Creating the "New" Christian Church
Is it a Resurrection or Just Clinging to an Old Habit ?
Osho:
 The
resurrection of Jesus Christ may be possible, but not the resurrection of
Christianity. There is a great movement among Christian theologians, and they
are making desperate efforts. Their very efforts show that they are going to
fail. In fact their efforts are ridiculous.
There is one theologian who says, "There is no
God, and we have to accept godless Christianity." He knows that it is
impossible to prove God to the coming generation; to the young and the fresh
mind it is impossible to prove God. And the days of belief are over. It is a
scientific age: you must prove, give the evidence; nobody is going to accept
something just by your saying it. So he is ready to sacrifice God to save
Christianity. What will Christianity be without God?
There is another theologian who is ready to
believe that perhaps Jesus is only a myth, he never existed. It is as difficult
to prove Jesus' existence as the existence of God, because none of the
literature of his time even mentions his name. There is no proof other than
those four gospels of his own disciples — they cannot be called proof. This
theologian is willing to drop Jesus to save Christianity—but what will
Christianity be without God, without Jesus? They are so desperate to save
Christianity that they don't see the implications of what they are doing.
Another theologian says there have been no
miracles; all miracles are just inventions of the followers. Up to now, for two
thousand years, Christianity has depended on the miracles of Jesus. Those were
its foundation, the basis on which to prove it a superior religion to any other
religion — because Gautam Buddha does not walk on water, Mahavira cannot revive
a dead man, Krishna cannot heal the sick just by touching them, Mohammed cannot
make wine out of water.
These miracles have been, for two thousand years,
the proof of the superiority of Christianity over all religions; otherwise what
has Christianity got? But he is ready to drop the miracles because now they are
continuously hammered. Nobody is ready to believe in them — they go against the
very way things are. And nature does not change its rules, its laws, for
anybody; it does not take anybody as an exception. So the contemporary
theologian feels embarrassed. He himself knows that it is impossible to prove
the miracles. But you don't understand the implication: without miracles Jesus
means nothing.
Without miracles Buddha remains the same, because
he never did any miracles in the first place. People loved him not for his
miracles; people loved him for his clarity of perception, of seeing into the
very root of things, of giving insights to people to transform life. Walking on
water is simply stupid. Even if you can do it, then too it is not a miracle, it
is simply stupidity, because you will remain the same. You will not come out of
the water a transformed human being.
Christianity has depended on these miracles in
proving its superiority over other religions; in fact those religions are far
superior, because they don't depend on such stupid, childish ideas. So there
are theologians who are ready to drop all miracles. But if you drop all
miracles then Jesus is left naked; you have taken all his clothes, he has
nothing to give to the world.
One theologian takes God away, another theologian
makes Jesus himself a myth, another theologian takes miracles away, and the
fourth theologian takes religion itself away; he wants a "religionless
Christianity" — but Christianity has to remain! I don't understand: when you
have taken all the contents, why cling to the box? Now even religion has to be
taken away because half of humanity is already religionless.
The communists don't believe in religion, and the communists
are not only in communist countries; communists are in other countries also. In
fact, three-fourths of humanity has already dropped religion. The remaining
ones are only formally religious. They are not much disturbed by the idea of
taking religion out. But then what remains?
It seems you are clinging just to the label, to
the name "Christianity." It is a desperate effort, and stupid too. Why not
accept that Christianity is dead? God is dead, miracles are dead, religion is
dead, Jesus is no longer born out of a virgin Mary — so what are you saving?
I have been looking into all these theologians
who are prominent people in the Christian world. They have taken all the
contents; only an empty box... But why carry on this empty box? For what
reason? Just an old habit, an old attachment.
Jesus is missing, God is missing, miracles are
not there, the Virgin Mary is not there. All that was Christianity is not
there; then why are you carrying this empty box? So there is another effort
going on, side by side, to fill the box with something. Christian theologians
are studying other religions, so as to have something similar. It is going to
be an imitation, inauthentic, because it is not their experience. They call it
"comparative religion"; in all Christian colleges they study comparative
religion.
I asked the professors and the principals of
those colleges, "Why should you be worried about other religions? — you have
Christianity." But the problem is that they have to fill the box with
something, so from other religions they are collecting ideas.
They are studying psychoanalysis. Every Christian preacher
has to study psychoanalysis. Now, what does psychoanalysis have to do with
religion? But the problem is, what religion used to do was to console people in
their misery. Now they don't have that religion at all, so they have to find
some contemporary way to console people. And psychoanalysis is a thriving
business all around the world; the most highly paid professionals are
psychoanalysts. So Christians think, "They must be doing something for people.
Let us learn their art and use it to save Christianity." But they don't
understand that Freud was against religion, the whole of psychoanalysis is
against religion. They cannot use it.
They are studying Karl Marx because the man has
something — the idea of equality of human beings. Although he is against
religion and against God, he has certain values; those values can be taken.
They are collecting all kinds of things in the
box where Christianity used to be. It is so eclectic that it does not make one
organic whole. If you look into the box you will get into a madness, because
the things they are taking belong to different systems. Within their own
systems they have a living quality; outside of those systems they are dead.
Somebody's eyes, somebody's hand, somebody's legs, somebody's heart....
And do you think in your box there will come a
man, because you have arranged everything that is needed for a man? — hands,
head, eyes, heart, everything is there. But it is just nonsense. Those eyes
were able to see in an organic unity, in a body; now they cannot see. There is
no organic unity, and you cannot bring an organic unity to it.
Christianity is dead.
Their desperate effort to save it simply confirms
that it is dead.
It is better to simply get out of the old habit.
These are just old habits. I don't know why Christian priests', nuns', bishops'
clothes are called habits — I don't know. But one thing I know: just drop the
habit! — whatever it means. Just be natural and human.
And it is not only a question of Christianity;
the same is the situation with other religions. Man has come of age, and he
does not need those old, superstitious religions; he needs a more scientific
approach to explore his being. And that will be possible only if he gets rid of
the old habits. And they are very dirty, because for thousands of years the
same habits have been used by so many people. They are stinking!
Get out of those habits as quickly as possible.
|
