Open Theism Discussion Board

Dialectic

This study will attempt to illustrate in the graphic form of a chart, the necessary balance and tension that must be maintained if we are to have a Biblical and theological tenable teaching of “union with Christ.” The format we will employ to seek this balanced understanding will be the context of dialectic. Our first order of business will be to differentiate dialectic from other forms of divided thinking.

A dichotomy is a division of elements into two parts. Etymologically the word means, “to cut in two.” A dichotomy is a bifurcation of elements, separated and distinguished. The constitution of man is often explained as a dichotomy of body and soul, or alternatively as a trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit. Man, however, is not “cut in two” or “cut in three,” but is a functional whole with physical, psychological and spiritual function.

Dualism in its most generic meaning simply refers to two elements or substances. As a classic philosophical concept it refers to two opposing principles or powers, often regarded as being equal and counterbalanced. One power is identified with good, and the other with evil. The yin-yang dualism of oriental philosophy is an example where good and evil are equally balanced. The Platonic dualism of spirit and matter presented a constant conflict of good and evil: spirit being identified with good, and matter with evil. One approach to avoiding the conflict was to give in to the evil of physical matter, and indulge oneself in hedonism and Epicureanism. Another approach was to avoid the evil of the material by denial in asceticism and monasticism. Neither approach solved the dualism.

Sometimes opposites are cast as antinomies, meaning “against the law” of reason. When opposing principles or tenets form an unreasonable and irresolvable contradiction this is an antinomy.

A paradox is very similar to an antinomy. It involves opposing truths that do not have an apparent logical solution. They are juxtaposed alongside of each other in order to note their distinction.

Dialectic is a process of thought where a concept is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite. Opposite tenets are held in tensioned balance, creating a logical dialogue of how they relate to each other. This is not necessarily the Socratic method of thesis and antithesis seeking a logical synthesis. Rather, it involves living with the contradictory opposites and finding completeness and totality only in the counterbalance of the two, allowing a dynamic interchange and interplay of two concepts to challenge and balance each other. The Western mind, steeped as it is in the linear cause and effect of Aristotelian logic has a difficult time with dialectic. Western thought wants to get everything figured out, systematized, organized, categorized, and boxed up in the absoluteness of an airtight system with no loose ends. The Eastern mind, on the other hand, seems more able to maintain opposites in tension, perhaps because there has often been a dualistic base to their thinking.

By way of personal testimony, I can admit that I was a product of my Western world, even to the extent of being a religious fundamentalist with absolutist thinking of right and wrong, good and evil, orthodoxy and heresy. I came to understand philosophical dialectic through the writings of the Danish author, Soren Kierkegaard. Theological dialectic was learned through the writings of the Swiss theologian, Karl Barth. The writings of the French sociologist, Jacques Ellul, provided me with sociological dialectic. In personal and spiritual matters the writings of the British missionary, Norman Grubb, provided a perspective of spiritual dialectic. Together these mentors have taught me to view everything in terms of dialectic – to see the other side of everything, in the Bible, in theology, in sociology, and in spiritual matters.

There is such polarity and one-sidedness in Christian thinking today. Calvinism is set against Arminianism, and they both need to see the dialectic of divine sovereignty balanced with human responsibility. In eschatological matters preterism is on the far side of futurism, and they both need to see the dialectic of the “already” and the “not yet.” Dispensationalism battles against Covenant Theology, and they both need to recognize the dialectic of continuity and discontinuity. Creationism opposes scientism, and they both need to find balance in the dialectic of the supernatural alongside of the natural. The Biblicists and the charismatics need to see the dialectic of objectivity and subjectivity. The polarized extremes can only find common ground in an understanding of dialectic.

Having already noted the dialectic of objective and subjective interpretations of “union with Christ,” we shall proceed to consider the dialectic of union and distinction within the subjective understanding of “union with Christ.” This is not to deny or deprecate the objective interpretations of “union with Christ,” but our intent is to emphasize the subjective “union with Christ.” Within this graphic formatting of subjective union we shall observe the sequence of the “union of being” and the “union of doing”. These can also be referred to as “ontological union” and “operational union,” and can also be seen in the tension of dialectic.