Greek Philosophy & Christianity

There can be no doubt that Greek Philosophy and the Greek Worldview influenced the New Testament in all sorts of ways. The fusion of Greek and Jewish culture began with the Apocrypha, which includes many Greek ideas and values re-interpreted through a Jewish lens. This process continues into the New Testament. The fact is that the New Testament is written in Greek, and language itself carries with it philosophical baggage. When the Gospel of John called Jesus The Logos, in one fell swoop it dragged into the Christian worldview all of the Greek Culture that came before it.

But it must be remembered that Jesus Himself was a Jew, and that Hebraic and Hellenistic thought do not fit together nicely and neatly. The Bible winds up often in very murky places where these two traditions meet. Sometimes Hellenistic views become more ascendant (like the idea of a disembodied soul), sometimes Hebraic views become emphasized over and against Hellenistic views (like the Incarnation itself), sometimes something like a fusion develops, and sometimes you get contradictions that have no clear resolution (1 Corinthians 15:35-58 really makes no sense when you realize that 'soul' and 'flesh' or 'body' are considered opposing substances in the original Greek).

After the Biblical period people continued to try to bring Christian and Greek thought together. This was the project of many of the earliest church fathers. Greek philosophy was the best science of the day, and reconciling Christian thought with Greek philosophy was seen as a necessary endeavor. Much of this was fruitful, and it gives us a pattern to follow when we try to reconcile Christian thought with the best science of OUR day. But for many it ended up codifying as doctrine ideas that are not exactly Biblical, or are not consistently Biblical.

When we talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation or even Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, we often get trapped by thinking that is inherently married to substance ontology. Personhood or identity become all about a particular way of looking at a person or thing's 'essence' or 'being'. The truth is that the splitting of hairs, as to what constitutes such things often proceeds on strictly Greek grounds, when the Bible has no absolute philosophical commitments as to what it means to 'be' or what the 'essence' of a thing is.

In Chinese philosophy, becoming is more fundamental than being. And when the Bible translates
"Logos" as "Tao" in Chinese, the entire meaning of these words changes. For the "Tao" is not a changeless fact as the Logos is, but a living and dynamic idea, which is relational rather than substantive.

Relations are more fundamental than substances. Science keeps telling us this over and over again. The primary doctrines of Christianity are not weakened by divorcing them from a particular Greek idea as to what is ultimately real. Even when we translate God's name in Exodus "I AM that I AM", we leave out the other possible translation "I WILL BE what I WILL BE". That difference is huge, as the latter implies a God with a dynamic, rather than static nature...a God that is relational to the core.

In so many ways, we are constantly prejudicing our discussion of scripture by limiting the philosophical framework we use to interpret it. Many pastors who paint themselves as just stating the facts as they exist in the text are often a slave to a particular philosophical vision. I prefer Chinese to Greek Philosophy as an interpretive framework. I don't find this limiting or heretical, but rather a fruitful way to approach our understanding of things like The Trinity or the Incarnation. I bow down to Jesus Christ, not to some philosophy about who He was.

On The Problem of Language & The Incarnation

I find it very difficult to explain to people how I think about the Trinity and the Incarnation. My primary doctrines are more or less just orthodox and mainstream. I believe in the Trinity, I believe that God put on flesh (was literally 'incarnated') in Jesus Christ. The simple fact of the matter is that I think that Jesus was truly ALL human and ALL divine. That Jesus was both almost painfully ordinary and beyond our imaginings. No humanizing of Jesus in any way offends me...for it  just makes it that much more profound that He was, in fact, God. Nor do I deny that Jesus was in any ways 'special'. I don't think we are all God in the same way He was...I don't think anyone, anywhere, was God in the way He was. If you don't believe that God has or exercises coercive power, then believing there was only one possible Incarnation makes a lot MORE sense. Jesus was the culmination of a long process, and we cannot expect Him to 'happen' again any time soon.

But when I get into the mechanics of all this, people lose me. That is partly because I reject substance ontology. I think relations are more fundamental than objects. Because people speak and think in substance ontology naturally, because of the way English has developed, explaining to people what I mean by all of this can be frighteningly difficult.

Here I've compiled a list of posts and explanations that hopefully will make things clearer. If you read through all of this and still have questions, feel free to post them here, on my Facebook page, or on my Twitter @JoshuaOrsak.

Here I try to get into the difference between substance and relational ontology and how it changes our views on the Trinity and the Incarnation:
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/11/modalism-transcended-new-problem.html

Here is an essay from seminary on the same subject:
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2014/05/apologies-more.html

This is a section from an unpublished book of mine on process pneumatology, and how process thought changes our view of the Holy Spirit
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-process-pneumatology-from-my.html

This shows how modern relational ontology changes or views of the Incarnation without necessarily destroying them:
http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2011/02/cosmic-incarnation.html

I hope these are helpful.

Not Really Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews For GODHEAD *Spoiler Alert*

Friday, I reviewed three comic books from my subscriptions last week. Today, I will cover the last four. They are all part of a large crossover series called GODHEAD, which I have been collecting for the last couple of months. They represent collectively the last four parts of that series, and since they all came out the same week and more or less tell one continuous and VERY blogworthy story, I thought I'd review them all together here.

This crossover turned out to be good. Not great, but good. At the core of it all was the exploration of something like divine corruption. High Father, ostensibly a god, is corrupted over time by the power that Kyle Rayner, the White Lantern, wields. Meanwhile, the various Lantern Corps had to team up to face down the morally degrading High Father and his New God army. Having those who wield the raw powers of life itself (The Lantern Corps) fight a pantheon of demigods, gave the writers ample time to explore all manner of theological issues: What makes a being 'god'? Can power corrupt even a god? Is life greater than death? Is life worth living in a maltheistic world?...and the like.

