It's funny - Christianity is supposedly a "revealed religion", where believers (according to many sects) are supposed to have some sort of communications from their god, but the church strictly defines what the content of these communications can be (hint: it matches up with their doctrines).
In Buddhism, everyone walks a unique, individual path, but here as well, the SGI seeks to define and restrict what that path is allowed to be. It *has* to be within their organization (and match up with their doctrines), and the only "mentor in life" a person is allowed to seek is Fatty McFatFat Ikeda. How is this consistent with Buddhism's emphasis on the uniqueness of each individual? How is this even consistent with the "cherry, peach, plum, and damson blossom" of even circumscribed SGI individuality??
I often bring up Christian parallels, because, having come from an Evangelical Christian upbringing, I see so many culty similarities. Also, the only reason that SGI has managed to penetrate the US religious market to any degree is by presenting an environment that seems familiar and acceptable to Christianity-raised Americans. Like having authority figures telling people how to live their lives - for those who've been bullied by authority their whole lives, the idea that they might be completely on their own to figure things out (as I imagine it is within Tibetan Buddhism) might feel overwhelming. And the "lovebombing" we've all experienced - who DOESN'T want to be the cherished new member of a group that apparently thinks we're so brilliant and wonderful??
For example, notice this, that I found on cults:
Quote
Warning signs of dysfunctional cults
Ways of Distinguishing Healthy and Unhealthy Cult Movements
Obsession with invisible or other-worldly entities or forces other than God. [
www.enlightened-spirituality.org]
WTH!! Why should we think that obsession with the invisible, other-worldly entity or force that Christians and Jews refer to as “God” is
not dysfunctional? Would a Muslim, whose sole deity goes by the name of “Allah,” agree? Would a Hindu, whose dominant deity is referred to as Brahma (or Brahman), accept such a statement? What would a Buddhist or a Jain, who believes in no gods, think? Is this statement unconsciously betraying the author’s cultural bias, evidence of his however unconscious indoctrination into Christianity (“Everything
we do is normal”)? Are we even aware of the preconceived notions we accept as “normal” and “natural?”
Notice the similarities to your own thought processes while in the cult with how this preacher describes the evangelical mindset:
Quote
Jim Henderson is a recovering evangelist. Back in his soul-chasing, church-starting days, he began hearing a grating dissonance between his faith in Jesus and the way he went about winning new converts.
Henderson realized he was doing unto others what he would never want done unto him. He was manipulating conversations to set up a pitch. Viewing people as potential notches on his evangelism belt rather than fellow sojourners and prospective friends. Listening only to the extent it could reveal an argumentative opening. He realized he hated the whole enterprise. [
usatoday30.usatoday.com]
That's how I felt, too - and I hated the whole idea of "shakubuku". It just struck me as fundamentally disrespectful - shouldn't each person have the right to walk his own path, regardless of where it might lead? It's just stupid to think that everyone in the world needs to be of the same religion! Ridiculous!
Quote
Maybe the most subversive — and sensible — surprise of all is the population to which this well-caffeinated Seattle man has turned for partners, friends and teachers: atheists.
What could a Christian possibly learn from atheists? A lot, it turns out. As more and more Jesus followers like Henderson are discovering, taking a look at yourself and your religion through the eyes of the unconvinced can be a revelatory experience.
Although he is just north of 60, Henderson is emblematic of an up-and-coming wave of evangelicals intent on course correction for the church. Through public-opinion research, grassroots dialogue and ears to the shifting ground, they are getting the message that the old ways don't cut it anymore.
The shift has serious implications for the age-old mission to evangelize — the focus of untold generations of well-intentioned Christians compelled to live out the Great Commission that Jesus laid out in the Gospel of Matthew ("Go and make disciples of all nations"). The standard argumentative approach — built around "spiritual laws," A-to-B-to-Z logic, and black-and-white propositions about the one religious truth — seems more counterproductive with each passing year, more likely to repel than persuade.
THAT's where the SGI is stuck, especially with regard to "the priesthood issue".
Quote
What do Christians learn when they start listening to atheists? Henderson, author of the forthcoming book The Outsider Interviews, has found that the "I'm right/you're wrong" model is a conversation-killer par excellence. So is speaking of non-converts as "lost." "Nothing sets off an atheist more than hearing a Christian say, 'I know Jesus is God and that I'm going to heaven when I die,' " Henderson says. "They also notice that we often say it loudly and arrogantly, which only serves to reinforce their negative opinion of our certainty."
Atheists are also wary of being seen as "projects." Does continued contact and eventual friendship with the Christian in their life depend on them converting?
Possibilities for a new model hit home for me in a recent public conversation I had with my friend Doug Pollock, evangelism trainer for the sports-ministry organization Athletes in Action. Pollock had invited me, the non-evangelical religion commentator, to join him for his keynote remarks at an evangelism-training event at a megachurch in the Portland area. When Doug asked me what advice I would have for the assembled missionaries in training, the answer came quickly: If you want to have influence, I said, you have to be willing to be influenced. If not, I asked, would anyone want to have a conversation with you?
Conventional evangelism is often accused, and rightly so, of "bait and switch" tactics; think attractive social gathering or sports outing that, unbeknownst to invitees, is really designed to segue into a Gospel pitch.
That's equally true of all the SGI events. That's why everyone is always supposed to "invite your friends" *ugh*
Quote
Henderson has a fascinating alternative to propose: all bait, no switch.
Call it promotion by non-promotion, evangelism by attraction, goodwill mongering, or letting one's life speak for itself, but this is what will best represent the faith among the many Americans who do not share the evangelical faith.
The SGI referred to this concept as being "Ambassadors for the SGI", but the people you know are SGI members aren't doin it rite O_O
Quote
Henderson and his fellow travelers are right in urging would-be evangelists simply to get to know people, become their friends and let the spiritual chips fall where they may.
This re-imagined form of witness trumpets good news all around — for Christians who, as Henderson puts it, want to be "normal," for the public credibility of Christianity, and for all of the not-yet and never-will-be converts who don't want to be pitied or demonized for (supposedly) living in the dark.
These new-century Jesus representatives seem to be arriving at just the right formula for making their faith real and known in these changing times: no formula.
Interestingly enough, that was *my* approach to being a Buddhist, for virtually my entire tenure. I think I taught maybe 10 people to chant, but not one wanted to join the SGI. And that was fine by me - why should I think that what's right for me (however temporarily) should necessarily be right for someone else? Just as I value my right to make my own choices, I respect others' right to make their own choices as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2013 04:08AM by TaitenAndProud.