The New Intoxication - part 4: Motivation by Ritual

     In the last post in this series I opened up the discussion of possible motivations for the use of intoxicating substances. As I continue now with the discussion of the motivation by ritual, I'd like to point out that this list I've generated is by no means exhaustive. As I believe I already said, there are probably as many motives for an action as there are persons acting.

Motivation by Ritual: this type of motivation is closely linked to the motivation by culture and in some ways would be a sub-category of it. Often referred to as the ethnogenic use of drugs, many people in the past and today are enticed to drug use through their implementation in religious ceremonies. Many such substances involved in these types of rituals are illegal in the US (Opium, marijuana, Peyote, DMT, and Psilocybin Mushrooms) and others are culturally discouraged (Salvia and others). Historically, and for obvious reasons, these substances had been extracted by interested persons from plant material. This motivation is also closely related to the motivation based on physical sensation because in such ritual use it is believed that the chemical alteration of the state of mind and the feelings induced on the body have an element of supernatural or otherworldly cause. Those using certain substances in a religious manner may try to explain the experience this way: that some supernatural being or force uses the drug as a means to communicate through its effects. This motive is not exclusive to cultures in third world countries or secluded villages in New Guinea or Central America. Knowledge of such practices, likely combined with other motives, has generated sub-cultures even in the US in the last 60 years or so. In both the Beatnik and Hippie movements (which have experienced a sort of revival in the last 20 years) one would find individuals who use drugs (illicit or otherwise) to induce an altered state of mind, coupling it perhaps with some other sort of shamanistic or even Eastern religious practice such as transcendental meditation.

      In the next post in this series I plan to discuss the motivation by sustenance.

The Place of Personal Testimony in Evangelism - 2

     On a recent White Horse Inn episode they once again discussed the modern Evangelical tendency to prefer telling an unbeliever/skeptic about one's personal testimony and experience over "gospel doctrine".  This is a continuation of sorts of an article I posted on October 25th 2008.  In a series of interviews at a recent convention of Christian communicators, the persons interviewed all said that, when they witnessed to the unbeliever/skeptic, they believed they personal testimony of transformation was better proof, more effective, and easier to relate to than "gospel doctrine".  Many of them said that both were equally important, but even that is not true—one's own sanctification narrative isn't as important as what God did one day in history to reconcile the world unto Himself—and that personal story definitely isn't part of the good news of Jesus Christ.

     As I listened to their discussion, I saw a possible parallel.  In the last 100-150 years or so, the face of visual art (especially that of painting) has changed dramatically.  We have seen an abundance of new sorts of philosophies which work themselves out in not-so-traditional methodologies.  For instance, the paintings of Jackson Pollock (Abstract Expressionism) or Pablo Picasso (Cubism); I believe we can condense the difference between "Modern" painting and Classic painting to two categories: Modern—guileless/candid methodology with a sophisticated/complex philosophy, and Classic—technically complex methodology with a sophisticated/complex philosophy.  Granted, not all forms of painting or artist's philosophies fit into these two categories, however, the distilled distinction between Modern and Classical approaches can be simple described in this manner.

     So how does this parallel the gospel presentation to unbelievers you ask?  Let's look at the similar two categories in that realm: Personal Narrative—grounded only in the utter subjectivity of personal experience, and the Meta-Narrative of Redemption—grounded in the objective, historical truth of Incarnate Deity satisfying the wrath of God against sinners, which is an observable fact.  Again, before I say what I'm about to say I want to admit the generalization of these categories makes for a very narrow understanding of both, artist and the world of human creation and the witness of Christ and the Kingdom of God and its various practices.  Many observers of the fine art world, and artists alike, criticize much of what has been produced under the category of "Modern" art as being too simplistic and motivated by a lack of technical understanding and raw talent, thus supplying the sort of art that drifts further and further away from realism.

     Much like the criticism leveled at the non-traditional painters and other artists of the 20th century, one could speculate that the lack of presentation of "gospel doctrine" when American Evangelicals bare "witness to Christ", is in part due to a lack of factual knowledge of that doctrine—a lack of technical apologetic skill.  Of course, this may not be true in every case.  Much of this slackness, as some may call it, could also be in part due to the post-modern idea of relativism, where individual subjectivity is validated as an individual reality, even if it opposes another so called reality.

