I. Toronto’s Owen-“Greek Dualism” Perverted Christian Theology

Dr. DERWYN R. G. OWEN, ^{11) DERWYN R. G. OWEN (1914-), Anglican, was trained at the University of Toronto and Union Theological Seminary. He was the son of Archbishop D. T. Owen, late Primate of the Church of Canada. After teaching and army chaplaincies, he joined the staff of Trinity College, of which he is now executive head. It is interesting to note that Owen studied under both Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, whose positions on the current discussion are sketched elsewhere in this twentieth-century section.} provost of Trinity College, University of Toronto, issued an impressive volume in 1956 titled Body and Soul, with the subtitle, “A Study on the Christian View of Man.” Leading off with a penetrating contrast between the Greek “religious” and the true “Christian” concepts, Owen asserts, in his thoroughly documented work, that “the ‘religious’ anthropology is not Christian but Greek and Eastern both in origin and in nature, and that it is this view of man, and not the Christian, that the scientific evidence refutes.” ^{22) D. R. G. Owen, Body and Soul, p. 26.}CFF2 889.2

1. NO “INDEPENDENT” SOUL IN A “CORRUPTIBLE BODY.”

Professor Owen stresses the fact that the “religious,” as he calls the traditional Greek view, ever presents a “dualism”—an “immortal soul” in a perishing body.CFF2 890.1

“The points at issue revolve around the concepts of ‘body’ and ‘soul.’ The ‘religious’ anthropology [in contradistinction to the Biblical] adopts an extreme dualism, asserting that the body and the soul are two different and distinct substances. It claims that the soul is divine in origin and immortal by nature and that the corruptible body is the source of all sin and wickedness. It recommends the cultivation of the soul in detachment from the body, and advocates the suppression of all physical appetites and natural impulses. It regards the body as the tomb or prison of the soul from which it longs to get free. Finally, it tends to suppose that the soul, even in its earth-bound existence, is entirely independent of the body and so enjoys a freedom of choice and action untrammeled by the laws that reign in the physical realm.” ^{33) Ibid. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 890.2

On the contrary, Owen holds that man is a “unified psychosomatic whole” and that “there can be no detachable part of man that survives physical death.” ^{44) Ibid., p. 27.}CFF2 890.3

2. PHILOSOPHY OF “DUALISM” FROM GREEKS

Holding that the Christian belief teaches the full mortality of man, Owen adds that it assuredly does not teach that “some one part of human nature is inherently immortal.” Owen also says that “many of our hymns are nothing but thinly disguised Orphic poems.” ^{55) Ibid., p. 28.} Then he states:CFF2 891.1

“If we turn to the Bible, however, as we shall later, we find that a quite different view of man is assumed throughout. Here there is no dualism and scarcely any idea of the immortality of a detached and independent soul.” ^{66) Ibid., p. 29.}CFF2 891.2

“The Bible,” he states, “assumes that human nature is a unity; in the New Testament it teaches that man’s ultimate destiny involves the ‘resurrection of the body.’” ^{77) Ibid.} The Greek, or religious, concepts, he adds, are an “intrusion.” ^{88) Ibid., p. 33.}CFF2 891.3

3. “DUALISM” IS INTEGRAL PART OF PLATONISM

Tracing the Greek origin of the body-soul dualism, which came to a head under “the Orphic,” and reached its peak under Plato, Owen points out that it involved transmigration, with the body a “prison” for the soul. Man’s “earthly existence” was thus a “living death”—a soul “trapped in a body.” ^{99) Ibid., pp. 33-36.} Thus the body was despised. Moreover, Plato held that the soul “always has existed and always will exist.” ^{1010) Ibid., p. 38.} Professor Owen then states:CFF2 891.4

“Plato remains to the end an antiphysical dualist. It is he, and his followers, who most of all are responsible for imposing the ‘religious’ anthropology on Western thought.” ^{1111) Ibid., p. 41.}CFF2 891.5

“This latter belief especially-the idea that the soul can exist apart from the body-obviously implies some form of the body-soul dualism.... This body-soul dualism was a necessary implicate of the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul.” ^{1212) bid., p. 59.}CFF2 891.6

4. BIBLICAL “RESURRECTION” OPPOSED TO “ORPHIC ESCHATOLOGY.”

Dr. Owen shows how there was a similar strain in the Indian teaching, likewise involving “dualism” and “transmigration,” and “disembodied blessedness.” ^{1313) Ibid., pp. 45-48.} Then he traces the fatal transfer from pagan Greek philosophy to Christian Neoplatonism, and thus into the Alexandrian wing of Christianity ^{1414) Ibid., pp. 50-52.}—protested however by Justin Martyr and others but developed by Tertullian and those who followed his lead.” ^{1515) Ibid., pp. 54-58.} Owen then observes:CFF2 891.7

