This is a guest post by Dr. John Seel. It is a followup to the Social Pathologist’s essay on Christian Buddhism and my followup on the “Buddhist mood” in American evangelicalism. Views expressed are those of the author.
Firstly this is a fantastic essay that gets to much of the "psychodynamics" of Christian Buddhism. The only thing I would disagree with author is this point:
"“Christian Buddhism” is a heresy born out of the deficiencies of American evangelical Christianity, a doorway to dark enchantment, and an embrace of therapeutically inspired spiritual narcissism."
I think that this is not a problem unique to Evangelicalism but it is a problem in all the branches of Christianity. The doctrines of Protestantism may make it theoretically prone to this Christian Buddhism but there are other factors at play in Protestantism that mitigate this a large degree. The Church most prone to this is the Orthodox one, then followed by the Catholics.
This post presents a well argued false dichotomy ... we're given the choice between "sincere Christianity," who's goal is to "recreate the entire world," or a "false Christianity" that holds there is "nothing beyond salvation."
Once we accept that the mission of the church is to "recreate the world" (which should evoke the Fabian Socialist Window" for anyone with half a sense of history), the next step is to ask: "How should this remaking of the world work?" Perhaps we should return to the (progressive and post-millennial) Crusades as our example? Or perhaps mid-century progressivism following WWII, where church leaders said things like this?
"The Baptists should be the pioneers in eugenics, as they have been in other movements for social reform. We therefore recommend to the Board of Managers of the New Jersey Baptist Convention that it urge all our churches to give to this matter most careful consideration, looking toward the eventual requirement of a physician’s certificate of good health from all those applying for marriage licenses."
Why can we not see that progressivism always falls into the totalitarian trap? Is there any instance in history when it has not? Progressivism in all it's forms, including post-millennialism, at all times, always means one thing--man declaring himself God. We aren't God.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Scriptures, taken in context, that supports either the view that Christians "do nothing" after they are saved or the church's purpose is to "recreate the Earth." The church will fail to have any influence over culture until it returns to its original, stated purpose.
Here is another problem with contemporary Christianity, theological professors continuing to pick nits. I’m sorry, but this article is like the supposed medieval arguments over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I went back and re-read the article and my comment stands. And to say "Christianity is in serious trouble" highlights my point about theological nitpicks. Christianity is not in trouble because it is God's gift to humanity, and we can't screw it up. We can misinterpret and misapply it, but God will always protect it.
Was Christianity in trouble in the first century when Jews tried to stamp it out, when the Gnostics tried to bastardize it? When the Romans persecuted it? When the church split between Western Christianity and the Eastern Orthodoxy? When Islam attacked Europe? During the Reformation?
How about now, where the Chinese government is trying to destroy it and supplant it with a government church? In Africa, where Islamists are also trying to destroy it?
Here is the US, I read in Aaron's postings how men are abandoning the church; how Protestants are getting into enchantment; how politics are dividing the church and now how Buddhism is infecting the church. My goodness - we should all just give up.
There will always be wolves in sheep's clothing and the world hating us until Christ returns again.
Sure, scripture says that the Hell will never prevail against God but does that mean we sit around twiddling our thumbs while the temple is on fire, waiting for God to put it out. Or do we take some initiative ourselves. The spirit Christian Buddhism encourages a passivity to do nothing, consoling ourselves that Christ will be triumphant while everything falls to ruins. Man was meant to tend the garden, no simply wait for God to do all the work.
I don’t disagree with you that we are living under soft persecution, but the church always has been persecuted and always will. And I agree with you that we are called to action - not just to sit still and be persecuted. My point was originally about this article and supposed Christian Buddhism which may or may not be a major problem, but to me this appears to be another theological professor going around looking for dragons to slay. There are plenty of dragons already and we don’t need to go searching for any. Christianity is not in trouble. But we as Christians will always be in trouble with a fallen world if we are being faithful.
"I don’t disagree with you that we are living under soft persecution, but the church always has been persecuted and always will"
Uhmm, no. The Church did quite well for up till the late 19thC and was THE dominant force in Western Civilisation. In Europe at least, the Church had transformed it. The great retreat really gets into earnest in the late 19th C. The idea that the Church was some kind of perpetual victim is at odds with the facts of history.
