Christo-Logic

The rationality of communion

The notion that Christian doctrine revolves around a set of paradoxes (the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Cross being the central three) is popularly accepted today, at least in the theological waters this fish swims in. But an overemphasis on paradox leads one into murky waters, where one cannot but flounder in confusion (the fish puns end here). The most obvious example I can point to is the “Christian Atheism” of Slavoj Zizek, which sees the “Absolute” as contradictory, or contradiction as absolute. In contrast to my past Zizekian self, I suggest that the paradoxes of the Christian faith can only be seen as such from a false (fallen) perspective, one that is alienated from the catholicity of the Truth. When seen from the proper vantage point—from God’s point of view—what were once incomprehensible contradictions are revealed as the most reasonable truths.

Christo-logic is the only logic, as it is the logic of communion, which is true ontology. The being of beings is not found in oneself, but is intrinsically grounded in what one is not (the other). God the Father, while autotheos, is only Himself insofar as He is not the Son and the Spirit yet perfectly one with them. Creation only exists insofar as it is not God, yet only in Him, through real participation in His life, do we have being. Thus, the fullness of existence only occurs when we give ourselves totally to God, reciprocating His total self-offering to us. Christo-logic is one of giving and receiving, reaching its fulfillment in the perfect love between persons.

The transfiguration of our rational minds is the Christification of our minds, through which we perceive the perfect reasonableness of communion (and the utter absurdity of self-relation). Let us take the example of “power.” The devil identifies power with the ability to seize from the other, to subsume what is other under his self-asserting will. The kings of this world, under the influence of the devil, similarly identify their power with their ability to control others, to direct them according to their will. But this is utter folly.

Firstly, it is evident upon minimal reflection that “taking” already implies a lack of power. It implies that one is lacking something which the other has. If I must take something from you to satisfy a certain desire, then I lack the power in myself to attain (what I perceive as) happiness. I am dependent on you. Secondly, since violent seizing undermines and, ultimately, destroys one’s relationship with the other, the logic of violence is ultimately self-negating. This is why the demons can only exist as parasites upon God’s creation until the “appointed time,” when they are cast out by the light of Christ into the abyss (as in the story of the demoniac in the Gerasenes).

This was misunderstood by most of the Jews in Christ’s time, who expected the Messiah to violently seize imperial control from the Roman Emperor and establish a Jewish empire: “Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone” (John 6:15). But the power of the Messiah was not revealed through conquest and domination, but submission and humility, culminating with His death on the Cross. Christ revealed that true power is found not in taking, but in giving. And, while paradoxical from a worldly perspective, is this mystery not totally comprehensible and rational? If one has given gifts (and Christ gives His eternal life), it implies one has the power to do so, a power that allows one’s own life to outflow and be shared with others. In light of this rational mystery, how could one remain awed by a silly little emperor, who takes what he does not have?