Continuation....
Now what many people may not be aware of is that Christianity has always had its own “in house” crypto-Buddhists,
men who interpret Christianity in such a way that it repudiates its foundational propositions. Since Christianity taught that the created order was good, it interpreted the teachings of Christ in such a way that would reconcile the spiritual teachings with the created world. In other words, it sought a balance. The problem with this balancing act is that error can occur with miscalculation.
The point is that error can occur both ways, and while many men can easily recognise the moral evil of debauchery and worldliness, not many see the danger of an ascetic puritanism that pushes too far. Too much emphasis on sin, too much emphasis on humility, too much emphasis on heaven and even too much emphasis on Christ to the exclusion of man soon leads to a Christianity that hates the individual, individuation and the created world. Christianity starts to resemble Buddhism.
A change of emphasis here, a neglect of inconvenient Scripture there, and soon a religion takes a shape that, though difficult to distinguish from the Christianity of the Gospels, somehow has a quite different effect. Pantheism and universalism, for instance, are the heretical exaggerations of feminine attitudes, but how far can one go in stressing the immanence of God and his will to save before Christianity is left behind? When does bridal receptivity become passivity, and when does passivity become Quietism? There have been differences of opinion over where to draw the line. The authorities win in the textbooks, but the mystics have often won the battle for popular influence.
- Leon Podles, The Church Impotent
Christianity has always been battling against fleshy corruption
but its most dangerous enemies have been ascetic. A whore is easily identified as a whore but a hyper-pious “Christian” is less likely identified as a Buddhist. Therein lays the danger. Error can spread throughout the faith cloaked in an apparent piety which it makes it difficult to diagnose and purge.
Value the world too much and the religion becomes carnal and degenerate, value the spirit too much and it becomes abstract, platonic and self-destructive. Purity and reform movements, in reaction, are particularly prone to embracing an ascetic ideal which pushes too hard, and re-evaluates, in the negative, human nature and the created world. Wash dirty clothes and they become clean but wash them too much they become bleached. The aim is to wash the sin away from man and not bleach human nature.
Since everyone imagines the Devil as a libertine, no one imagines him as a Puritan - and that’s how error creeps in. Men who fast, spend hours in prayer and deny themselves pleasures are instinctively felt to be holy men, but holiness is living rightly in the eyes of God and not trying to outdo Christ in suffering and denial. There is such a thing as wrong kind of purity and these men who have been Christianity’s most dangerous opponents. In the early days of Christianity it was the Manichean philosophy that expressed this sentiment but it is a philosophy that resurfaces at different times and in different forms.
What keeps the heresies resurfacing is the reapplication of the wrong kind of purity. A purity that sees man, his pleasures and the created order as inherently wicked.
And so it was in the thirteenth century, when the obvious danger outside was in the revolution of the Albigensians; but the potential danger inside was in the very traditionalism of the Augustinians. For the Augustinians derived only from Augustine, and Augustine derived partly from Plato, and Plato was right, but not quite right. It is a mathematical fact that if a line be not perfectly directed towards a point, it will actually go further away from it as it comes nearer to it. After a thousand years of extension, the miscalculation of Platonism had come very near to, a rebirth of Manicheanism. [emphasis added]
- G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas
Christianity has always had its crypto Buddhists but they have been checked through a variety of mechanisms in history. However modernity has caused a crisis within the Christian faith and in the effort to combat modernity, these men have assumed dominance. As mentioned before contemporary times the Buddhist approach to Christianity is strongest in some of the
neo-Orthodox reactionary movements against Liberalism, in the type of people we think as “conservative”.
As my interest is in Catholic theology, Hans Uhrs von Balthasar stands out as a exemplary representative of neo-Buddhism. My knowledge of Protestant theologians is far more limited, but Karl Barth drifts along the same lines and there is a strong Protestant Kenotic theology of that arose in 19th Century Germany that echos the same themes. Both Barth and Balthasar are considered orthodox theologians and both were hugely influential in the 20th century Christianity. Balthasar particularly was lauded by John Paul the second and Benedict, popes considered orthodox. Both were exponents of kenotic theology and both drifted from the traditional Christian understanding of the subject.