The issue is why has Christianity lost it's power to transform?
The whole point of the Reformation, from the Protestant view, was that Rome had distorted Christianity to such an extent that there needed to be a recalbiration to get it right. Imagine arguing to Luther that there was no problem with Christianity at the time and that he should "suck it up" since "Christianity has always been persecuted".
There is a serious problem going on. The professor is not identifying "imaginary" dragons but pointing out a serious problem within "Conservative Christianity". And I would argue that it is a problem in all of the major branches of Christianity, not just among Protestant Evangelicals.
We are going to have to disagree. Christianity has not lost its power to transform because it’s not dependent on what we as frail, sinful human beings can or cannot do. Only the Holy Spirit can transform, we are called only to be witnesses. There has been and always will be battles to fight until Christ returns. If you are called to fight this battle against Buddhist Christianity then may the Lord be with you.
I think this case is oversold. I’m not evangelical, but they talk a lot about a personal relationship with Christ and how that helps them reform their lives. They are engaged in the world, with charity, pregnancy centers, etc.
“Early Christians never spoke of going to heaven when they died.” But Jesus did, including to the thief on the cross.
No, never? Well, hardly ever. Resurrection was the focus, not the heavenly waiting room.
As for the former, our pastor recently went through a series in Ephesians that spent exactly 5 seconds on the evangelical theme and 0 on the cultural conflict theme, and instead focused entirely on spiritual formation. I'd say this fits exactly with the post's claim. Nor is this truncation by spiritualizing atypical.
Creating disciples (not "spiritual formation") IS the purpose of the Church--and it's the most counter-cultural and culture-forming thing the church can do. As Lewis said, when you focus on secondary things, you will lose both the primary and the secondary things.
Firstly this is a fantastic essay that gets to much of the "psychodynamics" of Christian Buddhism. The only thing I would disagree with author is this point:
"“Christian Buddhism” is a heresy born out of the deficiencies of American evangelical Christianity, a doorway to dark enchantment, and an embrace of therapeutically inspired spiritual narcissism."
I think that this is not a problem unique to Evangelicalism but it is a problem in all the branches of Christianity. The doctrines of Protestantism may make it theoretically prone to this Christian Buddhism but there are other factors at play in Protestantism that mitigate this a large degree. The Church most prone to this is the Orthodox one, then followed by the Catholics.
Seriously good thinking.
This post presents a well argued false dichotomy ... we're given the choice between "sincere Christianity," who's goal is to "recreate the entire world," or a "false Christianity" that holds there is "nothing beyond salvation."
Once we accept that the mission of the church is to "recreate the world" (which should evoke the Fabian Socialist Window" for anyone with half a sense of history), the next step is to ask: "How should this remaking of the world work?" Perhaps we should return to the (progressive and post-millennial) Crusades as our example? Or perhaps mid-century progressivism following WWII, where church leaders said things like this?
"The Baptists should be the pioneers in eugenics, as they have been in other movements for social reform. We therefore recommend to the Board of Managers of the New Jersey Baptist Convention that it urge all our churches to give to this matter most careful consideration, looking toward the eventual requirement of a physician’s certificate of good health from all those applying for marriage licenses."
Why can we not see that progressivism always falls into the totalitarian trap? Is there any instance in history when it has not? Progressivism in all it's forms, including post-millennialism, at all times, always means one thing--man declaring himself God. We aren't God.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Scriptures, taken in context, that supports either the view that Christians "do nothing" after they are saved or the church's purpose is to "recreate the Earth." The church will fail to have any influence over culture until it returns to its original, stated purpose.
Here is another problem with contemporary Christianity, theological professors continuing to pick nits. I’m sorry, but this article is like the supposed medieval arguments over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Respectfully, but you really don't understand the problem. Re read the essay.
Christianity is in serious trouble.
