PDA

View Full Version : A Christian Ontology



Benjamin Burch
February 14th, 2012, 01:20 AM
I'm posting this in the GT forum, despite my reservations, because this is very much "Traditional Theology". But, i've been thinking about something for a while, and it has a bit to do with my thesis, and this has actually been consuming more of my time than my Thesis. Hans being in town to visit me really helped me think through this a bit, and I realized something the other night about when this made sense to me. So... here we go.

A pastor/professor would always use this term, "A Christian Ontology". It always bothered me because I couldn't help but think that so much orthodox thought is predicated upon an assumed Greek philosophy which, itself, isn't necessarily that bad. Instead, I just felt it was impossible to call any "ontology" a "Christian" one because really we're just talking about theology in light of some assumed philosophy, whichever one we pick.

Then, I saw this movie, Of Gods and Men. In it, there is a scene where the monks partake of a "last supper", where one of the monks reads an article, in the form of a sermon, to the other monks. In it there is a line about the fact that embracing weakness and forsaking the idol of power gives witness to reality, the reality of Christ. When my internet stops being so terrible, I'll find it.

There is a "Christian Ontology". It is not any particular philosophy, but it is a belief in a fundamental reality, and a fundamental understanding of history which turns everything else upside down.

We talk about a lot of things as though they're "reality", and this tempers our statements about theology and other things because we desire to make sense of "reality". Just the other day I was told that hopefully my pacifist inclinations would temper when I came to terms with "reality" (aka grew older and had children).

However, a Christian Ontology is the understanding, from the point of faith, that history is contained in a 33-year time period, and began when "The Word became flesh". "Reality" is Jesus Christ, incarnated, crucified, and risen. This is reality, and everything else competes, in varying degrees, with this reality. To be a Christian is to be baptised into this reality, and to understand the world around us in light of this reality, calling others to participate in this reality with us. Thus, our eschatological hopes are not hopes for what God "will do", or "will accomplish", but are instead hopes that reality will be revealed.

This gives a different meaning to the term "martyr." To be a "martyr" is to be a witness to one's faith through death. What we are a "witness" to, when we die for our faith, is the fundamental reality of the world - that Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ is Lord - and that all attempts at control and power in the world are a farce.

This way of talking changes everything. It changes our language. It changes the way the world looks. Now, pacifism is automatically "martyrdom", because to die in faithful obedience to the way of Christ is to witness to reality - Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord - and is to resist attempts at control and power.

This also begins to make our "good news" make sense. The "good news" is that the world as we understand it - pain, suffering, sin, death - is not reality. This is why we meet each Sunday for the liturgy, to experience and be reminded of reality and to receive water to quench our thirst from the desert of the world, and to receive forgiveness for our participation in the false reality of the world, and for the times in which we were tempted to believe it was true.

Hans Deventer
February 14th, 2012, 01:39 AM
This also begins to make our "good news" make sense. The "good news" is that the world as we understand it - pain, suffering, sin, death - is not reality. This is why we meet each Sunday for the liturgy, to experience and be reminded of reality and to receive water to quench our thirst from the desert of the world, and to receive forgiveness for our participation in the false reality of the world, and for the times in which we were tempted to believe it was true.

Ben, I like your post a lot apart from this one part. This world IS reality! In fact, because it is, the incarnation is real and we're not talking about Docetism. But, and there I agree, it is a false reality, a reality that misleads, that leads to death and destruction. We, on the other hand, celebrate that "The light shines in [the reality of] the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."

Benjamin Burch
February 14th, 2012, 01:52 AM
Ben, I like your post a lot apart from this one part. This world IS reality! In fact, because it is, the incarnation is real and we're not talking about Docetism. But, and there I agree, it is a false reality, a reality that misleads, that leads to death and destruction. We, on the other hand, celebrate that "The light shines in [the reality of] the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."

Important distinction. That's helpful.

Ryan Scott
February 14th, 2012, 09:34 AM
I think there's a dissertation in there somewhere.

