Philosophy 1: a Brief Introduction

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit….” (Colossians 2:8, ESV)

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22–24)

“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”—Tertullian

The subject of Philosophy has been, and continues to be, a source of great theological controversy within the Christian church, even to this very day. Anyone who has endeavored to seriously and systematically contemplate the things of God in these modern or postmodern times has likely heard the warnings of discouragement: “You can't build a ladder of reason up to God,” they say. “The Bible says that knowledge ‘puffs up,’” they caution. “God’s thoughts are not man’s thoughts. God’s ways are not man’s ways.” But in such sentiments, the entirety of both Christian and Western thought is reduced to nothing more than a cautionary tale.  The philosopher recast as though he were some kind of court jester chasing rainbows or running after the wind, a spectacle of both amusement and disdain to the more sober-minded, practical man. Philosophy is the realm of speculations to the useful and sensible man committed to his work in the here and now. But aren't these concerns warranted? Doesn't the Bible warn us about philosophy and empty deceit? Isn't it also the case that while some men work and build up things for the good of others, the lazy man loafs about under a tree, his head in the clouds, contributing nothing while taking his share from others?

Behind each of these objections, I do find legitimate concerns. However, before addressing them, let me ask a few of my own questions….

What man of ideas do you have attending your appointed posts? Practical and honest, hardworking men laid the bricks and mortar of abortion clinics; a skilled carpenter designed and built the scaffolding on the buildings of Nazi death camps. So I ask: for whose ideas do you swing your bold and pragmatic hammer? The proud sons of Germany did it for the progressive philosophies of Hegel and Nietzsche at the behest of Adolf Hitler. Hard work and simplicity was their bread and butter too. Blue-collar steel workers and riveters built the Russian Gulag because of the ideas of Joseph Stalin. The “philosophies” of a tyrant defined their work, and gave meaning to their perfectly respectable pragmatism. However, this is America; such philosophies do not define our work and purpose. Those sorts of ideas only shape the world on the other side of the Atlantic. This is the land of the free; home of the brave.

The truth of the matter is that ideas shape the world. The United States of America is not exempt from this truth. Capitalism is an idea. Pragmatism is an idea. Democracy is also an idea.  Every American knows this. Whether or not he or she denies it, to think about and reflect upon those ideas, as we do all the time, is to engage in a multitude of philosophical inquiries. The question is not whether we do philosophy. It’s not even about being a professional philosopher. After all, we use mathematics without becoming mathematicians. We gaze at the stars without a degree in astronomy. This is likewise true of philosophy. The real question is whether we are doing it well. Or will our worldviews crumble to the ground like a house built by an architect who hated mathematics? It is better to ask if they are they good ideas or are they bad ideas? And how can we tell? …Such is the bread and butter of the philosopher.

But what of the Biblical warnings and Christian objections against doing philosophy, like the ones mentioned earlier? What are we to do with those?

Context is important. Does anyone seriously think that the apostle Paul, or any other biblical writer, was warning us about thinking about anything? When Paul writes, “knowledge puffs up,” did he mean to categorically exclude any and all knowledge, which would include everything he said in his first letter to the Corinthians? For example, when Paul writes, “knowledge puff up,” then wouldn't the knowledge that knowledge puffs up also puff us up? However, when we read his teaching in context, what he actually says is “THIS knowledge puffs up” (1 Co. 8:1, emphasis added). The context was that some Christians were judging other Christians concerning the consumption of food sacrificed to idols. What he was saying was that the knowledge that we are free to eat it must not be used for the glorifying of ourselves, but for the edification of the church. This includes the edification of the weaker brother, whose conscience bothers him about eating the foods of idols. To use such knowledge about our freedom in Christ in such a self-serving way does indeed “puff up” because the conscience of our weaker brother is a greater concern than the mere pleasure we take from eating food.

