buying the philosophical roots

Today in my "Christ, Krishna, Buddha" class, we talked about how Christianity - the theological project of interpreting, understanding, and experiencing God through (the canonical writings about) Jesus's life and ministry, in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures - about how all of that is founded on Western, Greek philosophical understanding of the world. In other words, roughly speaking, there are abstract ideals, and there is one true answer to a question, which can be arrived at be reasoning. Without that, you can't really understand where the patristic (early founders of the Christian church) are coming from. It wasn't only Constantine's political interest in arriving at a manageable empire and religous unification that created Christianity - it was more fundamental notion that there is a right answer that must be found. The early Christians were a bold bunch, fighting out what the reality of God was about. The professor raised the question: can you call yourself a Christian unless you buy this philosophical foundation? Can I discard everything in Christianity that came before (or selectively discard what I don't like) and just go on? Do you have to engage what came before? The Pope calls this a theology of continuity, as opposed to a theology of rupture. It raises another question about experience: Can I just use my experience to filter through what makes sense, and discard the rest? Because experience also has philosophical foundations - we experience everything through a framework, whether it acknowledges only one truth or multiple ones. The issue for me is that the foundation of "one truth" just doesn't work for me. I tried that (I grew up with it), and it required stretching my reality to the breaking point just to fit. At the point of tension, I went to college and learned rudimentary postmodern theory. It worked for me, because it questioned the singularity of truth. And now I can't go back. I think this is why I have a difficult time swallowing some aspects of Christianity. But then I'm not comfortable just trashing them, because they're there for a reason. Someone found truth in them. I realize that my professor's perspective isn't the only one out there. It also reminds me that, unlike my friend EJoye, I don't often love or feel moved by my tradition. It more often feels like it's something reaching out for me, but I'm not there - while I'm reaching out for something, but it's not there, either. Two trajectories crossed without touching.

EJoye also says embracing Christianity is like embracing one's dysfunctional family. I'll buy that, with a side of her quote from Maya Angelou: "becoming a Christian is a life-long endeavor."

It also brings up the Buddhist-Christian engagement of Ultimate Emptiness and Ultimate Fullness - which seem like kind of the same thing, built on very different philosophical foundations. That's for another post, I guess - because I've got four papers nipping at my heels. Actually they're biting my calves. And drawing blood.