The Christian Existence: Contra Systemic Dualisms

The right and left binary represents a dualism that genuine Christian theology rejects. Dualism generally says that there are equal and opposing forces, light versus dark, in a cyclical battle of yin and yang. The Kingdom of God is grounded in the reality of God become [hu]man. There is no dualism, no competitive relationship between the fallen and unfallen; all of reality is subsumed within the singular person of Jesus Christ. Thus, Christianity, the Gospel comes with different expectations. The Christian is not in a loggerhead with the darkness, per se; the Christian moves and breathes from within the atmosphere of the heavenly Zion. This reality is not of this world, and thus not of the dualisms that often frame this world system. We are emissaries of the living God in the risen Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. In that sense we move differently than others, not being shaped by what the world optically presents to us as if it gets to determine reality by brute presence.

The aforementioned should have an impact on the Christian existence in this world. It should keep us moving towards and from the upward call in Christ Jesus. Politics, culture wars, and the like should never be defined by the whims and whams of the base person, the profane systems of thought progenerated by this world system; the evil age. Jesus is already reigning at the right hand of the Father (see 1 Cor 15), and will come once and for all riding on His white steed with the sword of God proceeding from His mouth. Maranatha

Maximus and the Damascene Against Dualisms and the New Age

Au contraire! John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor et al. countered the persistence of the dualists into their own time; indeed, as they stood as Christian theologians of the East in the 7th and 8th centuries. For Augustine, in his pagan days, he partook of an early dualistic religion, known as Manicheanism. This type of dualism, indeed, as it was imbibed by the Gnostics, and even some so-called Christian Gnostics, gained a foothold into the life of the Church, the world, that would perdure even into our present in the 21st century. For the Confessor and the Damascene, they were fighting some heir-apparents of the earlier formed Manicheanism and Gnosticism simpliciter. In their day, respectively, these folks were identified as the Paulicians, and latterly (after Maximus and John), the Bogomils. In nuce, these dualistic systems attempted to identify two competing principles within the world, within the principle of all reality; such that, when applied to God, they saw Light versus Darkness as two equidistant primordial combatants. As a result, they posited two principles largess, rather than just the one that Christian trinitarian monotheism thought from. Even so, these heretical dualistic groups had enough purchase among the people, that people like Maximus, in his respective time, and John of Damascus in his, felt the need to counter them through Christian and biblical theological reasoning (which also entailed some metaphysics).

Jaroslav Pelikan describes the competition this way:

While maintaining against Judaism that the Shema did not preclude the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, when correctly understood, included it, orthodox Christian monotheism simultaneously opposed any effort to modify the singleness of the divine nature through the introduction of a double principle [ἀρχή]. The Trinity did not imply any compromise in the fundamental axiom that the divine principle was one, and in opposition to the Filioque this axiom was reinforced. To the dualists the orthodox declared: ā€œFor our part, we do not follow your godless ways, nor do we say that there are two principles which are to be separated according to location. But, declaring that there is one Creator of all things and a single principle of all things, we affirm the dogma . . . of the Father and the Son.ā€ ā€œThe confession of two principles, an evil god and a good oneā€ was understood by the orthodox to be the ā€œfirst articleā€ of the Paulician creed, taken over from the Manicheans. From the Manicheans and Paulicians the notion of a multiple principle had in turn been taken over by later dualist groups, particularly the Bogomils. Biblical justification for it was found in such passages as Matthew 7:18, which said that there were two different sources for the two different kinds of deeds, or 2 Corinthians 4:3–4, which spoke of ā€œthe god of this world.ā€ Replying to such exegesis, the orthodox produced biblical evidence that the very rejection of the authority of God by the world was evidence for one principle rather than two; for Christ ā€œcame to his own home, and his own people received him not.ā€

