Ads


Freedom from Religion

“In Buddhism no creator,” says the Dalai Lama during a public conversation with Archbishop Desmond Tutu recounted in The Wisdom of Compassion: Stories of Remarkable Encounters and Timeless Insights by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Victor Chan, recently abridged and published by the Huffington Post.

R.R. RenoIt typifies the contributions the spiritual leader of Tibet makes, all of which raise questions. That’s not surprising, because Buddhism runs on negations. We’re to take the path of renunciation in order to free ourselves from binding illusions: renounce the illusions of selfhood, renounce the comfortable assurances of conventional wisdom, even renounce God. Even Buddhism needs to be questioned. “There are godly religions and there are godless religions. Who decides who is right?” asks the spiritual leader of Tibet.

By contrast, Christianity puts an emphasis on affirmation: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.” Faith involves drawing close in warm commitment. In Buddhism, paradox evacuates to the point of emptying. We cannot find enlightenment unless we turn away from the self that seeks it. The Christian paradox of the God become man fills us up to the point of bursting.

That’s why Christianity is a religion of creeds and orthodoxies. We’re run down by God, as it were, and taken captive. Archbishop Tutu says as much in some of his contributions to the conversation. Even though we misuse our freedom, the slightest turn toward goodness incites a divine stampede toward us. “God forgets about God’s divine dignity and he rushes and embraces you. ‘You came back, you came back. I love you. Oh how wonderful, you came back.’”

But Tutu knows how to compliment and seduce his listeners. He’s able to weave the struggle against apartheid and gay liberation into a tapestry of negations and affirmations that is typical of modern and liberal Christianity. “The God that I worship is almighty, and also incredibly weak.” He weeps over human sinfulness, and yet embraces us with His love. He permits religious pluralism, permits evils done in his name; nevertheless, Tutu gives a ringing endorsement of divine sovereignty. “I would not have survived without the faith of knowing that this is God’s world and that God is in charge.” Then he tacks again. “Of course, sometimes, you want to whisper in God’s ear, ‘God, for goodness sake, we know that you are in charge, but why don’t you make this more obvious?’”

It’s a virtuoso performance. We want to believe something. Moral truth and maybe God, or perhaps a higher power. But we’ve grown weary of the divine embrace. We don’t want to be chased down, tackled, and taken prisoner by metaphysical realities. Jesus accosted fisherman, telling them, “Come, follow me.” What was once a heroic dream in the West—to come under the command of the King of Kings!—now seems a nightmare of oppression. I’d rather just live my own life, thank you.

For the most part intellectual techniques of critique help us break free. Elaine Pagels specializes in books that call orthodoxies into question. Why privilege the New Testament over the suppressed and supposedly heretical Gnostic gospels? When it comes to God, Pagels is pretty sure that the bishops and theologians of the church have misunderstood Her.

Buddhism often plays the same role in the Western imagination. The Dalai Lama’s negations make him a lead blocker, opening up a wide hole for Archbishop Tutu to run through. God respects our autonomy, the Christian leader says; God regrets our misrepresentations of his teachings. “God is not a Christian,” he announces, “God allows us to misunderstand her.” The audience in Vancouver erupts with applause.

The Dalai Lama is a very astute and capable politician who has done a masterly job of securing support for Tibet in its ongoing struggle against Chinese domination. I suspect he’s sometimes cynical in his spiritual pronouncements. He must know that the applause does not indicate appreciation or even understanding of Buddhism. Its negations are meant to humiliate and overcome what we so dearly love, which is our self. That’s never something that brings applause.

“God allows us to misunderstand her.” Who’s to say which religion is true? Isn’t God too big for any one religion? These and other negations make Church, sacraments, Scripture seem less certain, less reliable, less authoritative. We don’t experience this as unpleasant or disorienting. On the contrary, it’s a delicious doubt. We want “organized religion,” which in the West means Christianity, to loosen its grip over culture, politics—and our souls. For our goal is neither enlightenment nor salvation, but instead to live by our own lights and on our own terms.

And so our age applauds the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, and other adepts of negation and critique. God without priests. Churches without authority. Faiths that are optional. It’s wonderfully liberating. The divine can’t get his hands on us anymore! Now we can be spiritual without being religious. It’s the luxury good human beings have always wanted: bespoke worship, idols made to spec.

R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.