“Now there are a few isolated Scriptural passages that may suggest the idea of the immortality of the soul in the Greek sense, but the normal Biblical point of view is quite different: in the New Testament it is the resurrection of the body that is stressed, and this doctrine is almost a direct contradiction of the ‘Orphic’ eschatology. Why, then, did the Fathers lean toward this largely un-Biblical notion?” ^{1616) Ibid., p. 59.}CFF2 892.1

“The fact is that the Fathers’ adoption of the ‘religious’ idea of the immortality of the detachable. soul forced them into the doctrine of body-soul dualism.” ^{1717) Ibid., p. 61.}CFF2 892.2

5. “INTERMEDIATE STATE” LEADS TO PURGATORY CONCEPT

Out of this background developed the “intermediate state” concept for the “detachable soul,” and eventually the “purgatory doctrine”—with its wide repercussions:
“The idea of the intermediate state eventually developed into the doctrine of purgatory.” ^{1818) Ibid.}CFF2 892.3

“The Fathers were no doubt impressed by the force of the arguments advanced by Greek philosophy to prove the immortality of the soul. And, finally, of course, the idea of an intermediate state gave the human being another chance to be purged of his sins before the last judgment. It was the development of this notion that led to the doctrine of purgatory, with all the superstitions and objectionable practices that eventually made up the purgatorial system and, in the end, furnished part of the immediate cause of the Reformation.” ^{1919) Ibid.: p. 62.}CFF2 892.4

Owen says further, concerning the Church Fathers:
“Their [the Church Fathers’] resulting anthropology was a mixture of Biblical and Greek ideas. They added to the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the body the idea of an intermediate state in which the soul exists apart from the body, awaiting its recovery at the end.” ^{2020) Ibid., p. 77. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 892.5

6. “DEATH KNELL” OF DUALISM SOUNDED

Owen then shows how the controversy continued through the Middle Ages, involving men like Aquinas. It was characterized by the revival of the “Aristotelian theory of the soul,” but with the Greek philosophy predominant. ^{2121) Ibid., pp. 62-68.} Touching on the Renaissance, Owen then notes the Reformation conflict between Luther and Calvin’ ^{2222) Ibid., pp. 70-74.}—Luther holding that the dead are “asleep,” or “at rest,” ^{2323) Ibid., p. 75.} and Calvin maintaining that disembodied souls survive in intense consciousness. Space forbids following further Owen’s interesting and factual historical tracement, but he consistently affirms that man is a “unitary being.” Owen then makes the trenchant observation:CFF2 892.6

“Dualism hears its death knell sounded. And if dualism has to be abandoned, we can no longer suppose that the soul is a detachable part that can survive bodily death by itself. The old doctrine of the immortality of the separated soul must now itself be gently ushered into the Place of departed spirits. Similarly, we can no longer regard the body as a second separable part of man, the source of all temptation and sin, which must be sternly suppressed. Repressive moralism is given its obituary notice.” ^{2424) Ibid., p. 98. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 893.1

7. “BIBLICAL VIEW” TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL

Turning to the “Biblical” view of man, Dr. Owen recapitulates:
“The ‘religious’ anthropology, as far as Western thought is concerned, is Greek and not Biblical in origin. It is also typical of Eastern religions in general, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. It seems to be characteristically ‘religious,’ and for this and other reasons has tended to creep into and corrupt the Christian view of man. This happened, as we saw, in the patristic and medieval periods, and modern Catholicism and Protestantism have tended to perpetuate this early mistake.” ^{2525) Ibid., p. 163.}CFF2 893.2

But, he repeats, “The Biblical view of man is entirely different from the ‘religious.’” ^{2626) Ibid., p. 164.} And once again Owen pins the Innate Immortality postulate squarely upon the Alexandrian School in the Inter-Testament period:CFF2 893.3

“The idea of the immortality of the soul in the Greek sense may be suggested in some passages in the wisdom literature and is definitely found in places in the Apocrypha. This line of thought was later developed in the Hellenistic Judaism of the Alexandrine School, in the inter-Testamental period, of which the religious philosopher Philo is the outstanding example.” ^{2727) Ibid., p. 178.}CFF2 893.4

Such is the masterful survey made by this Canadian educator.CFF2 894.1