Sunday, May 20, 2007

THE USES AND MISUSES OF KARMA

Hi Mike, that was an intriguing statement. Would you care to expand on that?

Hey John, you are probably right. In learning how to swim in the secular pluralistic sea-change, I fumble a lot. It reminds me of when I was attempting to learn Spanish. After two years of study, and six months of living in Colombia, I got up to make announcements about a picnic in Spanish. What I intended to say, was “I want everyone to BRING extra drinks and food so that we can all have a good time.” I mispronounced the Spanish word for “bring,” (traer) and instead I used “get drunk” (tragar). What everyone heard was “I want you all to GET DRUNK and pig out so that we can have a good time!” oops.

Anytime we set out to learn a new language, worldview or culture, we must be willing to make lots of mistakes. There is no other way to learn to talk in Spanish or French, but to start out blabbing nonsense like a toddler…perfectionists never learn foreign languages, or if they do, they never use them.

I tend to be an extremist and to go overboard when I am ‘on the chase’, especially when it involves crossing cultural barriers. When I was learning Spanish, I read a Spanish bible, I watched Spanish movies, I listened cassette tapes of the Psalms in Spanish as I was going to sleep, I went to Mexican restaurants and eat tacos, I worshiped with Spanish worship music, and even read comic books in Spanish.

Now I feel that God has pointed me toward secular postmoderns. My method for learning to comprehend and speak in secular postmodern is basically the same. So, please bear with me while I learn to talk all over again like a two-year-old.

Having said that, there are a couple of points you raised that I would like to probe. In both of your emails, you used the word “unbiblical.” In my mind, unbiblical and biblical are tricky words, especially if we use them in black and white categories. A large portion of evangelical Christianity believes that speaking in tongues is unbiblical. A couple of centuries ago, slavery was largely considered biblical by the general public, and established churches. I would consider house churches as biblical, but not all my friends would agree with me.

I am not an expert on Eastern religions, so there are probably all kinds of theological implications of karma that I don’t know about, depending on which branch or school of Hinduism defines it (a little like Christianity don’t you think?). However, most of my secular postmodern friends don’t know anything about the actual theology of Hinduism either, they just use “karma” as “what goes around, comes around.” The law of reciprocity. Sowing and reaping.

I’m not sure that it helps to try to explain theological points about the work of Christ to secular postmoderns until there a communicative relationship is established. In fact, as soon as I wrote the previous sentence, I became quite sure that it does not help to explain theological points about Christ or his work in erasing bad karma without establishing a bridge of communication. Besides, right there, at that time and place in the Tampa airport, I had only one shot to establish rapport with that girl. After using the positive energy and karma metaphor, she gave me her email address and wrote a couple of times. She would not have done that if I had tried to go ‘theological’ or ‘Christian’ with her.

Sometimes in our attempts to “get out of the box” we just end up in a bigger box. In our attempts to get of an ‘evangelical’ box or a ‘church’ box, we can end up in the ‘Christian’ or “biblical’ box (here is where I might get myself in trouble). I don’t think we are called to be Christians, or to be ‘biblical’ … we are called to follow Jesus, even when he leads us into the middle of a bunch of new age Hindus or a bunch of radical _______ (like G. H.). I came across a great quote the other day, of all people by Garrison Keiller, of the Prairie Home Companion. He said, “Give up your good Christian life and come and follow Jesus.”

I heard Charles Simpson back in the late 1980s teach on the epochal change we are now in the middle of. He compared it to the dispersion of national Israel and the exile to Babylon. Daniel had to live, study and work with magicians, sorcerers, warlocks, and soothsayers. He had to learn to practice his faith without being adversarial in the pluralistic environment he was in. Some of the Jews were bitter (weeping by the river). They might have accused him of being unbiblical and un-Jewish.

We are in a similar situation today. We are surrounded by new agers, postmoderns, and secular people living in a spiritual void with a confusing hodgepodge of quasi-magical and mystical beliefs drawn from a half dozen world religions. We can try to correct their unbiblical use of spiritual terminology or we can try to understand the meanings behind the terms and use them to establish a relational communication process that may ultimately lead them to Jesus. Or, we can retreat into Christian ghettos and avoid having to learn their language.