What about Colossians 2:8, where Paul warns us about philosophy and empty deceit? Isn’t Paul referring to philosophy as being “empty” and “deceitful?” No, he’s not because, once again, context matters:

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

There are different ways in which the term “philosophy” can be understood. What the writer is warning his readers about here are worldviews—“philosophies”—which are based upon human traditions as well as the “elemental spirits of the world,” and not on Christ. In this same section, Paul assures us that we have the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ, and that in Christ, we may understand. This way, we will not be deluded by arguments that might seem plausible (2:2-4). What are these “elemental spirits of the world” the author refers to?  It refers to things like circumcision, works of righteousness, food and drink, festivals, new moons, and the Sabbath. He calls these things “shadows” of things to come. The text also goes on to warn about asceticism, the worship of angels, and about visions—and this is interesting—which are “puffed up” WITHOUT REASON by the sensuous mind.  What Paul is telling us here is not to have, as our foundation of knowledge, things that perish—things of this world. But isn't this precisely what the sensible pragmatist does? Life is the work of his hands, the car in his garage, and the food in his belly. Behold his pregnant wife and his all-American son, living in a big house with a white-picket fence. While such things are nice, they are not the ultimate thing.

The section then goes on to explain that such things do indeed have the appearance of wisdom in their promotion of self-made religion, but such things do absolutely nothing to stop the indulgences of the flesh. What does the apostle tell us to do instead? He tells us to seek the things above, which are the heavenly things beyond these earthly elements, to set our minds upon them. In other words, he tells us to do real philosophy, and in our new self to be renewed in knowledge after the image of the creator.  The language of this section stresses over and over again to consider the unity of diverse things in relation to the creator. This is what philosophy does.

What the critic of philosophy isn’t getting is that philosophy is inescapable. In his rejection of it, he offers up an anti-philosophy philosophy. Out of one side of his mouth, he says he’s too humble of a man to have any rational understanding of God, while out of the other he presumes to tell everyone what God is like. In his rejection of beholding the highest things of existence, he merely substitutes them for earthly things, which is precisely what Paul has told us not to do. Instead of an actual reason, we are given everything from the pastor’s personal experiences, to a burning in his bosom, to visions and personal revelations. Some appeal to the mystery of God, as though it was some sort of secret knowledge, speaking about God in ambiguity like the Gnostics did. Evidently, we are supposed to bend to the expertise of such teachers, even though he or she babbles incessantly about ludicrous things.  But God does not speak with a forked-tongue.  Claiming to have no knowledge, when God has clearly revealed Himself, is not humility. Rather, it is pride and self-exaltation. They base their knowledge on the things of this world, denying God’s clear speech, and teach their congregations to do the same. Let them be liars and God be true, as the Scriptures say.

So, what about those who say they don’t base their faith on philosophical reasoning, but on Scripture alone? Surely, such a claim is faithful and true, isn’t it? But which part of the Bible is being alluded to? For example, is it the part of the Bible that tells us that God has hands and feet or is it the part that says He is spirit alone, having no body? Is it the part that tells us God had to test Abraham’s faith to find out if he was truly obedient or the part that says God is unchanging and knows all things from beginning to end? The Bible doesn’t explicitly resolve these sorts of issues, and requires its readers to do some heavy thinking. Should they think about such things in a rational or an irrational fashion?

There are a multitude of problems with this sort of objection. For one thing, for every section, verse, or word that we read, there are thousands of assumptions the reader is making in the very act of reading, all of them pertaining to something philosophical by their very nature. Does a text have meaning, for example? Does this particular text have anything to say to me? What is a text? Does it communicate anything? Does it communicate real things? Do words have references outside themselves? Just because someone puts his mind on autopilot, unaware that he is making assumption after assumption in reading the Bible, doesn’t mean he isn’t making them. Indeed, nowhere in Scripture does any biblical writer suggest that some sort of cannon of writing nullifies the need for philosophy. The Christian assumed this was true very much apart from the Bible.

The problem Paul had with the Greeks wasn't that they sought after true knowledge or wisdom, as I have already demonstrated. Over and over again Scripture commands everyone to seek those things. Instead, the problem was they sought after a false knowledge, a false wisdom. They were looking for a different foundation outside of Christ in the elemental things of this world, which change and pass away. Upon such things, they were trying to build a different reality, a different system of thought and set of ideas. However, as I will begin to show in my next paper, this isn't what I mean by the term, “philosophy.”