East vs. West
In response to this and this, I wrote this:
Enjoy!
---
Dear all,
Forgive me for not being able to understand some of the recent postings on this forum. It was said that Christianity had been "hijacked" by the West, by what I gather were Western "imperialists" (at least one person found it "nauseating"). Perhaps this is true. I do however have at least two concerns with the recent posts in the "Foreign Christian Terrorism..." thread. First, I am unclear as to what is defined as "Western" as opposed to "Eastern" Christianity and philosophy. From what I can ascertain, "Western" equals European white men, and "Eastern" is read as pretty much everyone else. Secondly, I don’t believe the solution to a perceived Western hijacking of Christianity is a reciprocal Eastern Christian ethnocentrism. "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Corinth. 1:23-24). If there is indeed a true, un-corrupted Church, then it is not "ours" but Christ’s. All the philosophizing sophistry in the world, be it Eastern or Western, can not obscure Christ’s death on the Cross. Whether we are Indians or Americans, we must confront, painfully if it must be, that God became Himself a participant in our human history, took himself a particular mother to be born of, and a particular people to be born into, none of which are our own. We are not Hebrews; the Law and the Prophets did not come from within our tradition. Nonetheless we are "grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree [i.e. the Church]" (Romans 11:24).
When speaking of the "Western Tradition," exactly which Western tradition are we speaking of? There is a distinct Latin Christian tradition, some of which is in continuity with our own Faith. There is Northern European Lutheranism, Scottish Presbyterianism, British High and Low Church Anglicanism, Puritanism, and a slew of other "Western" Christianities. Conversely, what does it mean to be "Eastern?" For example, there is a Syriac Christianity, which can be sub-divided into Assyrian East Syrian, and Antiochian West Syrian. Both of these traditions, which can very well be both true and Orthodox expressions of the Faith, nevertheless different from the Byzantine, or Ethiopian expression of Orthodox Faith and doctrine. Within the Orthodox context, we can say that though these groupings (arbitrary?), all "Eastern," may be different as far as language and expression, yet equally capable of expressing the same fundamental Truth. Apart from Christianity, "Eastern," can encompass 3 billion people and countless religions and philosophies within it. It is easy to deny that complexity exists within systems we’d rather just genericize according to our preconceptions.
It was suggested also that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism were indeed more Christian than modern Christianity. I would like to humbly submit though, that Christianity is, or was founded to be, more than just a morality or value system. Even before Christ, philosophers were speculating on how to be good and righteous people. In fact, inasmuch as they teach civility and moral uprightness, most religions can be characterized as more or less the same as one another. Christ though, and true Christianity, is something quite different. Christ offers unto mankind through His suffering on the Cross and triumph over death, a complete recapitulation of what man was intended to be as ordained by a very real and non-theoretical God. Christianity does not simply offer philosophies or behavior systems, but sacramentally the means to partake in the person of Christ. Therefore, while I’m sure Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism teach some extremely virtuous and noble ideals, Christianity is not strictly the pursuit of virtues. Rather obviously, there is no real Christianity without Christ.
Moreover, I do not quite understand this desperation to impose, or superimpose, a particular "Indian-ness" or "Eastern-ness" upon Christianity. I do not presume to be an expert on Hinduism or East Asian Religions. A very thorough explanation of a sort of Hindu Trinitarian doctrine was offered, as well as intimations of the Buddhist influence on Christ. These are very dangerous waters to swim in. Through revelation, as written in the Scriptures, God shows us what He is. That is to say, we have been specially instructed that God is loving, merciful, and so on. Outside of revelation, by way of reason, we can only say what God is not, thus un-dying (immortal), unchanging, unerring, indefinable, immeasurable, etc. Thus I will not concede that one religion’s dogmatic formulae on God are the same as ours without the most careful of consideration. "By Divine inspiration Philosophers sometimes hit upon the Truth...the poets also bear testimony" (2nd Apology of St. Justin Martyr). I will thus not exclude that parallels exist, or even that our doctrine can be expressed in authentically Christianized Hindu terminology, though perhaps I do not see a ministerial purpose as yet. What’s most important for us at this juncture, is to accept Jesus as He is, the Jew who lived "in the days of Pontius Pilate," in a historical, cultural context undeniably distinct from our own. We do not acculturate Him into our systems as much as He transfigures us.
Forgive me for the length of this letter, as well as for my inability to exhaustively address every issue I had intended to. Whatever wrongs are committed by Christians, even in the name of Christ, should not be an indictment on Christ Himself. Nor are we, the Christians released from our duty to take up the Cross and follow Him, and, perhaps even more scandalously, to "make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:19). In doing so, I feel perhaps we may be able to reconcile our secondary affinities to culture and ethnicity with what should be our primary focus and grounding, which is Christ.