Analogia de Haeresis - The Correct Analogy

The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance.  The statue trips over his own shadow and breaks into pieces when he hits the ground.  The Man makes a statue which He can inhabit, and enters the room where the statue resides; He then remakes the statue and he lives with The Man forever.

Analogia de Haeresis

Below is an analogy of "heresies".  Though the term heresy seems to have as many definitions as there are persons willing to apply it, I think it is necessary to offer one more to help explain my purposes in this article.  I simply refer to the term as an idea or conception of truth  and reality that at least appears Christian, but upon measurement against scripture and orthodox historical theology, it is found to deny such doctrines so as to render it non-Christian.   Having said that, here is a list of such bodies of belief to which I've applied the analogy of a man and his creation of a statue as a self portrait so to explain in the simplest way possible, the teachings behind the terms that name them.

Arianism - The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance.  The Man then sits on top of the statue and proclaims his existence to the statue.

Marcianism - The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance.  The Man hates the statue and contemplates its destruction.  The Man has a Son and The Son and The Son loves the statue and, against His Father's wishes, He claims it for His own.

Pelagianism - The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance. The Man leaves the statue to its own devises, and the statue is left to will itself to life.

Romanism - The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance. The Man gives the statue life, but it must wonder back and forth in order to maintain its life.  If it stumbles, then it must bring its broken pieces to another man whom The Man has hired, so that man can take the pieces to The Man so He can mend its pieces.  If the statue stumbles and breaks its head off in a fall, it must take its head to the hireling and the hireling entreats The Man to remake the statue and re-constitute it with new life.  Once The Man decides not to remake the statue, the pieces are loaded into a dump truck which drives aimlessly around until The Man decides the statue's worth is such that it can finally go to the New Quarry to work for His Son.

Unitarianism - The Man makes a statue that bears His resemblance. The Man has no son of His own, but adopts a son ans sends him to stand beside the statue and proclaim his adopted Father's existence.

Annihilationism - The Man makes 2 statues, both bearing His resemblance. The Man gives one of them life,but He leaves the other alone.  The one given life, eventually ends up at the New Quarry working for The Man's Son, while the other is completely destroyed.

Universalism - The Man makes 2 statues, both bearing His resemblance.  The Man gives them both life and they both end up working for His Son at the New Quarry.

The Place of Personal Testimony in Evangelism

I do believe that there is a place for testimony. But, evidenced by the continuing errors we make, contemporary American Evangelicalism is post-modern in that (however unintentional) we often replace the objective truths of the gospel, necessary to believe and be saved, with the utter subjectivity of personal testimony. I do believe that personal testimony has its place in the edification of believers, but because of the subjectivity of having ones quality of life improved, or being given the power to obey God's Law to a greater degree, those things really should have a minimal place in an evangelistic situation. The personal testimony that is useful in those cases is if we can point to a time when we once did not believe and repent, and contrast that with the times when we do, thus testifying to the power of God by highlighting His ability to recreate persons who see their sin in contrast to His holiness and believe the gospel. I think a lot of the times we want to substitute transformation for salvation, and this is symptomatic of our mistake of confusing sanctification with justification; confusing Law and Gospel. What eternal good is it if an unregenerate person is inspired in some way by the testimony of my personal transformation, to "change his life" by going to rehab so he can replace bad habits with good ones if he has not first had his heart changed from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh? I'm certain that most Christians would say that it is of no good, and that is the point I'm trying to make--the business of the Kingdom is that of calling persons to see their sinfulness in light of the holiness of God (as reflected in His Law) and to repent of those sins and believe that Christ, in history, lived the perfect life and died the perfect death on a Roman cross, and was raised to glorious life in the place of lowly sinners. Personal transformation (sanctification) will be a result of that continued repentance and belief.

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - VII

To continue with one of my observations of the theology and practice of the Plymouth Brethren, I do want to point out that their apparent disregard for historical theology (the thoughts and work that the Spirit had done through the comments of men who had gone before them) is, at least in part, due to the over-emphasis that they placed on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer.  It seems to have led to the "no creed but the Bible" mentality that appears prominent in American Christianity today.  The idea that, if one were simply not to allow himself to be eschewed by the theologies of the past, then his interpretation is more likely to remain acute because he has not developed any presuppositions that he use to bend the meaning of the text to his desires.

