Christianity should embrace paradox

[Ukrainia]

I'm reading a book called Bad Religion: How we became a nation of Heretics. I highly recommend it's look at the progression of Christianity after World War II. The 15 years succeeding the war were a high point. Churches were being built, pews were filled, the modernist idea that proclaimed human achievement would continually progress had been decimated by the war, leaving Christianity as the strong alternative. Even among the media, Hollywood and public intellectuals Christianity was largely accepted. While there are no true golden ages, the book makes a good argument that Christianity thrived during these years.

The fall was swift however. By the mid 60's, a new found global perspective and the religious pluralism that came with it, the sexual revolution, monetary greed, and intellectual bankruptcy reversed the positive trends and sent church membership - especially among the intellectual class - spiraling.

One of the many things I've found fascinating about the book, is the idea that heresies often arise from trying to rationalize paradoxes that are found in Christianity. I find this to be true. Christian orthodoxy has traditionally accepted paradoxical premises like Jesus is both God and man. A virgin gave birth to Jesus. God the father, son and Holy Spirit are all God, yet there is only one God. God is all powerful, all knowing, always perfect, always loving, always just, yet the earth is full of sin, destruction, death. For those with a strong drive to make things need to seem logical, those are hard pills to swallow. And so often, it's much easier to make a hard turn from orthodoxy, to make the apparent paradoxes into something logical. Jesus was really just a great teacher. Mary and Joseph may not have been so pure before Jesus' birth. Maybe God's a bit less all powerful, and more like the fallible Greek god's of yore Etc, etc..

Paradoxes may indeed be confusing. Yet I don't think we always need to find rational answers to the mystery of God. Christianity, I believe, is historical and true, but it is also a religion were faith and trust in God is emphasized. The idea of God allows for occurrences to take place beyond our comprehension. So I'd suggest that Christian embrace the paradoxical a bit more. Let God be God. I should also say, here's what I am not advocating. I'm not saying this attitude should not be a dismissive one towards science. Nor should it create paradoxes were there are none - I believe the vast majority of scripture is consistent and clear. But I do think we can see Christianity as both true and clear, while leaving room for the power and wisdom of God to be and to do things that no human being can fully comprehend.

 

[MacFall]

Paradoxes arise from a lack of understanding. It is the willingness of Christians to accept contradictions to which I object. They are different things. Paradoxes could be resolved with greater knowledge, even if we may never receive that knowledge in this life. But contradictions are lies. The problem is that a lot of people conflate the two.

 

[Edwards1984]

One of the many things I've found fascinating about the book, is the idea that heresies often arise from trying to rationalize paradoxes that are found in Christianity. I find this to be true. Christian orthodoxy has traditionally accepted paradoxical premises like Jesus is both God and man. A virgin gave birth to Jesus. God the father, son and Holy Spirit are all God, yet there is only one God. God is all powerful, all knowing, always perfect, always loving, always just, yet the earth is full of sin, destruction, death. For those with a strong drive to make things need to seem logical, those are hard pills to swallow. And so often, it's much easier to make a hard turn from orthodoxy, to make the apparent paradoxes into something logical. Jesus was really just a great teacher. Mary and Joseph may not have been so pure before Jesus' birth. Maybe God's a bit less all powerful, and more like the fallible Greek god's of yore Etc, etc..

Paradoxes may indeed be confusing. Yet I don't think we always need to find rational answers to the mystery of God. Christianity, I believe, is historical and true, but it is also a religion were faith and trust in God is emphasized. The idea of God allows for occurrences to take place beyond our comprehension. So I'd suggest that Christian embrace the paradoxical a bit more. Let God be God. I should also say, here's what I am not advocating. I'm not saying this attitude should not be a dismissive one towards science. Nor should it create paradoxes were there are none - I believe the vast majority of scripture is consistent and clear. But I do think we can see Christianity as both true and clear, while leaving room for the power and wisdom of God to be and to do things that no human being can fully comprehend.

Very interesting, although I don't know if I would necessarily use the word "paradox." I do think that heresies have often evolved either from one of two reasons: 1) trying to avoid error by falling into another error (example: Arius creating his heresy from the fear that Trinitarianism was in fact Sabellianism); 2) trying to answer questions concerning God's nature straight from human reason rather than how God has revealed Himself.

An example of the latter could be found in an ancient heresy that flourished during the time of the Arian resurgence, and which was known as Apollinarianism. It was named after its creator, a bishop known as Apollinaris. Apollinaris, recognizing that Christ was both God and man (known today as the hypostatic union), tried to rationalize regarding which part of Jesus was divine and which was human. He argued that Christ's divine nature took over his rational human soul - another explanation was that Christ was born with a human body but a divine mind. This heresy was partially why Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople (which the historical heresy known as Nestorianism was named after), didn't like the idea of calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos ("God-bearer"), because it seemed to suggest that Christ's human nature was incomplete, as the Apollinarians had believed. In attempting to rationalize a divine concept from pure human reason, men only caused more confusion and error, which, in turn, only bred more confusion and error.

A further example of this is, once again, the Arian heresy. If one studies church history, as well as the writings of the time period, they will find that the Arians mainly argued from a philosophical mindset. On the other hand, Athanasius, the great champion of orthodoxy, argued almost entirely from God's inspired word. In fact, I've often argued that Athanasius's writings are rather Puritan in their feel - not necessarily from theology, but from his frequent citation of scripture. The Arians thought with human reasoning at their base to say who God was; Athanasius went right to God's word to explain, from His own inspired writ, who God was.

Now I am not arguing here that God's revelation is contrary to human logic. Far from it - part of general revelation (as opposed to special revelation, which is the Bible) is our ability to discern God's creation and providence all around us. However, who gets the final word on who or what God is? Is it God, or is it us? The Arians waxed philosophical regarding the Son being "begotten," but Athanasius went to the entirety of scripture to show that the Father, Son, and indeed Holy Spirit were co-equal and co-eternal.

To return this to our topic - are there "paradoxes" Christians should accept? Yes and no. I've often said there are no good analogies of the Trinity, and have told Christians time and time again not to use any, because they are all flawed and every single one can either be shown to prove tritheism or modalism. The Trinity extends human reasoning not because it does not make sense, but because it supersedes our ability to understand. All the same, the bare-bones definition of the Trinity is easy to explain, and is easy to demonstrate from the pages of scripture itself. We accept it because it has been revealed to us from the same God who formed the earth and made the first covenant with Moses, but it has not been given to us on a whim and without ample evidence.

I once got in a good conversation with a Muslim concerning the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. I cited examples from scripture where the Trinitarian nature of God was revealed to individuals, or Christ's divine nature was revealed, and what I eventually pointed out was, "When the apostles were given this revelation, they had no other option. They couldn't go back and say, 'Whoa guys, that was weird. Let's never discuss this again.' They had to reveal it as is because it was what God had given them." In like manner, Christians should not attempt to turn every facet of the Christian faith into a logical conundrum, or feel pressed into dumbing down things like the Trinity or hypostatic union into something that breaks away from how God has revealed it. We should accept who God is and what He is and His desires for His people because that is how He has revealed it, and He has given us this revelation in His inspired word. We can use human reasoning to understand it, but - like Virgil stopping at the gates of Paradise - that is far as it should go.