Top
Browse > Home / Doxis, Feature / Buddhist Follower of Jesus?

Buddhist Follower of Jesus?

Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : April 24, 2008

I have a friend who considers himself a “Buddhist follower of Jesus.” Orrin is a monk of sorts…shaved head and all…but of a progressive sort.

I firmly believe that he loves Jesus (the person…not just the idea) more than the average Christian. I suspect that many Christians don’t so much love Jesus as they love what he can do for them.

At one time in my life I would have said that being a Christian is all about two things: 1) Having a conversion experience and 2) believing the right things. This sort of basic understanding of Christian can easily foster a loveless relationship with Jesus Christ. And, strangely enough, can allow you to be considered a “believer of Jesus” without it being assumed that you should also be a “follower of Jesus.” In some circles, it is considered bad-theology to assume that a Christian necessarily MUST be a follower of Jesus. That, after all, is legalism. Nevermind that Jesus’ consistent message was something like “Hey, the Kingdom’s here…so follow me.”

Given my previous understanding of Christianity, my friend Orrin would be “out.” But, interestingly enough, you can be a greedy televangelist, a warmonger president, an apathetic church-goer, or a legalistic non-smoking or-drinking or-movie-watching or-dancing zealot and still be assumed, from an evangelical perspective, to be “in.”

But is being “in Christ” really about a conversion experience and right doctrine?

On the flip side, is it sufficient to say that if you appreciate Jesus and follow his example that you are “in?”

In a recent article, Brian McLaren is quoted as saying: “There are increasing numbers of Muslim followers of Jesus and Hindu followers of Jesus, and they do not want to be identified with the Christian religion…” I like how this insight recognizes that one can follow Jesus authentically without buying into a pre-packaged belief system. It is safe to assume that when the disciples were traveling with Jesus that they were, technically speaking, heretics. I doubt that they understood Jesus’ divinity, affirmed the Trinity, or recognized the universality of the Church.

Why is it that we never start where Jesus did? Instead of inviting people to become followers with us in the way of Jesus, why do we make “discipleship” about doctrinal adherence? And why do we assume that we should always push for a conversion?

What I don’t like about Brian’s quote is that it could easily encourage people to disregard Christianity or validate Hinduism or Islam (or Buddhism). But these systems aren’t the same. And I don’t even believe their cores are the same (except with, perhaps, Buddhism and Hinduism). It is also a bit fishy when folks think they can remain fundamentally within their existing paradigm and then incorporate Jesus into that paradigm. We all know that adding Jesus into our lives as-is often means that Jesus becomes the posterboy for our pre-existing values, virtues, and convictions. One doesn’t need to embrace everything about Christianity to be a follower of Jesus. But at the same time, one cannot remain as they are and be a follower of Jesus.

So, where is the balance? How do we resist the sort of thinking that equates Christianity with a conversion experience and right doctrine while, at the same time, resist the sort of thinking that equates following Jesus with adopting an ethical system (usually focusing on those ethics that we already like about Jesus)?

For that matter, what should it look like to “make disciples” in a way that affirms both the doxis and the praxis of Jesus?

Mark Van Steenwyk is the editor of JesusManifesto.com. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He lives in South Minneapolis with his wife (Amy), son (Jonas) and some of their friends.


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

· Filed Under Doxis, Feature 

Comments

Viewing 66 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The Bible (and Jesus himself) can be helpful here.

    Jesus told his followers clearly, in Matthew 28:18-20, "18And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

    This seems to be a pretty clear call for correct doctrine and a public confession. In fact, this verse alone speaks to Christ's divinity, the Trinity and the Universality of the Church. I think the disciples understood more than you are giving them credit for...
    • ^
    • v
    Sure, but that's the end of Matthew. It took the disciples three years to get there...I could say more, but I want others to jump into this before I start pontificating.
    • ^
    • v
    Fair enough. I do believe Jesus is clearly making a distinction between *their* discipleship (which we can agree was wholly unique in history) and how disciples would be made in the future.

    Curious to hear the discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    Joseph of Antioch wrote:

    "There is a zen priest at a well known meditation center here in northern california who has been connecting with Mark Scandrette & Reimagine in SF. (He was a Jesus freak in the 70's)."

    I am he.

    I have been in residential Zen training for fifteen years. I have been an ordained Zen Priest for ten.

    I was involved in the Jesus movement in the 70"s for three years. I left it because I could no longer believe the particular version of "right doctrine" that was being espoused, i.e, that people who did not believe precisely the things that we believe about Christ will burn in hell eternally.

    Not long a go, while driving back from visiting my best friend who 25 years ago founded a lay Franciscan community to serve the poor, a strong, irresistibly compelling feeling arose in me.

    "I really miss hanging out with Jesus."

    The really compelling part of this experience was the feeling of an actual relationship with an actual person that I actually had long ago, and that this person was in a sense trying to get back in touch with me.

    So here I am-a Zen Priest follower of Jesus.



