Illustration of Monism
Monism can be illustrated with a jar of sand. Suppose the universe is the jar filled with grains of sand. Let the grains represent the pluralistic appearance of all the variety of things in the universe—ideas, material things, and everything else that may compose one's concept of the universe. In a sense, this jar is filled with a great pluralism of countless separate and different things. But the monist sees the unity of it; he sees that, in essence, it is just one thing. It is just sand, a singular concept. Thus, it is a monism.
Is God Part of the Universe?
Is God part of the universe? This is the critical question considered throughout this study. If God is part of the universe, then, according to the analogy of the jar of sand, is God the sum total of the entire jar? Or is He just one of the grains of sand—perhaps the highest one, the strongest one, or the brightest one? If we say that God is part of the universe, we are monists in the sense in which the word is used in this paper.
If we say that God is not part of the universe, we are dualists, as the word is used in this study. This follows the analogy in which all the grains of sand are inside the limits of the jar; anything outside must be something other than sand or a product of sand. Monism and dualism are mutually exclusive.
Relevance of the Study
The church lives in a world that tends to think monistically of God because it thinks monistically of the universe, and it has no awareness of any other concept of God. There is much scientific evidence to support the idea that the created universe is truly a unity. Western society is schooled in the knowledge of atomic theory, which shows that the universe is all composed of atoms or energy. For instance, grade school science books teach students the concept of the universe by asking such questions as:
Is the Earth part of the universe? (Yes.)
Is the moon part of the universe? (Yes.)
Is the sun? (Yes.)
Are the stars? (Yes.)
The term "universe" comes to be all-inclusive. Then comes the critical question: Is there anything that is not part of the universe? It is critical because, if the student decides his concept of the universe is going to include everything that he will ever think about, he is starting to put God into the "jar"—that is, he is starting to think of God as being somehow a part of the universe, just like everything else in it. He is preparing himself to become a thorough-going monist unless something should later cause him to redefine his concept of the universe and God.
If he does not redefine his concept of the universe, what will happen to his concept of God (at least subconsciously) when he gets into atomic theory and realizes that everything in the universe is composed of atoms (or energy)?
The eastern religions, which are flooding into the western world, tend to be quite monistic in their thinking. This is observed by such writers as Tucker N. Callaway, who identified three major sects of Japanese Buddhism (Zen, Shin, and Nichiren) as being "essentially monistic idealism."¹ From India have come adaptations of Hindu monism, such as Yoga and Transcendental Meditation, which are monistic and pantheistic according to a variety of writers. East and West are finally finding each other on the basis of a monistic view of the universe. C. S. Lewis, calling it pantheism, said that this is the bent of the natural human mind, but that at one time, the church was more successful in keeping separate from it:
"Modern Europe escaped it only while she remained predominantly Christian... So far from being the final religious refinement, pantheism is in fact the permanent natural bent of the human mind; the permanent ordinary level below which man sometimes sinks... but above which his own unaided efforts can never raise him for very long... It is the attitude into which the human mind automatically falls when left to itself. No wonder we find it congenial."²
For a sampling of recent articles that identify these religions as being monistic and pantheistic, see:
David Haddon, "Transcendental Meditation Challenges the Church," Christianity Today (April 9, 1976), p. 17f.
Bill Squires, "T.M., New Drug from the East," The Christian Reader (Wheaton, Illinois) (September/October, 1975), p. 28f.
Myra Dye, "The Transcendental Flim-flam," Moody Monthly (January, 1976), p. 33f.
Pat Means, "Meditation Mania: Relaxation or Religion?" Worldwide Challenge (April, 1976), p. 5f.
Lyle Vanderwerff, "Transcendental Meditation: A Challenge to the Church," Reformed Journal (May/June, 1976), p. 24f.
Review of the Literature
In view of the ultimate importance of recognizing the difference between theologies that have a monistic concept of God and those that view Him dualistically, it is surprising how little material is published on a popular level to explore these differences. The writer of this paper, though he was raised in an evangelical church and graduated from an evangelical college, was never made conscious of the relevance of the problem until encountering it in Japan. The exposure came through Tucker N. Callaway's book, Japanese Buddhism and Christianity, a weighty text that few ministers or laymen in America would be likely to find. This is almost the only piece of writing that contrasts monism with the biblical concept of a God who is not to be identified with the monism of the universe. Callaway demonstrates the consequences of holding a monistic view of God. For example, he shows how holding a monistic view of God with the universe makes it impossible for a person to be saved, if salvation involves believing in a God who is not part of the monism.
Could anything make the difference between monism and dualism any more significant on a practical level? Maybe Kipling was right when he said, "East is east, and west is west; and never the twain shall meet." Maybe the West does not need to know the consequences of following monistic theology, but there is a growing awareness of monistic theology in the West. Eastern religions are coming westward. Evidence of a growing awareness of the menace of monistic religions is beginning to appear. Evangelical magazines and books occasionally warn about eastern religions, often identifying them as monistic. Scholars seem to know what the word means, at least as a general categorization. But do the laypeople have any concept?
Francis Schaeffer's books are helpful here; although they do not identify monism by that name, they do deal with the basic issues in a remarkably effective way. Charles Corwin's book, East to Eden?, raises awareness about the practical consequences measurable in social reform (or the lack of it) that can be traced to one's basic theological beliefs. He warns us to look at the results of believing the eastern religions. A few missionaries who have lived in the Orient and studied its religions are beginning to express concern for the Western world. But it is surprising to find how few monism entries there are in Dissertation Abstracts International; evidently, scholars have not done much research on such topics. Where is a comprehensive study that defines monism and traces out its implications? This student has not yet found any complete work of such nature.
Method of the Study
It is a presupposition of this study that the modern church would be much stronger if its awareness of the distinction between monistic and dualistic theologies were heightened. Is there not an inner logic in monistic theology that would exclude any knowledge about a God who might transcend (dualistically) the monism (if such a transcendent God should happen to exist)? This paper is an inquiry into the inner logic of monistic theology to see if it does, in fact, exclude knowledge about the transcendent God.
Chapters 2 and 3 will contrast monistic theology with the dualistic monotheism found in the Bible. The next two chapters will trace out the results of monistic theologies in the Christologies and ethics of their adherents; this will be seen in contrast to the Christology and ethics of those who hold a dualistic concept of God's relationship to the universe.
The thesis of the study is that monistic theology limits its adherents to seeing only one nature in Christ and disconnects their ethics from subjection to a transcendent God. While such a thesis seems to be necessarily true by definition of the terms, it remains to be verified in the history of the concepts, whether or not they have been demonstrated by the practice of their adherents. If they can be verified, it should be possible to heighten the church's awareness of the practical consequences that result when people adopt a monistic theology.
References
Tucker N. Callaway, Japanese Buddhism and Christianity (Tokyo: Protestant Publishing Co., 1957), p. 11.
C. S. Lewis, Miracles, A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1947), as cited in Haddon, April 9, 1976.
Charles Corwin, East to Eden? Religion and the Dynamics of Social Change (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972).
Edward Farley, The Transcendence of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958).
Ray Sherman Anderson, Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975).
No comments:
Post a Comment