they don't really know anything about it. This post is an attempt to make the argument that the traditions of China and India, namely, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are actually great resources of Christian apologetics. Being a Christian, I have come to see the respective systems of thought as preannouncing the message of the gospel in terms of ethical questions about life.
Confucianism: The Search for Virtue
"Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbors." - Analects, Ch. IV
Confucian values are considered to be the backbone of East Asian civilization. I do identify as a self proclaimed "Western" Confucian sometimes; Confucius and his followers became valuable assets to bringing China out of total chaos and disorder during the Warring States Period. The Junzi, or Superior Man, is a person who lives a life in accordance with virtue brought about about jen, that is to say unconditional love (this word literally means "human-heartedness"), for our fellow man. In Confucian terms, Christ is the ultimate Junzi because he is God on earth; He connects the metaphysical with the physical, taking on our imperfect nature, and fulfills the "Way of Heaven," as Confucians term it.
Buddhism: The Search for Freedom
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind this is the teaching of the Awakened Ones." - Dhammapada, verse 183
Buddhism is perhaps the worlds most misunderstood religion; There are so many different variants of it. While I could bring up the most popular form of Buddhism in the world, Pure Land Buddhism, and discuss its theistic ideas I would rather discuss Philosophical Buddhism as found in the Pali Canon. The ethical dimension of Buddhism is pretty simple.
The Four Noble Truths
1. Suffering happens in life.
2. Suffering has a root cause (craving).
3. Suffering can go away.
4. Living an ethical life can lead one to freedom (the Eightfold Path).
To translate this into Christian terms:
1. You get sick (i.e. experience sin)
2. The sickness has a root cause (i.e. the passions).
3. The sickness can be cured (metanoia).
4. You go to the doctor (i.e. the Church) to get a prescription (i.e. the Gospel) to get better.
This format is essentially the patristic paradigm of Kenosis, Theoria, Theosis as understood in ethical terms.
Daoism: The Search for Contemplation
"While you cultivate the soul and embrace unity, can you keep them from separating?" - Daodejing, Ch. 10
Like my tidbit on Buddhism, I wish to bring up Philosophical Daoism. If Confucianism focuses on living virtuously and Buddhism focuses on freedom from suffering, Daoism focuses on the vita contemplativa, the contemplative life. Confucianism and Buddhism discuss this too, but Daoism is all about returning to the state of pu, the state of uncarved wood, or synonymously su, the state of unbleached silk. I like to think the Daodejing gives a prefiguration of the Trinity in the following lines:
"The Dao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things."
My commentary is this. The Dao (the Godhead) produced One (God the Father), One produces Two (God the Son), Two produces Three (God the Holy Spirit), and Three produces the created world. Although not a perfect take, I find the parallelism very interesting.
Brief Conclusions: Start with what is Good!
Bishop Fulton Sheen said that truth is like a circle of 360 degrees; Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism all contribute to the fullness of truth found in Christ. Therefore, we should use these great Asian traditions (this would include certain ideas from Hinduism and Jainism as well which I have no proper understanding of) so long as we understand them in terms of grace. We cannot, from the biblical point of view, save ourselves from ourselves by ourselves. We need, to reference one wise Buddhist, tariki, "other power." To paraphrase something Alan Watts wrote in his early years, the coming of Christ is a satori, an awakening, upon human history. Like Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, Christianity provides us a way to live right, become free from suffering, and seek what is transient. Studying all three in comparison to the message of the New Testament shows us this.
Comments (49)
That's odd. Others might find it more sensible to consider "the message of the gospel" as you put it as being merely derivative of these systems, which after all had existed for centuries before the gospels were written, or for that matter as derivative of the Western philosophical systems such as Stoicism, which also preceded the gospels by hundreds of years. Establishing that Christianity borrowed heavily from other religions or philosophical traditions wouldn't seem to indicate there's anything unique about it.
Indeed, Quoting Dermot Griffin
...looks to be an idea borrowed from Islam, with the Prophets "preannouncing the message of" Mohamed.
