Has a 'Buddhist' mindset infected Christianity?

[arapahoepark]

I am an occasional reader of Aaron Renn. He has some really good things to say, interesting topics to bring up and others I leave me scratching my head.
He recently wrote on Buddhism and Christianity and how the former's mindset seems to have infected and 'demasculinized' the latter according to a preceding article.
He says this here and am curious as to your thoughts.

Idolatry as Desire​

I first encountered the idea of ordinary human desires and feelings being viewed as sinful while watching a sermon from Seattle’s Mars Hill Church... It was some type of special service that included a video of a mother describing the tragic death of her child from a medical condition. This woman talked about how angry she had been about her child’s death, about not being able to see him grow up, etc.

Then she said that she had to repent of her anger, because Jesus had decided that her child would die, and her anger was sinful because it rejected God’s sovereign decision over her child’s death.

I found this stunning even when I originally watched it. In what universe could being deeply upset about your child’s death be sinful?

I began to see this pattern repeat itself in evangelical preaching. It’s sometimes used in sermon illustrations about the sin of idolatry, for example. In these illustrations, a person wants something very badly - say, getting into Harvard, or getting married and having children. He works and strives with all his might to obtain it, but fails. He’s devastated by this failure. The pastor then talks about how this is an example of idolatry, of putting our hopes in something other than Christ.

In these definitions, the de facto definition of idolatry is wanting anything so much that, if you don’t get it, you are very upset. Hence, the path to avoiding sin and idolatry, the way to please God, is to purge oneself of desires. This is Buddhism.

 

[VictorBravo]

Obviously it is not a sin to mourn loss. Jesus wept. The Psalms are full of lamentations.

I think there is a strain of Stocisim that infects our modern church. Just last night I ran across Calvin's criticism of Christian Stoics in Book III, Chapter 8, paragraph 9 of his Institutes:

"Now, among the Christians there are also new Stoics, who count it depraved not only to groan and weep but also to be sad and care ridden. These paradoxes proceed, for the most part, from idle men who, exercising themselves more in speculation than in action, can do nothing but invent such paradoxes for us. Yet we have nothing to do with this iron philosophy which our Lord and master has condemned, not only by his word, but also by his example. For he groaned and wept both over his own and other’s misfortunes. And he taught his disciples in the same way: “the world, will rejoice but you will be sorrowful and will weep.” John 16:20."

 

[Polanus1561]

It is not a sin to anger. Bible says be slow to anger not do not anger.

 

[py3ak]

I think the criticism may be as unbalanced as some of the statements it's responding to.

1. Calling that Buddhism is unnecessary. There are closer influences and strains of Christian thought that don't necessitate traveling that far east to find the source. Tersteegen, Henry Venn, Benjamin Grosvenor, and others will also call for subordinating even natural desires and responses to the manifestation of God's decree.

2. Among the "muscular Christianity" types there is sometimes a minimization of the genuinely Biblical virtues of heavenly-mindedness, submission to the will of God, meekness, and other similar qualities. From this example, would Aaron Renn be among the servants who found David's reaction to the death of his child inscrutable? In that situation, David's faith was stronger and clearer than theirs.

3. What is the contrast? Of course if you set up the contrast as Stoic apathy vs. natural feeling, the Bible is on the side of natural feeling. But what if the contrast is between emotional self-regulation and emotional incontinence? Then the shoe is rather on the other foot.

If someone is devastated that their ambition did not succeed, it's probably necessary to define devastated in order to see whether that is a natural or an inappropriate reaction. If "devastated" includes sinful reactions or expressions, then it would seem that the crossing of our hopes exposed that they were being pursued without the reservation, "if the Lord will." If "devastated" means experiencing strong emotion but continuing to trust in God and adapt ourselves to new information, that's quite different.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Here's a follow-up on Renn's speaking of the tainting of Christianity with Buddhism, Psychedelics and Spirituality [warning 1 curse word in Tucker Max's video clip]

Psychedelics and Spirituality

Tucker Max's spiritual journey, more on Christianity and Buddhism, and a newsletter meet-up in Indianapolis.

www.aaronrenn.com

 

[RamistThomist]

Renn is wrong. When the historic Christian tradition spoke of passions, they had a very specific meaning.

The “passions are the vices that cripple our ability to pray and life well” (Hall 17). Interestingly enough, for the early Christians “passion” could mean simply a state of mind. These are the logismoi that function like maggots in rotten meat. As Hall notes, “The passions, then, throw the faculty of reason …off balance. They blind the eyes of the mind and cripple the mind’s ability to form a realistic or fitting opinion or judgment regarding a specific ethical question or dilemma” (19-20).

