The very
challenge of discussing heresies, ancient and modern, makes my head hurt. The
debates that rage are often so rancorous and bitter that I don’t
even want to read the stuff—even from people I agree with!
Hence I want
to warn you in advance that there will be, here, a quite-severe critique of all
of this—not self-important, I hope, but what I believe is a necessary
and overdue upbraiding of the Church’s doctrines, and the cost of those
doctrines, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. More later.
How to Disagree
I believe we
do need to be serious in
understanding what the Lord wants us to know about Him, and what isn’t true
about Him. Right doctrine is important. But it never trumps love.
There will
be points at which any of us will disagree. So long as we abide by the two
commandments that Jesus has declared supreme, and on which our doctrine should
hang, we can keep on talking to each other and loving each other. Jesus said,
“‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with
all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40, NKJV)
Even if we
have got our doctrine “right,” if we apply it in a way that violates those two
commandments, we’ve got it wrong.
This is a
very hard thing for us to remember, because in the Church, people disagree—just
as with politics, sports, families, and life in general. Then they get angry
and bitter, and quickly dash to the violation of those two foundational
commandments Jesus gave.
And when
someone complains that the debate has become rancorous and mean, the charge is
laid that the peacemakers value being “nice” over being in accord with God’s will, that they stick their heads
in the sand or are afraid to name aloud what is seriously wrong. Those who do
not approve of vicious attack are themselves attacked—accused of being wimps,
or quislings, or traitors—apparently in the hope of silencing them, or justifying the hateful
attacker’s words and methods.
My desire is
that as we face serious issues in the Church, we approach them consistently
with Jesus’ two commands. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter if we are right about where we stand, because we are unholy at the roots.
A Severe Critique
You may
remember back in Chapter 14, “Covenant—The Law of Moses,” I quoted Rabbi Ronald Isaacs, who said, “Judaism has always been more a religion of action and
deed than belief and creed.”
This is a
deep and historically profound insight, and if understood is likely to remake
how Christians understand who they are, and how to live life more fully in
relationship to our Creator.
Philosophers
love to draw parallels and make connections across centuries and cultures. The
abstractions and categories created in doing so can provide insights into
how humans live, believe and behave—and there are surely deep commonalities
among human communities, even when widely separated by distance or time.
But such
abstraction and categorization is not universal. That is, not all cultures think this way. Oh, they do to a degree,
but the real flowering of this approach to analyzing and describing human life
and the world is essentially Greek in its origins, especially in the West, and
especially in Christianity.
Think of it
like this: The entire Old Testament is essentially a narrative story about a people,
the Jews, and their robust, constant, joyful,
rocky, rebellious, dedicated, awestruck and argumentative love affair with God. They are so familiar with Him that
they will yell and wrestle with Him, even turn on their heels in fits of pique,
and yet they are so profoundly in awe they will not even say His name aloud. In the
entire Old Testament there is virtually not a word of doctrine, nor a foundational philosophical
proposition.
A
philosophically minded person could look at it, and impute doctrine or philosophy, just as could be done with any
narrative, but neither of these are in the worldview or methods of Hebrew thought.
The Greeks, on the other hand, developed a philosophical approach to
human life and the world. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates said, and this conviction characterizes their
passion to examine and explain. They abstracted, categorized and organized what
they observed, and drew parallels and distinctions. From these they were able
to establish foundational propositions, and from these came doctrines:
definitions of what fit or didn’t fit the foundational propositions. Whether it was the Platonists, the Aristotelians, the Stoics, the Rhetoricians, the Epicureans, the Cynics or the Skeptics (to name a few), the approach of abstraction,
categorization, organization, proposition and doctrine was essentially the same: The various schools
differed primarily on what values were key, and which were not. They had many
gods, some of which were icons of these points of view, others of which were
a means to self-satisfaction, or defense, or spiritual mystery. The Greeks were
complex and deep thinkers, as well as being sensual and pleasure-seeking.
Greek
philosophy intersected Hebrew thought at several key points throughout
history:
·
When
Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) conquered the known world and
Hellenized it. Greek became the common language of all
the nations he defeated. (It’s because of this that the
New Testament was written in Greek.)
·
When
Rome, whose leaders were all trained by
Greek teachers, conquered all the lands of Alexander, and more. Greek continued
to be the common language, and Greek philosophy the way of thinking about the world. Pilate, the Roman governor, said to Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38a) This was a profoundly Greek
question.
·
When
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, explained the God of Israel (and Jesus) to people who didn’t know how Jews thought, and didn’t know the Old Testament, but who were accustomed to thinking
in Greek philosophical categories (including their beliefs about Greek and
Roman gods) and listening to rhetorically sound argument. Read Acts 17:16-34 for a quick
insight into this. Paul was trained in rhetoric and continues this approach
throughout most of his letters to the Gentile believers.
·
When
the expanding Church defined and defended itself in debate over many centuries,
most of which took place between Gentile authors and leaders (starting in the second
and third centuries), hence imbued with and expressed through Greek
philosophical and rhetorical methods.
