About this time every year I here casual conversation pertaining to the validity of the Christmas tree. Its about as predictable as the lyrics to the song 'The twelve days of Christmas' and just as monotonous!! It goes without saying that those representing either side have the best of intentions and are certainly well meaning. Well, at least the lion's share of them. I am sure some are just being quarrelsome because of a predilection for being cantankerous. The latter of course is characteristic of sin.
Now, for those who genuinely and honestly grapple with this topic I would like to clarify a couple of things that have been, more often than not, misrepresented both biblically & historically.
For those who gainsay the Christmas tree a passage often cited in support of their position is Jeremiah 10:1-10. It reads as follows:
This is what the LORD says: "Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. 3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. 5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good." 6 No one is like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power. 7 Who should not revere you, O King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no one like you. 8 They are all senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols. 9 Hammered silver is brought from Tarshish and gold from Uphaz. What the craftsman and goldsmith have made is then dressed in blue and purple-- all made by skilled workers. 10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath
The language of the underlined, at prima facie value, seems to support their position. However, the context clearly evinces that the Christmas tree is not in mind. The context is clear that God, through Jeremiah, is forbidding idol worship. Cutting down trees predicated on the intent to idolize them or worship them in God's place is what is forbidden....not the Christmas tree. An occasion of this tree worship is recorded in Isaiah 44:14-20:
He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. 15 It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. 16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, "Ah! I am warm; I see the fire." 17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, "Save me; you are my god."
This idolatrous expression is what is meant in the context of Jeremiah 10. The common usage of a tree for symbolic or decorative purposes, per se, is not meant or intended. After all the Terebinth tree played an integral role within the cultus of Israel. (Joshua 24:26, Judges 6:11 et al).
While idolatrous usage of various species of trees have been commonplace throughout history within many pagan ritualistic forms of worship (the Roman Kalends, the Germanic Yule tree, etc.) the Christmas tree does not find its inception within these sinful rituals.
The Christmas tree came into prominence within the borders of Germany around the 16th century, at least residentially/domestically. The actual origins of the tree can be traced back to the eleventh century as they appeared in the customary mystery plays. One of these performances in particular, the Paradise Play, utilized a tree to depict the tree from the garden of Eden.
These mystery plays were eventually ousted by the Church due to egregious immorality. However, the Paradise tree remained as it made its way into peoples domiciles. The people introduced the tree into their homes on Dec. 24 in conjunction with one of the Eastern church's feasts. The Paradise tree came to symbolize a tree of sin and a tree of life. This is why the trees were adorned with apples, signifying the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as well as wafers, signifying the fruit of life, Jesus Christ.
It is historically most plausible that what we now know as the Christmas tree emerged from the Paradise tree (as well as another Germanic custom of the middle ages known as the 'Christmas light').
For those who would rather not have a Christmas tree there is nothing that requires you to. Be blessed. For those who involve a Christmas tree there is nothing forbidding you not to. Be blessed. There is nothing sinful about a Christmas tree and it would be wrong to bind anybodies conscience to something that is not defined as a biblical sin especially when privy to information and history that shows it not to be a pagan ritual or of pagan origin.
It was an exhausting day. There is so much to do. Time is scarce. I have prior commitments. The children need my attention. I didn't sleep well last night. These ad hoc reasons probably sound familiar. We have all employed them at one time or another as grounds to put off prayer or we have interjected them to excuse our lack of active prayer. Time seems to be against us so to speak when prayer is in mind. But if we are honest with ourselves time is not the bane of prayerlessness so much as how we use our time is.
Those aforementioned reasons are indicative of how we manage our time or what we prioritize. Time is not against us as it where...our priorities, though are. Maintaining that time is against us or asserting that there simply isn't enough time in the day are both red herrings (a logical fallacy where pieces of information are inserted to distract or mislead from the actual question or issue). How often do we allow time for prayer to escape us by putting it off because the tyranny of the urgent or the business of everyday life? So we resolve to pray later. Yet later more often than not is reduced to never!!
Martin Luther gave preponderance to this pitfall in a letter to his barber, Peter Beskendorf, entitled A Simple Way to Pray (for Master Peter the barber). He penned that,
"It is a good thing to let prayer be the first business of the morning and the last at night. Guard yourself carefully against those false, deluding ideas which tell you, "Wait a little while. I will pray in an hour; first I must attend to this or that." Such thoughts get you away from prayer into other affairs which so hold your attention and involve you that nothing comes of prayer for that day.
