This book was a bit frustrating. I went into it with an open mind, ready to actually learn something from Eastern religion. I think I actually had more respect for Zen going in than I do having read the book. It assumes a great deal without any rational support. "God is dead; get over it," it seems to say. Creeds are bad, doctrines are bad, God can't be personal, etc. Nothing to back any of this up, just conjecture and an air of superiority that says, "Modern man is way past all that orthodox Ch

This book was a bit frustrating. I went into it with an open mind, ready to actually learn something from Eastern religion. I think I actually had more respect for Zen going in than I do having read the book. It assumes a great deal without any rational support. "God is dead; get over it," it seems to say. Creeds are bad, doctrines are bad, God can't be personal, etc. Nothing to back any of this up, just conjecture and an air of superiority that says, "Modern man is way past all that orthodox Christian silliness." It assumes that the Christian life is one of non-reflection and inner deadness. It is as if these Buddhists had no information of the rich spiritual life that is truly evident from the deep spirituality of Bible-belt and Black Gospel churches' believers (especially the elderly ones) all the way to the noteworthy Catholic mystics like St. John of the Cross. I was offended that they assumed that my faith has nothing on offer to enrich the soul and enlighten the mind. The authors acted as though Liberal Theology had already proven all that to be false and cleared the table for something more valid. What it left was a weakened Christianity that a Zen Buddhist would be right to belittle.



So what was on offer. Once the book assumed God is dead, it saw the need for some source of meaning, some god worth following, so it chose The Self. Over and over again the goodness of the self is promoted. Getting to know oneself, being true to oneself, and ultimately worshiping oneself became the solution. But what if the Self needs saving? Assuming it isn't so doesn't make it so. I look at history and agree with G.K. Chesterton that the most obvious doctrine of all is Original Sin. And we can't deal with on our own; some Person who was untainted by that has to do that for us.



And how maddening to see the quotes of Jesus saying things that aren't in Scripture, and then mentioning something on the next page that He DID say and not crediting Him.



Of course the reader gets plenty of Eastern "one hand clapping" riddles and the like that look sophisticated and deep, but often just are clever without really answering anything. Attachment to such wise paradoxes seems profound, but sometimes I think the embrace of such things is a little like the scholarly treatise that was a hoax and won wide praise in academia until the authors revealed that they made it all up and just made it sound deeply intellectual.



There were nuggets of truth worth harvesting along the way. Emphasis on detachment from a consumer culture and materialism was there. I also liked the reminder that the only true way to solve the world's problems is to address the problems we as individuals have with those nearest to us and let the effects of that ripple outward to all of society. There was also a healthy call to evaluate our lives to see that we are really living them and not just passing the time. These things are worth the attention of modern-day Christians (myself included) who are prone to overlook them.



If you are looking to see some synthesis between authentic Christianity and Eastern religion, this book will not accomplish it unless your hold on the former is already a very loose grip. And if you already assume God is dead, there is no point using this book as a starting point.

For such a short book it took a very long time to get through because there was little joy in reading it. Glad to have it behind me.