It uniquely took over Rome and subsequently became a uniquely ideologically complex religion by virtue of being a forum for diverse perspectives.
We're making claims regarding different things. I was addressing the OP's statement that Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism "preannounced the message of the gospels" and contention that this made them "methods of Christian apologetics." Apologetics is the defense or justification of a religious doctrine. My point is that defending Christianity as a religion because it assimilated the doctrines of much older religions/philosophies isn't much of an apology, as you're merely saying it's derivative and proposes nothing new.
I tend to agree that Christianity's success was remarkable, and attribute its success to its relentless incorporation of pagan philosophy and the rituals of mystery and salvation cults popular in the Roman Empire, combined with its intolerance and state sponsored favoritism and persecution far exceeding the infrequent and irregular efforts made to suppress it. I don't think that was what the OP was intended to assert, though.
The Old Testament prophets were regularly preannouncing the birth of Jesus as well, and the early Christian apologists tended to blame the similarities between Christian ritual and that of pagan cults on demons who knew what was coming and chose to mock baptism, the Eucharist, and such, even before they were practiced by Christians.
Christianity has always stolen its ideas. The one original contribution is charity. No small thing.
Yep. Christianity is an intriguing myth made up of many appropriations. From the virgin birth story (borrowed from Ancient Egypt, Ra - the son of a virgin) to turning water into wine (a familiar trick of the Greek god Dionysus.) Adonis, like Jesus, was eaten in the form of bread. Osiris, like Jesus, was called the 'good shepherd'. And on it goes. I guess for some Christians, one way to deal with the discomfort this lack of authenticity creates (and to manage the fact that other spiritual traditions may hold wisdom), is to find a way to argue that those other traditions are prefiguring Christianity in some way.
It's not unlike the approach of presuppositionalist Christians who take on humanists by arguing that reason can't disprove god since the very conditions of reason require a foundation for logic and intelligibility - therefore Mr God.
It's interesting that he includes Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism but not Islam, as "provid(ing)... a way to live right, become free from suffering, and seek what is transient." Islam cannot be seen as "prefiguring" Christianity, and so... doesn't fit.
I was trying to explain that a religion is great by virtue of its power to transmit ideas from one generation to the next, not by its inventiveness. Religion is a conserving business. New stuff is anathema.
Between Augustinians, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Dominicans, Christianity was diverse. Conflict creates dynamism. That's a good thing for an ideology.
I wish more people perceived the grandeur and beauty of Christianity. Maybe some are too close to it to see it.
Or are perverted copies of Christianity, as in the case of Mithraism. From Justin Martyr:
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."
I have a soft spot for progressive Christianity but from my reading there's no reason to believe that any of the New Testament stories actually took place. The Gospels are anonymous copies of translations of copies of translations, produced decades after the events described. We have no independent evidence of a Jesus, although no doubt the region 2000 years ago was swarming with self-styled messiahs and sons of god. As are many places today. There may well have been a figure or two who inspired the legends. It doesn't much matter.
It wasn't Jesus. It was some other guy named Jesus.
It wasn't Jesus. It may have been no guy at all. Or guys. Or someone called Frankus.
Nobody said the meek shall inherit the earth? Was it computer generated?
It's from Psalms - Psalm 37:11 (NIV) states:
"But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity."
I imagine the literature appropriated and adapted this, like it did with many other items.
I was going to say Naughtius Maximus or Biggus Dickus, but don't want to be offensive.
Indeed. Let me tell you a parable. A farmer went around throwing seeds. Some of the seeds fell on rocky soil and did nothing. Some fell on crappy soil and sprouted, but then died. Some of the seeds fell on fertile soil and gave birth to a forest.
It's not who said it. It's where the seed fell. The question is: what kind of soil are you?
Ta da!!!
Incontinentia Buttocks.
I'm the kind of soil that likes to know if the seeds are for plants worth growing.
You're rocky soil.
:grin:
Comparitive religion (a tolerant and open attitude) and / or the Perennial Philosophy is not the most popular position at the moment unfortunately.
