By the end of The Mystery of Cloomber, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s not-so-side-point is clear: Christianity = vengeful and petty; Buddhism = peaceful and wise. Much of our secular world today would agree. But is that true?
Doyle’s sketches of the Protestant characters are one-sided but believable. The focal character, retired Major-General John Heatherstone lives a reclusive and paranoid life. He’s obsessively controlling of his family and rides a volcanic temper. His guilty military comrade has become an embittered, homeless drunk, his only residual skills being swearing and fighting. The other side characters who claim Christian beliefs come off as haughty and uneducated.
On the other side, there are three Buddhist monks who claim their revenge on Heatherstone for his brutal wartime slaughter of a monk who achieved nirvana and attempted to avert Heatherstone’s massacre. All of this is believable enough, because you can find people of all sorts. Anecdotal evidence can support any position. The literary question in play is the fairness of a generality. Is there some inherent weakness in Christianity that leads many Christians to fall into hypocrisy and violence? On the other side, is there some inherent strength to Buddhism that brings its adherents peace and equilibrium?
From the standpoint of the story itself, it’s hard to make that claim, seeing as the Buddhist monks track down these two retired military men and, to put it in its best light, exercise vigilante justice by executing them in cold blood. Nevertheless, the religious stereotype resonates with many today.
It’s worth remembering, particularly when dealing with world religions, that individual stories are…individual. There are pacifist Christians and militant Buddhists. People within either religion complain about others giving it a bad name. Jesus says, “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
Evangelism vs Detachment
Stereotypes persist for a reason. In this case, there’s a simple explanation rooted in the core practices of each religion—evangelism versus detachment. One of Christianity’s core teachings is the Great Commission—go out and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). This is a decidedly active charge. One of Buddhism’s core teachings is that you overcome suffering through detachment. This requires a decidedly passive approach. This means that the ways Christians go wrong (from a secular vantage point) will likely be more active, while the ways Buddhists go wrong will be more passive.
Which is worse? To be an active zealot getting it wrong, or a passive lump getting it wrong? The natural reasoning of secular logic would prefer the second. Hidden within that question, though, is a phrase that should turn the discussion. How do you know if you’re “getting it wrong”?
Pragmatism vs truth-seeking
An examination of religions by their effects has a distinctively American flavor. As Americans, we nudge pragmatism to the head of the line—does this work? Will this get me the outcome I’m looking for? How fast? That’s a poor metric for judging the meaning of life. Models of godly lives can serve as great incentives to pursue truth, but they cannot substitute for truth. You should not approach a worldview as if you’re setting up a system of government—putting up enough checks and balances to avoid one person (or belief) having too much power. The question should simply be whether it’s true?
You can find kinder or meaner Christians and kinder or meaner Buddhists. That doesn’t tell you much. You can find kinder or meaner teachers of geometry, but that shouldn’t influence your belief in pi. The Bible wants us to take it on its own terms, and to evaluate its truth through the life of the one and only perfect model—Jesus.
What Can Christians Learn from Buddhism?
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15-17). One of the reasons we do not see many instances of Buddhist terrorism is because they believe at least one part of this Scripture—not loving the world. It’s hard to imagine a Buddhist monk Youtuber.[1]
This is not to say YouTube is evil, but it is hard to immerse yourself in an always-online life without inclining towards a love of the world. The medium of the internet warps toward self-focus and approval-seeking feedback loops. Christians have a hold of the one true God and the sure light of his word. We would do well to learn some distancing from this world—not in a lack of love for others, but in where we place our hope. We should remember the love of this world is incompatible with experiencing the love of our Father. This will lead to the best pragmatic outcome—a life that is both active and energetic, yet peaceful and sacrificial.
[1] They are out there, but it’s hard to reconcile this as a lifestyle/ vocation with the fundamentals of the religion
Some fuel for Christian peace-filling meditation.
Read my article with Mere Orthodoxy:
The Difference Between Christian and Buddhist Meditation
Why did I write a book on Christian self-actualization?
I recently had a very enjoyable podcast interview with the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding about teens and becoming a social media influencer.
I view my writing on this blog as a ministry, therefore my aim is to always offer it for free. If you feel you have been served well through this ministry, would you consider making a recurring or one-time donation?
