WWJD? To talk or not to talk?
My work is done and I'll leave the office with a thought for the day:
-Father Eustathios Kollas, on the legitimisation of Greek God worship. See guardian unlimited.
I just had a thought of my own, too. I believe (forgive the simplification) that the Buddhist way of eating is in silence, to allow the eating and taste of the food to be experienced and appreciated fully. Talking and eating together would be dividing the mind. The Christian way seems a bit more social, e.g. wine and meat and laughter and talking. If we live our lives (as many try) by the principle 'what would Jesus do?' (WWJD), we'd probably choose the later. Isn't it a bit simplistic to take the practice of Jesus or the new testament church and make it our own? Would we make the Buddhist convert to Christianity talk whilst eating, in the name of being more "Christ-like"?
I can guess a response to this question. Of course Jesus if he grew up in an eastern culture would eat with a different style, possibly more "Buddhist". But then the Jesus we're takling about is a different one to the 1st Century Jew. You cannot remove someone from their cultural context; it's not them any more (unless you believe in some metaphysical appendix to the body/mind but that's another 10 minutes' discussion entirely). WWJD may be a good idea but, really, we don't live in 1st Century Palestine, nor are we all Jews - or males.
So maybe we cannot base our ecclesiology on going back to the early church, nor our dinner-ology on the penchants of Jesus and his first followers.
"They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past."
-Father Eustathios Kollas, on the legitimisation of Greek God worship. See guardian unlimited.
I just had a thought of my own, too. I believe (forgive the simplification) that the Buddhist way of eating is in silence, to allow the eating and taste of the food to be experienced and appreciated fully. Talking and eating together would be dividing the mind. The Christian way seems a bit more social, e.g. wine and meat and laughter and talking. If we live our lives (as many try) by the principle 'what would Jesus do?' (WWJD), we'd probably choose the later. Isn't it a bit simplistic to take the practice of Jesus or the new testament church and make it our own? Would we make the Buddhist convert to Christianity talk whilst eating, in the name of being more "Christ-like"?
I can guess a response to this question. Of course Jesus if he grew up in an eastern culture would eat with a different style, possibly more "Buddhist". But then the Jesus we're takling about is a different one to the 1st Century Jew. You cannot remove someone from their cultural context; it's not them any more (unless you believe in some metaphysical appendix to the body/mind but that's another 10 minutes' discussion entirely). WWJD may be a good idea but, really, we don't live in 1st Century Palestine, nor are we all Jews - or males.
So maybe we cannot base our ecclesiology on going back to the early church, nor our dinner-ology on the penchants of Jesus and his first followers.
posted by kit at 11:21
6 Comments:
I agree - our ecclesiology shouldn't be going back to the Early Church and imitate it's style and practices but to embody it's principles nameley incarnation. I'd say a disctinctive about Christianity is it's ability to jump time, geography class and culture becasue it is the gospel of teh incarnation, a God who moved into my neighbourhood.
I quite like NT Wrights notion of the Christian task to faithfully improvise within the three boundaries of Chruch tradition, the bible and an indivduals experience/context.
Dave is right. Giving glory and thanks to God is more important than how much we talk (1 Corinthians 10:31, 1 Timothy 4:4). I don't think a Buddhist would eat for the glory of God if they don't believe in God.
I think "what would Jesus command" is better than "what would Jesus do", since we are not the Son of God.
Comments I am proud to have on my blog, thank you.
Paul and Dave, your comments resonated.
I thought that Christianity tried to make us sons of God, too. Maybe not in as full a way as Jesus - but as Christ's body, as opposed to his minions.
Does a Buddhist eating peacefully and gratefully give more glory to God than somebody with a more correct theology wolfing down a mcdonalds?
Does a Buddhist who does not acknowledge the existence of God and does not thank God for the food they have give more glory to God than the person who does thank for the food they have, even if they eat it quickly? I think the Christian gives more glory to God.
Don't want to start an argument, but this is interesting ; )
If we think of what/who 'God' is, one thing we might agree on is that God is the creator of humanity, and of beauty, and of peace. The quiet Buddhist who eats rice gratefully and peacefully (though without a clear 'person' to be grateful to) is I think honouring God more than the McDonalds-chomping, bible-wielding theist who doesn't give a damn about cows or the people who made the burger or what the burger is doing to his body.
(Please don't think I'm attacking Christians and defending buddhists; they're are plenty of lovely, caring, Christians who like rice, and nasty, spiteful buddhists who don't like cows. I am, however, attacking McDonalds.)
kit, my dear... whats wrong with macdonalds?!? ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home