One of the things that has interrupted me about Hart is his positive view of the Neoplatonic influence upon Christianity. Before Hart, and I think a lot of people share this view, I always considered the "Greek" influence upon Christianity to be have been a distortion of what was a primordial Hebrew faith. "Greek versus Hebrew," and by "Greek" we mean Plato, was often pitted against each other with "Greek" meaning "bad" and "Hebrew" meaning "good." In this story, Greek Platonism introduced distortions into the Christian faith, distortions we still struggle with.
The main distortions were a negative view of the created, material order and strong body/soul dualism which created an escapist soteriology and eschatology, the soul flying off to heaven. Hebrew thought, by contrast, had a more positive view of the created order--God declares creation to be "very good"--and human embodiment.
Across many writings, lectures, and podcasts Hart has pushed back upon this view by arguing that, during Second Temple Judaism, Jewish thought encountered and assimilated Greek philosophy. The classic example here is Philo of Alexandra. And many scholars have argued that Philo had an influence upon early Christian thought. Hart's point is that given the assimilation and cross-pollination during Second Temple Judaism a "Hebrew versus Greek" contrast is overly simplistic and reductionistic.
Regardless, Platonism did influence the church fathers, deeply so. So if you view Platonism as problematic for Christianity you'd have to set aside a lot of patristic thought as contaminated. Even more worrisome, the creedal breakthroughs regarding the Trinity (e.g., the shared ousia of Father, Son, and Spirit) borrowed heavily from Greek philosophy. Eliminating Greek philosophy from Christian thought, therefore, would render the grammar of the creeds incomprehensible. Plato, in short, is too deeply baked in.
That doesn't mean theologians haven't tried to remove his influence. Again, the Greek influence is deemed distorting and therefore a location of theological spadework. Plato must be exorcized from the faith.
According to Hart, however, the fusion between Hebrew and Greek thought wasn't a problem but a generative union which should be respected and mined for insight. And again, a respectful reading of the church fathers demands as much. Greek can mean good.
I'm sharing all this because, due to Hart's nudging, I've noticed my own thinking taking a Platonic turn. For example, in my upcoming book The Shape of Joy I use Plato to make a case about transcendence. You'll have to wait for the book for my surprising argument about how Platonism might be good for your mental health.
I've also found Plato a helpful companion in talking about God in a post-Christian age. The word "God" is triggering for many. But people will happily talk to you about the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. Plato's transcendentals are a great way to get people into a God-adjacent conversation.
Relatedly, Plato's transcendentals are helpful tools in the project of re-enchantment I describe in Hunting Magic Eels. Pondering the True, the Beautiful, and the Good pushes against the scientistic materialism and reductionism that causes so much disenchantment. Plato is good medicine for a secular age. In this series I'll explore why.
