However much he tried, Mr. [Paul] Knitter found that certain longstanding Christian formulations of faith “just didn’t make sense”: God as a person separate from creation and intervening in it as an external agent; individualized life after death for all and eternal punishment for some; Jesus as God’s “only Son” and the only savior of humankind; prayers that ask God to favor some people over others.
Mr. Knitter’s response, based on his long interaction with Buddhist teachers, was to “pass over” to Buddhism’s approach to each of these problems and then “pass back” to Christian tradition to see if he could retrieve or re-imagine aspects of it with this “Buddhist flashlight.”
He was not asserting, as some people have, that religions like Christianity and Buddhism are merely superficially different expressions of one underlying faith.
On the contrary, he insists they differ profoundly. Yet “Buddhism has helped me take another and deeper look at what I believe as a Christian,” he writes. “Many of the words that I had repeated or read throughout my life started to glow with new meaning.”
It is a problem to believe that one can be a Christian and a Buddhist simultaneously. It is fundamental in our understanding of Christ’s death and the true nature of His sacrifice.
Sigh…… another silly debate that ultimately is just about how you define words.
Well, yeah, if you do define “Christian” and “Buddhist” (and Platonist and Marxist etc.) to mean: anyone who thinks that a certain historical figure was a great and wise man, as he imagines that historical figure and his teachings to have been, well then sure. You can be a Marxist and a Christian, a Buddhist and a Jeffersonian, a Platonist and a Mohameddian, etc. — in the sense that apparently this sincere approval of two imagined persons does occur as psychological events in the minds of some people.
Or if you define Christian as any person who has had water sprinkled on his head in a certain ritual, then of course you can be a Christian and a Buddhist (as well Christian and a Muslim, Christian and an atheist, Christian and a worshipper of Isis).
But if you include in your definition of Christian, belief in a set of core theological claims (e.g. in the Nicene Creed), and if you define “can you be” to mean “can you be without contradiction” then the answer is: no.
Regardless of which of the three ways you go, you just need to be clear with how you are using language, and then it takes maybe a few sentences to answer the problem. It doesn’t take a whole book, or a fawning NYT article.
Jon, it is an objective fact that “any person who has had water sprinkled on his head in a certain ritual”, as you so dismissively handle the Christian sacrament of Holy Baptism is, in fact, a Christian. Whether or not any one person is [i]faithful[/i] to the promises he has made, or that were made on his behalf, is another matter. Free will means that one can put up an obstacle to God’s grace. But there can be no doubt that a baptized person is a Christian. It is not a subjective matter.
Jon,
There is no differing definitions. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior and the only way to God. If you define Christian as someone who thinks that Jesus was wise then pretty much the whole world would be Christian. There is exclusivity there. If you do not accept Christ, you will not receive His grace. One cannot truly be a Christian and an atheist or a Buddhist, etc. C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that the word Christian is becoming useless because of its misuse in describing any “good” person as a Christian. This has become true of late with people like this man and the Forrester. You are not a Christian if you do not accept Jesus Christ as the only way, the only truth, and the only life, for there is no way to the Father but through Jesus.
Actually, CP, I am not dismissing anything. That definition of the word is perfectly valid. It does lead to the consequence that a person can be a Christian atheist, which as long as you are comfortable with that use of language then it’s fine.
You are mistaken in thinking that the correctness of a definition is a matter of objective fact. Definitions are arbitrary. A word is a collection of symbols or a sound that people assign a meaning to, different groups and times and contexts giving different meanings. There are huge numbers of words that can mean many different things: take a stroll through a dictionary to see what I mean.
My point is that it is a BAD IDEA to get into a debate about what a word REALLY means. There’s some point to debating the “real” shape of the earth (flat or round) because there really is an objective object called the earth to which we can look to answer the question. But all that can happen in a debate about a word is a series of parties shouting at each other that their definition is “right.”
Much better in a debate or discussion is to try as swiftly as possible to come to COMMON meanings. Legal documents do that immediately — they define the words they are about to use if there is any chance they could be understood three different ways.
My point (again) is that this is a boring question (can one be a Christian and a Buddhist?). An author can only make it a SEEMINGLY interesting question worth writing a whole book on by FAILING to be clear what you mean by the word CHRISTIAN. He then uses the word one way in chapter 1, a different way in chapter 2, a third way in 3, and so on; all without noting the shifting meaning; and you give the illusion that you are struggling with a weighty intellectual problem.
