Ok, so in these last posts, I attempted to provide some insight on why we need to pay great attention to the original language that not only built the linguistic foundation for the Book of Books, but equally represented the Eastern cultural context wherein Jesus carried out this epically humanity-changing "earthly" assignment.
As I have elaborated on, and as equally highlighted, and summarized by Curt Hinkle, a practical theologian (as he would call himself), the Eastern and Western thinking do not really align, but stand in contrast to each other.
How so?
Western thinking is quite linear – steps 1,2,3, leading to a final outcome. Eastern thinking is more process-oriented and “circular.” The focus isn’t about getting to the final outcome but the pilgrimage. Its more about the journey than the outcome.*1
Note on the side: in that sense, the reoccuring mentioning of the refining process (Isaiah 48:10), as well as being the clay in the hands of the potter (Isaiah 64:8) rings quite differently. But let's go back to the actual focal point of today's post, by looking at Hinkle's extension of what he highlights at the beginning:
Notice how the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, is written in story and journey form. It doesn’t give us exacting formulas to land on, but principles to follow (the Proverbs are a great example of this). In our Western thinking, we tend to presume that the New Testament follows the Old Testament linearly. We must also remember that Jesus was trained and grew up in an Eastern culture, learning the Hebrew scriptures. (This would be true of the Apostle Paul and most, if not all, of the other New Testament writers who constantly circled back to the Hebrew scriptures as they developed their own understanding of Jesus and his anointing as King)*2
Hinkle's recapitulation of the significance of a re-engaging of a circular mindset and approach, respectively, goes well in line with something that Paul Young (the author of 'The Shack') elaborates on in an interview on the topic of "Loving Yourself", which quite similarly resonated with me, just as strongly as Chris's trenchant "do good, get good" message (see blog post on 'Lost Identity').
So in one interview sequence Young hits the bull's eye, as he singles out one particular example concerning the profound effects that the Western-linear thinking had on many believers over these past centuries, who were brought up within the modern church age. In doing so, he expands on Gil Hodges' (the podcast's host) commentary and his reformed perception on the meaning of the word 'judge' , therein taking the historical approach as he states,
...the God as a judge that we have embraced is an absolutely different model of 'judge' than the early church had. And so we inherited our view of God as a judge from people like Augustine (of Hippo), Calvin and Luther, who all said beautiful things, but also terrible things, and they were all lawyers (....). And so they all came up with a forensic view of atonement or forensic theology. And forensic means - legal-. So, they are lawyers....you gotta come up with a model for God as a judge; well we know what a judge is: he is in the courtroom, and so that's what's been handed down to us. (...) The early church had a radically different model of 'judge' (...). They had a name for their judge. He is called the great physician. They had a hospitable, therapeutic doctor model of God as a judge. So they didn't have a courtroom God; they had a hospital God. *3
Now this was something that connected the dots for me on a larger scale and completely echoed from the walls of my heart.
And just for clarification purposes: when Paul Young talks about the difference between the early church's understanding of God as a 'judge', in contrast to the modern church's perception of the same, the author does elaborate on the necessity of atonement through Jesus, but clarifies that this basically doesn't conflict with the early church's view of, and belief in God as a doctor.
So put in a nutshell: those who were part of the early church (Eastern culture) were much closer to the source than those who shaped the modern church rethoric, mainly birthed from and taught according to Roman and Greek standards and belief systems, who greatly acknowledged the relevance to separate (body, soul and spirit function independently from each other), to disconnect from the source in one or another way (= the linear thinking), as a truth that needs to be obtained.
Simply put: if you are confused about where you come from, or worse; don't know at all who your source is, what's its origin, whose you actually are and therefore, who YOU ARE, you detach and disconnect yourself from that very source of identification and you become an easy target for the devil's greatest chess move - also known as identity fraud.
In contrast, and as I will repeatedly point to (see posts on 'identifying the source'), Jesus was very clear about his connection with the source, as greatly represented in his conversations, teachings and parables in which he always focuses on the merging of Heaven and Earth, on the interplay of information and the source of information, consequently representing ONEness instead of separation between Father and son, and ultimately acknowledging and honoring his true identity.
*1 &*2 Hinkle, C. (2021) Practical Theology Today. Circular Thinking. Available at: https://practicaltheologytoday.com/2021/02/25/circular-thinking/ (last accessed: 26 May, 2025)
*3 Gil Hodges, (22 Sep, 2020), Kingdom Talks - Loving Yourself to Love Others (Part 1 of 4). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHH2-lzZT8 (last accessed: 26 May, 2025)
Comments ()