I hope that helps clarify my intentions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

21 comments:

  1. hmmm... I guess that idea didn't work... back to email it is!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joseph,
    Since I read your essay I have a question that is off the topic of the Kingdom of God, but it relates to translating the message. In your examples early in your essay you said something like, "adding positive energy to your karma". Actually I have two questions: Would you introduce the idea of karma into a conversation without knowing that the person was already predisposed to that philosopy and terminology? Secondly, is it wise to use an unbiblical concept to try to communicate biblical truth? Won't that come around and hit you in the back of the head later? I guess that's three questions! :)
    John Meadows

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joseph,
    Thanks for getting back regarding the "karma" question. I totally agree with you that we need to learn to make connections with other religions and find the "truth that cries out in the streets", ie True Truth and follow that thread back to it's Source.

    But to use an analogy you have used before, it's like walking on the edge of a sword. It's tricky to do and stay true to "True Truth". Your perspective of karma as a generic idea rather than tied to Hinduism is helpful. My question was assuming a Hindu understanding -- even though I wouldn't profess to totally understand even that. My main caution with your answer is that we are careful in our conversations not to reinforce the misunderstanding (Dare I use the term "deception"?) of salvation by works. There seems to be an almost universal idea in humanity that if they are a "good" person (usually meaning that their good deeds our weigh their bad) that they will be in God's presence ie heaven, nirvana, whatever, when they die. It seems to me that most if not all "religions", have that belief at their core. Hinduism and karma seem to take it to an extreme.

    Jesus by the work he did on the cross, eliminates our need to counteract our negative karma by our positive contributions. What if you had said to your friend something like, "this will begin to delete your negative karma", or, "this is like software that cleans your hard drive". Both of these may be really cheesy, but the idea is to try to think about how we can express a biblical world-view in terms that can be understood. So, I don't mind using the concept of karma, but I want to be careful not to reinforce an unbiblical perspective in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. this was from Billy via email:

    Joseph, Regarding using “karma” in an innocent generic sense, Paul’s principle about eating meat offered to idols may be apropos. It would be good to read 1 Cor 8:1-13. “..even if the meat was offered to an idol I can still eat it because I know the idol is nothing and there is only one God...but not all men have this knowledge…and some will eat with conscience toward the idol and will be defiled.” So I guess there is freedom with us who have knowledge of the truth and some latitude in our conversation with others. It seems we would have to be sensitive as to where our listeners are. Will they “eat” with knowledge or with “conscience toward the idol.”
    Billy

    ReplyDelete
  5. This was from Mike Tomko (via email):

    Joseph, It seems to me that Jesus, Paul, and others always met people where they were at (could be in location or language). And helped them to move toward where they needed to go.

    There has to be a certain security in who we are in Christ, and Christ in us, to reach out and meet people on their on turf. For me the example is Jesus washing the disciples feet.

    John as he was describing this experience said of Jesus, "Jesus, being conscious that the Father had put everything into his hands, and that he came from God and was going to Go, Got up from table, put off his robe and took a cloth and put it round him. Then he put water into a basin and was washing the feet of the disciples and drying them with the cloth which was round him"

    Jesus met the disciples right where they were at because (I believe) he knew who he was, (which is in my opinion the outcome of knowing where you came from and where He was going). The teacher/student principle was turned on its head in that moment. But it was born out of Jesus' security with his Father. That type of security (which I don't think just arrived at that moment) allowed him to be comfortable with sinners and sinners comfortable with him.

    I believe CS Lewis said greatness isn't measured by how high we are but by how low we are willing to reach (paraphrased I can't find where the quote is maybe Mere Christianity). Jesus left his throne to reach out to a rebellious world (His world). He took our language, our body, our limitations, touched our lives and said "Come follow Me".

    There are other examples like, Paul's statement that he wanted to become all things to all people; how Paul opened many of his messages, by appealing to and starting with creation; his willingness to quote the local poets (In him we live and move and have our being).