·
When
Thomas Aquinas discovered the writings of Aristotle, which had been lost to the West for
centuries, and began to explain Christian theology in Greek philosophical terms (even
transubstantiation, substance and accident are concepts from Aristotle).
·
When
Humanism arose, heavily dependent on Greek ideas, and
began to claim values arising from human reason (in which the Greeks
delighted). Remember that “man is the measure of all things” is from a
contemporary of Socrates, the Greek philosopher Protagoras, who predated even Alexander the
Great.
·
When
science arose, contesting religion for primacy in the
lives and faith of people, and showing its superior and growing ability to cure
disease, tap power from the atom, and travel even into space. It
remains dominant to this day. Its roots, like the Enlightenment and Humanism, are largely Greek.
Each of
these intersections of Greek philosophy and Hebrew thought have affected how we understand and
respond to the God of Israel, Who we Christians (along with Jews and Muslims) believe to be the One True God.
Now, you may
not have thought about it this way before, but the fact is that much of the
theology that we do today, and that has been done in the Church since the
second or third century, has, in structure
and even in content, been
fundamentally a Greek philosophical
debate.
It is a
Herculean effort to explain God, to abstract, categorize and
organize what the Jews and followers of Jesus experienced,
and then to draw parallels and make distinctions. From these were established
foundational propositions, and from these came doctrines: definitions of what fit or didn’t fit those
propositions.
Instead of a
robust, constant, joyful, rocky, rebellious, dedicated, awestruck and
argumentative love affair with God, we have given our hearts to propositions. We have fallen in love
with our own thoughts about God, and missed Him. I realize this is a
difficult thing to hear or countenance. I myself want to jump up and defend
good doctrine: Bad doctrine can lead to disaster. I know! And Paul warns us:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine, but according to their own desires,
because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves
teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned
aside to fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NKJV)
“Doctrine” here in Paul’s quote is the Greek word didaskalia, and means “teaching, precept,
proposition.” And we do want to get that right, and not be led astray by fables
instead of the truth.
But the
truth isn’t a concept to Jews or Christians: God is truth. So the issue fundamentally isn’t
about getting the doctrine right, so much as it is about getting the relationship right. If bad doctrine can
lead us away from relationship, let’s point it out and move on, seeking Him. But right doctrine can and does also lead us
away from Him—when we focus on it instead
of Him, and when we try to grasp and
explain Him by doctrine.
We’ve now
endured centuries of this approach to God, and we’ve missed the point, which
is—well, God. It isn’t our
intellectual assent to propositions about Him that He seeks. It is our trust.
It is intimacy. It is wrestling. He offers love
and covenant, marriage, not highly ordered
thoughts and explanations about Him. There is no explaining Him.
This problem
began early, with the Hellenization of the Mediterranean and Middle East under Alexander the Great. It affected Judaism and Pharisaic methods in the Talmud, and it continued under Paul, both in his training as a Pharisee, and later as he sought to reveal
the God of Israel in terms and concepts his Hellenized Gentile audience would grasp.
I understand
this and don’t even really object to it, as it is. It was a door for the
Gentiles, an opening, to a new way of life
and to salvation and the love of God. Paul taught them in their language, in their own
modes of thought. But his goal was not to have his philosophy beat the other
philosophies—it was to introduce them to their Creator and Savior.
In our day
and age we have virtually abandoned the prospect of life with God, and have settled instead for
debates about His nature and intentions.
Even the
struggle between Humanism and Theism is almost entirely within the Greek
philosophical arena. The Humanists adopt basic Greek philosophical ideals about
the nature of man, from Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, from the Skeptics and others, and posit a world of human
relations in which God is absent at best, and we are left to
determine what we will value and what standards we will maintain.
But the
Theists, though they proclaim a God in intimate relation with humanity, act largely like Deists (who
believe God created the world but is now uninvolved in it), and posit their own worldview in
carefully structured, detailed and defended doctrines, deduced from Scripture
and Tradition, and re-formed into a philosophical
system of considerable breadth and compass. Their thought is dialectical: One way is right and the other
wrong. The smallest deviation is cause for attack. But even if it was
consistent to the nth degree, and
“right” in some elemental and universal system of “truth,” it is still Greek and not Hebrew in its approach to God and to life.
Well, so what? Is God a Jew? Do we need to think like Hebrews in
order to love God or be saved? Doesn’t Scripture tell us that God is the God of
all nations, and that in Him we are neither
Greek nor Jew?
Yes, of
course. But I contend that by putting all of our effort into explaining God, arguing about God, understanding
God and defending God in philosophical terms, in debates about
doctrine, we have fled the door labeled “God”
and packed a hall for “lectures about God,” delivered by contesting theologians.
Christian liberals and Christian conservatives alike are
essentially Greek in their approach to God and life. We differ on philosophy, we align
with sparring schools, we accuse each other of ineptitude and bad motives, and
we fight about how we each define and explain God.
We instead
need to be married to God, and let Him have His way with us.
We need to be ravished, not lectured.
In Christ,
Pastor
George