Philosophy: Packed with whole grain goodness; It will keep you regular or at least full of…

According to Edie Brickell, “philosophy is the talk on a cereal box.” You remember the lyrics don’t you? Sure you do. And you are probably humming the tune right now. Well, Edie also said that religion is the smile on a dog. That’s so Bohemian. Anyway, what does she know? I really don’t think she was aware of too many things.

However, she does put her finger on something important and that is the close affinity that many find between religion and philosophy. Within Christianity there has long been a persistent tension regarding the place of philosophy in Christian theology. In his famous treatise The Prescriptions against the Heretics, Tertullian (ca. 155–230) had some pretty harsh words to share regarding the the discipline of philosophy and those who do philosophy, namely “the philosophers.” Here are a couple of fun quotes from Turtullian for you to drop the next time you are at a social gathering:

For worldly wisdom culminates in philosophy with its rash interpretation of God’s nature and purpose. It is philosophy that supplies the heresies with their equipment.

A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art which destroys as much as it builds, which changes its opinion like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself.

What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic?

He is also often credited for having coined the phrase:

Credo quia absurdum: I believe because it is absurd

Perhaps Turtullian sounds like a bit of a cantankerous man. There may be some validity to that observation. However, before we roll our eyes one too many times at Turtullian’s attitude toward philosophy, it is important to note that he was defending Christian orthodoxy against the likes of Marcion and other gnostic subversives. Indeed, Greek philosophy in the hands of such folks proved to be quite dangerous. And we should also be mindful that Turtullian did put in some important theological work. He coined another Latin phrase that became quite important to Christian orthodoxy, perhaps you have heard it before: Trinitatis (Trinity).

Of course, we might also want to keep in mind that Turtullian’s anti-intellectual disposition probably had a great deal to do with why he ended up adopting Montanism. The staunch defender of orthodoxy ended up joining a highly ascetic and divergent “unorthodox” sect.

Of Course Turtullian’s approach is quite different from other early Church leaders such as Justin Martyr. Justin implemented an important Greek phrase: logos spermatikos (seminal Word or seeds of the word). Justin borrowed from Plato and from the stoics (from whom he got this phrase). For Justin the bits of truth scattered throughout ancient philosophy are a reflection of the divine Logos.

Of course both of these approaches have been reflected throughout Christian history. There are traces of Turtullian’s approach in the fideism of Blaise Pascal, the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard, the German Pietist movement, the Anabaptist, as well as in the voices of contemporary fundamentalism. (Not that I am saying that any of these people or movements are identical by any means).

And of Course, we find echoes of Justin’s approach – at least in regard to faith, reason and philosophy – in the likes of Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and in academic theology the list goes on and on.

So what is one such as myself – who is crazy enough to want to dedicate a lifetime to taking up the task of theology -to make of all of this? The anti-intellectualism of the Turtullian approach has often lead to some pretty bad stuff: blind fundamentalism, strict biblicism and often an anti-tradition mentality. On the other hand, especially in the Reformed tradition – which I consider myself a part of – we can often become overly dependent on philosophy.

Is there a balance to be found? To anyone serious about answering that question, I offer the words of the Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky. Regarding thoughts about time and eternity in the doctrine of creation, Lossky writes:

Theology does not have to beg explanations from philosophers: it alone can answer their problems, not against mystery and faith, but by nurturing the intellection of the mystery, by transforming it through faith, in a total commitment of the person. True theology goes beyond and transfigures metaphysics.

For Lossky, philosophy is but a tool that aids in the task of doing theology. And for Lossky – being thoroughly Eastern Orthodox – it is never theology for theology’s sake. One does theology (aided by tradition, reason and experience) as part of the process of theosis. For Lossky – again being thoroughly Eastern Orthodox -the goal, the only goal worth dedicating all of ones life to, is communing with our precious triune God. And being ever transformed into the image and likeness of our God.

This is the only thing worth dedicating a lifetime to. It is worth my heart, my soul my all.

If you are interested in the task of theology or think seriously at all about the intersection of faith and reason, then please think on these things.

Blessings,
Wayne

This is an Orthodox icon of the Pantokrator: the “all-conquering” or “all-powerful” Christ. The sustainer of the world. The life giver.

My friend Christian asked me quite a while back if I would write something about why I am adamant about the importance of believing in the physical resurrection of Christ. In asking me this, I think he is also asking me what I find unconvincing about modernist/liberal explanations of the resurrection as strictly a spiritual event.

I very strongly disagree with spiritualized explanations of Christ’s resurrection. I fervently believe that Christ experienced some kind of bodily resurrection; that after the resurrection he possessed a body that had continuity with the body he lived, breathed, ate and was crucified in. And someday he will come to judge the living and the dead and all who are in Christ will also experience the resurrection of the body.

So first let me say up front what I can and cannot or will not do. I cannot even scratch the surface of all of the ink that has been spilled on this subject. Many, many brilliant minds have devoted years of study and wrote dissertations, books and even volumes of books on this subject. And on both sides of this issue. I will make no judgment about Christians who do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.