RESOURCES

God Is Not a Christian: Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama’s Extraordinary Talk on God and Religion,” Huffington Post

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

1.28.2013 | 3:39am
Andrzej says:
For our goal is... convenience
1.28.2013 | 4:18am
quondiloquor says:
God would be too big for any man-made religion, but presumably not too big for the one He revealed. Then He provides the means to this end, which would be impossibly remote and "too big" for us otherwise.
1.28.2013 | 5:01am
David Huston says:
Aaaah yes...the postmodern self-created, yet contingently existing "curious accident in a backwater" finite god-man, aka Homo sapiens - fideistically, but still "epiphenomenally" believed to have been almost miraculously? fashioned from mindless/unintelligent matter & energy in unguided purposeless billiard-ball-motion - somehow finds "itself" morally pontificating on the issue of the perceived immoral? failings, of that so-called necessarily existing, transcendent/immanent personal, omniscient, infinitely loving Creator God...whose personal pronouns in the Judeo-Scriptures are consistenty revealed as being masculine in nature BTW???

Just one question though: To what authoritative source would these erudite religious thinkers ascribe, or "ground," their personally normative? binding proclamations? G-d have mercy on us!
1.28.2013 | 6:39am
Reader John says:
"Christianity puts an emphasis on affirmation ... Christianity is a religion of creeds and orthodoxies"? Maybe Western Christianity tends to be, but Orthodoxy insists on negation as well.
There is a negation that is not destructive, does not "make Church, sacraments, Scripture seem less certain, less reliable, less authoritative." Instead, it vaccinates us against making idols and ideologies of Creeds that were formulated more to repudiate heresy than to distill the faith into a compact set of propositions.
1.28.2013 | 9:11am
David Huston says:
I find it difficult to reconcile the obvious contradictions in the intellectual/rational/logical discourse of brilliant thinkers, such as Mr. Hazony et al. who, on the one hand, reject the still compelling 21st-century scientific inference, or implication, that an ultimate "Mind" unsettlingly seems to represent "reality," or "the way things really are" throughout this universe (e.g., the rational intelligibility of the universe, or, just "why is mathematics the language of nature?"); then posit, in its place, the utter mindless and/or unintelligent, and wholly irrational concept of inanimate matter/energy in chaotic motion, as somehow representing a far more likely scenario for the quantum reality in current mind-brain studies (see the work of orthodox mind-brain quantum physicist, Dr. Henry Stapp, for one) which explains the inextricable existence of the objective & subjective informational realities - of nature itself?
1.28.2013 | 1:39pm
I suppose someone has to sound a note of cautionary dissent. The logic of Christianity, too, operates with a series of negations--or, if you prefer, negations of negations. Christ dies in order to conquer death. No need to embrace the Hegelian dialectical movement to in order to affirm this pattern.

So I have to wonder whether saying the paradox of Christ operates exclusively in an affirmative mode. Indeed, the Gospels seems to subvert the sort of simplistic contrasts between negation and affirmation of a set of ideas. For the Logos of God takes on human nature, not merely as an idea, but also in the flesh. And if that's not also a negation, a warning against setting up idols in the mind, then I am sorry to have misunderstood.
1.28.2013 | 1:40pm
arty says:
David Hart made the following closely related observations, a few years ago:

"We select the standards or values we find appealing from a larger market of moral options and then try to arrange them into some sort of tasteful harmony. As for our religion, much the same may be said: few of us really feel that the creeds we espouse are more important in giving shape to our ethical predispositions than are our own judgments. We certainly, at any rate, do not draw near to the 'mystery of God' with anything like the fear and trembling of our ancestors, and when we tire of our devotions and drift away we do not expect to be pursued, either by the furies or by the hounds of conscience.
This is especially obvious at modern Western religion's pastel-tinged margins, in those realms of the New Age where the gods of the boutique hold uncontested sway. Here one may cultivate a private atmosphere of 'spirituality' as undemanding and therapeutically comforting as one likes simply by purchasing a dream catcher, a few pretty crystals, some books on the goddess, a Tibetan prayer wheel, a volume of Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung or Robert Graves, a Nataraja figurine, a purse of tiles engraved with runes, a scattering of Pre-Raphaelite prints drenched in Celtic twilight, an Andean flute, and so forth, until this mounting congeries of string, worthless quartz, cheap joss sticks, baked clay, kitsch, borrowed iconography, and fraudulent scholarship reaches that mysterious point of saturation at which religion has become indistinguishable from interior decorating. Then one may either abandon one's gods for something new, or abide with them for a time, but in either case without any real reverence, love, or dread. There could scarcely be a more thoroughly modern form of religion than this."
1.28.2013 | 2:01pm
JERD says:
The end result of all this: If God can be anything, then God is nothing. And if God is nothing, then God doesn't exist. Welcome to the new atheism.
1.28.2013 | 2:29pm
Don Roberto says:
More wise words from Professor Reno. Perhaps the young (and those who remain "young," in the wrong ways, long enough to reach senility) can be satisfied by beliefs that have no consequences, that allow them to do their own thing, to excercise their own will, unrestrained, rather than to submit to God’s divine will. Toys (e.g., the latest video game or car or power tool), experiences (e.g., travel, movies, food, depraved physical pleasures), and all the marvels of creation can be turned into idols. But those who really seek true fulfillment will not find it in this life—only the promise of it in the next.