    Recently, while speaking to a group of college students that my friend Mark Scandrette asked me to speak to, I found myself spontaneously saying, "I am his now. if ever I come to feel that being a Zen priest is incompatible with following Him, I would stop being a priest in a heartbeat."

    I hadn't planned on saying that. It just popped out of my mouth. So far He seems OK with my remaining a Zen priest. in fact, my experience as a priest seems to have something positive to offer to my good friends in the emergent community here in the bay area.

    Various issues have been raised in this thread, such as right doctrine, conversion, right practice, things like this.

    Let me say a few things I feel about some of these.

    In terms of right doctrine: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord." I believe it is the hight of human arrogance to presume that our tiny little intellects, with their tiny little concepts, can do justice to God's nature and Love. Therefore, how one actually lives is what matters, not the doctrinal affiliation one espouses. Where is the love?

    Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
    Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

    But what is the will of the father? What is "orthopraxy?"

    A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A founding pastor of a megachurch, complete with food court happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a high powered televangelist, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Hindu/Moslem/Budhist as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn in Jericho and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

    "Which of these three do you think was engaged in "orthopraxy?"

    As for conversion:

    It takes nine months to be born of water, from conception to birth. it may take a lifetime to be born of the Spirit. I would like to say that "no longer do I live, but Christ lives in me," but I am not there yet. To reduce conversion to one cathartic peak experience trivializes discipleship. His love is infinite. Growing into his love is bottomless. Metanoia is a process, not an event.

    I will leave it at this for now.

    Reverend Ricky
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for dropping by Reverend Ricky. I love your response. It really frames this issue in a way that I think Jesus would frame it.
    • ^
    • v
    great post; great questions! and i think you're leading the right direction at the end--or at least the direction i find myself drawn to.

    Jesus is the center of our identity as his followers--the place where belief and practice occur together, the place where both doxis and praxis originate from. it seems that the practice-side of things is what any of us best relate too (at least recently). we get that Jesus healed peoples bodies and fed their stomachs and preached a message that was fully politically and economically on the side of the down and out. we deeply appreciate the fact the new testament presents a picture of church as a community that cares for each other and its society in these physical, practical ways--ways that followed Jesus' giving up himself to his Father, to others, and to the cross. we get that.

    but Jesus is also the source of our most radical doxological commitments. this works at a couple of levels. first, we are hanging onto some very particular historical claims, about who Jesus was, what he did, etc. that's a necessary starting point, and something that our worship and our theology is utterly un-Jesus-following without. on a second level, if we're following Jesus, then we're taking on Jesus' God as ours. we're identifying ourselves with his basic way of understanding the world, God's way of interacting with it, his appraisal of societal structures, etc. if we're following him, we're concerning ourselves with the coming of a very particular kingdom and a particular God who reigns in it.

    so, can a buddhist or a hindu be a Jesus-follower? yeah, but it's going to change their whole way of being, their whole way of understanding themselves and their world. and they won't be a very good buddhist or hindu after that. just like a middleclass guy from the states can be a Jesus-follower--he just won't be a very good middleclass guy from the states anymore...
    • ^
    • v
    maybe he'd be a better middleclass guy from the states
    • ^
    • v
    Great post. I'm just reading Kierkegaard, whose big thing was that we have Christendom but largely no Christianity because our religious structures prevent us from taking the gospels seriously and applying them to our lives.

    Which makes sense to me. Christ works through the church - but maybe that is often 'in spite of' rather than 'because of'. So, knowing what I do about the dumbing medicinal effect of religion, I'm fairly sceptical of other religious types claiming to follow Jesus in other ways. I suspect that might just mean 'I'm a Hindu but when convenient I trot out something nice-sounding I once heard about Jesus of Nazareth'. I'd be very surprised if that isn't what is happening - because I've seen it so often happen in church.

    Maybe there are two things going on - maybe there are genuine hidden followers of Christ who are forced by circumstance to keep something of their 'mother faith', I really hope so. And maybe there are others who say these things because they think it sounds cool. To me as an outsider, there seems to be something very contradictory between these faiths and the way of Christ.

    I dunno - just offering a suggestion.
    • ^
    • v
    Great post, man. I was a bit worried about what I was reading until your clarification at the end.

    In Habermas & Licona's "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" they make a pretty good point when introducing the minimal facts approach to sharing the gospel message. They used an illustration from comedian Emo Philips talking about two men on a bridge, one of which is contemplating suicide...

    I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or what?"
    He said, "A Christian."
    I said, "Small world! Me too. Protestant or Catholic or Greek Orthodox?"
    He said, "Protestant."
    I said, "Me too! What franchise?"
    He said, "Baptist."
    I said, "Me too!" Norther Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
    He said, "Northern Baptist."
    I said, "Me too! Norther Conservative Baptist or Norther Liberal Baptist?"
    He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
    I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalists Baptist, Great Lakes Region, or Norther Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Eastern Region?"
    He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region."
    I said, "Me too! Norther Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
    He said, "Norther Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
    I SCREAMED, "Die, heretic!" and pushed him over.