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  Although in later theologians the proof from Scripture took a more prominent role, in the polemics of John of Damascus such proof was heavily reinforced by logic and metaphysics. When the Manicheans contended that the two principles ā€œhave absolutely nothing in common,ā€ he replied that if they both existed, they had to have at least existence in common. By their very use of the term ā€œprinciple,ā€ the Manicheans contradicted their own dualism, for a principle had to be single. As in mathematics the unit was the principle of every number, so it was in metaphysics. If there was an individual principle for each existing thing, then these many principles had in turn to have a single principle behind them. Otherwise there would not be only the two principles of God and matter, as the dualists taught, but a plurality of them throughout the universe. Not only was this an absurdity on the face of it, but it negated the meaning of the word ā€œprinciple.ā€ Good and evil were not to be explained on the basis of a dual principle, but rather ā€œthe good is both the principle and the goal of all things, even of those things that are evil.ā€[1]

Okay, that is all well and interesting. But what I want to do with this is to attempt to identify how this type of dualism is presently present within the 21st century world, whether that be in the sacred or secular.

My simple observation is this (and this is for Christian consumption, primarily): The devil himself loves nothing more than leading people into the delusion that in fact he is equiprimordial with the living and triune God. He likes to lead his kingdom of darkness, and even us Christians who are still, in principle, in it (but not of it), into the fantasy that his powers of darkness represent a real-life contradiction of God’s life and Light. It is easy, in our bodies of death as we are, to give into this satanic delusion; indeed, even as Christians. In this current world of chaos and disorder it might in fact appear that the devil and minions have an upper hand on God’s economy in the world in Jesus Christ. But just as the Paulicians and Bogomils logic of antiChrist proportions were defeated, indeed, imploded, by folks like Maximus and John of Damascus, in their own respective ways, that same theo-logic applies against the inherent dualisms of our day in the 21st century.

Hence, there is no absolute dualism between the living God, and the minions of darkness. As the Apostle Paul triumphantly declares: ā€œWhen you wereĀ deadĀ in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HeĀ made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,Ā having canceled outĀ the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; andĀ He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.Ā When He hadĀ disarmed theĀ rulers and authorities, HeĀ made a public display of them, havingĀ triumphed over them through Himā€ (Colossians 2:13–15). Jesus as the Theanthropos came and destroyed, not an abstract evil, but a concrete one as that has polluted the human being, from the inside/out. Even though evil and sin remain consequential things in this ā€˜evil age,’ they eschatologically have already been put to death by the Godman, Jesus Christ. He currently is reigning at the Right Hand of the Father, which so contraposes the so called god of darkness, that the apparent war can be said to have never even really gotten off of the ground for the satanic horde’s parasitic ā€œnothingnessā€ economy.

And so, our Lord, contra the dualistic-delusion exhorts: ā€œThese things I have spoken to you, so thatĀ in Me you may have peace.Ā In the world you have tribulation, butĀ take courage;Ā I have overcome the world (John 16:33).ā€ He has not left us as orphans, or as defeated ones. What can death do to us? The same thing it did to Jesus. Though we die, yet shall we live. The forces of this current world order have been defeated; death has been put to death; the scourge of sin has lost its power; and we in fact are the victorious ones as we stand in the Victor of God’s grace for the world in Jesus Christ. This doesn’t necessarily make our daily lives easier, per se, but it does let us know that even though we might feel like we are drowning in the scuz of this world system, even within our own bodies of death, we know as Christians that the power of God, the Gospel funds our lives in Christ by the Holy Spirit, to the point that we can stand in victory. Even if such victory, to the dark-system, looks like defeat (like weakness and foolishness).

Dualism is a wicked evil in our world. Most Westerners are caught in its clutches by their submission to New Age theatrics and demonism (this is ironic because New Ageism is based broadly in Eastern monism—I need to flesh this out more fully since New Age ostensibly denies dualisms::I don’t think they actually achieve that though). But as we have already visited, these types of dualistic movements have been present throughout the world order since at least Genesis 3. And yet, even before these fake-power-plays came into existence in the natural world order, God had already pre-destined Himself to be for the world, to not be God without, but with us in Jesus Christ. The Enemy, the darkness has never had an eschatological chance in hell to get beyond the boundary of hell God had always already determined for it in His free life as the Deus incarnandus (the God to be incarnate).