Prayer, by and large, has become a casuality of this mentality. We have busied ourselves with so many other lesser things that prayer has been reduced to an after thought. From the vantage point of scripture, however, prayer is not something to be 'put off' or even done later. Prayer was so central to the busy apostle Paul that he urged his readers to pray at 'all times' (Eph.6:18) while doing so "without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17). He elsewhere urges the church to, "Continue steadfastly in prayer" (Col.4:2) while desiring for men in every place be given to prayer (I Tim. 2:8). He instructed the Romans to, "be constant in prayer" (Rom. 12:12)
What is more Paul, himself exemplified the constacy of prayer he promulgated. He assures the Thessalonians that he "constantly" mentioned them in his prayers. (I Thess. 1:2; cf. Rom. 1:9 where similar verbiage is employed). The salutatory allusions to prayer and concluding doxologies found in the lionshare of his letters further underscores this. Paul was clearly a praying man.
What is more, we do not find him providing reasons to excuse prayerlessness regardless of his missionary work, persecution, letter writing, tent building et cetera. He had every reason to advance for not prioritizing prayer. And yet we find him praying constantly and commending every Christian to do so. (a survey of the role of prayer throughout the life of Christ would serve to magnify this modus vivendi or way of life. Ex. 'In the days of His flesh , Jesus offered up prayers and supplications...Heb. 5:7)
The reality is when we elect to put someting off, whatever it may be, it ostensibly isn't as important to us as what we are not putting off. The putting off of prayer in our lives needs to desist.
Here are some helpful questions to pose to gauge the absence of prayer. How often do you pray? What reasons do you give for not praying? Do you find reasons for not participating in prayer meetings? What don't you put off in order to pray? How often do you put off prayer? Do you pray beyond giving thanks before a meal? Why don't you want or desire to commune with Father God vis a vis prayer? Do you consider it an intrusion when the church reminds you of corporate prayer?
In the first three blogs I have endeavored to broach some often overlooked areas in our doctrinal dialogue and/or theological discourse that often times precipitates ungodly tones and tenors that are themselves untrue. As I move forward I certainly do not want anyone to divorce the aforementioned from the content of this typed interjection.
That being said, it is incumbent upon us to recognize the need to intrepidly take up arms when issues of fundamental doctrinal truths that are sine qua none to the gospel confront us. Aside from issues of tone and tenor, which must always be sanctified, biblical truths must be defended and cogently articulated whenever and wherever 'God's breath' is being muffled or gagged. (Paul describes scripture as God breathed in his letter to Timothy)
Controversy and serious debate are necessary to effectively counteract and suppress the voice of heresiology(heresy). Especially when false doctrine is so creatively phrased using a guise of orthodox verbiage in our day. The core truths of the gospel demand our willingness and readiness to speak against her gainsayers. In an age of thesis and antithesis controversy is unavoidable and necessary. To posture oneself as a pacifist or silent observer is to, in effect, allow heresiology to fester untreated and to non-verbally suggest that God's truth isn't that essential after all. As Albert Mohler Jr. has opined, "The only way to avoid all controversy would be to consider nothing we believe important enough to defend and no truth too costly to compromise" Silence is a concession to falsehood.
Church history is marked with the church's ministers marshaling her forces and rallying her Christian disciples against exponents of 'new doctrines', 'ancient heresy', 'scholastic ingenuity', 'enlightened reasoning' and the like. 'Credo' emerged within the church community as early as the the New Testament era. (ex. I Cor. 15:3-6, Phil. 2:5-11 et al) The New Testament contributors repeatedly admonished disciples and the N.T community to guard the truths of the faith (ex. I Tim. 6:20, II Tim. 1:13, 2,2; II Peter 3:16-17, I John 4:1-3; Jude 3 et al). This pattern and modus operandi continued throughout subsequent centuries in the form of church councils and synods meeting to establish creeds that represented the 'pattern of sound words' that had been preserved from the days of Christ and his disciples. The Apostles Creed & the erstwhile seven ecumenical councils (from the first council of Nicaea[325 a.d.] to the second council of Nicaea [787 a.d.]) evince the church's unabashed posture to defend the truths of the gospel.
