Assumed Dualism in Christianity: What It Is & How to Notice It

Occasionally, we hear stories about families who are faced with the reality of a disease they were not aware even existed. Or, perhaps, we hear of a condition someone has, but we really do not understand how it affects those close to it. In these situations not being aware does not effect the presence or reality of the disease or condition. What has changed is the awareness of those now affected.

From the day awareness is increased, however, we attempt to learn all we can about that which has begun to affect every part of the way life must now be lived. It may also be true that we live with a condition for a length of time but never realize we are being affected by it. It is from this last standpoint that I hope to increase our awareness about the concept of assumed dualism in Christianity.

In a previous article I mentioned that our beliefs, or conclusions, about what "the Bible says" are only as valid as the assumptions on which they are based. Dualism is an assumption that affects our interpretation of various passages in the Bible, and therefore, our conclusions or beliefs about what the Bible says in those verses.

To illustrate how assumptions affect our lives, for example: if you have been taught, by those you trust from previous generations, that baptism is sprinkling, or pouring (forms of washing), instead of immersion (to dip, plunge, be submerged), then your conclusions/beliefs about what it means to "be baptized" will be affected. This is turn will affect what you do concerning the Biblical command to "be baptized." In a more general way, the way we live life is based on our worldview which forms our cultural lifestyles concerning "religion" being separate from "secular" life.

For some of us, we may think that we have understood what "being baptized" means and never give consideration that we have not done just as those in the Bible. However, because of our assumptions inherited from church traditions, often based on the interpretation of only a few people who agree with one another and which are handed down from generation to generation, our conclusion may be faulty. Similarly, for others, the way Christians have come to view worship--and indeed living the Christian life itself--is affected by our assumptions from the teachings of historically recent and select preachers many of which are based on dualism.

WHAT IS DUALISM?

For a quick definition of this most likely unfamiliar concept, the block quote below is from wikipedia on dualism. What I am attempting to convey is that dualism is a compartmentalizing, or categorizing way, of viewing life and interpreting religious and secular meanings rather than in a holistic way. Dualism views religion as being in a separate realm from the secular and, therefore, by a different set of rules than the rest of life. It affects the way we govern our lives through setting acceptable boundaries for our understanding and actions, especially in how we define some works as "religious" and others as "secular."

The first organized perspective of a mind-body dualism comes from the Ancient Greek Philosopher Plato (424 – 348 BC). In his dialogue, Phaedo, Plato gives four arguments for why humans have a transcendent soul in addition to their corporal bodies based in large part on his theory of forms...Early Christian Dualism is largely based on Platonic Dualism. There is also a personal dualism in Christianity with a soul-body distinction based on the idea of an immaterial Christian Soul...In politics, dualism refers to the separation of powers between the legislature and executive, which keeps a balance between the two, ensuring government doesn't go against the will of the people's representatives. Dualism implies administrators, such as ministers, cannot be members of the body that keeps check on them. In this sense, the United States is politically dualist….

Dualism may be applied in various ways from philosophy to religion to politics, and even in different ways from today during differing time periods of history, but the idea of compartmentalization is fundamental. Dualism can cause a separate set of rules for some in a group, but not for others. This may, and often does, contribute to corruption of power by the formation of a special class. The most glaring is when certain Christians are paid to do what all Christians are said to be commanded to do by the same paid Christian!

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that people, or churches, are not free to do with their own money what they wish. They certainly are, but I am talking about burdens being placed on non-paid Christians for the same works done by paid Christians. A different set of rules exists for the same practices. To say that paid Christians may "have the time to do more" changes nothing. Why then are the non-paid Christians who are commanded to "study, pray and visit" not paid by percentage? This would be the same set of rules, but since dualism exists assumed in the form of a paid clergy/free labor laity worldview, then, some are paid and some are not for the same good works.

For an example of dualism in the Bible, note the dualism that the apostle John contested in 1st & 2nd John of "Jesus having come in the flesh." The Platonic dualism of John's day taught that flesh was evil, and therefore the heresy that Christ could not have come in the flesh was developed. Our view of leaving this evil world and escaping to Heaven is similar.

