The Gospel according to Brother Huston

"The Soul of Christianity" is a book by Huston Smith, otherwise most known for his books on the perennial tradition. Smith's book is relatively short and non-polemical. In fact, he says nothing about the Gnostics and almost nothing about Eckhart, two obvious choices for those who want to harmonize Christianity with the Eastern religions. Nor does he mention the bodily postures of the hesychasts. Instead, Smith claims that the first millennium of Christianity is compatible with the perennial tradition also represented by Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Weirdly, he claims that Christianity was essentially united during this period. This statement is manifestly wrong. What about Jewish Christians, Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites? At one point, what we call orthodoxy might actually have been a minority position: "Athanasius contra mundum".

While Smith claims that Christianity is in touch with something objective, something that is really "there", independent of our human minds, in practice he divides the Christian religion into two rather distinct spheres. The objective part of Christianity is broadly compatible with Smith's own religious perspective, a version of Advaita Vedanta. The more distinctive Christian dogmas are theological interpretations, and hence in a sense "subjective". While some Christians might indeed see their tradition in this manner (I'm sure Origen would have been impressed), many others would argue that the theological interpretations are just as objective, indeed, that they are *more* correct than the general/perennial perspective. Even the irenic C.S. Lewis argued for this more narrow view. The constant conflicts over theological minutiae during the first Christian millennium are a strong argument against Smith's ultra-irenic inclusivism.

Smith claims that the Infinite (the unfathomable Godhead) is higher and more fundamental than the Trinity. Further down is the man Jesus, a man who was so imbued with divine love and energy that he perfectly reflected the Godhead. The virgin birth is an allegory, and while the resurrection is in some sense real, Smith emphasizes that it wasn't a resuscitation of a dead corpse but an entirely new form of life. The position is compatible with several different interpretations. Smith also strongly presses the point that damnation in Hell isn't eternal. He is, if not a universalist, at least very close to one. (Here, he is similar to Lewis, at least the Lewis of "The Great Divorce".)

Among the theological interpretations are: the Incarnation, the Atonement, the virgin birth, the Trinity, Chalcedonian Christology, etc. Smith doesn't claim that these interpretations are "wrong", probably because he doesn't have to. Since the unfathomable is always One, while always being expressed in symbols, the author can believe both in his own perennialist perspective and traditional Christian theology. However, this calls for a closer discussion: surely different symbols can express *different* ideas? Why doesn't Smith accept the symbols of Gnosticism or Monophysitism, for instance? Or those of Nestorianism? Conversely, why does he accept Buddhist or Muslim symbols? Why does he sometimes exemplify Jesus' actions by mundane or absurd anecdotes, such as the (admittedly entertaining) story about the shirtless bodybuilder on the beach? If the symbols express something "objective", can they really be so diverse as nirvana and the resurrection?

On one level, Smith is actually more "traditional" than many other metaphysical writers. He says in an interview reprinted in the book that "The Soul of Christianity" is a response to Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar, who believe that the Gospels are concoctions. Smith believes that the Gospels are true in the sense that they correctly report the impact of Jesus on his disciples. He implies that somehow this impact was objective and that the Gospels therefore aren't completely non-historical. The differences (many would say contradictions) between the four gospels are explained by simply being four different perspectives, all equally true. The divine side of Jesus impacted John in particular, while Matthew was more impacted by the Jewish traits, etc. Of course, even if some of the gospels could be proven to be a hoax, Smith could *still* claim that they are "true" in the symbolic sense. At one point, the author retells a somewhat frivolous anecdote about a theologian who asks St. Paul in Heaven whether or not he wrote Ephesians. Paul distractedly responds: "I think I did". Smith fills in by saying: "Who cares?"

I suspect neither traditional Christians nor sceptics will like "The Soul of Christianity". Somehow, Smith both gets to have his cake and eat it!

I'm not a Christian, and I'm not saying that this particular perspective on Christianity is uninteresting. However, it probably wasn't the self-conception of the early Church or most of the Church Fathers. When all is said and done, this book is really the gospel according to...Huston Smith.