Christian Buddhism?
Is the Western Church really suffering from an ascetic overdose?
I do not normally get involved in intra-Protestant ideological squabbles because I think they’re a pointless distraction that can’t be solved.
However… there’s a first time for everything.
recently had a guest poster that claimed the Western Church (both Catholic and Protestant) was so obsessed with theological errors from the liberals that they were ignoring a problem from the conservative side: the introduction of Buddhist ideas into Christianity.
As I’ve said here before, I know something about Buddhism. I’ve never practiced it seriously, but I did study its tenants and meditation techniques for a year or so. So my first thought on reading this article was “what are you smoking?”
Christianity:
created order good,
sin corrupted nature,
salvation through theosis,
supreme law: love
Buddhism:
created order bad,
pain is part of nature,
salvation through emptiness,
supreme law: detachment
Buddhism is about giving up your attachments to the world: becoming ascetic. The Western Church certainly doesn’t suffer from too much ascetism. As my pastor at Calvary Chapel used to say (facetiously): “Covetousness? That’s not a sin. That’s the mall.”
"Men can easily recognize the moral evil of debauchery and worldliness, not many see the danger of an ascetic puritanism."
If we had a bunch of people unable to work because they beat themselves with whips for 3 hours a day, perhaps. But we don't.
"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."
Considering Aaron’s focus on masculinity — his first substack was named “the masculinist” after all — I can see why this concept resonates him. The Western Church has a serious problem with weak, spineless men. Where are our leaders? Where are our holy warriors? But we're not losing them to ascetism and self-denial. We’re losing them to hedonism.
However, church leaders who could properly channel masculine creative power would have something productive to pull those men away from video games and porn. As Camille Paglia says in Sex Art and American Culture (paraphrasing): “Men will do almost anything for a beautiful woman: build monuments or fight wars. Male sexual energy is the single most creative (and potentially destructive) force in the universe.” Western churches are failing to direct this properly.
The concept of self-emptying isn’t exclusively Buddhist though. As the forerunner John the Baptist says, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” What is that if not the diminishment of self? If I’m preoccupied with my own concerns, there’s no room for the Holy Spirit in me.
Aaron released a second article today:
This is more specific, and I have to say I find it more convincing.
I first encountered the idea of ordinary human desires and feelings being viewed as sinful while watching a sermon from Seattle’s Mars Hill Church circa 2012. It was some type of special service that included a video of a mother describing the tragic death of her child from a medical condition. This woman talked about how angry she had been about her child’s death, about not being able to see him grow up, etc.
Then she said that she had to repent of her anger, because Jesus had decided that her child would die, and her anger was sinful because it rejected God’s sovereign decision over her child’s death.
I found this stunning even when I originally watched it. In what universe could being deeply upset about your child’s death be sinful?
…
In these definitions, the de facto definition of idolatry is wanting anything so much that, if you don’t get it, you are very upset. Hence, the path to avoiding sin and idolatry, the way to please God, is to purge oneself of desires. This is Buddhism.
Undoubtedly it would be possible for someone to be engaged in idolatry in some of these cases. But there are a lot of things in this world you should be upset about.
Do read the whole article, because I think Aaron is (once again) onto something here.
Evangelicalism can’t handle righteous anger. Anger is essentially always seen as a negative. If you point out that Christ himself got angry on multiple occasions, the standard response from the pulpit will be, “if you’re God, you can turn over the moneychanging tables in anger, but us mere mortals have to resist that drive.” Like Aaron, I’ve never found that convincing. It’s a denial of a core male quality, a surrender to the modern feminist concept of masculinity being universally toxic.
While watching the news last night (yeah, I’m an old fogey, I still do that) there was a local news story about a Subway Sandwich manager who was attacked by a customer.
Almost instantly after attacking the female manager, the 6’-5”, 300+ lb customer was set upon by two other men, one worker and one fellow customer. The guy who jumps on his back first is literally hanging on; he can’t even reach the ground while he’s wailing on the bad guy. The only thing that allows men to do that is righteous anger. Not some doctrine of protecting the weak. Not some theology of holiness. Righteous anger. And a church too afraid of anger to acknowledge that is doing something wrong. It’s a matter of not knowing what time it is. If your congregation is a bunch of angry, rageful men who beat their wives and start bar fights for fun, some sermons on the sin of anger are in order. But I don’t think that’s a serious problem in most 21st century Evangelical churches.
So I’m now torn, which is why I’m writing this post. I hope y’all here will read both the articles (they are not paywalled). If you feel like commenting, you can do it here if you’re not subscribers to Aaron’s substack (although I hope you will, because he has something meaningful to say and says it well.) If you’re unfamiliar with Aaron’s 3 World of Evangelicalism thesis, it’s extremely important for understanding the challenges the church faces going forward.
I am glad you addressed this. The proper role of masculinity in current Christianity remains an issue. I don't know if it Buddhism or feminism or something else that has corrupted the church. It just may be the general weakness of society that has crept into the church.
Christ is our example. He was not always nice. Instead he called out the corrupt elements in Jewish society. He was bold, not timid. He acted with anger, as needed.
On the Orthodox side, monastics strive toward dispassion, some of which involves detachment, but also seems to include an impartiality to worldly squabbles and the like. However, in regarding creation as good, there should always remain a type of wonder there.
"To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven..." A few weeks ago, a young woman who is a recent convert to Orthodoxy invited me to share my comments about an article she wrote discussing how something... it might have been anger... is always a sin. My comment to that was that we have to be extremely careful about anger, but there certainly are times when one almost needs that anger to spur one into action, especially in righting wrongs. That, I think, tends to be a more masculine thing.
As for masculinity in Christianity, with the two videos recently of people attacking or attempting to attack church leaders during service, it is remarkable how both were lucky to have men in the congregation who, despite the danger, ran up to disable the threat.