I will admit right up front that I know very little about Buddhism. It's kind of a shame, really, that I don't know enough to even be conversant with the basic beliefs on one of the world's largest religions. Maybe it's because, being a "fat kid" most of my life, I got tired of people rubbing my belly for good luck.
But I read today on Stand Firm that the only candidate for Bishop in the Diocese of Northern Michigan is the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, who has received "lay ordination" by a Zen Buddhist group, and, according to the Diocesan newsletter, "walks the path of Buddhism and Christianity together." Given the many weird paths the Episcopal Church has taken in recent years, many of which have nothing to do with homosexuality, perhaps this is but the latest variation being offered on the smorgasboard that is Episcopalian theology.
I don't see this as egregious as the priest who declared herself both a Muslim and a Christian. In that instance, she was endorsing a religion that in practice denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, and in many instances around the world espouses the murder of Christians as virtually a holy act. Buddhism, to my knowledge, does not promote murder of non-believers as an evangelical act.
As I did some research on Buddhism, I found that some theologians question whether it is a religion at all, in large part because it is non-theistic, i.e., Buddhists do not believe in divine Gods. Some would say it is a philosophy, not a religion. Buddhists apparently believe that Gods are not necessary to reaching a state of enlightenment. So, a true Buddhist would not believe in God, or Jesus as a divine being.
A "Buddha" is a teacher who has reached a state of enlightenment, which I believe is a state of existence where one accepts that life is generally about suffering caused by worldly things, and enlightenment is not only accepting that, but understanding it and avoiding suffering by eliminating dependence on worldly things. Oversimplified, I know, but we have to start somewhere.
Moving on, Buddhists are not much on a set of defined beliefs. Merely believing in doctrines is beside the point to a Buddhist. The original Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who lived approximately 400 years before Christ, taught his followers that they should not accept doctrines just because we read them in scripture or are taught them by priests. Instead of teaching doctrines to be memorized and believed, Buddha taught his followers to realize truth for themselves. The focus of Buddhism is thus on practice rather than belief.
Unlike modern Episcopalianism, however, Buddhism is not whatever you want it to be. It might best be understood as a discipline, a way of preceiving life and navigating one's way through it. Buddhism in practice is also an exacting discipline of thought, study, and discussion. The point is not to just "believe in" the teachings, but to explore them, understand them, and test them against one's own experience. It is the process of exploring, understanding, testing and realizing that is Buddhism.
The analysis gets way more complex than that, particularly given the two schools of teaching in Buddhism, and the respective principles they follow. But given these few very simplistic points, I think we can begin to see the problem not only with a Christian priest who claims to be a Buddhist, but particularly with this priest on the verge of being seated in the ecclesiastical body that allegedly governs a Christian denomination.
Christians are supposed to believe in God, in the divinity of His Son, Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that provides us with a way we as Christians should try to live our lives. A practicing Buddhist does not believe in Gods or divine beings; does not believe in a "heaven", but a state of existence called "Nirvana", and believes in reincarnation; and does not believe in doctrines or theology in the sense Christians are supposed to. Seems pretty inconsistent right up front, doesn't it?
Of course, Episcopalianism as it presently exists in this country, i.e., in the form of TEO as declaimed by the High Priestess, apparently also does not believe in a lot of that that basic Christian stuff I mentioned before. Buddhism also has a principle called "the Middle Way", which in description sounds a lot like the "Via Media" many Episcopalians used to tout, before lawsuits and improper depositions of clergy became all the rage, that is.
So, in trying to perform an objective analysis, I do not believe one can honestly proclaim one's self to be both a Christian and a Buddhist. The two are structurally and internally inconsistent. I'm not quite so certain if one is, on the other hand, trying to proclaim one's self an Episcopalian and a Buddhist. The lines of distinction are not quite so clear as we might think on the surface. As ++Mouneer Anis said last September, whatever is being practiced by TEO is not a religion he recognizes.
The fact that this is even a possibility, that an avowed Zen Buddhist who has undergone lay ordination in that faith/philosophy would be considered to serve as a Bishop, is simply more evidence of how far down the drain TEO has gone. The church is nationally the punch line to so many jokes it boggles the mind. Paganism; Druids; Wiccans; Sufi whirling; labyrinths; Hindu services; priests declaring themselves Muslim and Christian, and now Buddhist and Christian, all in the ranks of the clergy, my friends, not just a few whack-job parishioners. And BISHOPS have endorsed so very much of this lunacy: The Bishop in the Diocese in which the Muslim/Christian priest was living thought it was "exciting", and now the Buddhist/Christian may himself become a Bishop, with the endorsement of his predecessor.
To be clear, I'm in no way critical of Buddhism or denigrating the practice or its beliefs. Just the tiny bit of research I did revealed many useful principles and philosophical ideas. It certainly seems to be a philosophy or religion of discipline, enlightenment, and peace. What I do take issue with are people, especially those who hold themselves out as clergy for a given faith or belief system, trying to straddle the fence. Trying to appear enlightened and ecumenical really only reveals a lack of dedication to either system of principles.
Do you ever wonder why people snigger behind their hand when you tell them you are, or were, an Episcopalian? It's not just "Look-at-Me" Gene, although he gets a lot of the "credit." The progression of lunacy, coupled with the primary theology becoming daily an even greater departure from traditional Christianity, is why the annual membership, ASA, and plate/pledge numbers are in inexorable decline.
In other words, Episcopalianism as an allegedly "Christian" denomination is leaking credibility, very quickly. Instead of re-arranging the deck chairs on the TEO Titanic, JUMP. NOW. While you still can. Please. We'll be waiting for you.
That was a very good essay. I had missed it earlier.
Posted by: robroy | February 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM