Discernment Part 14    Other Religions pt.4    Confucianism, Shinto & Taoism     1-20-2002

Confucianism
Confucius
Around the same time as Gautama Buddah lived, there was a Chinese named Kong Fuzi (K'ung Fu-tzu; Master Kong).  Instead of trying to say that name, westerners turned Kong Fuzi into Confucius.  

His father died shortly after Confucious’ birth and so he grew up poor.  He had a short-lived career in government, and after that floundered at around age 30 he devoted himself to learning and teaching others.

He didn’t write his teachings, but his students compiled them after his death in a 12-volume work known as the Analects.  That’s the book that has all the “Confucius said...” aphorisms.

There are nine other books that are the basis of Confucianism that were books Confucius himself taught from.

It’s not systematized or organized in any way, so it really doesn’t make a coherent philosophy.  And some have debated about whether Confuscianism should be called a religion, because It doesn’t teach anything about God or an afterlife and has no organization or clergy.

Mostly it’s just a collection of ethical rules for social lifestyle and governing.

Doctrine
Confucious was alarmed at the rising disrespect for authority in China, and figured if everyone honored their elders, authorities & ancestors, there would be utopia.  

Confucius seemed to be dedicated to the preservation of traditional ritual practices with a delight in performing ritual just for ritual’s sake.

The goal of Confucianism is for everyone to master li (social convention).  At that point everyone would be a sage, and society would be perfectly ordered, harmonious utopia.

The assumption that social convention or tradition was automatically correct brought attack from the Taoists as well as other religions.

And that is a very legitimate attack.  Confucious’ error is one that is repeated countless millions of time in today’s world.   People have standards for right and wrong, but at the same time don’t want to be answerable to God or to feel guilt.

So they don’t want God or the Bible to be the standard for right and wrong, yet they can’t throw out the idea altogether, so they usually end up saying right and wrong is whatever society agrees it is.

Confucianism was the state religion of China from the 100's B.C. until 1949 when the communists took control in China and condemned all religions.  The government backed off from that in 1977.

It is not a major factor here.

Shintoism
Shintoism is the native religion of Japan.  According to Shinto mythology, deities created Japan and its people.  Until the mid-1900's, the Japanese worshipped their emperor as a direct descendant of Amaterasu-Omikami, the sun goddess and most important Shinto deity.  

A major part of Shintoism is animism (the worship of spirits and demons that live in animals and in mountains, trees, and other parts of nature).

Taoism
About 100 years after the time of Christ, a new religion began to develop in China that was an offshoot of Buddhism: Taoism. 

Taoism teaches that everyone should try to achieve two goals, happiness and immortality.  That is accomplished by following “The Way of Virtue.”   The Chinese word for “way” is “Tao.”  

The Tao is the way things are.  It’s eternal, and it’s the source of all wisdom and it’s the solution to all life’s problems.

It is not a person.

Taoism is probably the most occultic of the world religions.

Taoism involves magic, eastern meditation & breath control, astrology, fortunetelling, witchcraft, and communication with the spirits of the dead.  

Taoists probably also get the prize for worshipping more gods than any other religion.  They are into ancestor worship as well as the worship of the spirits of famous people.  

It is extremely palatable for our culture, because the whole point of Taoism is to live in harmony with nature.

And the reason is, there is more to nature than meets the eye.

The Universe is supported and animated and held together by an impersonal force called chi (pronounced “key”).  In order to achieve well-being, you have to be in balance with chi.

If you want an education on chi, just watch Star Wars.  The Force is exactly the same thing.  It is neither good nor evil, but can be used for either.

The way to get into balance with chi is to properly balance the opposing forces called yin & yang.  

The yang is the positive force of good, light, warmth, life, & masculinity.  
The yin is the negative essence of evil, death, coldness & femininity.

The word “yang” (the masculine) means “sunny.”  The word “yin” (feminine) means “shady.”  

Yang is heavenly, yin is earthly.

Everything that exists is made out of two ingredients: a certain amount of yin and a certain amount of yang.  

When those forces are out of balance, there is distress, trouble, illness, etc.

When they are in balance, there is health and the ability to utilize chi.

That idea is the basis behind martial arts and acupuncture.  

The ancient Chinese believed there were strategic points at which you could insert needles and restore the yin & yang balance, thus restoring health to the body.

Scientists have determined that acupuncture triggers signals in the nervous system to adjust the activities of the body's internal organs and to change the pain signals sent to the brain.  Researchers have shown that acupuncture increases the brain's production of endorphins.  Much of acupuncture's influence, however, is not understood.

Martial arts disciplines are based on the idea that if you balance the yin & yang you can tap into chi.  And once you do that, your opponent ends up on the floor.

You may have heard of “The Tao of Physics.”   That is the idea that the concept of yin & yang are scientifically verifiable.  Basically all they do is point to a few examples of positive & negative forces that seem to be somewhat dualistic (such as protons & electrons or matter & antimatter) and then offer those as evidence of the entire philosophical system.