    "On the one hand, are we presenting too large a package of doctrines and practices for nonbelievers to accept in order to become a Christian? Are we sharing the gospel and...how they must be baptized by immersion?...how they must speak in tongues?...how they must read only a certain version of the Bible?...how they must look for the pre-Tribulation return of Christ?...how they must believe the earth is only six thousand years old?...how they must accept the five points of Calvinism?...how they must pay a tithe to the local church? On the other hand, isn't the gospel a crucial subject?...For now, we will define it as the good news of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus--Jesus is God; Jesus died for me; and Jesus is alive" (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 44)

    while I think this applies at least a little bit to the conversation at hand, we're talking about a guy who claims to follow Christ AND Buddhism. I think the idea of a Buddhist follower of Christ is absurd. It sounds to me like he isn't really a follower of Christ, but only certain things Christ taught. See, I don't think it is mainly us getting caught up in all the doctrinal mess, but him. He's choosing certain "teachings" of Jesus over and above certain others. If he even accepts the resurrection...then he is very confused individual in that he is a walking self-contradiction.

    anyway...

    in Him,
    >>zack
    • ^
    • v
    How different really is the idea that one can be a Christian Buddhist from the idea that one can be Christian American (not in the passive "I live on the American continent sense, but more in the flag waving sense)? I'm open to the idea that if the latter is possible than the former is at least tenable.
    • ^
    • v
    While many will be tempted to dismiss your question, I find it VERY compelling. If we recognize that the state/religion distinction is a modern construct, then we can find that any sort of Jesus+________ is in, some way, syncretistic. So-called Constantinianism (Jesus+Rome) is as much of a syncretistic move as when my friend claims to be a follower of Jesus. I wish Graham Old were listening in...I wonder if he wouldn't want to argue that Christianity is, already, syncretistic.

    Certainly not all syncretisms are equal...but are certainly worthy of comparison.
    • ^
    • v
    I think we have to be careful to distinguish between proper "contextualization" grounded in the doctrine of the Incarnation and outright "syncretism" whereby we swap core practices and beliefs in an effort to co-op or blend in to another system. In my opinion, I'm not sure one can be a Buddhist Follower of Jesus without butchering both. It's one thing to contextualize the good news of Jesus (including his life and his more cosmological works) in Buddhist culture. But it's another to meld the two systems of thought into one in order to claim both--this is where the faddishness of it all comes into play.
    • ^
    • v
    Depending on who's talking, different fusions are more palatable or encouraged. My landlord is all about Jesus, in a greater Hindu all are God concept. You listen to him talk on a variety of subjects and he's far more astute and closer to Christ's teachings than (again) many Christians I've talked to. Doesn't make his theology Christian; it's a cart/horse thing, and when there is a challenge or potential conflict, which one gives?

    In my humble opinion, this is the litmus test for whether one is following Christ within a given context or following Christ regardless; how do you handle conflict between the two beliefs systems? If 90% of your beliefs are in common, but on the 10% you cede to Buddhism (or Hinduism, or Americanism, or _______) than you are Christ-influenced but not a Christ-follower.

    Of course the nature and claims of unity/conflict are all subject the the myriad of theological tributaries that have split off the main. Just to, yanni, keep things interesting.
    • ^
    • v
    "If 90% of your beliefs are in common, but on the 10% you cede to Buddhism (or Hinduism, or Americanism, or _______) than you are Christ-influenced but not a Christ-follower."

    I think you've stated it perfectly.
    • ^
    • v
    90% of which beliefs? This raises some questions. What of our existing Christianity is actually Christian? What part of the Christian belief system is centered on Christ? And what part isn't?

    It is easy for us all to conclude that two different religions are difficult to reconcile. But what about Christianity and a political ideology? What about Christianity and other systems of thought? Insofar as it is centered on Christ, Christianity is as much a political system as it is a religious system...in fact, it is a holistic system that transcends religion.
    • ^
    • v
    My point is that you can find apt comparisons between almost any two systems of thought if you try hard enough. But finding points in common is different from finding agreement between.

    The key phrase you gave is "Centered on Christ" and that is as well my point; when one chooses revolution over Christ, or enlightenment over Christ, or theological correctness over Christ, or comfort over Christ, you are making the choice between two systems of thought/action, and the one that is not Christ-following is winning.

    I cannot see how this behaviour, in any context, can be deemed 'Christ-ian'.

    There is room for a great variety of thought and behaviour within the bounds of 'subjecting all to Christ', but it by definition excludes any idea or behaviour that would set itself above Christ.

    Wow, that almost made sense to me. Scary.
    • ^
    • v
    what of our existing Christianity is actually Christian?

    If we compare the fruit of our lives with the standard of the gospel, almost none of it. This is the problem - so few of us actually live the sacrificial life we are called to.
    • ^
    • v