Someone who has crucified the passions has attained the true sense of apatheia. It doesn't mean living in Buddhist tranquility (be mindful of your thoughts, Obi-Wan), but that one is able to live without being thrown around by irrationality.

2. Among the "muscular Christianity" types there is sometimes a minimization of the genuinely Biblical virtues of heavenly-mindedness, submission to the will of God, meekness, and other similar qualities. From this example, would Aaron Renn be among the servants who found David's reaction to the death of his child inscrutable? In that situation, David's faith was stronger and clearer than theirs.

You are 100% correct. For example, theobros openly mock "servant leadership," even though Jesus specifically praised it. And when the theobros in Rehoboam's day mocked the "servant leadership" advice of the elders, it was specifically understood as God's judgment on them.

 

[arapahoepark]

You are 100% correct. For example, theobros openly mock "servant leadership," even though Jesus specifically praised it. And when the theobros in Rehoboam's day mocked the "servant leadership" advice of the elders, it was specifically understood as God's judgment on them.

Renn does have quite a bit devoted to attacking 'servant leadership.' Basically says it's unmanly. I guess it's coming together now.
I'm quite sick of people saying that the sexes need to add onto the fruit of the Spirit to find a spouse.

 

[RamistThomist]

Renn does have quite a bit devoted to attacking 'servant leadership.' Basically says it's unmanly. I guess it's coming together now.
I'm quite sick of people saying that the sexes need to add onto the fruit of the Spirit to find a spouse.

They openly mock Jesus' own words about leadership. They define manliness as "owning the libs/feminists," and define feminism as "disagreeing with the brothers."

 

[Ploutos]

They openly mock Jesus' own words about leadership. They define manliness as "owning the libs/feminists," and define feminism as "disagreeing with the brothers."

I have it on good authority that that is where the real battle is, not in quibbles over silly theological terms.

(Joking, obviously.)

 

[AgentWillis]

They openly mock Jesus' own words about leadership. They define manliness as "owning the libs/feminists," and define feminism as "disagreeing with the brothers."

Exactly. And they define "libs" (sometimes) as anyone who holds to slightly different political views. (Coming from personal experience with Reformed FB groups).

Doesn't Renn subscribe to evolutionary psychology or at least find it useful? I recall him mentioning that at some point...

 

[arapahoepark]

Exactly. And they define "libs" (sometimes) as anyone who holds to slightly different political views. (Coming from personal experience with Reformed FB groups).

Doesn't Renn subscribe to evolutionary psychology or at least find it useful? I recall him mentioning that at some point...

I'm not sure. I have seen him use ideas that fit that mold though.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I strongly disagree with the point originally quoted from Renn. However it does bring up an interesting question that I've wondered about at times-- when in Church history did the identification of ultimate desire with idolatry start becoming common? I think the basic idea is sound, but I'm curious about its historical origin.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure. I have seen him use ideas that fit that mold though.

I can't vouch for his own views, but the same theobros will mock people with "post your physique" or "physiognomy doesn't lie." That's not surprising, as they are Nietzcheans with a thin veneer of Jesus slapped on.

 

[Ploutos]

I can't vouch for his own views, but the same theobros will mock people with "post your physique" or "physiognomy doesn't lie." That's not surprising, as they are Nietzcheans with a thin veneer of Jesus slapped on.

Some of them are fairly open about the fondness for Nietzsche, too.

 

[Pilgrim]

He has said and written some helpful things. This really isn't one of them. (Neither was his recent rant complaining about what he claims is an overreaction to anti-Semitism.) While he may have a little bit of a point here, the "stoicism" charge long pre-dates any Buddhist influence in our society. If he doesn't watch out, he'll attack mortification. If we don't watch out, we'll have anointed yet another guru (Paul Maxwell, anyone?) who ends up going off the rails. I am not sure if Renn is very well read in reformed theology, or evangelical theology in general.

While I didn't follow his ministry closely, I think the "idolatry" fixation was an emphasis of Tim Keller's. I've assumed that most people who have harped on that in recent years have been influenced by Keller, some of them seeming to have been influenced by him in other areas.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good observations here.

What is strange about Renn is that he repeatedly says he's not a theologian but regularly wades into theological waters. He's better at noting public policy trends or the history of conservative thought. I think he also has some things to say about the Missional "third way" and how much of a failure that is to address how the Church or persons should go.

I've been commenting on his posts for a while now, noting where he has some observations or otherwise noting where the speakers or thinkers he has are complete posers when it comes to historical theology or philosophy.