    For me I am less concerned about the word "Karma" and more concerned that the life I am living in Christ that will allow me to love the lost enough that I am willing to "Go" to where they are at so that they can hear a clear word from Jesus that says, "Come follow me". At least that is the way I see it. Mike
    John Meadows

    ReplyDelete
  6. This was from LeRoy Curtis:

    Joseph

    I don't want to pile on concerning "karma", but if you do a word study on the Hebrew "shalom" you will find something very close to the idea of karma....a sense of well being in every aspect of life. Jesus even suggests that you can have that in the midst of the worst turmoil imaginable, because, essentially it exists in the "not yet, but already" dimension. In fact, he said he came to bring us peace beyond what the world could ever supply to us.

    The KOG is in, but not of this present perverse generation. Our blessed hope is in the resurrection that ushers us into our forever existence. Our "karma" is the Peace of God that passes all understanding and guards our hearts (emotions) and our minds (reasoning) in Christ Jesus.

    In a sense, Christian "karma" is living right now existentially in our resurrection. dead to self, alive to Christ.

    I'll try to stay up with you guys. My brain works a little slower these days.

    God bless you

    LeRoy

    ReplyDelete
  7. This was my response to Billy and Mike:

    (from me)
    very well put, Billy. I had not thought of that! I sent my earlier reply just as your email came into my inbox.

    I think "karma" is actually entering into our English vocabulary in the generic sense. Most people who use it don't have a clue what it means. They use it as in "what goes around, comes around." In 10 or 15 years, we won't be able to converse without the word.

    The situation we find ourselves in is very similar to Paul's dilemma in trying to communicate truth's about Jesus with Greek and Gentiles while trying not to offend his beloved Jewish brethren, including James and Peter. Bob indicated that both the time that Paul and the other apostles lived in, as well as the time Daniel and the Jews in Babylon lived, were both "chairos" moments (the same with the Reformation). According to Mumford, we are living in just such as 'chairos' moment now (or in the next few years).

    Do you remember the scene in the movie Luther, where Luther's spiritual mentor from the Augustinian order is cutting his hair in preparation for his interview with the cardinal? Luther grabs his hand and says, "you wanted me to reform the church -- did you think this could be done without violence?"

    If Bob and Charles are right -- and I think they are -- there is going to be a lot of ripping and tearing in the coming years, and perhaps a lot of new wine spilt. For the sake of my friend Brian, if he is reading this, I want to add that the old wine is much better -- and old wineskins are very appropriate containers for the old wine. Even as we attempt to find new wineskins, lets not throw out old wine or tear old wineskins...We will leave God in charge of figuring all that out.

    PS: can you guess who is unchurched among us lately, and who is preaching right now? John, Michael Tomko, me and Billy are writing emails and blogging while everyone else is in church....hehehe. I am watching Mr. Incredible with my grandson as I write.
    ~ j

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is my [lengthy] reply to John M.'s suggestion:

    John,

    (from Patrick Currie, Mobile, AL.)
    I googled "karma." And, of course, there were over 55 million results. Here are the most interesting. (and closest to the top)

    Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
    Concept
    The explanation of karma can differ per tradition. Usually it is believed to be a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. It is cumulative.

    Views
    Throughout this process, many believe God plays some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. [2] Other Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. [3][4] [5] Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple. [6][7] [8]

    Buddhist website - the "law of karma" http://www.ncf.ca/freenet/rootdir/menus/sigs/religion/buddhism/introduction/truths/karma2.html
    the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)

    Therefore, the law of Karma teaches that responsibility for unskillful actions is born by the person who commits them.

    Another Buddhist site (and I quote) http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/karma.html
    The Sanskrit word Karma (or kamma in Pali) literally means action. In Buddhism however, karma mainly refers to one's intention or motivation while doing an action.
    The shortest explanation of karma that I know is: 'you get what you give'. In other words; whatever you do intentionally to others, a similar thing will happen to yourself in the future.
    Our largest obstacle to understanding or even believing in karma may be time. The 're-actions' or results of our actions show up with a time delay, and it becomes extremely hard to tell which action caused which result. Actions done in a previous life can create results in this life, but who can remember their past life? For ordinary humans, the mechanisms of karma can be intellectually understood to some extent, but never completely "seen".