Thanks for going against the trend. :wink: :up:
:100: Wish there were more of a similar mind. :clap:
It is, rather, post hoc. Just another example of how just about anything can be put through the meat grinder of Christian apologetics and come out looking like something it is not. It is unapologetically chauvinistic.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
So long as you understand them in terms of grace you do not understand them.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
If you include the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") this is simply not true. It is the opinion of Paul. Part of his campaign, in opposition to Jesus' disciples, to bring the Gentiles to his Christ.
Only up to a point, though, I'm afraid. According to the OP, the Asian systems he refers to are deficient, from the Christian perspective. They just don't go far enough (which is to say, they're not Christianity). Thus the proviso that we must understand them in terms of the Christian concept of "grace."
Well, Fulton Sheen may end up canonized shortly, so you should be pleased. The Jesuits, by the way, were adept at adopting native traditions as part of their conversion efforts.
I remember some years back reading a heart-breaking letter from Buddhist monks in a Buddhist country about how Christian missionaries are perverting Buddhism and how they manipulate the native people into converting to Christianity.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
This is the line of reasoning that Christian missionaries in Asia use to convert the native Buddhists, Daoists, and others to Christianity.
They tell the Buddhists that God sent them the Buddha to prepare them for the message of Christianity. And then they offer them food, medicines, jobs -- in exchange for conversion.
It was a two-way street in at least some cases. Desediri Ippolito made it to Lhasa in the 17th Century and stayed for many years. He of course regarded many elements of Tibetan tantrism as paganism, but he also recognised the kinds of universal moral maxims that they shared with Christianity. The illustrious Matteo Ricci stayed many decades in old Peking, becoming fluent in the language and earning the admiration of the Mandarins. Then there's Raimundo Pannikar, a kind of 'multi-faith' Jesuit who spent a large part of his life in India; Bede Griffith, another Catholic monk who adopted India has homeland and lived on an Ashram. There is a strand of universalism in Catholicism (although it's by no means universal ;-) )
I am simply stating my opinion for dialogue; Not attempting to claim that Christianity is supreme.
I actually think that the example you give of monks talking about how Christian missionaries are preventing Buddhism is exactly what Christianity shouldn't do. There is a reason that the Eastern Churches don't go around trying to convert people; Its antithetical to what they believe. Catholicism too, tries to mimic this, but in todays day the Traditionalist movement tends to scare me. IMO true conversion begins with dialogue and this is how it happens. The Buddhist is free to become Christian or not.
I think this is a misunderstanding.
"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
In terms of my views on soteriology if, for example, a Buddhist, lives in accordance with his tradition I do believe that by Gods grace he is being saved because there is something in Buddhism that promotes living a good life. Same can be said with all the other great traditions of the world. I was raised a Roman Catholic and still go to mass. But the reality of it is there are Catholics of the "traditional" type that do think I am going to burn in Hell forever because of some of my views. There are other fundamentalist Christians that think I'm going to Hell just because I go to a Catholic church. I don't think Christianity has this idea that if you pick the wrong church you'll burn forever. I personally like the Kierkegaardian take where you take a leap of faith in order to find meaning; The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter.
Well, I have always found the traditions of East Asia to be interesting so my own personal bias in reading about them has entered into the fold. Islam has a lot to offer, specifically through Sufism (which in my reading is just Islamic Platonism). Avicenna, Averroes, Ibn Arabi, and Suhrawardi are all some of my favorite thinkers. I think Christians of the more literalist type can learn much from them. The hardcore philosophy doesn't even need to be read. Rumi, Hafiz, and Attar are some of my favorite poets.
My description of Christian religious orders in a nutshell...
Augustinians: Platonists that expounded a lot of the "old school" ideas in the Church (i.e. original sin being a taint on the soul rather than just the innate tendency to do the wrong thing).
Benedictines (in my head this is a family of orders): Contemplation is everything; It is literally "what you do when you are in a temple."
Carmelites: Same as the Benedictine but there is an emphasis on practical mysticism as we can see through Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Big during the Counter-Reformation.