Nevertheless, the usual response to the above quotes from wikipedia is, "Doesn't the Bible predate Plato by mentioning a difference between soul/spirit and body?" To which I would respond that I am not disagreeing with anyone concerning "what the Bible says...." My concerns are our assumptions beneath our interpretations of "what the Bible says." I am saying that we approach the Scriptures with a dualistic worldview of soul/spirit/body and not the worldview of the original Biblical writers and hearers. And if we in the churches of Christ/Restoration Movement are to be restoring Christianity to its original form, then integrity demands that we "view the Bible through first century glasses."

The author of the next quote, from a discussion on Platonic Dualism and Christianity, summarizes my response to a dualistic interpretation of soul/spirit/body:

My view on the differences between Plato and Christianity: According to Plato's Phaedo, when our physical forms die, and our souls continue onward to inhabit a new form. The soul does not die, anymore than a note dies when an instrument stops playing.  The soul (an analogy for Plato's beloved "forms") sheds its physical prison, but is eventually tied to a new one. It doesn't work that way in Christianity. Despite its pop-cultural depiction, the Bible predicts resurrection in flesh at the end. People will get out of their graves. Plato would've found this image horrifying [that] people will get out of their graves with new, incorruptible flesh.

This particular aspect of dualism affects our understanding of "Heaven" and earth and where and in what kind of body we will inhabit eternity. Have you ever noticed how many times in prayers, sermons, and articles we are taught a view of Heaven that is really an escape from the prison of this evil world into an ethereal bliss that we really know nothing about? How much does this contribute to our neglect and abuse of what is on the Earth now?

Also, note that Jesus was resurrected in a body that consumed food (Luke 24:36-43). This is not in line with the modern concept of living in Heaven for eternity in an ethereal body and sitting a pew singing "Amazing Grace" for ten thousand years. It has astounded me to learn how many 19th century educators in churches of Christ did not have the dualistic view of Heaven and Earth that we have today.

HOW TO NOTICE DUALISM IN AN ASSEMBLY

The best way I can shed more light on how we apply the assumption of dualism in our culture is to expose our view of what it means to worship God. In an assembly, we constantly hear the "physical" contrasted with "spiritual" and "religion" (or sacred) contrasted with the "secular" in announcements, prayers, and sermons. The primary way we generally see these spoken ideas carried out in a worldview, or Christian lifestyle (as you would see someone's baptism conducted based on his/her assumption of what it means to be baptized), is the separation of a "worship hour" where we are told to "clear our minds from the rest of life" and which is conducted by certain "professional" Christians or "leaders" (really rulers) leading others in the form of a "clergy" and others playing the role of a "laity." Laity is the passive, "obedient" and docile group of people being lectured to or "served" in a public building setting and who are expected to accept the establishment.

What is repeatedly hammered into our minds is that "faithful Christians" are those who "go to church" to "worship God," but where does the New Testament say either of these? Much less that these are the specific criteria to publicly judge faithfulness? It doesn't. It is an inherited tradition based on dualism. The "church" in the Bible is "the people" not a "place" to go as it is viewed and applied through the assumption of dualism.

The reason we are taught that we "go to worship" is based on the dualistic assumption that the meal among Paul and his apostolic missionaries in Acts 20:7 is a "religious" feast that somehow makes one righteous by either performing that act oneself, or having it performed by a separate class of "priests." Neither of which do--only the blood of Christ makes one righteous in the sight of God. The fact that we have "fellowship" meals after "services" instead of eating the Lord's Supper as a meal is also a manifestation of dualism by compartmentalizing actions as acceptable only at certain times.

We do not maintain our righteousness by restoring it on a weekly basis as if we are unrighteous before performing the act, or somehow "less than" acceptable prior to "keeping the commandment." Neither is a "common" meal religious or secular because they are separated by a few minutes. It is dualism behind these interpretations, and they are harmful to the quality of life and freedom that Christ gives (John 10:10; cf. Gal. 5:1).

If one's worldview is that s/he must "keep commandments" (on a ritual basis) to remain "faithful" to God, then at some point before keeping the commandment, s/he must feel inadequate, inferior, or in some way be incomplete which keeping the commandment supposedly remedies until some point in the future. This to me is the prime reason we are not growing (2 Peter 3:18) and maturing (Eph. 4:11-16), and the reason governing hierarchies/oligarchies are maintained in modern "religion."