I think that it is this sort of mindset that acts as a Pietre dish for heresies and cultism, feed by arrogance.  This to me seems naive for a number of reasons.  First, the person generally speaking, is not going to be reading the text in its original languages, so his interpretation will already be influenced "from the outside" by the editors of whatever English translation he is using.  Second, and now let's just take for granted that this man is reading his bible in the original languages, this idea has to assumes that the Spirit, if the would-be interpreter of the Word has no historical influences, would teach him every right thing that He had taught all other interpreters from the past.  Lastly, it would do us well to consider this: the primary means God uses today to physically heal our bodies is not having the infirm sit alone in prayer (though God can certainly heal this way if He pleased), our healing is more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of medications and the common wisdom He has given to medical professionals.  Likewise, the primary means God uses today (and for the past 4-5 millennia) to heal our minds of sickly and deficient theologies is not having the infants or mature in the faith, sit alone in prayer with their bible (though God does teach us the right ways of scripture in our personal bible studies), our theological healing is much more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of the preaching and teaching of the Word that we hear from live men, and the preaching/teaching and comments men of old, with which we have been blessed.  I don't mean to suggest that historical theology is authoritative, nor inerrant, just that (along with the preaching/teaching of men today, which by the way as soon as it has been spoken or published, it has become part of the total of historical theology) it is a.  I also don't mean to suggest that we should consume every word of our favorite theologian (live or dead) without question, as though it was mother's milk, but neither should we act as though we are lactose intolerant--Historical theology is a vital part of our rightly understanding the Word of God, and we balance that with the Berean principle.

I believe that we can observe one of the methodologies/practices that logical result from "anti-confessionalism" (a term which I believe also encompasses a disregard for historical theology) in the Brethren movement.  Their misinterpretation of and over-emphasis on the priesthood of the believer was not balanced by the teaching of scripture on the offices of local church leaders, and their God-given capacity to teach and shepherd the flock God has given them, thus the anti-clerical aspect of the movement.  This is the conclusion that must  fnally be drawn from a disregard of historical theology, and too high a regard for my ability to rightly interpret God's Word void of outside influences.

Just a word of personal application, I've learned lots of things in my personal bible study, while meditating on it in prayer, but some of it I later learned was heresy, and I allowed myself to be corrected by smarter men, and the interpretations granted them by the Spirit.  Take for instance, the formulation of the way we talk about the Triune nature of God.  As a young Christian, I easily could have come away from my preliminary readings of the New Testament as a convinced "modalist", but only when confronted by the historical theology of the Trinity, was my understanding set straight

I wonder if the aversion to historical theology, and its importance in the development of our understandings of scripture, is in some degree due to a Protestant reaction to the Magisterium (teaching authority) of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.  But as a survey of the history of the Reformation would quickly show, the doctrine of sola scriptura was never set in opposition to the importance of the guidance we are to receive from our pastors/elders/teachers, nor was it intended to excuse a disdain for the importance historical theology.  The formulation of the doctrine of sola scriptura was to define authority not importance or resourcefulness.  So, perhaps anti-confessionalism and anti-clericalism is an overreaction to the final authority that the Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops taunted over their parishioners.

Further Questions for Dispensationalists - V

In my recent project where I've been attempting to understand the birth of Dispensational Theology in the Brethren movement, I have seen more evidence that seems to connect it with a distinctly non-Calvinistic soteriology.  For a while now, I have been suspicious of the influence of Arminianism on that movement, and as I read through some of Darby's and Macintosh's writings posted on the "Stem Publishing" website, I have found that the way they speak about justification, sanctification, regeneration, propitiation, sin, etc, is symptomatic of that influence.  This, in part, may explain the reason for the vast majority of dispensationalists in our day who reject Calvinistic theology.  Perhaps that rejection is not an historical association alone, but I think it may be one of the fundamental causes for the development of Dispensationalism.  I also see a general disregard for historical theology and its categories, whether it be conscious or not, I don't know.  This too would contribute to the rejection of Calvinistic theology among the Brethren in Darby's day, and the overemphasis among Dispensationalists in our day, on the priesthood of the believer.  Which, coupled with a basic misunderstanding of the reasons why they are "Protestant",  has inevitably resulted in the disdain that many American Evangelicals have for creeds and confessions. 

So, I am wondering if anyone with more time invested in their writings would have some insight to share.