Franciscans: They love the example of St. Francis and Scotism is the best expression of the philosophia perennis.
Dominicans: They are obsessed with Aquinas and, depending upon what intellectual camp you are in, think Thomism is the best expression of the philosophia perennis.
Jesuits: Despite all the conspiracy theories about them and the hate Traditionalist Catholics give them, they love Thomism. They love Scotism. They love other systems of thought too, like Confucianism. So why not play around with them all?
That's interesting. I spent a while reading about the Franciscans. They became sharply apocalyptic for a while.
Well, it comes with the name, of course, as you hint. Catholicus in Latin, katholikos in Greek, meaning "universal" roughly.
And then there is John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Fair point and if only there were more of this. My friend, a Baptist, used to say, 'I am a Christian but I am compassionate enough to keep this to myself'. Seems to me that these days mainstream Christianity is becoming more beset by garrulous apologists.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
Have you read Bentley Hart's "That All Shall be Saved" I had a cursory read and it is an interesting alternative account of the Christian tradition as one of as 'hopeful universalism.'
I like to think that if there is a god (as Hart might understand one) this deity is more likely to support a sincere secular humanist than many of those believers whose faith is one of judgment, purity culture and material acquisitiveness. But all of this comes down to what god is for you.
Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the anonymous Christian:
Perhaps that is because there is actually an anonymous, or at least, universal Christ, who has manifested in other forms, although I suspect that idea would be much more congenial to a Hindu than to a Christian.
In Buddhism, the Buddha is more like an archetype than a specific individual. It is true of course that the Buddha that we know of historically, Buddha Shakyamuni, was a particular individual who lived and taught in Maghada around the 5th c BCE. But according to Buddhist lore, he was but one of the many (in fact countless) Buddhas that have been born and will be born on this and other life-bearing orbs over the aeons of Kalpas.
Rahner's idea is congenial to various expressions of Neoplatonism prevalent during the formation of 'Christianity'. But it is sharply at odds with the expectation that one world would pass away and be replaced by another as promulgated by Paul. The need for a particular credo to be the focus of a congregation was directly tied to an expectation of change throughout the entire world.
In Augustine, this was expressed as the need for a vanguard who lived amongst themselves in a City of God while also living in a City of Men.
And yet all that anyone has ever heard about the topic "God", one has heard from other people.
Even those people who have epileptic seizures and interpret the visions they have in those seizures as "God is speaking to me" are still working with whatever they have about the topic "God" from other people.
Even Kierkegaard was working only with what he heard other people say on the topic "God".
A perfect combination of pity and contempt!
Personally I tend to shy away from Karl Rahner; Transcendental Thomism has never really interested me (the whole Kantian movement just disinterests me). I prefer the patristic idea of the Unknowing Christian from St. Justin Martyr. I get that Rahners Anonymous Christianity is supposed to mimic this, but it puts more of an emphasis on just living an ethical life rather than the concept of the Logos as a metaphysical idea which, in Chinese and Indian thought, can be compared with that of the Dao or Dharma. St. Justin Martyr argued that if you preached a logos-based ideology then you were a Christian without knowing it.
I wasn't promoting him, in particular - I just found it an interesting perspective. But I am very interested in various schools of neo-Thomism, transcendental included, although they're very difficult to study.
Lublin Thomism, also called Phenomenological Thomism, Polish Existential Thomism, or simply "Lublinism," is the school of Neo-Thomism that I am most interested in. Its funny, when I hear the word "Neo-Thomism" I always think of Strict Observance Thomism, which I personally think is a flawed understanding of Aquinas' work.
Plato has been left out and he seems to have been as concerned about the 10 commandments as Moses was but he came to this reasoning without an encounter with the God of Abraham.
Personally, I favor the Eastern gifts of knowledge over the Bible and I don't think it is possible to have a good understanding of Jesus without the Eastern perspective. I think the Eastern perspective is more compatible with democracy than the Bible because of the Eastern explanation of how we become better human beings that is not dependent on superstitious notions of needing to be "saved".