Steven Kurian
Enjoy!
---
Dear all,
Forgive me for not being able to understand some of the recent postings on this forum. It was said that Christianity had been "hijacked" by the West, by what I gather were Western "imperialists" (at least one person found it "nauseating"). Perhaps this is true. I do however have at least two concerns with the recent posts in the "Foreign Christian Terrorism..." thread. First, I am unclear as to what is defined as "Western" as opposed to "Eastern" Christianity and philosophy. From what I can ascertain, "Western" equals European white men, and "Eastern" is read as pretty much everyone else. Secondly, I don’t believe the solution to a perceived Western hijacking of Christianity is a reciprocal Eastern Christian ethnocentrism. "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Corinth. 1:23-24). If there is indeed a true, un-corrupted Church, then it is not "ours" but Christ’s. All the philosophizing sophistry in the world, be it Eastern or Western, can not obscure Christ’s death on the Cross. Whether we are Indians or Americans, we must confront, painfully if it must be, that God became Himself a participant in our human history, took himself a particular mother to be born of, and a particular people to be born into, none of which are our own. We are not Hebrews; the Law and the Prophets did not come from within our tradition. Nonetheless we are "grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree [i.e. the Church]" (Romans 11:24).
When speaking of the "Western Tradition," exactly which Western tradition are we speaking of? There is a distinct Latin Christian tradition, some of which is in continuity with our own Faith. There is Northern European Lutheranism, Scottish Presbyterianism, British High and Low Church Anglicanism, Puritanism, and a slew of other "Western" Christianities. Conversely, what does it mean to be "Eastern?" For example, there is a Syriac Christianity, which can be sub-divided into Assyrian East Syrian, and Antiochian West Syrian. Both of these traditions, which can very well be both true and Orthodox expressions of the Faith, nevertheless different from the Byzantine, or Ethiopian expression of Orthodox Faith and doctrine. Within the Orthodox context, we can say that though these groupings (arbitrary?), all "Eastern," may be different as far as language and expression, yet equally capable of expressing the same fundamental Truth. Apart from Christianity, "Eastern," can encompass 3 billion people and countless religions and philosophies within it. It is easy to deny that complexity exists within systems we’d rather just genericize according to our preconceptions.
It was suggested also that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism were indeed more Christian than modern Christianity. I would like to humbly submit though, that Christianity is, or was founded to be, more than just a morality or value system. Even before Christ, philosophers were speculating on how to be good and righteous people. In fact, inasmuch as they teach civility and moral uprightness, most religions can be characterized as more or less the same as one another. Christ though, and true Christianity, is something quite different. Christ offers unto mankind through His suffering on the Cross and triumph over death, a complete recapitulation of what man was intended to be as ordained by a very real and non-theoretical God. Christianity does not simply offer philosophies or behavior systems, but sacramentally the means to partake in the person of Christ. Therefore, while I’m sure Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism teach some extremely virtuous and noble ideals, Christianity is not strictly the pursuit of virtues. Rather obviously, there is no real Christianity without Christ.
Moreover, I do not quite understand this desperation to impose, or superimpose, a particular "Indian-ness" or "Eastern-ness" upon Christianity. I do not presume to be an expert on Hinduism or East Asian Religions. A very thorough explanation of a sort of Hindu Trinitarian doctrine was offered, as well as intimations of the Buddhist influence on Christ. These are very dangerous waters to swim in. Through revelation, as written in the Scriptures, God shows us what He is. That is to say, we have been specially instructed that God is loving, merciful, and so on. Outside of revelation, by way of reason, we can only say what God is not, thus un-dying (immortal), unchanging, unerring, indefinable, immeasurable, etc. Thus I will not concede that one religion’s dogmatic formulae on God are the same as ours without the most careful of consideration. "By Divine inspiration Philosophers sometimes hit upon the Truth...the poets also bear testimony" (2nd Apology of St. Justin Martyr). I will thus not exclude that parallels exist, or even that our doctrine can be expressed in authentically Christianized Hindu terminology, though perhaps I do not see a ministerial purpose as yet. What’s most important for us at this juncture, is to accept Jesus as He is, the Jew who lived "in the days of Pontius Pilate," in a historical, cultural context undeniably distinct from our own. We do not acculturate Him into our systems as much as He transfigures us.
Forgive me for the length of this letter, as well as for my inability to exhaustively address every issue I had intended to. Whatever wrongs are committed by Christians, even in the name of Christ, should not be an indictment on Christ Himself. Nor are we, the Christians released from our duty to take up the Cross and follow Him, and, perhaps even more scandalously, to "make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:19). In doing so, I feel perhaps we may be able to reconcile our secondary affinities to culture and ethnicity with what should be our primary focus and grounding, which is Christ.
Steven Kurian
posted by street theologian @ 2:26 PM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home