The Dao and Christianity: Compatible?

In short, no.

Sure there are parallel sayings and on a philosophical and generic "religious" level similarities. To deny this is foolish. In fact, I often find the two merging at various points.

However, there is a big difference: in Christianity, God is personal. You pray to God, God communicates with people. God expects obedience. God expects a life devoted to Him. These expectations are absent from the overall framework of Daoism.

In Daoism, the Dao is impersonal. The Dao just is. You don't communicate with it, you don't pray to it, you don't hear its voice.

"We listen to it but do not hear it..." (14)

It is to your detriment if you don't follow the Dao but, though men exalt it, neither this nor obedience is ever commanded (51). In Christianity, obedience is expected and there are consequences established in the divine law established by a personal Creator. In Daoism, disobedience leads to destruction not from the consequences of a divine law but as a result of the "natural" order.

The closest parallel to this notion is the idea that there is a way "that seems good to man but its end is the way of death" (Prov 14:12, 16:25). As Wisdom the two share kinship.

And yet...

"This is called the formless form,

The substanceless image..." (14)

Sound familiar?

"Who is the image of the invisible God..." (Colossians 1:15)

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..." (Hebrews 2:2)

It is easy to see why those Christians who study Daoism and view it favorably contend that what Laozi and Zhuangzi were longing for is Christ, whose light shone through Daoism but whose time had not yet come. Laozi and Zhuangzi would have recognized the Christ of faith. In other words, Christianity adds "personality" to the Dao.

From the point of view of Daosim, however, all of Christian theology is, in the end, just words. Lots of them. He who knows does not say; he who says, does not know (56). So the more words, the more likely it is that less is being said. Words serve a purpose; however, I think Daoism provides a necessary corrective to the tendency in theistic theologies to idolize words and theories (though philosophizing, including the Daoist kind, in general has the same tendency).

Daoism is ultimately nameless (cf. Ch 32); Christianity believes that a name is essential (cf. Acts 4:12).

In the experience at the point where self is abandoned perhaps it could be argued that there is kinship which then dissolves into discussions of the perennial philosophy which may not be an essence but something ascended toward, i.e. it is a conclusion not a presupposition.

In Daoism there is no salvation, only return; in Christianity, there is no return, only salvation (though, perhaps the "born again" idea in Christianity is similar in the sense that we must "return" to a state of innocence to experience the true Way).

Other shared ideas would be that desire is the root cause of all evils in the world. In Daoism, as in Christianity, the true leader is the servant; true greatness comes in the least greatness; he who wishes to be first must find himself last; one must be soft and yielding in order to truly be firm and grounded.

Daoism's emphasis on these things might be a good reminder of the same ideas found in the Christian tradition as Christianity contains these ideas and then some though often these ideas seem to take a back seat as men, even Christians, seek power.

And the power sought by men in the world is a danger. Both Daoism and Christianity find agreement there. This world is only temporary. Better is it not to get bogged down in the temporal and superficial trappings of being human.