Regarding the Continuity of the Role of the Holy Spirit in All Ages

One of the first passages mentioned in this discussion is Acts 2 and its reference to Joel 2.  The first thing I would say is that the purpose of the Pentecost event recorded in Acts 2 was to show the Jews that the Holy Spirit was going to be poured out on all nations, not just the Jewish nation.  It was a scandal to the Jews in Peter's day to think that someone could receive covenant blessings without first becoming a Jew, being circumcised.  The category they had for Holy Spirit indwelling had nothing to do with persons outside of the covenant.  So when they saw that individuals on the day of Pentecost were being filled with the Spirit, Peter had to explain that this day was prophesied by Joel; Peter told them the meaning of Joel chapter 2, and that (at least in part) it was fulfilled on that day when God poured out His Spirit, not just on believing Jews, but even on  uncircumcised believers from other nations.  The role of the Spirit in the New Covenant is primarily different in His scope, and only secondarily in extent.  In other words, the difference is primarily one of  a quantity of participants and secondarily one of a quality of experience.

Covenant Theology does affirm a measure of discontinuity between the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.  Read this quote from D.A. Carson below,

"...the pulsating New Testament stance, especially strong in Paul, that sees the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian and the church as the decisive evidence that the new age has dawned and the messianic reign has begun. The structure of New Testament eschatology is jeopardized by the failure to discern such distinctions."

But, Covenant Theology also submits that unless one has been translated from death to life by the Holy Spirit's work, he is not saved, regenerated, made right before God. 

One Day, Even Our Sinful Intelligence Will Be Glorified

No one "camp" or "group's"theology is perfect because those camps and groups are made up of persons whose sinful shadows remain in pursuit of their substance which is in Christ. And no regenerated person claims that they have such a complete knowledge of the divinely revealed truth presented to us in the canon of Scripture. So we creatures of God stumble along, confident in the areas where grace has given us light, and with our hands out in front of us feeling for familiar objects that might be scattered in a room where the Spirit has not yet decided to break through our blindness and deafness to enlighten our souls to those hidden truths.

When we consider the resurrection of our bodies, to be united with our redeemed souls, we so often consider the mending of our physical brokenness to the fault of ignoring the fact that our minds and mental brokenness will also, one day, be mended...for it too is most certainly broken in this age, but in the age to come, we will have the capacity to learn without the hindrance of our personal sinfulness and without the inherited brokenness caused by sin.

1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

The Fama Dei of Politicology

In academic or scholastic theological circles, we speak of the “three legs of the theological stool”: historical theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology. I am suggesting another category, which may or may not fit under or along side one of the three legs as a category or sub-category. I must also note that I have not fully researched and studied the distinctions I just mentioned, so if there is a name which exists to describe the following, then I am not aware of it and I ask your forgiveness because I may be repeating the work of previous generations.

First things first, what in the world does “fama Dei” mean? Fama is a Latin word which means public opinion, talk, report, rumor or tradition. According to the definition given by the Online English to Latin dictionary sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, the Latin word fama means, “fama -ae f. [talk , report, rumor, tradition]; 'fama est', [there is a rumor]; [public opinion; standing in public opinion, repute], good or bad.” Dei of course is a derivative of the Latin word for God, so the term fama Dei literally means talk, rumor or public opinion about God. I will use the term to more specifically describe what may have been previously studied as “popular theology”, and I may use the two terms interchangeably; so the term in this context can be taken to mean, the widely accepted and public opinion about theological issues.

Another and more specific way to put it is this—the popular, “Christian” opinion of a particular doctrine (including the biblical interpretation from which the doctrine is derived and its application in practical life). What I mean in the previous definition by “Christian” is—all those who call themselves Christians; and are those who have likely been counted in a “Barna Poll”. An example of an American (and perhaps wider) fama Dei of end times would be that, because ethnic Israel is a political state God is preparing the world for its end. Another simple example would be the current, popular theology of alcohol which is, that Christians don’t drink it. In other words, one could often say that fama Dei, or popular theology refers to what the World thinks “Christians” think about topic “x”; so it is different than orthodoxy—which largely reflects the consensus of what actual Christians actually believe about a particular doctrine in a particular generation—in that it is instead, a consensus of ideas about a doctrine held by believers and unbelievers that may or may not be true, and may or may not be held by actual believers.