I went back and re-read the article and my comment stands. And to say "Christianity is in serious trouble" highlights my point about theological nitpicks. Christianity is not in trouble because it is God's gift to humanity, and we can't screw it up. We can misinterpret and misapply it, but God will always protect it.
Was Christianity in trouble in the first century when Jews tried to stamp it out, when the Gnostics tried to bastardize it? When the Romans persecuted it? When the church split between Western Christianity and the Eastern Orthodoxy? When Islam attacked Europe? During the Reformation?
How about now, where the Chinese government is trying to destroy it and supplant it with a government church? In Africa, where Islamists are also trying to destroy it?
Here is the US, I read in Aaron's postings how men are abandoning the church; how Protestants are getting into enchantment; how politics are dividing the church and now how Buddhism is infecting the church. My goodness - we should all just give up.
There will always be wolves in sheep's clothing and the world hating us until Christ returns again.
Look around you, we are in a Negative World.
Sure, scripture says that the Hell will never prevail against God but does that mean we sit around twiddling our thumbs while the temple is on fire, waiting for God to put it out. Or do we take some initiative ourselves. The spirit Christian Buddhism encourages a passivity to do nothing, consoling ourselves that Christ will be triumphant while everything falls to ruins. Man was meant to tend the garden, no simply wait for God to do all the work.
I don’t disagree with you that we are living under soft persecution, but the church always has been persecuted and always will. And I agree with you that we are called to action - not just to sit still and be persecuted. My point was originally about this article and supposed Christian Buddhism which may or may not be a major problem, but to me this appears to be another theological professor going around looking for dragons to slay. There are plenty of dragons already and we don’t need to go searching for any. Christianity is not in trouble. But we as Christians will always be in trouble with a fallen world if we are being faithful.
"I don’t disagree with you that we are living under soft persecution, but the church always has been persecuted and always will"
Uhmm, no. The Church did quite well for up till the late 19thC and was THE dominant force in Western Civilisation. In Europe at least, the Church had transformed it. The great retreat really gets into earnest in the late 19th C. The idea that the Church was some kind of perpetual victim is at odds with the facts of history.
The issue is why has Christianity lost it's power to transform?
The whole point of the Reformation, from the Protestant view, was that Rome had distorted Christianity to such an extent that there needed to be a recalbiration to get it right. Imagine arguing to Luther that there was no problem with Christianity at the time and that he should "suck it up" since "Christianity has always been persecuted".
There is a serious problem going on. The professor is not identifying "imaginary" dragons but pointing out a serious problem within "Conservative Christianity". And I would argue that it is a problem in all of the major branches of Christianity, not just among Protestant Evangelicals.
We are going to have to disagree. Christianity has not lost its power to transform because it’s not dependent on what we as frail, sinful human beings can or cannot do. Only the Holy Spirit can transform, we are called only to be witnesses. There has been and always will be battles to fight until Christ returns. If you are called to fight this battle against Buddhist Christianity then may the Lord be with you.
I think this case is oversold. I’m not evangelical, but they talk a lot about a personal relationship with Christ and how that helps them reform their lives. They are engaged in the world, with charity, pregnancy centers, etc.
“Early Christians never spoke of going to heaven when they died.” But Jesus did, including to the thief on the cross.
Paul Disagrees. 1 Corinthians 15:14
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"
The Crucifixion is important but the business end of Christianity is the Resurrection.
No, never? Well, hardly ever. Resurrection was the focus, not the heavenly waiting room.
As for the former, our pastor recently went through a series in Ephesians that spent exactly 5 seconds on the evangelical theme and 0 on the cultural conflict theme, and instead focused entirely on spiritual formation. I'd say this fits exactly with the post's claim. Nor is this truncation by spiritualizing atypical.
Creating disciples (not "spiritual formation") IS the purpose of the Church--and it's the most counter-cultural and culture-forming thing the church can do. As Lewis said, when you focus on secondary things, you will lose both the primary and the secondary things.
Certainly. And do we need to distort scripture to create 'disciples', however we define that word? You know, to get to the good stuff.
Ok, here's an idea for you: the Great Commission parallels the language of the Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1, and that is not by accident.
Also 2 Corinthians 5 and probably many other examples ….