The final way that I want to introduce dualism is by the terms "church" and "state." We have inherited, and allow to continue, based on our "religious/secular" and "clergy/laity" dualistic behaviors, a mixture of these two "institutions" which I believe causes us to compromise Christian doctrine, and ultimately the kingship of Jesus by using a dualistic assumption in our (inherited) view of church and state.

Generally speaking, what I mean is that on "spiritual" things we follow Christ, but in "physical" things we follow Caesar. Jesus is called the "King of kings," but we have compartmentalized His rule in primarily the "spiritual" realm. It is profound how many times the terms "physical" and "spiritual" are contrasted in an assembly. The clearest way this is manifest is that Jesus says to "love our enemies," but the state "incarcerates and kills its enemies." If we must say that chaos would reign in society without incarceration/killing, then let's at least provide an alternative within the church rather than a religious version of the state. Does the church have soldiers that kills its enemies? How is this compatible with loving one's enemies?

CONCLUSION

The conditioning that passive, docile "laity" is subjected to is one of "repeated signals" week after week that hinders growth and sustains immaturity. Ironically, the very "clergy" that insists the "laity" must "do more" is an oft repeated signal, as well, but it is never that the clergy is somehow in the way! What a dysfunctional system of hindering growth we have that is repeated week after week! Oh, we need to "study," but don't learn anything different than what we repeat week after week. Bible study has become a creed rehearsal for the status quo.

In The Transforming Vision, Walsh and Middleton state:

Worldviews are best understood as we see them incarnated, fleshed out in actual ways of life. They are not systems of thought, like theologies or philosophies. Rather, worldviews are perceptual frameworks. They are ways of seeing. If we want to understand what people see, or how well people see, we need to watch how they walk. If they bump into certain objects or stumble over them, then we can assume that they are blind to them. Conversely, their eyes may not only see, but dwell on certain other objects.

The Bible student will immediately call to mind many of Jesus' statements to the disciples about the crowds not being able "to see" and being unable "to hear" (Matthew 13:11-17). Also, note that the religious rulers of Jesus' day asked Jesus if He thought they were "blind" (John 9:40). Because they were vested in their ideological worldview, and did not want to repent, this prevented the crowds and religious rulers from seeing what Jesus was saying and, consequently, it affected how they responded to Him, from some walking away (John 6), to some having Him scapegoated and executed at the hands of the state (Matt. 26--27). 

Finally, Stephen Covey, in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, also grasps the truth of how worldviews affect our behavior as revealed by Jesus. While preparing lessons for a leadership development program, Covey writes:

I became particularly interested in how perceptions are formed, how they govern the way we see, and how the way we see governs how we behave. This led me to a study of expectancy theory and self-fulfilling prophecies or the “Pygmalion effect,” and to a realization of how deeply imbedded our perceptions are. It taught me that we must look at the lens through which we see the world, as well as at the world we see, and that the lens itself shapes how we interpret the world" (bold emp. and italics mine, sp).

It is my belief that we have inherited an institutional system of religion based on dualism (the lens) that is not the Christianity we read about in the Bible, or at best, is a compartmentalized and limited attempt at it. While the Scriptures may distinguish between spirit and body, this does not mean that the Bible teaches a dualistic way of living. In fact, I believe that a "physical/spiritual" and "religious/secular" dualistic worldview limits our Christian influence and effectiveness, maintains a commandment keeping self righteousness, and is not wise. 

My main concern is that our Christian lifestyles' effect on the world is hindered based on our worldview. Our worldview is based on our assumptions and our assumptions are often based on dualism. Dualism affects how we view our jobs (some are supposedly secular and some are supposedly religious) and ultimately our worth in society or the church and therefore our roles. Life is in large part about the roles we choose to play. Understanding dualism and how it affects us matters concerning the quality of life Jesus came for us to enjoy and the freedom all have in Christ. 

I believe that focusing on, understanding, and removing dualism from Christianity will restore the church to a more Scriptural function and increase its borders worldwide. We have focused for far too long on our attempt at perfect commandment keeping to be (self) "righteous" and nowhere near enough on being "wise." If we are wise, then we will live righteously, but attempting to maintain a perfect righteousness through commandment keeping based on dualistic assumptions doesn't seem wise to me at all.

I welcome your comments and questions.