It is no less imperative for us to confidently stand upon the apostolic & historic truths in our day as those men did then. The gospel, after all, is the greatest treasure to be known and had throughout the history of the human drama. We cannot, nay, we must not allow the capricious postulations and inventions of madmen nor the formalistic traditions of the religious to tarnish the luster of this treasure in the church's hearts and minds despite how well intentioned they may be.
Stand your orthodox ground!! Do not surrender the high ground in the name of diplomacy.
While it remains an abiding necessity for the church to staunchly defend her truths and go toe to toe with any detractors of the truths she has been vouchsafed with...a line of demarcation must always be respected.
This line distinguishes essentials from non-essentials. We must selectively and perspicaciously choose what hills we are willing to die on or fight for. There are simply certain arguments that do not need to be had and certains debates that we need not engage in. Sometimes we can lapse into talking to much.
Sometimes silence is more effective than argumentation especially against a curmudgeon or self-infatuated 'debater of the ages'. I am reminded of an occassion recorded in Isaiah 36-37. Assyria attacked Israel and an Assyrian officer (the Rabshakeh) instigated a controversy. He was deliberately making effort to "mock the living God." Instead of reacting and retorting to such maledictions "they (Israel's leaders) were silent and answered him not a word for the kings command was, 'do not answer him'. God vindicated their silence by killing 185,000 Assyrians!! Bloated egos are simply not worth the effort of formulating a cogent response or articulating a word at all. In the end their words, actions and demeaner are their own undoing. Sometimes folk just like hearing themselves talk or having an audience to work up into a frenzy. Such persons need to be avoided and ignored, by and large. They can be recognized by their incessant practice of stirring up debate, arguing and running on at the mouth.
Paul also provides us with nuggets of insight germane to talking too much. He advises Timothy to have "nothing to do with irreverent silly myths..." (I Tim. 4:7) and "not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers..." because such dribble "spreads like gangrene" (II Tim. 2:14,17). Timothy was to "have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies" because they "breed quarrels" (II Tim. 2:23). We must surmise from this rhetoric that there will be many times that we MUST withdrawal from pointless and inane conversations that do nothing but inflame passions and breed sin. James reminds us that quarrels and fights among us are caused b passion at war within us (James 4:1-2). I have learned from my brief duration as lead pastor that it is simply counterproductive to argue over things that people bring up as concerns that are obviously personal preferences or pet peeves. It is important to listen but not necessary to quibble over.
We must guard against bickering and disruptive quarreling over matters that are 'minors' or non-essentials. Sometimes things are better left unsaid because when those things that should have remained unsaid are vocalized it detracts from more important matters such as the gospel and discipleship. As Albert Mohler has opined, "some churches seem to thrive on controversy, even as some church members and leaders are agents of disunity. This brings shame and reproach on the church, and it DISTRACTS the church from its taks of preaching the gospel and making disciples."
Oftentimes, valuable time is wasted discoursing about things that aren't worth wasting the breath to assert. The problem more often than not is that we have higher opinions of our preferences and interests than we ought to. We then impose them on everyone else and disrupt progress. Instead of dwelling on infinitesimal points and matters it may better serve the church for us to think before we speak instead of broadcasting every fleeting thought we may have or vigorously trying to impose our every thought onto everyone else in an effort to conform everyone to our will. We can learn a lesson from the apostle Paul who conceded that not everyone will think the way he did on a certain lesser matter. (Phil. 3:15-16)
Intro: The first and previous installment of 'Let's Talk' gave preponderance to the variegated motives and reasons we have for wading into the waters of debate and argumentation. Does our interest lie in our vainglory of God's glory. Often times our reason's, whatever they may invariably be, give rise to a broad range of tone's, undertones &/or overtone's. Aside from whatever our reason's may be often times our passion's play us like fiddles. You know, we are so zealous to convince, persuade or defend our positions that our tone's eschalate into obnoxious and pernicious overtones! What is more, often times self-control is discarded in the name of a passionate plea, uncomprimising polemics, an intrepid commitment to orthodoxy and the like. So we excuse our tones on the basis of our passion. As Christians though our tones and/or overtones should be just as important to us as what we are arguing or debating for or against.
As Sinclair Ferguson has said, "if we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God." Orthopraxy (right representation) for a Christian should be given its proper place. Sound orthodoxy, after all will promote sound orthopraxy any way. I have seen too many occassions where a person will eschew right representation on the grounds that truth supersedes the value of their tone. That is nothing other than an inventive rationalization and in fact untruthful. Scripture unambiguously addresses what the tone and posture of the Christian should be.
Therefore, the tone and posture of a Christian is to be just as truthful as their theological position. Think about it. Though our incorporeal doctrinal position (theological formulae) may be true it is entirely possible that our corporeal position (personal representation) may be untrue thus rendering our entire postion a half truth. It is not a biblical virtue to argue for truth in an untruthful way!
At the onset I am reminded of an old production entitled Back to the Future. There is an occassion where a character named Biff (a quintessential bully) illustratively knocks on the head of a character named Mcfly (a quintessential push over) saying, "Hello, McFly. Is anybody in their?" How often is this act degradation done in our debates or arguments with non-Christians and Christians alike?
Now, I have heard the assertion, "Well, the prophets were often bellicose and vociferous. Or there is this little chestnut, "Jesus chased many out of the temple with a whip and he was often vitriolic toward the religious caste." There is also what is touted as the Pauline modus operandi. It sounds something like this, "Paul spoke of many as wolves, dogs and told the Corinthians that he may return with a rod..." These fallacious reasonings are commonly employed to excuse anger and justify sinful rage. While such postures have their place they are few and far between. These sort of biblcal accounts are scant at best in comparison to the corpus of specific teaching on Christian sanctification and to build a behavioral doctrine on such grounds is biblically inconsistent or nieve. This posture routinely resounds an unwarranted 'overtone'.
There is also the opposite extreme that is equally incongruous with biblical nomenclature. This position tends to avoid confrontation or correction on grounds of 'love'. Reference is often made to I Cor. "love is patient, love is kind, love does not insist on its own way..." This posture routinely whispers an unwarranted 'undertone'. Paul regularly admonishes and corrects various congregations for not guarding the faith (Galatians & Colossians for example). Victorian niceties must not be allowed to distort what is a permissible and appropriate tone and/or posture
Both of the above postures fail to properly contextualize their proof texts within the overall sweep of what scripture espouses for proper posturing while engaging in debate or argumentation. The Reformed hermeneutical principle that the narratival portions of scripture cannot supersede the didactic portions of scripture must be injected into this topic. The didactic, or instructional genre of scripture must guide the narratival genre.
For instance, while there are accounts of Paul responding with a sarcastic, satirical or aggressive tone he specifically instructs Timothy to engage in argumentation with a certain posture and a particular tone: "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness." (II Timothy 2:24-25) This was the tone and posture Timothy was to exemplify when addressing any maledictions. Paul prescribed this necessary manner of locution just after referring to those who were denying the resurrection, a core tenent of the gospel.
While there are instances interspersed throughout holy writ where godly personalities are demonstrably 'overtoned', and to be sure under certain circumstances and in the right context they are still warranted, those variegated instances must be properly contextualized and not taken as a paradigmatic license to be overtoned. What is more those occassions simply do not circumvent the clear 'teaching' of Paul on tone and posture.
Moreover, Paul also presents us with a portrait of godless debate and argumentation in his letters to Timothy. For Paul godless debate and argumentation exudes the following sinful characteristics: II Timothy- quarreling over words (2:14), irreverant babble (2:16), foolish, ignorant controversies that breed quarrels (2:23), abusive, proud, arrogant, lovers of self, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self control, brutal, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, having the appearance of godliness (3: 2-5). I Timothy - conceited, unhealthy craving for controversy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, constant friction (6:4-5).
It is incumbent upon us as Christians to engage in respectable and admirable debate and argumentation. We should aim to always exhibit the fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Gal. 5:22). How can we argue or maintain that the truth of scripture is binding upon others while not being governed by that sanctifying truth ourselves?? As Polycarp as opined, "If a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he join them on others?"
Credo Ut Intelligam
Intro. - What is it that interests you in discussions of scriptural relevance? What is it that compels you to reason with others about theological positions? Why do you engage in doctrinal dialogue on any given occasion? Our interest in any conversation or debate of biblical import must be to convince and persuade the other/s of what we maintain as biblically true not to prove that we are right.
1) To begin with it is a rudimentary truth that any form of apologia is about God and His truth. It is not about us. We must strip our dialogue of self-interest, egoism, and the like. In any scriptural debate or conversation we have; in every one of our apologetic enterprises and attempts at theodicy(though God does not need to justify himself for anything) we must first acknowledge that what we are striving to establish is God's truth and not our own. "A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord," as Augustine posited (On Christian Teaching II.75).
Whenever we place ourselves in a position that the triune God alone occupies in relation to truth our discourses are reduced to exercises of self interest, self defense, self promotion and vain glorious pedantics . Our reputation becomes the trophy of pursuit instead of the glory of God. (II Cor.10:12) It is true, conversely, that God can sovereignly use any argumentation or dialogue concerning His truth as an effectual means to achieve His purposes. Paul certainly concedes that it is still advantageous for those with self-serving motives to circulate the gospel. (Phil.1) However,that was a concession for Paul or a general commentary on that reality though and not a posture he was instructing anyone to pursue. And he certainly wasn't commending such as a methodology.
That being said we are to posture ourselves as messengers of God's truth or as "stewards" of that truth. Paul particularly speaks to this throughout II Corinthians 3-5 wherein he acutely reminds his readers that he and his company aren't interested in 'commending' themselves (3:1, 4:5, 5:12) for they have been given the 'ministry' and the 'message' (3:5,6; 4:1-2; 5:18-20). As we position ourselves as purveyors of God's truth who have received that truth in contradistinction to being originator's of that truth a biblically healthy position is established and the less likely we are to govern our theological conversations by attitudes, emotions, and vices that do not compliment biblical truth which invariably repel and mislead those we are trying to persuade or convince. To act or comport ourselves otherwise is to in effect "tamper with God's word" (II Cor. 4:2)
Whenever vainglory of the self is injected into our variegated theological conversations, whatever the form they may take, we fail to establish the glory of God aright. " As Sinclair Ferguson has commented, "If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God" and again, "The rubric 'for the glory of God' must transform how Christians respond to controversy."
The other evening, while enjoying dinner with the family, my sons and I engaged in a discussion of biblical import. We found ourselves discoursing about the account of Jesus walking on water. What was of particular interest to us was the disciples reaction to Christ, "walking on the sea." (Matt. 14:25-26)
As the waves and winds of their existential dilemma were pounding their consciousness a most phenomenological incongruity unfolds...Christ, the one they had been following for some time embarks on a sea excursion the likes of which they had never encountered before. Jesus was, "walking on the sea!!!" (14:25). Of course this truth wasn't immediately acknowledged or recognized by the disciples.
At first prima facie first glance it appears to be an alien encounter or an experience with a poltergeist of sorts, at least from the perspective of the disciples whose worlds were being blown about at that moment in time! Their ghastly response was, "It is a ghost!" (14:26) This event was confounding their assumptions of real experience, it was twisting their perspectival construct and it was re-orienting their epistemological (how we know things) matrix. Christ then assuages their perspectival and epistemological dilemmas by identifying himself, "Take courage. It is I; do not be afraid"(14:27)
One thing that's worthy of note is that while the disciples were grappling with this existential maelstrom they weren't entirely unreceptive to a calming "truth" that would quiet their respective epistemological and perspectival storms. One lesson we must learn from this is that we should always be willing to allow the truth of the Word within scripture to define our perspectives despite what assumptions or pre-conceptions we may have. The disciples had initially concluded Christ, who is the truth, to be an apparition. They had no reason to suppose it was a real, corporeal being based upon their cumulative knowledge and experience prior to that event. It simply was not an expression of truth that they had encountered before. Yet, when Christ spoke they were attentive. And as He spoke they interacted with His truthful assertions and inevitably came to a truthful resolution regarding this unfamiliar event. The Word of God should always take precedence within our reasoning.
Another principle should enter the doors of our Christian reasoning as we consider this account. We must be willing to wrestle with the truth and unreservedly strive to harmonize our experience with the vox Dei (voice of God). We see Peter venturing into new vista's of truth as he reconciles the truth Christ was speaking. Instead of reckoning that the former existential and sensory conclusions he had assimilated into his epistemological framework were incontrovertible he subjected his pre-conceptions to transmogrification vis a vis the truth of the person and work of Christ. Peter, as well as the other disciples, had already been witness to Christ healing a man with a withered hand (15:13), healing 'them all' (15:15), healing a demon possessed man (15:22), feeding multitudes miraculously (ch.14), et cetera, and yet we find Peter in a momentary state of disbelief. This goes to show that we must always subject our conclusions and assumptions to the scrutiny of the vox Dei (voice of God) despite how experienced or seasoned in the Christian faith we think we are. We must wrestle with the truths of Scripture to the extent that we are willing to be overcome by the waves of change as Peter did when he endeavored to walk on water. As Ignatius of Antioch opined, "I am forever a learner." How often do we treat the truth as a passing phantasm or ghost because it doesn't inhere with conclusions we have already made about that very truth thereby being haunted by our own ghosts of prideful pre-conceptions as the truth passes us by. We need to be practicing ghost-busters who vanquish the vertiable ghosts of our pre-conceptions instead of allowing any of those faulty pre-conceptions to render the truths of the Word a passing apparition.
Of course the aforementioned does not mean the revealed truth in holy writ is progressive in any way. There are certain demonstrable truths of Scripture that need not undergo reconsideration or embellishment (ex. the fundamentals truths affirmed in the Apostles Creed and the like) yet the application of those truths, practically, must always be subject to the renewing of our minds vis a vis sanctification.
This may seem like a strange or irksome question. I understand why. But it is a particularly relevant and pertinent question. My interest here is not to attract interest or to razz anyone. That being said, I am interested in counteracting a commonplace proclivity of ours to accentuate certain particularities of God that attract our attention or idiosyncratic interests that we tend to promote beyond all others. This tendency is a pitfall that we often succumb to without intending to. All the more reason to maintain an honest and humble cognizance of such a 'blindspot'.
It was God, after all, that forbad idolatry in the first place (Ex.20:4). The Decalogue is clear on that point. It is imperative we understand that the first two commandments fittingly preserve God's place as "the Lord your God" (Ex.20:2). He will not tolerate any form of ignoble usurpation. God made it unequivocally obvious that He is a jealous God that will not tolerate any substitute. In conjunction with the giving of the new tablets, imminently after the 'golden calf' debauchal, the Lord our God reasserts His jealousy by way of amplification. Instead of remarking, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" as He did in Ex.20:5b He vociferously states, "for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Ex. 34:14)
Well then, how is it possible to idolize God? First we must recognize that the antiquarian idol worship of antiquity, particularly germane to the O.T epoch, is not the idolatrous worship of our day strictly speaking. Then, idolatry precipitated carved figures and hand crafted images more or less.This represented more of a reduction of metaphysical speculations to inanimate statues. This was the product of a irreverent religous spirit.
Idolatry takes on different expressions in our day post Renaissance and Enlightenment. It takes on shades of autonomy and the characteristics of self gratification devoid of metaphysical interest for the most part. Present day idolatry is very much an existential practice that revolves around corporeal (physical) cravings in a much different way. This is indicative of a reverent irreligous spirit.
As Christian's who worship the Lord our God, as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, we must guard against incorporating existential idolatry into our spheres of worship. Our idolatry rears its ugly head in how we worship the Lord our God. The tendency within Christendom is to aggrandize certain features of Gods being or to gravitate to certain attributes of His nature. This is exhibited when we 'amen' aspects of a sermon that highlights God's mercy while failing to 'amen' sermons that magnify His justice. Or we sing the songs that praise His 'forgiving grace'' while failing to sing the songs celebrating His 'electing grace'.
This idolatry is also seen in how we read His revealed word. When we gravitate to passages that accentuate the responsibility of Christians in sanctification while glossing over or ignoring the role of the triune God in sanctification for instance. The former 'in isolation' promotes moralism, legalism and self-righteousness while the latter 'in isolation' promotes passivity, anit-nomianism and quietism. This is especially true within the dialectic of grace/law and election/free-will.
The Psalmist described idols as the 'work of human hands' in Psalm 115. He goes on to say, "they have mouths , but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet but do not walk, and they do not make a sound in their throat..." Now pay attention to the effects of idolatry..."Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them." (Psalm 115:4-8)
This has application for Christian idolatrous worship. For example when we worship Gods justice exclusively and hand craft a God of justice stripped of mercy the tendency is to not 'hear', 'taste', 'see' or 'feel' God's mercy and compassion because all those capacities are governed by blind, deaf, tasteless and apathetic justice. The opposite is equally true. When we worship God's mercy exclusively the tendency is to not 'hear', 'taste', 'see' or 'feel' God's justice because all those capacities are governed by blind, deaf, tasteless and empathetic mercy.
It is idolatrous to tout one or even two attributes of God's being to the exclusion of all other revealed eternal qualities. Such worship confuses God's unity, eternality, majesty,simplicity etc. This practice invariably idolizes God and reduces His attributes to the things worshipped rather than God which actually renders aspects of God to be demi-gods which is more indicative of gnostic-mysticism.