From what I understand, they don’t really make any argument to support the philosophy.  All they do is point to those examples.
The Error of Rejecting Logic

One thing you learn when you study the eastern religions is that postmodernism isn’t really all that modern.  Satan has always made an effort to convince men not to use their minds.  Sound reasoning tends to lead men to the truth, and so if the enemy can persuade people to set aside rational thought in religion, he has a huge advantage.

According to 1 Co.10 and other spiritual warefare passages, we learn that the weapons of spiritual warfare, contrary to popular opinion, are not prayers.  Nor are they angels’ swords.

The weapons of spiritual warfare are ideas, thoughts, doctrines, etc.

People want to go to conferences to learn all about spiritual warfare, but it’s really pretty simple.  When correct ideas about God prevail, we are winning.  When incorrect ideas about God prevail, we are losing.

So if the canons and artillery we have trained on Satan’s kingdom are so deadly, and if that artillery is loaded with live ammo, and that ammo is correct thoughts about God, it makes sense that instead of fighting a losing battle, Satan tries instead to get us to disarm.

You can imagine an apprentice demon asking Satan, “How do you get a rational thinking human being to reject what is true and embrace error?”  And Satan respond, “You can do it the hard way by trying to insert very subtle errors in otherwise correct reasoning, and fool him.”

“Or you can do it the easy way, and just convince him that rational thinking doesn’t apply to religion.”

If you were in a war, what would you rather do – try to dodge the enemy’s bullets, or just convince your enemy to unload his weapons?

Once people are convinced to stop thinking rationally about spiritual things, where does that leave us in trying to reach them?  We can make the best conceivable argument, and it will have no effect.

So our task now isn’t to just present persuasive arguments, but first to persuade the person that persuasive arguments matter in spiritual matters.

The poison of anti-rationalism has seeped into every crevice of our culture, which is amazing, considering our culture literally worships science.

It’s not that they have abandoned all rational thought – just in that area of morality and religion.

Some people claim to be consistent postmodernists, but it’s pretty easy to prove to them that they are not.  Just follow them to the store.

I would love to see a sales clerk give a postmodernist a taste of his own thinking.

The postmodernist says, “Hey, I gave you a $100 bill for a $10 item.  You owe me $90 change.”

Clerk: “I’m a postmodernist.  Your truth claim about the $100 may have meaning for you, but it has no meaning for me.  Not only that, I’m a deconstructionist.  So your statement has no meaning for me, since language can’t really convey any meaning.”

“Everyone knows 100-10=90.  Now stop messing around and give me my change!”

“You are just stuck in western, ‘either or’ type logic.  I believe in eastern, ‘both and’ logic.  You think either it’s true that I owe you change or it’s not.  But for me it’s both and.  For you it’s true, but for me it’s not.”

“It’s wrong for you to keep my money.”

“If believing that works for you, you have every right to believe in that.  But don’t shove that down my throat.  You just hold to rigid, mathematical dogma because that’s what your parents conditioned you to believe.  I have ascended beyond that.”

It’s amazing how a postmodernist, when it comes time to get change for $100, reverts to dogmatic, western, either-or type logic.

So how do you convince them that the rational thinking they apply to physical things also applies to spiritual realities?

One way is to show them areas where they are thinking rationally in spiritual matters.  No matter how irrational someone is, a little bit of rationalism seeps in to their belief system.  Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to communicate.

The eastern mystics who believe you should empty your mind go around teaching that to other people!

And they teach it by means of words – spoken or written.  They follow the rules of grammar, they conform to accepted meanings of words, they follow strict logic in their thinking when they assume someone will read their words and be persuaded.

They tell people to empty their minds, and they do so by filling people’s minds with their ideas!

If you read their materials, you don’t just see hundreds of random letters on the page.  They follow strict logic the vast majority of the time, and only depart from it when it suits them.

Once you warm them up a little to the idea that they already believe in some universal constants, you can begin to move toward connecting that to spiritual things.

Christian: "I think people ought to have some degree of compassion.  No religion should promote mercilessness or intolerance."
Relativist: "I agree."
C: "Another element that ought to be in every religion is love.  A religion that actually encourages hate, bigotry or random violence would be no good."
R: "I agree with that too."
C: "There is one more thing that I think is important.  Don't you think a religion should address people's guilt?  I don't think a religious system should pile guilt trips on people about all their failures.  Sure, people aren't perfect, but shouldn't a religion make a provision for dealing with guilt?"
R: "Yeah, I can't stand it when religions put guilt trips on everyone."
C: “I’m with you.  It’s really cruel to pile guilt on to people with no way out.  I mean, no one is perfect.  We all do bad things.  We know for a fact that no matter how noble our intentions, between now and when we die we will do things we are ashamed of.  And it’s cruel for some religionist to come along and just heap guilt on people without any remedy.”

“On the other hand, it doesn’t do any good to stick our heads in the sand and pretend everything is wonderful and virtuous, and that there aren’t bad things happening.  Some people want to deny the existence of evil, but it’s tough to do that when you hear about a father who tortures his 6 month old baby for weeks, and then finally beats it to death.”

