OK, so if you read my profile or spend any time with me, you'll know I'm a LOST geek. (And thanks to Donald Miller, I am now a shameless TV watcher!) So last week's episode had a young Benry arriving on the island with his dad, Roger Workman. Ah, yes - we see Benry is a liar. He was NOT born on the island...wait, let me get back to my point...As they walked up the pier to the beach, they were greeted with the word "Namaste". "Hmm," thought I to my self, "what does that mean? Have I heard that before?"And then today, in a serendipitous moment, as I sat waiting for Ray to arrive for lunch at Exotic India I notice a small banner on the wall behind the cash register - "Namaste - the divine greeting...Namaste" (I couldn't read it all because I'm in need of an upgrade on my current vision prescription...) There it was in my real life - my LOST world colliding with my Iowa City world!
Being curious, I went to the definitive source of all knowledge - Wikipedia - and found this -
"The gesture used when bowing in Namaste or Gassho is the bringing of both hands together, palms touching, in front of the person -- usually at the chest, or a higher level such as below the chin, below the nose, or above the head.
This gesture is a mudra; a well-recognized symbolic hand position in eastern religions. One hand represents the higher, spiritual nature, while the other represents the worldly self. By combining the two, the person making the gesture is attempting to rise above their differences with others, and connect themself [sic] to the person they bow to. The bow is a symbolic bow of love and respect.
Particularly in Hinduism, when one worships or bows in reverence, the symbolism of the two palms touching is of great significance. It is the joining together of two extremities -- the feet of the Divine, with the head of the devotee. The right palm denotes the feet of the Divine and the left palm denotes the head of the devotee. The Divine feet constitute the ultimate solace for all sorrows -- this is a time-honoured thought that runs through the entire religious ethos."
A month or so ago, I listened to a podcast called "Finding Our God in the Other" by Samir Selmanovic. One of his points was that as Christians we arrogantly presume that God is at work only through "us" "His people" "the Church". Our idolatrous ownership of God and the work of God's Spirit is confronted when, among other questions, Samir asks something like this "If God can speak to us through 'The Matrix' then why not through Hinduism or Islam?"I have to admit - His question first encounters my fundamentalist Christian layer of "we have the truth". I'm a bit uncomfortable with his question, but more uncomfortable with my defensive reaction to it. For so many years, I have held to a narrow understanding that other religions are false and contain no truth - their tenets are in opposition to Christian belief - they mislead and are man's inventions or even worse, lies of Satan.
But, it is exactly this kind of belief that has made me feel incompetent to genuinely engage in conversation about spiritual matters with people who are not Christians but who are spiritual. You have those people in your life, don't you? They are the people who in many ways make the bumper sticker "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" seem like a lame excuse for Christians to be selfish, judgmental, abusive, arrogant..blah, blah, blah... because as "non-Christians" (noun) who are loving, gracious, peaceful and forgiving (yet imperfect and not forgiven?) they seem more Christian (adjective).
That was an awkward sentence - sorry. But I hope you understand. Right there, staring me in the face (as I look in the mirror!) is a "born-again Christian" who looks and sounds little like Jesus and right beside, a Hindu/Pagan/spiritual person who looks and sounds a lot like Jesus. How do I make sense of this?
Somewhere I've had to hold onto my "exclusive truth" belief, thinking it represents Christian orthodoxy. But somewhere it also has felt shabby, vulnerable, a thin tissue paper belief - susceptible to being easily poked through.
When I read about "Namaste" (admittedly a very superficial explanation in Wikipedia - hardly a worthy source!) I am struck by the beauty of it. Something rings true in it for me. Honoring one another deeply - image bearers of the divine, temples of the Holy Spirit.
Too often my Christian world view has reduced people into us/them, lost/saved, sinners/Christians. Too often that world view has left me feeling not human in a way - disconnected from people who aren't like me in belief. I admit this with a bit of a blush at first. But the blush wanes and I'm left admitting this with a sorrowful, repentant heart.
I who want to love others, who preach about loving others - I am afraid of others. What am I afraid of? Afraid of being out thought? Afraid that their lives make more sense, hold more water, are more solid than mine? Afraid that if we start to talk, I will really have to wrestle with a lot of holes poked in my shabby tissue paper dogmatic religion?
I want to be fearless when it comes to poking holes in my religion. Maybe ripping down some of my beliefs will get me closer to Jesus. I want to learn to love as Jesus loved. Somehow "Namaste" teaches me to do that - to love humbly, openly, and connected to others - not above them - one of the humans who get it wrong, but want to get it right - one who needs divine solace, comfort, forgiveness, hope - needs Divine Love in me and needs to be bathed in and transformed by Divine Love.
PS - I know that I am prone to making connections via superficial generalizations (a blessing and a curse). I admit I haven't read a lot about Hinduism or this element of it. I suspect that both Hindus (possibly) and Christians (probably) might point out distinctions that make the beliefs contradictory - places where I'm overlooking the real meaning, etc. But does that mean the superficial parallels are completely useless? I don't think so...but this is fodder for another post, right?
* Speaking of superficial parallels..."the worlds largest praying hands" pictured here stand at the entry of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I think I'm going to have to explore the universality of prayer postures and gestures. (more fodder...another post)And I was taught that good little Christians folded their hands for prayer so they wouldn't be tempted to poke the other kids in the back of the neck...hmm...I think I may have to go with the Hindus on this one!
1 comment:
It's too early in the morning to dredge up from my mind all of my hinduism knowledge...although I did spend 12:30-1:30 M/W/F in my Indian religions classes three semesters in a row for _something_!
I've done plenty of yoga in my life, and almost every class ends with the instructor bowing to us and saying, "Namaste," which one teacher once explained meant "the divine in me bows to the divine in you." I think that sentiment rocks. If we want to translate that to Christiany terms, then how bout, "I honor and celebrate you as God's creation"?
...it's afternoon now:
One thing Ive been thinking lately is that what we call the "church" or even "The Church" is not necessarily what God has in mind. I'm thinking he doesn't think of THE CHURCH as just a bunch of little congregations coming together--but as the network of Christ followers, whether they be sorted into cells/churches/organizations or lone followers in unchristian and/or hostile settings (notice I'm not equating nonChristian with hostile, please!). I think there are elements to the kingdom of God that can be actualized and realized in other faiths. Like you said Nancy, look at this nonChristian who outgives and outloves us. We can't deny that the principles of God's kingdom are at work in that person. And yeah, there are things to learn from other cultures and religions. Think of McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy and how he catalogues the positives and negatives of various historic CHristian traditions, each with their own sort of "corner" of theology or practice or understanding of God. If denominations could set aside their competetiveness with one another for five minutes, we might be richer for someone else's perspective. Same with other faiths and cultures. I don't think this is in conflict with Jesus being the way, the truth and the light and the gatekeeper to the Father. Is it too radical to suggest that there are many paths to Christ (i.e. a tibetan farmer may never assimilate himself into an Iowa Assembly of God church. His talk may never match our church jargon, he may not be literate to read the bible, may not own a bible, or know "Amazing Grace." But I think God's big enough to reveal himself in crazy ways (burning bush, anyone? a talking donkey?) so that a person could be his follower and never "look" like us westerners. And I think that's really hard for a lot of us here in America. It's hard for us to even consider the possibility that people in our own country can follow Jesus and not look/talk/think/go to the same places as us.
Here's what we're talking about in our housegroup lately: the church historically has made certain things nonnegotiable for inclusion into a community of faith, but are our nonnegotiables really God's nonnegotiables? And what are his, if not the same as ours?
I feel like I"m getting us on another thread entirely...
Post a Comment