Perhaps a more complex example is the fama Dei of political “involvement”; the research and study of political positions and ones implementation of the resultant views into life and practice—and for this complicated concept I may use the term, politicology. So, politicology would refer to political science, and its application; the study of: government, political affairs, and affairs of state, governmental policy, political beliefs, opinions, principles and views and also the necessary, subsequent adaptation of those issues into ones psyche which, consciously or not, one uses to filter information and opine about every topic encountered.

While not being healthy in the body of Christ, it is quite popular these days, at least on American soil, for one to falsely equate the political movement called Conservativism (or even Republicanism) with Christianity, denying the possibility of a Christian Democrat or a Christian who does not fit easily into the mold of popular Conservativism—many would say that the two are quite contrary, thus they must be contradictory. While it is true that some doctrines widely held by the Democratic Party so alienate them from Christian theology that it makes the promoters of such dogmas not Christians, or at best very immature Christians. Of course I am speaking, in one case, of the policy of “choice”; the woman’s right to kill the baby with which she is pregnant, this teaching is contrary to Christianity all together and it must be said of one who holds that abortion is not a sin is thus not a clear thinker; they either are not thinking clearly about Christ, therefore they are not Christians in the first place, or they are not thinking clearly about abortion, therefore they hold to a contradiction in their view of reality. That aside, the fama Dei of politicology (specifically the American type) is: pro war, pro family, and pro death penalty, pro free firearms distribution, pro Israel/ anti Palestine, and anti abortion, etc. It must be said that some of these planks are right and are Christian and some of them must be held by the one who aims to please Christ, but my point is that the fama Dei of politicology is that Christians are by definition, well-to-do American Republicans.

It is not uncommon today to see a Baptist, or a “fundamentalist” Christian pastor, or in some cases even a Presbyterian man in the political spotlight today. The popular theology of politicology has escaped the bounds of simple interest in the lives of many Christians today. One would find it difficult to turn on the TV or radio and discover a Christian program that wasn’t focused in some way on the political application of our inheritance with Christ. In some small way I place the blame on our dispensational brothers, who have so emphasized the earthly aspects of the inheritance of those in Christ, or have confused the promises of the Mosaic covenant with the promises of the New covenant, that the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of man on God’s behalf, that their focus has unfortunately been relieved of Christ’s Kingdom by the kingdom of the perishing; the kingdom of this world.

The right and true ordinances given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself were Baptism and the Lord’s Table, both physical pictures of the spiritual reality of our citizenship in the everlasting Kingdom of heaven. While many ecclesiastical leaders today would (not formally of course) have us to ultimately become, citizens of the Kingdom of American, or democratic freedom, worshiping the idol of capitalism through the sacraments of:

1. Voting (like baptism it is an identification with the “right” party) and
2. Boycotts, with which one practices communion with the greater good of Conservativism; it is an expression of being together with a group; fellowship in the rejection of the same things; “...we are all together against the same worldly evils...”, and so on.

It is easy to see that this view of Baptist and communion are not born out of the covenantal understanding of the ministries ordained by God but their understanding arises from a false interpretation of symbol, one which sees baptism as little more than an outward and visible expression of a prayer which was recited some time before, and one which sees communion as a simple rejection of perceived “sins”, but not real sins, just the rejection of conventional taboos—whatever they may be; a rejection of the common, subjective moralistic code instead of adherence to the objective Law of God. In the absence of true Law, some ruling force must come into power to frighten the people, and we must set aside a time to commemorate our agreement upon these surrogate rules by our consumption of the tactile symbols of Christ’s work, we somehow mysteriously acknowledge that we are capable of living up to them, but we haven’t, and that is why we should repent. (There is heavy sarcasm here if you didn’t notice).

In the end, in order to counteract the fama Dei of politicology, I think we need a new fundamentalist. Not like the first, like Machen, who countered the liberals who were his contemporaries, but one like Jesus, who countered the pharisaical hypocrites. What we need is a “neo-fundamentalist movement” which will counter the “religious right” and the so called, “conservative Christian” with the objective Law of God, which will also counter the moralistic, conservative, republicans in Christian clothing with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and may the Lord either soften their hearts with salvation or so harden them so that we may easily tell the difference. It is the meek who inherit the Earth, not those who possess political savoir-faire.