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600—1700), Volume 2 (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 219–20.

Barth’s Engagement with Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science: A Quasi Critique of the New Age

Mary Baker Eddy

The following represents something that I found rather surprising in Barth’s Church Dogmatics. In a context where Barth is discussing the strength and weakness of the human body, he goes into a small-print excursus on Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy. As I have been reading through the CD what I have found is that many of the themes Barth is known for, while present, only really represent a fraction of his overall corpus. Indeed, those themes (election etc.) are contextually conditioning for all of his work, even his thinking on the human body and physicality. But still, Barth is far more interesting than many folks might imagine, within their caricatured and reductionistic picture of him.

For the remainder of this post, I am going to quote Barth’s full excursus on Christian Science, if nothing else to illustrate the types of exposures Barth had to the broader world of ideas in his 20th century Swiss milieu. Ironically, here Barth is engaging with a fringe American ā€œthinker,ā€ in the person of Mary Baker Eddy.

The tenet that sickness is an illusion is the basic negative proposition which in the seventies of the last century the American Mary Baker Eddy said that she did not lay down but ā€œdiscoveredā€ through the authoritative inspiration of a book now regarded as canonical, namely, Christian Science. What was at first a small group of adherents has since spread to all parts of the world in the form of religious societies which are particularly popular among the upper and middle classes and more especially among women. Karl Holl has depicted and done it almost too much justice in a careful study entitled ā€œScientismusā€ Ges. Aufs. Z. Kgsch. III, 1928, 460 f.). The positive basis of this teaching is that God is the only reality, that he is Spirit and that the whole creation is only a reflection of his spiritual essence. Apart from God there are only powers, which in reality are only thoughts. All matter as such represents a mere appearance, and the same is true of all such associated features as sin, sickness, evil and death. Man as the image of God always was and is and shall be perfect. Everything that contradicts this perfection is in reality only an illusion and misunderstanding rooted in the forgetfulness of God, which in turn evokes fear. And fear is the true basis of all illness; indeed, it is actually illness itself. For fear creates a picture of illness which then falls externally upon the body. ā€œYou maintain that an ulcer is painful; but that is impossible, for matter without mind is no painful. The ulcer merely reveals by inflammation and swelling an appearance of pain, and this appearance is called an ulcer.ā€ The true and psychical man is not touched by it. He is only as it were enveloped in a mist and has disappeared from consciousness. Evil is unreal. ā€œTake away fear, and at the same time you have also removed the soil on which sickness thrives.ā€ Jesus was and is the embodiment of truth which scatters and breaks through the mist of these false appearances. The power bestowed and the task presented by Him consist in recognising that God is Spirit. It thus consists in freeing oneself from the false appearances of sin (which even Mrs. Eddy regards as particularly evil, is replaced by ā€œmind-reading,ā€ which is possible at a great distance and in which the thought images which only be a matter of acknowledging the cure already effected by God, of understanding His completed work and of initiating it in the patient. The ā€œhealerā€ā€”the name given to the active members of the Christian Science Association—is not then to rouse and fortify the will of others through his own, but simply to make a free path in the sufferer for the divine operation. ā€œCall to mind the presence of health and the fact of harmonious existence, until the body corresponds to the normal condition of health and harmony.ā€

This doctrine has several features which remind us of the message of the New Testament, and which are of course derived from it: the recognition of fear as the basic evil in man’s relation to God; an unconditional trust in the efficacy of prayer; and bold reference to a work already completed by God. But these are all devalued by the fact that they are related to a view which has nothing to do with that of the New Testament but in the light of it can only be described as utterly false. The fact that Christian Science can undoubtedly point to successes in healing—as well as disastrous failures—cannot of itself commend it to Christians. As is well-known, the magicians of Pharaoh could do quite a number of things. And the concession that Karl Holl (loc. cit., p. 477) is willing to make, namely, that its positive presupposition at least is correct, is one which cannot really be made to it. God is indeed the basis of all reality. But He is not the only reality. As Creator and Redeemer He loves a reality which different from Himself, which depends upon Him, yet which is not merely a reflection nor the sum of His powers and thoughts, but which has in face of Him an independent and distinctive nature and is the subject of is own history, participating in its own perfection and subjected to its own weakness. As the coming kingdom, the incarnation of the Word and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in His true humanity are not just an appearance, so it is with man in general, whether in his nature of perversion, in his psychical being or his physical, in his divine likeness or his sin and transgression. It is because Mrs. Eddy did not understand this that sin, evil and death—in conquest of which Jesus Christ did not ā€œdisappear from our level of consciousnessā€ but actually died on the cross—are for her mere ā€œappearancesā€ of human thinking, and redemption is only the act of man in which he submerges himself in God and leads a life submerged in God in order that God may work in him, putting an end to those ā€œappearancesā€ or thought images and bringing to light the perfection of psychical essence which was never lost, the presence of health and the fact of harmonious being. On this point we can only say that both the Old and New Testaments regard not only God and man, not only sin, evil and death and their conquest, but also sickness in a different light. They certainly do not see it as an illusion, and its conquest as the dispelling of this illusion. Whether Christian Science is really ā€œscienceā€ need to occupy us here. But there can be no doubt that it is not ā€œChristianā€ science.[1]

As Barth describes Christian Science vis-Ć -vis Holler, what we get is a type of pantheistic, Eastern monistic, neo-Gnostic mind cult, that today, and in a broad sense, fits well with the New Age ideology that is almost absolutely pervasive; even among professing Christians (Yoga, ā€œBest Life Now,ā€ self-actualization, therapeuticism etc. etc.). Surely, there are still Christian Science centers here and there, but they are mostly dilapidated signs of a past long been surpassed; except, ideologically. The New Age seeks to liberate and control the mind by abdicating it to the universal soul, the universal mind, the ancient secrets of the forever cosmos. And so that remains the universal thread that attaches something like a Christian Science with the New Age, as a broader category of the same thing.

What I found interesting about this engagement with Barth is that he felt compelled to engage it at all. But I’m glad he did. What this ought to help illustrate is that, indeed, there really is ā€œnothing new under the sun.ā€ Ideas and their ideologies are cycled and re-cycled over and over again; just in newer shinier packaging. Underneath it is the same old jalopy. Christian beware! As noted, these types of psychical mind cults represent the precise thing Christ came to save us from; our inward curved selves (homo incurvatus in se). There is no inner-salvation latent in our supposed Caspar-like-ghosts; the universe has no soul; there is no Word of God from within. There is only God extra nos (outside of us), and His iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) in Christ pro nobis (for us). Without Him in-breaking and disrupting our lives with His ā€˜militant Grace,’ we are simply enslaved in bondage to the hooks of our own thoughts and intellects and hearts. We might attempt to construct a way of salvation within the tempests of our own self-possessed cathedrals of grey matter, as Mrs. Eddy attempted to systemize in her own self-deluded way. But in the end without the transposition of our ā€˜bodies of death,’ into the grave with the body of death Christ took for us, and then our transposition of new life and resurrection with Christ’s elect body of ascension, we are of all people the most to be pitied. Ā 

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4 §55 [364-5] The Doctrine of Creation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 39-41.

Engaging the Mormon Doctrine of God With Some Mormons

Here is a ā€œdiscussion,ā€ of sorts, I’ve been having today with some LDS (Mormons) on X/Twitter. I’m sharing this in hopes that it might be helpful for other Christians who engage with the LDS. Typically, you have to educate them on what they believe first before you can then compare, contrast, and defeat it as a viable ā€œChristianā€ belief system. That is what I experienced with the following fellow, which of course is not unusual.

Brigham Young

Mormon 1. I am leaving the Catholic Church and joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints What an absolute BANGER I selected ā€œIf You Could Hie to Kolobā€ for the opening song of my LDS baptism on Sunday ā€œThe Spirit of Godā€ to close YT Dei Misericordia Love you Saints!

My Response to Mormon 1. Dude. At least stay orthodox and become evangelical. LDS is based on demonstrable historical fabrications; it is polytheistic; and looks more like the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses than it does Christian.

Mormon 2. You don’t know what polytheism is. And the rest of Mormon 2’s Responses to Me (compressed). Well, you call us polytheists when we worship one God the Father. Full stop. Believing there is a Godhead doesn’t mean polytheism when two members of the Godhead work under the direction of God. We do not worship multiple gods aka, not polytheism. Yeah, maybe try not telling me what we believe. There is only one God. God the Father. And to misrepresent us in any other way is disingenuous to us, and quite frankly the Bible. You can call Monolatry if you want, but our “interpretation” is closest to the Biblical God.

My Responses to Mormon 2 (compressed). Sure, I do. My MA and BA degrees in bible theology ought to indicate as such. Help me out though. Explain it to me like I don’t understand what polytheism entails in a way that demonstrates you do. No, you believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are lesser gods relative to the Father. But beyond that, you believe they are each distinct centers of consciousness, which entails a plurality of gods (of various degrees)—which ā€œpolyā€ signifies linguistically. You also believe that you too could one day become a Heavenly Father with your own celestial planetarium. Just because you rhetorically appeal to a monolatry doesn’t mean you don’t also affirm a functional polytheism; that isn’t even debatable. Eh. What you believe isn’t private, but public. Just as all idea systems are. I explained to you what polytheism is, and how it applies to LDS doctrine of God. If you are saying that Mormon teaching denies the notion that you can one day become a Father-God yourself, then I might recant to an extent. But you haven’t explained who the Son and Holy Spirit are in your theory of your godhead. I know what LDS doctrine teaches on that, and I haven’t misrepresented that. If I have show me how instead of just making brute assertions with no evidence or argument or even illustrations to the contrary. If you don’t recognize what I am saying about LDS doctrine then maybe you yourself don’t understand your own ostensible doctrine clearly; which wouldn’t be that strange, we have many Christians (most of them) on our historic Christian continuum who are in the same boat (don’t really know the doctrine they would say they affirm, only tacitly at best). In lieu of you offering substantial argument to counter my sketching of LDS doctrine vis a vis its ostensible polytheism, my claim still stands. PS. The very notion of your own future and potential Father-Godness inherently entails a polytheistic system of belief. If you, and your Mormon neighbor and his and his ad infinitum can be and/or will be Father Gods, this presupposes the notion, within Mormonism, the belief in poly (more than one) God in the Eschatological eventuation of the ā€œMormon hope.ā€ Further, if Jesus and the Holy Ghost, in the Mormon notion of the godhead are considered distinct centers of consciousness relative to Father-God, as his own distinct center of consciousness, and even if you consider the Son and Holy Spirit to be lesser (in Christian heresiology we call this ā€œsubordinationismā€) divine beings, then even so, you affirm a polytheism even in this instance. If your beliefs are insularly sacrosanct and without the possibility of being publicly critiqued, then yes, you’re in a cult. IOW, if only the initiate can understand LDS doctrine, then this is a cult; similar to the Gnostic cults that were present during the early days of the primitive Church. Pax Christi

Addendum:

šŒšØš«š¦šØš§ šŸ. I shouldn’t call it the “official doctrine” as I on Twitter do not speak in an official capacity.
Lastly the Greek word that is used often in “The Father and I are one” is “hen” meaning a unity in purpose, not a unity in being.
You can call us polytheists. I reject that label.
šŒš² š‘šžš¬š©šØš§š¬šž š­šØ šŒšØš«š¦šØš§ šŸ. I read the Greek, interestingly. As with any language meaning is determined by context (both near and broader context). In the total context of the Gospel of John, as I already shared, the very first verse of John (1:1) says that Jesus the Word *is* ontologically God. This sets the broader context for determining how the Son’s relationship to the Father (and Holy Spirit) are related. Jn 1:1 makes clear that they are one ousia (God), and John 10:30 makes clear that in their One ousia or being as God, they clearly share the same purpose (or we might say ā€œwillā€), as in fact they are one God in a unity of being (not just will/purpose). And then just prior and in a nearer context to Jn 10, Jn 8:58 Jesus says ā€˜ego eimi’ I am, which is a clear reference to Exodus 3:14; He is claiming to be Yahweh in the flesh (see Jn 1:14 also). So the unity of purpose/will is contextually only because first they have unity of being as the One God.
As we are taught in biblical hermeneutics: context, context, context is king. Words, sentences, and paragraphs only have meaning within their given and broader contexts.
As far as polytheist: I use that for the LDS doctrine of God, because on a continuum or taxonomy for identifying features of God in disparate belief systems and religions, it is helpful for purposes of categorization, differentiation, and intelligibility. Some prefer Henotheist. I mean, that’s fine, but that is only really a subset of polytheism still. So.

 

Stream of Consciousness on the Supernatural

It is unfortunate that so many Christians in the West, and elsewhere, have so taken on the materialist/physicalist picture of the world, like in the way we process things on a daily basis, that we allow that to impinge, and thus reduce, or negate, the reality of the supranatural reality of all reality. I.e., that humanity, the world, the globe, the earth and the š‘š‘œš‘ š‘šš‘œš‘  itself, is created by the living God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As such, the rest of what Paul identifies as the š‘š‘™š‘’š‘Ÿš‘œš‘šš‘Ž (as he gives that his christological twist) in the epistle to the Colossians, also is necessarily negated; that is, the world of the spiritual realm of angels, demons, demiurges etc., in general.

Often times, in overreaction to the the materialist world, other Christians will go to other extremes and absolutize what has come to be known as the charismatic and even the Pentecostal world picture; where in fact, miracles and the supranatural becomes normalized, categorized, and codified, such that it becomes so normal that, in effect, God and the supranatural has been domesticated to our own personal experiences in consumerist types of ways.

Contrariwise to the aforementioned, a substantive benefit, one of many, of being immersed in Holy Scripture, is that these faulty extremes themselves become negated. The supranatural, the spiritual, miracles, so on and so forth come to have a concrete context. The context, is indeed God’s own free life within itself; within His own Self-determination, not ours. The reality of Jesus Christ, as the Self-determination of God for the world, wherein Heaven and earth, God and humanity, are united in His singular person becomes the norming norm (š‘›š‘œš‘Ÿš‘šš‘Ž š‘›š‘œš‘Ÿš‘šš‘Žš‘›š‘ ) of the real life Christian world picture. The material world (i.e., albeit created and contingent on the upholding power of God’s Word), and the spiritual world (i.e., the inner, eternal, and triune Life of God) have a ground to be thought from in the center of God’s life. The ground is both transcendent and immanent. God’s act in Christ, indeed as that has first been freely determined in God’s choice to not be God without but with us in Jesus Christ, becomes the point of departure by which the Christian world picture comes to have an organicism wherein miracles, the spiritual reality of life (which is the antecedent reality to all of contingent life), the supranatural and natural have an inner-core that is alien to us; that is outside of us (š‘’š‘„š‘”š‘Ÿš‘Ž š‘›š‘œš‘ ). As we live in this world, with this inner-ground of God’s life for us as the grounding-calibration of all things, we can rightly engage with this world, without reduction or negation, in the way it actually is, without it becoming more or less than it is at the same time.