I will do my best to unpack some of the arguments given by those who prefer a spiritualized interpretation of the resurrection. Most of those concerns center either on the tradition of the empty tomb or on Saint Paul’s epistles, especially I Corinthians 15. For some of my more theologically astute readers this will be way too over-simplified. But I know for some of you this may be the first time you have ever heard such arguments. I will also share what I believe is a good apologetic (I once never thought I would use those two words together) concerning the resurrection. It may not be a sufficient explanation to a non-believer. However I believe it is a good explanation and reinforcement for Christians who really struggle with this issue but are still compelled to hold to the traditional stance of the Church.

There are several reasons given by those who argue against a belief in the tradition of the empty tomb. The most obvious yet perhaps the most superficial reason given is an appeal to the “conflicting” accounts in the gospels themselves. One account tells us that just Mary Magdalene went first and discovered the empty tomb while another reports that several women went. One reports two angels were present and another only states that there was one angel. Questions arise: Where was the stone? or Why were the women going in the first place? and answers can vary depending on which gospel account we look at.

Secondly, those arguing against belief in an empty tomb appeal to Paul, especially to I Corinthians 15. Paul never mentions an empty tomb. Furthermore, Paul speaks of Jesus as having a “spiritual body” after the resurrection. He also says in this passage that flesh and blood will not inherit heaven.

Those who interpret Paul as saying this spiritual body is not one that has continuity with Christ’s earthly body will then argue that the tradition of the empty tomb was a later development of the gospel writers for apologetic purposes. Paul’s writings were indeed earlier than the gospels. I make no contention of that. And Paul does use some language that may seem strange to us: a spiritual body? But I believe that this is an acknowledgment of the fact that Christ’s resurrected body was different or greater than the one he went into the tomb with. It was not a mere resuscitation. He did not just pick up where he left off. However it was still his body, it had continuity with the body that he went into the tomb with. But as I mentioned Paul did not speak of this tradition of the tomb.

If we turn aside the debate over the empty tomb, there are still several observations that we can employ in presenting our best historical case for the belief that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead. For the following six observations I am indebted to my Christology professor at Calvin: Dr. John Schneider. I do not take credit for the argument. But I do believe it is a pretty good defense of the resurrection.

First, we can say with little doubt that this man, Jesus, existed. Very few people, even those antagonist toward the Christian faith doubt this claim. Secondly, Jesus embarked on a tacit campaign to be considered God’s ‘Messiah’ or ‘Christ’. Consider Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah after the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus did not (as John the Baptist would have) deny that this claim was true about himself. Third, we know that the expectation for the Jewish Messiah was that he would be an all conquering liberator: the Pantokrator.

The fourth observation is that Jesus was crucified. This led many to believe that Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Fifth, something happened to make many knowledgeable Jews believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah or Christ. That he is the all conquering liberator of humanity! Whatever happened, we must not forget that it happened in the context that Jesus was indeed crucified and his followers were for a time filled with grief and doubt. Finally, this belief that Jesus was indeed God’s Messiah persisted even in the face of systematic persecution of those who believed it.

This resurrected life giver, this all conquering liberator of humanity is who restored hope to the disciples who were filled with grief and doubt. And I believe it is this same Jesus that Paul experience on the road to Damascus. This is why he said so adamantly:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (I Corinthians 15: 12-19 NRSV).

Christian, my friend I do not know if you will find this line of reasoning convincing. I am not sure how much you are still wrestling with this issue. But I do hope that you and anyone else reading this will be encouraged by this post to continue in the faith, seeking understanding, but above that to continue to grow in love for God and neighbor.

Shalom,
Wayne

The Hospitality of Abraham by fifteenth century iconographer Andrei Rublev of the Russian Orthodox Church draws upon Abraham’s visit with three angels in Genesis chapter 16. The icon provides believers with a visual stimulus to meditate upon the perichoresis – the mutual inter penetration or divine dance – of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Here are some very important words for further meditation on the subject:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28: 18,19)

The catholic [Christian] Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. (Athanasian Creed).

God’s history with the world is a trinitarian history. All three persons of the Trinity are always involved, Whether the Father creates the world through the Son in the energies of the Holy Spirit, and preserves it for the coming of his kingdom, Whether the Son is sent into the world by the Father through the Holy Spirit, then in his turn sending the Holy Spirit from the Father into the world, or whether the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son and the Father and leads … into the eternal life of the Trinity (Jürgen Moltmann – Experiences in Theology p.310).

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All Thy works shall praise Thy Name, in earth, and sky, and sea;
Holy, holy, holy; merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!

Question

Now, I readily admit that my church experience is limited (though it does span several different churches and denominations). However, it seems to me that too often each ecclesial community tends to focus most of it’s attention on one person of the Trinity – whether it be the Father, Son or Holy Spirit – while giving considerably less attention to the other persons of the Godhead. Is this your experience as well? If so why do you think that is? When you pray: are you conscious of the Trinity? Do you think the notion of a triune God has has practical implications for the way we should pray? Worship? Live? Let me know what you think.
May our triune God bless and keep you!

Shalom,
Wayne