    The idea behind karma is not only found in Buddhism and Hinduism; it seems that the Bible certainly conveys the same essence:

    Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what he sows.
    (Gal. 6:7)

    All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you,
    do even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
    (Matthew 7:12)

    Also the 'Golden Rule' of Confucianism makes a similar statement:
    Tzu-kung asked, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?"
    Confucius answered, "Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."'





    These are just 3 of the millions. Hope it helps!

    ReplyDelete
  9. yes, Patrick, that is very helpful...thank you!

    So what conclusions do you draw from this? Can we use Karma as an equivalent concept for Christian views of the law of sowing and reaping?

    ReplyDelete
  10. by-the-way, my original article on TRANSLATING THE KINGDOM made on to Rex Miller's (futurist and author) blog:


    http://www.millenniummatrix.com/content/blog/2007/05/translating-kingdom-of-god.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joseph,
    Congratulations on being published on the milliniummatrix site! The web never ceases to amaze me with it's diversity and connectivity.

    Thanks Patrick for posting your email to me. I am realizing that my concept of karma was very narrow, and this discussion has broadened it considerably.

    Joseph, I want to hear Patrick's response to your question, but based on the scriptures you have mentioned and those in the last section of Patrick's post, I think the word can definitely be used with discretion and discernment. I liked Billy's insights to help with determining when and whether or not. But I can definitely not defend my original "unbiblical" label.

    Btw, When I used the term "unbiblical" earlier in our discussion, I knew that I was raising a lightening rod. But I was also at a loss for another way to say it. I know that my "christianeese" would not communicate with most people -- or it would communicate an idea that I didn't intend. Can you help me out?

    ReplyDelete
  12. not sure how you want me to help you out... all of these things require a lot of "re-thinking" including categories of biblical or unbiblical. It is probably helpful to add "abiblical" for things that very well may be true but do appear in the bible. Obviously, a lot of truth...perhaps MOST truth is not in the bible...since John says that not even the life of Jesus could be contained in a book.

    The Bible only contains necessary truth to give us the revelation of Christ and the triune God, plus the path to salvation.

    This has been a paradigm change for me. I no longer view truth in general, or truths from other religions as "biblical" or "unbiblical" ... I tend to look to see if it is "anti-Biblical" and if it is not clearly contrary to the Judeo-Christian world view, then I give some further thought or examination. I might look for bridges or parrallels between the Islamic truth or Buddhist truth with Judeo-Christian truth.

    I think one of the major emphasis in the "emerging church" movement (which is becoming very controversial) is a move away from an emphasis on the Bible as the ultimate source of authority toward Jesus (the living word) as the ultimate source of authority. There is a subtle but clear difference.

    It is interesting to note that the early church thrived, expanded and virtually took over the Roman empire without a Bible... or at least without New Testaments, other than copies of individual letters.

    The same thing is true with the amazing explosion of the gospel in China... most of the multitudes of new Christians never had a bible...several house churches might share a single Bible.

    What does that tell us about the difference between the printed book, and the Living Word?

    I know one teacher (most of us would consider him to be new age -- although he does not consider himself so) who teaches that Jesus came to show us the way to salvation, and that Buddha came to show us the way to enligtenment....and that Buddha reached enlightenment through the spirit of Jesus, roughly similar to the way Abraham became the "father of faith."

    reading these kinds of things have caused me to pause and reconsider my views....Jesus never came to establish a world religion, nor a church insitution, but to call all world religions and individuals to himself.

    If he were here now...I personally doubt that he would indentify himself as a "Christian" in any sense of the word. He actually might come across more like a Jewish mystic or new age teacher. If I keep going this way, I am probably going to get myself in trouble!

    ReplyDelete
  13. If certain people read what you just wrote, you're already in trouble! Hee, hee.

    To quote the scriptures: "Wisdom [could probably be paraphrased as "truth"] calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the pubic squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out..." Proverbs 1:20-21

    Where ever we find truth, it is God's truth. And whatever is true is good and useful, whether a Buddist priest, a Hindu mystic, a Jewish pilospher, or an Islamic scholar says it.

