How much can we really say about a religion from the standpoint of an outside observer? This question has been around for me for as long as there has been sharply critical comment on my own religion, Christianity, from those who are not now, nor ever have professed to be a part of it. In deed, it has been a question for me ever since I started being interested in academic theology taught within a secular context rather than a seminary, a project in which I believe very strongly. I've always thought that there are two answers to that question. One is that, yes, of course you can observe, critique, analyse and describe a religion from the 'outside' and those of us schooled in the scientific-critical methods of biblical scholarship are part of a tradition that goes back a very long way. The other is that, no, there are some things about religious faith that cannot be satisfactorily described in their entirety in this way. To use my favourite anology, you can describe the love between two people in terms of its psychology, biology, social construction and cultural dimensions, but that is not the same thing as being in love with the other person.
So I was delighted to be able to reflect a little on another religious faith while on holiday in Thailand and Cambodia (yes, this is just a poncy excuse to show some holiday snaps!). I have read about Buddhism, spoken and meditated with Buddhists and read a few of the relevant texts, and now I have had the chance to see Buddhism in action in its lived expression in two predominantly Buddhist countries, but I would still say that there is no way I can know Buddhism like a Buddhist does. In many places, we saw people offering incense in front of images of the Buddha or at the spirit house in their own front yard. They were showing considerable respect to the Buddha and clearly offering prayer, but how confident could I be in saying that what they were doing was the same as I do when I light a candle in front of an icon?
And what of the offerings of food at our hotel's spirit house? In what way is this similar or dissimilar to the offering of bread and wine on the altar at the Eucharist? The simplistic observer might wonder whether, in each case, this is nothing more than a quaintly superstitious attempt to appease a hungry god.
And this leads me on to another huge range of questions about the relationship between the texts, teachings and popular practices of religions. If Buddhism is, as many fashionable Western commentators like to suggest, an 'atheist' religion if it is a religion at all, then how do we reconcile our picture of a non-supernatural 'philosophy' with the place the Lord Buddha occupies in the lives and imaginations of those who follow his way day by day? Could we really say that, 'functionally', the honour paid to him is of a very different sort from that paid to Jesus by Christians? I have no doubt that many purists within Buddhism would find some of the popular religious practices to be at odds with the core teachings of their faith in the same way that Church hierarchies have always been a little snooty about popular expressions of Christianity, but in explaining a religion to someone who stands outside it, would it be honest to exclude the popular genius for syncretism and simple daily practices that give real shape and meaning to a life as it is really lived?
I am aware that I have asked many more questions that I have answered, but I wanted simply to suggest how very difficult it is truly to know a religion from outside it. Christianity's current unreasonable critics make the basic error in thinking that if they have read the bible, they know what Christianity is all about. Thankfully, the truth is very much more complex, textured and interesting than that. Religions should not be afraid of those who wish to make sense of them by using critical methods as detached outsiders (or, indeed, as critical insiders) but neither should they be afraid of reminding their observers that this will only give a very partial picture.
Recent Comments