Again, I have no problem with defining the noun CHRISTIAN solely in terms of whether or not a person has gone through the rite of baptism. That’s very clear. As long as you are clear about how you are using it, then it’s very helpful.
I note, with a certain wry amusement, that CP and jric777 are both absolutely convinced that there could only be one definition of the word CHRISTIAN. And then they proceed to offer different definitions.
I suggest reading the book, rather than relying upon a [i]New York Times[/i] column. For what it’s worth, Knitter doesn’t claim to be “a-Christian-and-a-Buddhist”. He claims to be “a Buddhist Christian”, a Christian who nevertheless has learned profound lessons from Buddhism, lessons that have helped him become a better Christian.
Postscript: I found this to be a signally effective way of shortening endless debates in my EFM class. (Side note, a friend of mine rechistened EFM as EFA, or Education for Apostasy.)
I would make what i thought was a fairly innocent description of a particular writer or thinker as “not a Christian” (e.g. Spong, or Hegel, or whomever), and would get jumped on by three of my reappraising classmates demanding Who Was I To Say Who Or What A Christian Was? Then we’d have a fruitless debate over that for two hours.
Finally I adopted the following approach. I said: hey guys, I need a word for a person who firmly believes the Nicene Creed in entirety as it has been traditionally interpreted. Can you give me a short word or phrase I can use for that? You can choose it, I just need one.
Then I used that. It cut the debate down by about 90%.
[blockquote] However much he tried, Mr. Knitter found that certain longstanding Christian formulations of faith “just didn’t make senseâ€: God as a person separate from creation and intervening in it as an external agent; individualized life after death for all and eternal punishment for some; Jesus as God’s “only Son†and the only savior of humankind; prayers that ask God to favor some people over others.
Mr. Knitter’s response, based on his long interaction with Buddhist teachers, was to “pass over†to Buddhism’s approach to each of these problems and then “pass back†to Christian tradition to see if he could retrieve or re-imagine aspects of it with this “Buddhist flashlight.â€[/blockquote]
That is always going to be a problem if you try to define a larger concept within the definitions of a smaller one. It also misses the point that the very things which are problematical are the very things which make Christianity attractive and offer mankind hope: a creator who is not defined by his creation; a God who has a personal interactive reaction with mankind who He created; and whose love is so great that he would send his triune existent son into His creation to take on mankind’s sin and reunite God and man; moreover that in doing so that individual salvation of His people is the result and the intention of His relations with us; and the transformative communication of prayer. The only God who does so.
So he is Paul Tillich professor of theology – how appropriate.
We saw another example of this approach in practice recently in former would-be bishop-elect Genpo who again tried to square Christianity in Buddhist terms. By the way what is he up to these days? Still writing his own collects and baptismal covenant and making his long-suffering congregants breath-in deeply his heretical sermons?
As fluid as the definition of “Christian” may (or may not!) be, the definition of “Buddhist” is probably more so. The debate, here at least, always focuses on the former, but the latter really is all over the map.
The (standard) definition of “Buddhist” is quite simple: one who has taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. That is, a Buddhist is one whose ultimate foundation is the Buddha, the Truth that the Buddha realized and taught, and the community of Buddhist practitioners. Knitter’s ultimate foundation is Christ, and the Church (Catholic Church, specifically), which would put him outside of this standard definition.
I appreciate Jon for trying to frame the debate clearly.
It is possible for Christians to engage in Buddhist practices. One can use the word “Jesus” as a chant, use an icon instead of a statue of Buddha, and light a different sort of incense.
One can also read all sorts of religious or secular material for insights that help us understand our own faith.
Jon wrote:
[blockquote]I said: hey guys, I need a word for a person who firmly believes the Nicene Creed in entirety as it has been traditionally interpreted.[/blockquote]For Christians who accept evolution as not contradicting the Nicene Creed, their understanding of God as Creator will be a bit different from the understanding of God as Creator found in the Early Church Fathers. You would exclude more Christians than you would want, if you went by your definition.
I suggest you all re-read 1 John. He did not care too much for choosing different definitions of words. Or, it depends on which side your on….we—-ALL of us—-ARE EITHER Children of God, OR children of the devil.
NO middle ground.
No grey area.
bl
“I suggest you all re-read 1 John….
NO middle ground.
No grey area.”
Well, yes, but the problem with your argument is that it could equally be used in answer to the question “Can you be a Christian and a concert pianist?” I have no question there are things that are incompatible with Christianity — for them, bring on the 1 John! — but many people here are still talking about whether Buddhism is one of them.