Craig Laughlin
February 14th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Okay, I'm confused are there two threads?

Ryan Scott
February 14th, 2012, 11:19 AM
Okay, I'm confused are there two threads?

I believe Ben is looking for critiques to his idea here, while perhaps the traditional theology thread will focus more on critiques to the premise.

In my opinion, both are valid discussions to have.

Benjamin Burch
February 14th, 2012, 01:57 PM
I also know there are a few who don't like to comment in the GT Forum, but do a lot of posting in the PT forum. Also, I realize there is probably some who feel the other way around. With that being the case, I wanted folks to be able to converse about it without having to do so in a forum they don't feel comfortable with. Also, I think on different forums the discussion may very well go different directions - which I think could be a great positive.

However, if moderators would like it to be only one, on one forum, you know I'm always okay with that, too.

Craig Laughlin
February 14th, 2012, 02:12 PM
I also know there are a few who don't like to comment in the GT Forum, but do a lot of posting in the PT forum. Also, I realize there is probably some who feel the other way around. With that being the case, I wanted folks to be able to converse about it without having to do so in a forum they don't feel comfortable with. Also, I think on different forums the discussion may very well go different directions - which I think could be a great positive.

However, if moderators would like it to be only one, on one forum, you know I'm always okay with that, too.

Makes a lot of sense. My brain just has a hard time keeping it all straight and I find both perspectives interesting.

Hans Deventer
February 14th, 2012, 03:20 PM
It seems to me it will be easier to stick to the topic here.

Hans Deventer
February 15th, 2012, 07:12 AM
Ben, could you define the meaning of the word "reality" as you have used it here for me? I get the impression it has pretty strong philosophical overtones that I may not be getting yet.

Todd Erickson
February 16th, 2012, 11:34 AM
Should we be pursuing a Christian Ontology as opposed to a Christian Teleology?

Benjamin Burch
February 18th, 2012, 02:25 PM
Ben, could you define the meaning of the word "reality" as you have used it here for me? I get the impression it has pretty strong philosophical overtones that I may not be getting yet.

"What is", or "What is real."

As an example, I'll again point to martyrdom. If we take the early maryrology stories, we see exactly this. What appears to be "reality" (what is true, and what is going on), is that the Christian is being killed, and that Cesar has the power to exterminate life, and the power to enforce his will.

What is really true - and the stories make this clear - is that the Christian is not dying at all, but being ushered ever closer into the presence of the living Christ. What is true is that Cesar has no power at all, and that Christ is Lord. This is made evident by Cesar's inability to extinguish life, and inability to enforce his will.

Benjamin Burch
February 18th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Should we be pursuing a Christian Ontology as opposed to a Christian Teleology?

what do you mean?

Todd Erickson
February 18th, 2012, 11:10 PM
Ontology tends to deal with "what is right, and what is wrong?"

Teleology tends to deal with "how do things fit their role correctly?"

Many of the questions we struggle with in Christianity, especially within nationalist roles, is because instead of trying to determined whether, for instance, we are fulfilling our roles as disciples, we instead worry about whether we are wrong or right.

Benjamin Burch
February 19th, 2012, 01:22 AM
Ontology tends to deal with "what is right, and what is wrong?"

Teleology tends to deal with "how do things fit their role correctly?"

Many of the questions we struggle with in Christianity, especially within nationalist roles, is because instead of trying to determined whether, for instance, we are fulfilling our roles as disciples, we instead worry about whether we are wrong or right.

Ontology has nothing to do with right/wrong, though. It has to do with what is real.

Todd Erickson
February 19th, 2012, 08:19 AM
Ontology has nothing to do with right/wrong, though. It has to do with what is real.

Which can be a fine point of difference to people who believe that the churches both teaches them and enables them to communicate absolute truth.

Absolute truth would be what we would define as true, but it's generally held that we are not designed to contain, let alone communicate well, absolute truth. Which means that we have issues with containing and communicating reality, as well.

The closest we can get is to develop theories about things that groups of us have observed to be repeatable.