“So on the one hand it’s wrong to dump guilt on people without any remedy, but on the other hand we need to be honest and not sugar coat reality.  People do some pretty bad things.  In fact, there’s plenty of things I’ve said and done and thought that I’m not proud about.”

“That’s one thing I love so much about Christianity.  It’s honest about the reality of evil, but it doesn’t leave us with guilt.  As far as I know, it’s the only religion that has an adequate way of dealing with guilt, because it admits to the legitimateness of the guilt and provides forgiveness that is meaningful (because it is based on the price being paid).”

What if they persist in rejecting reason?

To a limited degree, it may be wise in some cases not to use reasoning as the primary appeal initially.  

A lot of postmoderns are that way out of sheer laziness.  But others are that way because of an emotional reaction to something. 
 
Very often people will say they reject Christianity because they don’t believe there is absolute truth, and it’s only a smoke screen to cover the real reason.  Many times the real reason is an emotional objection.

"How could God allow my sister to be raped?" or "I was in a church and was mistreated."  It is true that there is an argument against God based on the problem of evil, but, in my experience, it is usually not even that argument to which they refer.  

Many people say, "I do not believe God exists, because of a horrible experience I had," but most of the time they would be more accurate to say, "God did not help me in my time of trouble, and so I refuse to think about him."  

People who are atheists as a result of painful experiences sometimes reason it out (If an omnibenevolent, omnipotent Being existed, it would be impossible for this to have happened), but more often the refusal to believe in God is an emotional reaction against God that is devoid of serious reason.  

When talking to someone like this, it may not always be sufficient to just offer logical reasoning.  

Since they probably arrived at their present view as a result of an emotional response rather than through logical deduction, the best approach may be to include an emotional appeal.

This is not to suggest that sound reasoning should be replaced with emotional manipulation.  If a person is convinced of something - even if it is the truth - by means of emotionalism, it is dangerous.  When a more emotionally charged appeal comes, the person may forsake the truth.  

On the other hand, there is more to persuasion than cognitive argumentation.  A good approach for this kind of person may be to show him the beauty of the gospel.  

The Law of the Lord is beautiful.  It is beautiful in the highest sense of beauty.  The teachings of Christ are not like anything else in human experience.  They are astonishing and profound and wonderful and beautiful and true.

One good approach is to question the person and find out what his (false) concept of God is, and then join him wholeheartedly in rejecting such a god.  

Then present to him the true God.  If he rejects the true God, then you have gone as far as you can.

But if the Holy Spirit grants light for his blind eyes to see even a glimpse of what God is really like, how could he resist?

There are a thousand ways to do this, because every aspect of the Gospel is beautiful.

Since most people are favorable toward Jesus, you could say something like, “I’ve always been amazed at the uniqueness of Jesus’ teaching.  When He said “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn.14:6) or “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Jn.6:44-45 or “no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” (Jn.6:65) it was just so much different than any other person’s teaching.

Or you can say, “There are so many concepts of God floating around out there that are so undesirable – and exalted man, or a disinterested, indifferent being staring out into space somewhere, or a well-meaning but helpless spirit, or even an impersonal force that isn’t even capable of love…

That’s one thing about the God of the Bible that is so attractive to me.  He’s perfect.  He’s beautiful.  He’s the standard of all beauty.  He’s the ultimate standard of perfect love – the perfect balance of firmness and gentleness.

He has the perfect balance of justice and mercy.  

He has full control over everything, and yet allows His creatures freedom.

He has always existed and never changes in His nature.

You can tell what He must be like just be looking around – He must be awesome and yet tender.  He must be complex and yet unified and perfectly self-consistent.  

He must have personality: the ability to love and feel and think and make decisions, and to act…

Everything about the Gospel is beautiful.  

“What about hell?”  Even hell. 

One of the most distressing things in human experience is injustice.  One of the ugliest and most unpleasant realities of this world is the apparent fact that so many good things go unnoticed and unrewarded, and so many horrible things go unpunished.   

That’s why people invent ideas like Karma.  People have to believe that one way or another justice takes place.

But the idea that it’s some natural tendency governed by no one is not all that satisfying.  For one thing, natural tendencies generally allow a lot of exceptions to slip through the cracks.

For another thing, no one has any conscious awareness of what is happening.  If a person tortures and kills a baby, he might enjoy prosperity and fun his whole life, and in the next life he may be a worm, but he won’t have any awareness that it is because of what he did.

How much better is the knowledge that an infinitely just and infinitely intelligent being will carry out perfect justice in every case, and every person will be completely conscious of was is happening?

So my point is, trust the Gospel to do its work.  Sometimes we are ashamed of the Gospel and want to tweak it here and there to make it palatable.  We think, “There is no way the person will accept this, so I just won’t mention that.”

But that may be there very part of the Gospel that the Holy Spirit opens the persons eyes to see its beauty.