Reen seems to have some theological discernment in some areas but not others.s For instance, he likes Owen's Mortification of Sin but has written an updated "translation" to make it more readable. Speaking of that work, he has stated repeatedly that the work represents "anti-Catholic" bias, and it's really weird to me to think that he doesn't understand you can't "do" mortification the Owen way (Reformed) if you're Roman Catholic. In other words, I've known for years that he doesn't know theology well at a very basic level.

Prior to this, he featured an Eastern Orthodox thinker telling us that the decline in male attendance at Church is due to a focus on guilt:

LEON PODLES: The Deep Roots of Men's Alienation from Church

Podcast transcript Aaron Renn: Hello, this is Aaron Renn. Welcome back again. I have a guest that I have wanted to have on the show for a very long time. I'm glad we were able to make it happen today.…

www.aaronrenn.com

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that Renn is focused on figuring out a way past the strange male/female dynamics and the tearing down of men. Some of his complaints are valid but he lacks the historical or theological tools and a Biblical understanding of anthropology so any thinker will do if they provide a critique of some of the excesses in the Christian world.

As an example, self-denial is Godly. Applying self-denial to the new Missional idea that "single-ness" is what we're called to do in the world is a misapplication. What's happened is that men and women are not naturally pursuing marriage as an end but other things and various ideas of self-denial are being employed to laud this as "chosen family" or spiritual when it really is an abandonment of the Creation mandate and a symptom of Western cultural decay that Christians are swept up into. I'm not saying there are no persons called to be single. What I'm saying is that there are many who are misapplying truths about denying yourself in order to justify career choices where they are not pursuing marriage.

But, getting back to this episode, I rolled my eyes so much because the initial podcast was so dumb. A Roman Catholic, of all people, saying that people forego marriage or that there is "self-denial" due to Buddhism? Is this guy completely ignorant of his own tradition? Monks? Nuns?

 

[jfhutson]

Renn is wrong. When the historic Christian tradition spoke of passions, they had a very specific meaning.

I think he was speaking of contemporary evangelical preaching, not the historic Christian tradition.

Renn does have quite a bit devoted to attacking 'servant leadership.' Basically says it's unmanly.

They openly mock Jesus' own words about leadership.

Renn deals directly with Jesus' teaching and other NT texts in this post on servant leadership, showing the conflict between contemporary teaching here and that of the Bible: https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/servant-leadership

 

[ZackF]

He has said and written some helpful things. This really isn't one of them. (Neither was his recent rant complaining about what he claims is an overreaction to anti-Semitism.) While he may have a little bit of a point here, the "stoicism" charge long pre-dates any Buddhist influence in our society. If he doesn't watch out, he'll attack mortification. If we don't watch out, we'll have anointed yet another guru (Paul Maxwell, anyone?) who ends up going off the rails. I am not sure if Renn is very well read in reformed theology, or evangelical theology in general.

While I didn't follow his ministry closely, I think the "idolatry" fixation was an emphasis of Tim Keller's. I've assumed that most people who have harped on that in recent years have been influenced by Keller, some of them seeming to have been influenced by him in other areas.

I was going to bring up Stoicism of which has much in common with Buddhism. With no expertise on their origins, I suspect there is a historical tie where East met West way back when. I have for long time found certain strains of Buddhism attractive. I read and admired Epictetus and Aurelius in college. Ryan Holiday is probably the most popular author on stoicism today. Jordan Peterson, though known as a neo-Jungian, certainly is influenced by it. Stoicism and Buddhism both track with Christianity at points but teleologically fail of course. Stoicism and Buddhism don't "go anywhere" and admit as much. In a lascivious and libertine age, people who are burned out or want something else without accountability to a holy God want a path forward even if it has no ultimate end. "Don't freak out and be disciplined because Epicurianism and Hedonism are worse" stands out today.

Renn is helpful thinker that comes from a different background than many and I enjoy reading him. One shouldn't totalize Christ on this but Renn is indeed too hard on "servant leadership" as Jacob remarked. Matthew 20:28

 

[No Other Name]

I was going to bring up Stoicism of which has much in common with Buddhism. With no expertise on their origins, I suspect there is a historical tie where East met West way back when. I have for long time found certain strains of Buddhism attractive. I read and admired Epictetus and Aurelius in college. Ryan Holiday is probably the most popular author on stoicism today. Jordan Peterson, though known as a neo-Jungian, certainly is influenced by it. Stoicism and Buddhism both track with Christianity at points but teleologically fail of course. Stoicism and Buddhism don't "go anywhere" and admit as much. In a lascivious and libertine age, people who are burned out or want something else without accountability to a holy God want a path forward even if it has no ultimate end. "Don't freak out and be disciplined because Epicurianism and Hedonism are worse" stands out today.

