4 responses

1. 

   Simon Cozens

   2 August 2010

   Ooh, I don’t like these Christian “uniqueness” claims, because they often just turn out to be embarrassingly ignorant. I wonder if CS Lewis knew anything about Mahayana Buddhism, which impressed Karl Barth by its emphasis on grace, or even Sikhism with its doctrine of gurprasadi.

   We’ve got Jesus. He’s unique enough.

   Reply
   1. 

      Simplepastor

      2 August 2010

      Hi Simon, thanks for the comment. I’m not sure the concept of grace in Mahayana Buddhism is equivalent to grace in Christianity. It is still (as in Sikhism) firmly wedded to self-striving as the way of salvation and it’s not universal within that strand of Buddhism either. It’s not central and arguably it’s not essential which shouldn’t be the case with Christianity. I agree that Jesus is unique but I’m not sure I could separate the person from the ‘grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’! Which I trust is with you. What have I missed?

      Reply
2. 

   Simon Cozens

   3 August 2010

   I guess I’m talking about the kind of Buddhism we come across in Japan, where really, grace is central and there is no self-striving whatsoever; absolute reliance on the power of the Buddha is the only way to be saved.

   “…in the period of the Decay of the Law, inferior in capability as people are, they stand no chance of attaining enlightenment on their own. They have no alternative to relying on the power of Amida for rebirth in his Pure Land. The scripturs of Pure Lang Buddhism emphasise rebirth in the Pure Land through total reliance on the saving power of Amida’s vow to save all sentient beings. (other-power)” (Tamura, Japanese Buddhism, p.95)

   I hear you that this belief is not universal throughout Mahayana Buddhism, but there are a significant chunk of Pure Land Buddhists in the world. Heck, even if there were only one PL Buddhist in the world, that would mean that Christianity’s emphasis on grace would not be “unique”, because if you’re claiming it as unique, then it shouldn’t show up anywhere else at all.

   Barth quite rightly says in Church I.3.17 that Pure Land Buddhism “confronts Christianity with the question of its truth even as the logical religion of grace… In other words, the Christian-Protestant religion of grace is not the true religion because it is a religion of grace; If that were the case then, whatever our view of the distinctions, we could quite sensibly say the same of Yodoism and, with a rather more blunted sensibility, the Bhakti religion.” (He then goes on to say that the one thing that we do have that marks us out is the person of Jesus Christ, so I feel in good company with this line of argument.)

   To say that you can’t separate the person of Christ from the grace of Christ is a wee bit of a circular argument as you’re coming to it with the presupposition that the grace of Christ is his most unique feature. You can’t separate the person of Christ from the love of Christ, either, or the self-sacrifice of Christ, or the teachings of Christ.

   Thankfully, we don’t have to. Paul preached Christ and him crucified.

   Reply
   1. 

      Simplepastor

      3 August 2010

      OK I see that – although I think something unique can be copied and the original remain something of uniqueness. So unique as in ‘having no equal’ rather than ‘the only one’.

      Of course there is only one Jesus Christ but not the only religion claiming some form of incarnation. He is unique but copied many times!

      Fair point about the circular argument.

      Reply