Here at the end, the whole gamut of issues were explored and some answers were given to some of the questions. Simon Baz, the Muslim Green Lantern and the most recent human addition to the Corps, kind of sums up the theistic position on the whole matter: life is worth living because God is GOOD, only a truly morally grand being can be called God, the New Gods are NOT truly gods, and the fact that power corrupts them proves it. I loved Simon's confrontations with Red Lantern Guy Gardner, and their conversations over Guy's death wish. The basic theological impulse, the most foundational experience that LEADS to God, is that life is good, and worth living.

This becomes the basic theme of the entire series, at least here at the end. I was overjoyed when the Blue Lantern Saint Walker finally discovered hope in his heart again, and was able to reignite the Blue Lantern Ring, and help save the day. The Black Lantern is used by the forces of life and virtue to help overcome the New Gods, but his own powers turn against him, implying that death's power is not ultimate even in the DC universe. Kyle Rayner embraces his role as the guardian of the Life Equation, and ultimately the Green Lanterns even turn to help the New Gods after the war is won, which helps bring redemption to High Father, who learns his own fallibility, but does not give up his claim to divinity.

In the end, this crossover series was about the affirmation of life in the face of great difficulties and overwhelming odds. The Lanterns' don't give up despite great losses and seemingly overwhelming odds, and because of their tenacity and the power of life and freedom over death and domination, they are able to bring hope back into the DC universe. All in all, this was a great series, and the last few issues tied all up nicely.

Aesthetically, most of these books were solid. There was only one that I thought seemed a little off. The art was strong throughout, as were the stories. The one issue had some pacing issues, and you'll see that reflected below.

DC's RED LANTERN #37
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

DC's SINESTRO #7
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

DC's INFINITY MAN & THE FOREVER PEOPLE #6
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars

DC's GREEN LANTERN Annual #3
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

Over At MavPhil...

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/12/the-quester.html

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/12/incarnation-approached-subjectively-the-mystical-birth-of-god-in-the-soul.html

Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews For 12-24-2014

Please note that this is only about half of the comic books I received this week. On Sunday, I'll be doing an extended review of Red Lantern #37, Sinestro #8, Infinity Man & The Forever People #6, and Green Lantern Annual #3, which cover the last four parts of the GODHEAD crossover. These comics are so intimately connected, and bring up such powerful theological fodder, that they should be given special treatment, and will be, on Sunday.

The other non-godhead comics I got this week are as follows:

Marvel's SPIDER-WOMAN #1 (2nd Printing)
I didn't get this book the first time around, and I regretted it, so I made sure to pick up this second printing. This is a SPIDER-VERSE crossover, and Spider-Woman is protecting another spider being (also female) who has become a kind of inter-dimensional magnet for those who are hunting the Spider-Beings throughout the Marvel Multiverse. It really turns into a clash of experience vs exuberance as the younger spider-female becomes a bit too much for our heroine to handle. Spider-Woman comes off as someone who is truly wise, and battle hardened. Spider-Man Noir is injured in this one and I don't like the idea of us losing that character. He's one of my favorite from this crossover. The book felt a little stagnant, and the pacing felt off, but the storyline was okay, and we had some good character development. A good, but not great, book.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars

DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #37
This book had plusses and minuses. On the plus side, we got to see a lot of Deadman and had his relationships with his teammates develop some. The art and visuals in this book were similarly amazing. But like the SPIDER-WOMAN, this book felt a little constipated. The story doesn't move right. And Deadman turns out to be ineffectual, which happens way too much in this book. There was some interesting exploration of the ideas of transience, eternity, and meaning, that I've often reflected upon on this blog. If this had been a slightly better book, it would've warranted an extended review.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

DC's BATMAN '66 #18
This issue was a major improvement over the last one, and really highlighted why this book is so awesome. You have all the elements that made the original series enjoyable, and can take those elements to new places because you are dealing with the characters within a comic book. We have two stories this week, one with the Archer, an ersatz Robin Hood, fighting our main dynamic duo. The second story involved Book Worm meeting up with Batgirl. Both stories worked across the board. The pacing was good, the art was solid, and the dialogue was both funny and thoughtful. All in all, this was a solid issue.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

My Yearly Christmas Post

Theological Deprivations

The theological wasteland that is modern fundamentalism is enough to make a pastor just walk away from it all. A famous, well-followed pastor recently quoted the following from Job:

“He delivers the afflicted by their affliction and opens their ear by adversity.” -Job 36:15

Well, that's all well and good. But Elihu, one of the 'friends' who plays the villain in the story, is the one who says this. Now, it is true that Elihu is not specifically rebuked at the end of Job, and this is what one of the pastors followers pointed out. But it is all but impossible to draw the conclusion, as this person did, that therefore Elihu is 'one of the good guys'.

Elihu's theology is nothing more than a more sophisticated version of everything the 'rebuked' friends said. Elihu is clearly, clearly in the same boat as the rest of them. The fact that he is not addressed at the end of the story is an editorial mistake, nothing more. The above quote is directly refuted over and over again by Job. Job DENIES that suffering is good, in any way. That is the point of the entire Book. It is beyond frustrating to see someone respected pull the above line out of the context of the entire book and to make the book therefore mean something other than it does. I cannot tell you how agitated it gets me.

The entire point of the Book of Job, repeated by the CLEAR hero of the book over and over again, is that there can be no 'justification' for suffering when alternatives to suffering clearly exist. Suffering does not make 'sense', in that it can be offset by some greater good. That is the entire point of the book. It is everything Job is aimed against. To quote one of the interlocutors as the 'good guy' is to miss the point of everything, absolutely everything in that book.

Check, please...game over, man, game over! Argh!