Lead, Kindly Light, amidst th'encircling gloom | Lead Thou me on! | The night is dark| and I am far from home| Lead Thou me on! | Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me. | I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on; I loved to choose and see my path; but now lead Thou me on! | I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years! | So long Thy power hath blest me| sure it still will lead me on. O’er moor and fen| o’er crag and torrent| till the night is gone| And with the morn those angel faces smile| which I Have loved long since, and lost awhile! | Meantime, along the narrow rugged path| Thyself hast trod| Lead, Savior, lead me home in childlike faith| home to my God. To rest forever after earthly strife | In the calm light of everlasting life.

—Cardinal Newman
1.28.2013 | 5:36pm
Seems to me nothing ever changes: “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
1.28.2013 | 7:36pm
David Huston says:
@JERD: Perhaps the proponents of "... new atheism" have a far-more compelling argument, which satisfactorily addresses the still valid conundrum, found in the famous "why is there something, rather than nothing" query? Do "they" actually posit, or refer, to the existence of NOthing, in order to account for the existence of ALL apparently self-created things, seeing as though it's believed that the four-fundamental laws of physics literally "break down prior to, or at," Genesis 1:1?

That would certainly represent, if successful of course, a feat of Herculean proportions in self-refuting philosophical gymnastics, not to mention "pretzel logic." I wholeheartedly welcome all those new atheist's, to the still philosophically and/or scientifically compelling "inference to the best explanation," (or IBE) - namely, "In the beginning God..." May the Holy Spirit of the "True and Living God," perform that marvelous act of self-disclosure to not only you, but "whosoever will"...new atheist's included!
1.28.2013 | 9:29pm
Pauline says:
“The God that I worship is almighty, and also incredibly weak. He weeps over human sinfulness, and yet embraces us with His love. He permits religious pluralism, permits evils done in his name"
Ah yes....one can attribute any quality one likes. Sounds like this god is a god of one's own creation.
1.29.2013 | 12:14am
Expat Reader says:
I think Reno's essay would have had more clarity and impact, for instance, his comments on negation versus affirmation, as well as that minefield of a paragraph that lands before the finale, if he had at least summarized the comments made in the original source at the beginning.
1.29.2013 | 2:32am
Rick says:
I believe Mr. Reno would benefit from a more comprehensive exploration of Buddhism, as well as a few other disciplines. It you want vague, permissive Christianity, turn to the Unitarians. If you want a heirarchical, uncompromisingly docrinaire Christianity, visit a Catholic mass. If you want vague, indecisive Buddhism, you could visit the temple I went to in Palo Alto where the priest declared that Buddhism does not want to "put down the thumb" (put its foot down) by declaring any immutable doctrines. "Buddhism," he said, "is a wishy-washy religion." However, if you want militant, authoritarian Buddhism, you can join Soka Gakkai, the aggressive, highly politicized brand of Japanese Buddhism. You will attend every meeting and participate in every proselytizing effort, or your local unit honcho will know the reason why! In fact, mainstream Buddhism doesn't tolerate self-indulgence or weakness from its followers, and the Buddhist monastic tradition has a great deal in common with the Christian monastic tradition. Ask Thomas Merton.

It's always a veritable mine field to try to caricature any great faith, but the role Desmont Tutu plays in this rather confused essay is particularly opaque. First, he is a counterweight to the abstract negations of Buddhism. If we take one step towards God, he (or she, if you wish--God is certainly above human gender distinctions) runs joyfully a hundred steps towards us. (Yes, that was exactly my own personal experience, by the way.) Tutu celebrates God's sovereignty. This is his world, and he is in charge. So, God has ultimate authority over humans. Still, he permits us our weakness and evil. (How else to account for the evils and darkness in this world?) And, above all, Tutu does this with African panache, emotionalism, and enthusiasm. I can easily recognize that from my years attending church services (Catholic, pentacostal, etc.) in West and Central Africa.

So, at first Tutu seems to be cast in the role of a positive counterweight to the remote negativism of Buddhism. But no! By the end of the essay, he is a co-agent of the Dalai Lama, promoting a godless cosmic vacuum in which humans may feel free to indulge their every whim and weakness. He is an "adept of negation," even though the preceding quotes were monumentally positive. Reno, I suspect, sees Tutu's statements of rhapsodic devotion to the authority, glory and parental love of God as somehow a threat to the Church heirarchy. THAT is the "negativism" he seems to be homing in on. But he never explains why it should be a threat.