Renn is helpful thinker that comes from a different background than many and I enjoy reading him. One shouldn't totalize Christ on this but Renn is indeed too hard on "servant leadership" as Jacob remarked. Matthew 20:28

I am beginning to think we need a new thread on servant leadership because I never read anything I disagree with from Renn that would lead to a charge of the misunderstanding of that term. I am a fan of Jacob, and he is probably correct on "theobros" and their sweeping chest-thumping generalizations on gender roles, ok, but not Renn as I have encountered him. In my take on Renn, I find myself in agreement re: servant leadership.

And yes, he does *not* deny Scripture verses like Matthew 20:28 and all the others. Not in any way, shape or form.

 

[RamistThomist]

I read Renn's article. It could be okay. The servant leadership with which he has a problem is "those who cater to the desires of the wife and children" (emphasis added). When you put it like that, servant leadership is bad, and that might be in fact what Tim Keller advocated. On the flip side, using words like "cater" necessarily prejudices the discussion, so we aren't getting anywhere.

As far as I can tell, he didn't actually define and describe the good kind of servant leadership. It was more of how Piper and Keller were wrong (no argument from me).

In terms of servant leadership, I just wrote a marriage and parenting book. You can read it for free below. It has one sentence:

"Don't be a weirdo."

Just be normal and love each other and questions like "Who gets to exercise dominion over the other" (something Jesus explicitly warned again) don't come up.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In defense of the late Tim Keller – and I am well aware of some of the flaws he had – he was a great man, with a great heart. I am eternally indebted to him for the depth of the Gospel – and the heart of the Lord Jesus – he communicated. Even as regards the Gospel he did not always get things right – in fact he caused a good bit of damage to the Gospel and to the church.

On occasion I opposed him, but as he got busier in ministry he became less accessible.

Nonetheless, I love the man, a flawed but great servant of God, who also did great good to the church.

 

[No Other Name]

I read Renn's article. It could be okay. The servant leadership with which he has a problem is "those who cater to the desires of the wife and children" (emphasis added). When you put it like that, servant leadership is bad, and that might be in fact what Tim Keller advocated. On the flip side, using words like "cater" necessarily prejudices the discussion, so we aren't getting anywhere.

As far as I can tell, he didn't actually define and describe the good kind of servant leadership. It was more of how Piper and Keller were wrong (no argument from me).

In terms of servant leadership, I just wrote a marriage and parenting book. You can read it for free below. It has one sentence:

"Don't be a weirdo."

Just be normal and love each other and questions like "Who gets to exercise dominion over the other" (something Jesus explicitly warned again) don't come up.

I have read more of Renn than just the one article here.

If Renn ever indulged the question of dominion, it is news to me, but it is possible that he did and I never encountered it.

I watched a podcast (I can't remember where and I tried to find it) where he was expertly taking apart the egaliterian "servant leadership" where indeed the serving of the wife becomes explicit and authority is not only relegated to implicit but relegated to the realm of "needlessly ever-mentioned" (or in some cases) denied.

The Biblical example of Jesus washing feet serves as a focus point on his take on servant leadership:

We are to serve to lead but not lead to serve.

Jesus washed his followers' feet. In like manner, so are we husbands to be eager and willing to serve our wife and children. This was Renn in the podcast.

Not for one second in the washing did Jesus lose his authority - his headship. When Peter protests, Jesus shows he is still head by telling Peter this is the right way things should be done.

Later, when Jesus leads them to the garden in an all-night prayer session, Jesus is clearly leading them where to go and what to do. If a man walks in Christ, he should not be afraid to both serve with eagerness and lead with confidence that Christ is MY head and it helps a lot when I feel any tension between the two.

Is it possible I missed some other material from Renn that overdid the material I heard and read? Sure, if so, then have away at him.

It is wrong for the theobros to thump chests and say "Woman follow me. I am man." Unscriptural to the core.

It is also wrong for anyone to say to a husband "Serve your wife. Let her tell you if you are serving correctly or not." Also unscriptural to the core - even if not directly stated but essentially implied as the recommended norm.

 

[ZackF]

It is also wrong for anyone to say to a husband "Serve your wife. Let her tell you if you are serving correctly or not." Also unscriptural to the core - even if not directly stated but essentially implied as the recommended norm.

Yes. I'd tweek the above statement. Take in her opinions because they are important, very important, but subject them to scripture and reason like the husband's should be. As Jacob said, "don't be a wierdo."

 

[No Other Name]

Yes. I'd tweek the above statement. Take in her opinions because they are important, very important, but subject them to scripture and reason like the husband's should be. As Jacob said, "don't be a wierdo."

So, it is as Renn said as well. All good then.