Kenosis theology—or the theology of self-emptying—is based upon Phil 2:6-7 where Christ emptied himself of “something” to become man. Traditionally, the kenotic mechanism was felt to be related to the process of incarnation however later theologians have turned it into a central idea of modern Christianity whereby man emulates Christ, and through the process of “emptying” is humiliated - and yet, by being humble, lowly, small, poor and weak is lauded and gloried by God. Ergo since man is to walk following the footsteps of Christ he too should aim to be “emptied” in order to receive God’s approval.
The essential idea is that weakness, lack of assertion and debasement are pleasing to God and are the ideals of the Christian life. It’s very easy to see how this doctrine is closely related to the the doctrine of
Sunyata—self emptying—in Buddhism.
Remember, this is not being taught by the liberals but by the ‘conservative” Christians.
It’s then very easy to see how any form of assertion, strength, self-improvement or force would be seen negatively in this kenotic schema, and
it’s no surprise that traditional masculinity with its close association to the former attributes would be foreign to this line of thought. Many commentators have spoken of the apparent feminisation of Christianity but they have noted are the effects and not the cause, since what we’re are actually observing is the “Buddhisation” of Christianity resulting in the worship of God in an apparently feminine submissive mode. By its influence,
Christianity becomes a celebration of self-abasement, non-resistance and pathological altruism, where sensible actions to preserve the self and assert the truth of Christianity are seen negatively.
Suffering and poverty, with its link to self-emptying, become positively evaluated in this schema and thereby the joys of this life are seen as impediments to personal sanctification, a Christian version of
Dukkah. The glories of Christianity are glossed over but faults, perceived or imagined, are the focus of attention.
And finally, since distinction is essential to the notion of identity, Christian Buddhism loses value of particular in preference to the universal and is in fact hostile to any “clinging” to the particularities which confer distinction.
Instead of celebrating the differences between peoples, localities and nations it aims towards a universalisation and homogenisation.
Christian Buddhism also changes the relationship between God and man. The hostility with which Christian Buddhists evaluate man leads a hyper-evaluation of the identity of Christ with respect to man. Barth was repeatedly and credibly accused of Christomonism (Christ is everything). Christ becomes everything and man nothing and instead of being related to each other as friends, as spoken by the mouth of God in scripture, man’s relationship to Christ is recast as one between master and submissive which has a close analogy to erotic love. Men start to worship God like a woman instead of worshipping like men. What I mean by this is that as men, under the Buddhist schema we don’t worship God as men of honour, where our worship of God is a duty. Instead we worship God as an emotional experience. Once again Christianity becomes apparently feminised.
As I see it, the drift to Christian Buddhism is due to a multitude of influential factors. Much like pacifism, Christian buddhism relies on turning a blind eye or “explaining away” problematic scriptural texts which don’t conform to innate cognitive biases and sentiments. For some strange reason men are more easily disgusted by debauchery and excess rather than by life denying asceticism and pain.
And yet both sin.
Recognising the phenomenon of Christian Buddhism helps us understand the collapse of the faith in the West. Men pay lip service to the notion of Grace but no man comes to God except by it. It’s easy to see how God could be disgusted with Liberals and withdraw His Grace from them, but what’s harder to recognise, and what I increasingly think is fact, is that God may not be too pleased with the new “Christian” Conservatives with their crypto-Buddhist theology, as is withdrawing Grace from their flocks. As I see it, I see it Christianity is caught in death grip between Leftward and Rightward versions of error.
The task before us is not how to “remasculinise” the Church but how to “de-Buddhist” it. With God’s approval his Grace will lead men back to it, no matter what barriers are put forth. How this plays out not one knows but Christ promised us that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Kingdom.
I live in Hope.
I believe in the Word.
This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
You're currently a free subscriber to
Aaron Renn. For the full experience,
upgrade your subscription.
Upgrade to paid
© 2024 Urbanophile, LLC
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
