In a recent posting on the Christian Post website entitled "When Man Stops Resisting the Holy Spirit," Dan Delzell argues that the key to the human condition is whether or not we resist the Holy Spirit. We stand in need of "redemption," he writes, which is provided by Jesus and revealed by the Spirit. But, we are "unregenerate," and we resist. As "natural man," we are ignorant of basic spiritual realities, especially that with his blood Jesus washes sin away. We need to stop resisting, convert, and then begin to cooperate with the Spirit. Delzell inquires into the state of the reader's soul He asks his readers, "How is it with you? Are you resisting the Holy Spirit?" We warns the readers that their excuses are all false ones, "not worth losing your soul over." He then calls on the reader to converse with Jesus, asking him to fill the reader with the Holy Spirit and be changed forever. The reader must choose, right now.
In light of the Living Buddha, Living Christ several things stand out in this posting. Its dualistic underpinnings are palpable: each person is either redeemed or unregenerate. There is no in-between state. The only remedy to the human condition is to change states, which is done not as a process but as a single decision. A sense of conflict suffuses the posting as does a not so subtle attempt to play on the reader's personal insecurities and doubts in order to invoke feelings of guilt and anxiety. The traditional language of judgment, particularly the use of the term "unregenerate," seems to be disconnected from the realities of the early 21st century; if a "non-church" person happened to read this posting, its language would in and of itself be a barrier to comprehension.
The spirituality exhibited by Delzell's posting, in sum, is a very different kind of spirituality from that found in Living Buddha, Living Christ. It is striking, for example, that Delzell doesn't explain the actual steps one must take to open one's heart to the Spirit except to pray an honest prayer asking that it happen. He promises that if we pray such a prayer we will change and become filled with the Spirit. We need no preparation, reflection, or insight apparently—just pray the prayer. Thich Nhat Hanh, in contrast, describes a concrete practice anchored in meditation, which continues through one's life as one grows ever more mindful and open to the Spirit. He doesn't play on guilt but appeals to his readers' better natures. His purpose is to dissolve boundaries between people and within the hearts of people rather than to cajole his readers into crossing an ill-defined boundary between two spiritual states. Thich Nhat Hanh seeks to resolve conflict, ease anxiety, and put away feelings of guilt rather than play on them to gain a conversion.
One last thought: Delzell and Thich Nhat Hanh are both working toward the same end—or, at least, so it seems. Both see the human condition as being deficient. Both offer a vision of wholeness and guidance as to how to achieve that change. Where they differ is in attitude and the means for achieving wholeness. The difference is crucial, and I suspect that it is Thich Nhat Hanh's spirituality that will grow in the decades to come because, truth be told, Thich Nhat Hanh's approach feels more Christ-like, more reflective of a loving God, and more likely to lead the majority of people unto a path of spirituality and transformation.