    Regarding ultimate authority for discerning truth, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the Life..." John 14:6 And Jesus told His disciples that when He left earth, He would send His Spirit (the Holy Spirt) who would guide them (and whoever else embraces him) into all the truth.

    This was all before the N.T. was written, and Jesus didn't say to read a book, he pointed to himself and the Holy Spirit as the source of truth.

    As a follower of Jesus I believe that the scriptures reveal him and definitely are true and contain Truth. But I do not worship the book. I worship the one the book reveals! In my opinion, too many "bible-believing Christians" make the Bible itself into an idol, rather than using it as a tool to better understand the truth that the Spirit of Christ is revealing.

    OK. Now I'm probably in trouble too!

    ReplyDelete
  14. you are starting to sound like you are from the emerging church! thats kind of talk that is becoming controversial among evangelicals... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. In light of my last post, I want to add a few thouhgts. I haven't abandoned my modern assumption that True turth, (absolute, objective, toatal truth) exists and can be known. Obviously the degree to which we can know it and the amount of it we can know is up for debate.

    I believe that God is the source of that Truth and that he is the God who is revealed in the
    Hebrew-Christian scriptures. Therefore along with all that has already been said, I have to affirm that the scriptures are our primary source of truth in relation to salvation, knowing God and knowing how God wants us to live and be.

    As a follower of Jesus, I affirm his statment, recorded in the scriptures that I quoted earlier, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." I didn't quote the last part of his statement. He says, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

    That is an exclusive statement. So, as I learn to be more inclusive, there is a point at which the claims of Christ force the issue of exlusiveness. The idea of exlusiveness, uniqueness, and Truth with a capital "T" is not popular. As a pilgrim following Jesus and living out his story in my culture, how do I handle that issue? Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I hadn't read your post before I published my last one. As you can see, I'm orbiting between two poles. I see both sides and, strangely, I believe both sides. Am I schizophrenic, bi-polar, confused, or am I touching something significant? I hope it's the latter! :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I believe the correct word is "non-linear"

    by the way, it is not so exclusive. If Abraham was able to come to the Father through Christ before he was born, why not Buddha coming to Enlightenment through the power of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. OK So, I'm not schizoid, I'm non-linear? "Non-linear" definitely sounds better!

    The idea of Buddah coming to enlightenment through the Spirit of Jesus is a brand new one for me, but I like it. If it is true it answers a lot of my questions regarding some of the major religions from the East that are older than Christianity and embody some of the same values and ideas that are attributed to Jesus in the N.T. I know that some scholars believe that Jesus got the ideas from those more ancient sources. I have always wanted to believe that those teachings orginiated in Christ, but didn't know how to reconcile it with a historical time-line. If His Spirit inspired them, then it all fits.

    ReplyDelete
  19. well, Jesus said, before Abraham was, I AM...

    I assume that holds for Buddha as well.

    Buddha did have some good things to say...we Christians tend to polarize everything in to good/bad, black/white.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, I'm sure Jesus was before Buddah or any of the rest of us...

    Your thought that if Jesus were here today he probably wouldn't identify himself as a Christian brought to mind this quote that I recently ran across.

    "Christians are hard to tolerate; I don't know how Jesus does it." Bono

    This quote, btw, is from the book, "They Like Jesus But Not The Church", insights from emerging generations, by Dan Kimball. I just got the book, and haven't read it yet, but I really like Kimball's other books.

    If anyone reading this (is there anyone here besides Joseph and me?) has access to Christianity Today, the May, 2007 issue has a good article that address the topic of karma and translating the message into culturally understandable terms.

    It is titled, "Christ My Bodhisattva" (I can't even pronounce that, much less know what it might mean.) It is an interview with Ram Gidoomal, a Christian, who is from India and who is a business man in London. He has published sevral books addressed to Hindus and designed to translate the good news of Jesus into language they can understand.

    Here area couple quotes:

    "Not only is Jesus a snatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our karmic debt."

    "Jesus is the bodhisattva who fulfilled his dharma to pay for my karma to negate samsara and achieve nirvana!"

    I guess all I can say is, "Amen".

    ReplyDelete
  21. good stuff...

    I may be starting to feel some blog fatigue...time for bed.

    blessings

    ReplyDelete