While there are those within Christendom who have mistakenly used the formulae of 'history' as a central motif that dictates their theological postulations and presuppositional templates, (cf. Pannenberg and Cullmann) history is inarguably and unavoidably a testament to divine handiwork and prerogative.
Recorded history, while being resplendent with static historical datum and facticity, gives credence to the reliability of the Christian claims that Christ is the historically incarnate figure that palpably manifests and interprets GOD (John 1:18) in the spatio-temporal sphere of human existence and phenomena. This can be seen beyond the assertions of biblical nomenclature as special or particular revelation.
Natural philosophy itself attests to the incarnational Christ event. Obviously, this would not be technically true, for none of the philosophical systems mentioned below would support such a claim. But it is actually true in that natural philosophy burgeoned and developed along historical lines in a way that necessitated the incarnation, albeit unwittingly. It was an unavoidable inevitability. The historical incarnation was the natural outcome of natural philosophies trajectory. Without being cognizant of the progressive implications of their cumulative postulations, their postulations actually presupposed the Christ event.
Systematized philosophy finds its ostensible origin, as a deliberate discipline anyway, with the Ionians of the pre-Grecian society and cultus. The cosmology that emerged was a naturalistic one that precipitated, by and large, from the arcane and naturalistic cosmogonies that predated it. Inferences drawn from nature predominated the philosophical milieu (see the Homeric and Hesiodic cosmological landscape). As Frederick Copleston S.J. has written, "in the period of philosophy's childhood it was Nature as a whole which first occupied their attention"
It would appear that the primary interest within the naturalistic pursuit was in ascertaining the essence of things. The early Ionians such as Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaximenes were pursuant of a singular unifying 'essence'. The Pythagoreans, while personifying a distinctly scientific spirit, gave credence to a "hearth of the Universe" or an identifiable, yet, nebulous "One'. Heraclitus, who was intent on asserting the constant flux of phenomena, maintained that "Reality is One". This unifying pursuit was a pervasive one that all philosophical schools intrepidly sought although through different methodologies..
What is more, the Pythagoreans committed concentrated interest in and indeed popularized the 'mystery-religion' cultus. This praxis assigned a veritable exclusivity to its claims which was bolstered by the metaphysical, immaterial or incorporeal 'essence' of whatever school of thought it espoused. This mystery-religion dialectic was one that had been reverberating throughout the rational thought life of the aforementioned schools and beyond their periods culminating ultimately with the Roman religious milieu.
The naturalistic pursuit of a metaphysical 'essence' coalesced with the "mystery religion" cultus at a nexus of historic proportion; a nexus that interestingly enough is marked by the incarnational Christ event!!
Stoicism was the premier philosophy during that nexus. It represented a fascination with the ethical applications of the foregoing within individual life an accordance with the "Divine Will". This invariably gave rise to the pursuit of union with the divine 'essence' or the metaphysical "One". Stoicism, though, had no answer for this pursuit considering that it demanded a theoretical and practical separation from the corporeal/physical while the real "Divine Will", the only 'One" (which they were seeking) was making His way into the corporeal/physical world. Moreover, the Gnostic empire, which was very much compatible with Stoicism in many respects, was also a force during that epochal landscape.
These later philosophical advances were outcomes of antecedent Neo-Platonistic underpinnings. The latent Neo-Platonic thought that was still reverberating with its pursuit of an 'ecstatic union' with God dovetailed with the Stoic and Gnostic obsession with 'mystery religion
The mytho-historical preoccupation combined with the mystical interest of naturalistic philosophy actually proved to be a catalyst of sorts for the 'super-natural' and historical incarnation. Without realizing it exponents of natural philosophy substantiated the viability of the GOD-MAN...JESUS CHRIST through their own assertions and categories. Though that teeming philosophical landscape was not the cause of the historical self-revelation of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ, it certainly was not an accidental phenomena that was without Providential use.
In any account, what the aforementioned philosophical practitioners left to the language of myth Father God established and actualized in the language of historic fact through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The same Christ who Paul locates the 'pleroma' of Gnosticism (Col 1:19) in and who Paul locates the 'secret' of Stoicism in (Phil.4:12). What those systems could not recognize by their own admission through their 'rational dialectic' (irrational dialectic actually) Paul was locating in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