If I got this essay from one of my freshman English students, I'd give it back to him with instructions to make his case against Tutu more coherent and consistent.
1.29.2013 | 9:47am
N.D. says:
One can be spiritual and religious, personally or in communion, and still it is not enough if one is not in communion with and worshipping The True God, The God of our Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, and sin no more.

"No one comes to The Father except through Me." - Jesus The Christ, The Only Son of God, The Word of God Made Flesh, The Way, The Truth, The Life ( Light) of Love.
1.29.2013 | 11:04am
Grits Burgh says:
In the Book of John Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness." That doesn't exactly sound like a cosmic vacuum to me. "The fear of the Lord is the beginnig of wisdom." "These things are written that you may believe." God is truth. Of course, this type of belief is offensive to nihilists who doubt everything in God's revealed word. However in the midst of their doubts they are cocksure that God is a she; homosexuality is moral and all religions are equally valid. In spite of all of the professed open mindedness and the ostensible reflection, nihilists have beliefs that are very dogmatic. They see myster in everything but their own conceits. But the greatest mystery is that they can be so sure of themselves, but so skeptical of everything else.
1.30.2013 | 4:26pm
Speaking as a Buddhist, this essay and it's comments once again remind me forcefully that the difference between Buddhism and Christianity has to do with asking the relevant questions rather than offering the Right Answers. The Christian "answers" are largely beside the point, even if they are right. They do not tell you what to do about the continuing and interminable cycle of birth, sickness, old age, and death. Whatever God may or may not be and does or does not think, still leaves us with the same problems that our constantly in our lap: we don't get what we want, we do get what we don't want, when we get what we want we cannot keep it, and, once there is no more "wanting" to be satisfied, what we get wasn't worth the effort. Buddhism neither negates nor affirms, it teaches you how to be in the present, and what to do about it.
1.30.2013 | 5:38pm
Don ROberto says:
We believe Christiany offers Truth, Joseph; and we are *clearly* told what to do—in sickness, old age, and death—we are to follow the example of our Lord.
1.31.2013 | 4:29am
David Huston says:
@Joseph Marshall: I just thought it might be a bit more helpful, or illuminating, to emphasize the critical distinction between not only the beliefs of orthodox historical Judeo-Christianity, with the non-theistic tenets of Buddhism in general, but also, that which distinguishes the Judeo-Christian teachings from the entire constellation of historical "man-made" religious systems-of-belief: The Judeo-Christian Bible has, for its "origin," a Divinely-initiated body of communication, or "revelation," due to the Creator's unilateral activity of "Self-disclosure" in communicating with His specially-created spirit-creatures Homo sapiens, throughout redemptive history - from Genesis to Revelation.

Or, stated another way: the Judeo-Christian tradition is quintessentially a G-d ordained & G-d centered, thus ultimately and authoritatively delivered system of absolutely "good" moral principles for our collective lives, naturally "grounded" in the ONLY GOOD Creator of ALL things Himself; and as such, are "absolutely" binding upon "all people, in all places, at all times." This would also include, revealing the entrance of original evil and/or sin into the created order, mankind himself, and the ultimate "eradication" of such, in the pristine, untainted - "new heavens and new earth." (i.e., Isaiah 51:6,16; 54:10; 65:17; 66:22; Matthew 24:35; 2Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 21:1-8.)

This is why, as distinguished scholars have noted, the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures reveal the many variations of "thus says the LORD," or "the Word of G-d came unto..." such-and-such prophet, approaching some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible alone, and about 40-times in the NT - clearly indicating that the Spirit of G-d had spoken His message, THROUGH His human writers (aka Divine "inspiration") - TO His human creatures. This critical distinction, so often overlooked, or ignored, by so many curiously autonomous (yet contingently-existing?) postmodern naysayer's throughout the non-believing/agnostic West - simply can't be emphasized enough!

(Please see for additional clarity the following few examples in Scripture: Numbers 11:16-17; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; 2Chronicles 36:15-21; Nehemiah 9:20, 30; Proverbs 30:5-6; Jeremiah chap. 36; Daniel 9:3-19, esp. vv 6 & 10; Zechariah 7:11-12; NT Gospel of John 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-3; 1Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:16-21, esp. vv 20 & 21; and finally, Revelation 22:18-19.)
2.2.2013 | 10:00am
Doris Goheen says:
The perfect faith for the self-made man (or woman) who worships his or her own creation.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact