PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (variations on a theme)

After enforcing the rules of bowling with a loaded gun, Walter is confronted by the Dude about the propriety of his actions. Of course, Walter’s perspective was simple, this is not Vietnam Nam, it is bowling and there are rules. The Dude’s perspective was somewhat different, he was a pacifist, and Walter’s reaction was way over the line. Nevertheless, the end result of Walter’s actions was that their team advanced to the finals and Walter challenged the Dude with the question “Am I wrong?”, to which the Dude readily replied, “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole”.

Probably the first question that comes to mind concerning the title of this essay is what Christian doctrine are we talking about? After all, there are multiple groups of folks who call themselves Christian but have vast disagreements on what constitutes proper doctrinal positions; far too many to enumerate in this short essay. However, the short list would include those who adhere to Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox Theology, Reformed Theology, Dispensational Theology, as well as all of the more liberal leaning Christian groups like Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Unitarians, not to mention the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and so many others most folks have never heard of.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s just lump them all together under the rubric of modern Christian thought. The second question then becomes how did the teachings of a small group of folks consisting of a revered leader and twelve devoted followers morph into something like modern Christian thought with all of the competing perspectives and claims to an exclusive angle on truth? To answer that question in a scholarly fashion would most likely require a doctoral dissertation rehearsing the history of Christianity and the origins of all it’s modern variants. That is way beyond the scope of this essay and, besides, what you read here is, as always, just one man’s opinion.

So let’s just cut to the chase and make a few simple observations; most notably that the doctrines of Jesus and his immediate followers did not constitute philosophical explanations, but we’re instead proclamations of what they considered to be the truth. Jesus proclaimed his truths as one with the authority to make such proclamations using phrases such as, “you have heard it said, but I say to you”, thus contradicting and/or clarifying the conventional teachings of the times. Among his proclamations was the notion that the truth was embodied within himself when he declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. His immediate followers proclaimed the simple truth of his life and death, claiming to be witnesses of his resurrection, and declaring that all of this was foretold by the prophets of old.

The immediate disciples of Jesus were not in the business of explaining the structure and inner workings of the godhead, debating whether or not there is such a thing as original sin, or attempting to advance theological arguments that salvation is a monergistic versus a synergistic process. Their only mission was to proclaim what had happened; what they had witnessed.

They spent at least three years traveling with Jesus, listening to his teachings on a daily basis, and observing his interactions with others. They were there when he was crucified and rose from the dead. They spoke with him, touched him and broke bread with him for at least 40 days following his resurrection. Their doctrine was pristine and simple and consisted only of what they had witnessed and been taught by Jesus concerning the prophecies that foretold of him.

However, even during their lifetimes, and more so in the centuries that followed, competing ideas about Jesus, who and/or what he was, the significance of his life and death, as well as the nature of his so-called resurrection, began to emerge. Once the direct witnesses of Jesus’ life and resurrection had passed, those who were his followers were faced with a multitude of questions and the tides of Christian thought and doctrine began to turn from the simple proclamation of things witnessed toward explanations concerning the inner and outer workings of Christian doctrines.

Lacking the special revelation given to the immediate disciples of Jesus, third and fourth century Christians turned to other sources of knowledge to support, advance and explain Christian concepts. Most notable among those who looked to extra-Biblical sources was Saint Augustine of Hippo who drew from the teachings of Plato, Neoplatonism and Stoicism and combined this with New Testament revelation and Old Testament teaching. More than any other, Saint Augustine moved away from the proclamation of historical events toward philosophical explanations of Christian doctrines. Christianity has never been the same since then.

It should be noted that there is nothing inherently inappropriate about philosophical inquiry. From a Christian perspective, logic and reason are God-given qualities and a reflection of the divine intellect. Philosophers use the tools of reason and logic to examine the world and inquire into existing sources of knowledge in order to ascertain truth. But by adopting the methods and processes of philosophical inquiry Christianity moved away from knowledge based on revelation to knowledge derived from philosophical speculation.

Among the things that Christian philosophers have speculated about are the nature of the godhead. One of the mantras of Judaism has always been, The Lord our God is One! Jesus challenged this idea by claiming to be the Son of God and promising to send the Holy Spirit to be with his disciples. Although neither Jesus or his disciples ever taught explicitly about a Holy Trinity, they opened the door for such speculations by their frequent references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus and his immediate disciples also never set forth a doctrine of original sin, they only spoke of forgiveness of sin and the effectiveness of the blood of Christ to atone for sins. Another doctrine that did not originate with Jesus and his disciples is the mechanics of salvation. The competing notions that salvation is completely the work of God (e.g., monergism) or, alternatively, that believers, by an act of free will, choose to believe for salvation and thus contribute something in the process (e.g., synergism) are the creation of speculative philosophy disguised as theology. Jesus and his disciples never explained the process of salvation beyond the injunction to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

The irony of all of this is that the ideas and doctrines which have divided Christians and resulted in competing factions within Christianity down through the ages have all been due to notions based on speculative philosophy masquerading as theology. However, this is not the fault of philosophy, rather it is due to the very human tendency to try and make sense out of the information at hand. This tendency is hard wired into the human brain. It is why we are able to see recognizable shapes in random cloud formations. In the absence of any other defining stimulus the human brain will operate to find the order in the chaos.

In the absence of the kind of direct and special revelation provided to the disciples of Jesus, Christians have been left to find the meaning in the clouds of philosophical speculation. As a result, we have a multitude of perspectives which may or may not be correct, and we have only the tools of logic and reason by which those competing perspectives can be tested.

Am I wrong? Maybe. But on the other hand, like Walter, I just might be an asshole!