This represents another sad instance of the Colson crowd's
faulty understanding of the gospel. Their grasp of Scripture is defective and
in this case... painfully on display.
People are being converted by architecture? Apparently the
Word is not required! Apparently being inspired by stonework and having a
rapturous experience is enough to lead someone to conversion?
What about brokenness? Repentance? What's their faith in,
buildings made by men's hands? Transcendent experience? Coming face to face with
sublimity?
You can have these same experiences in a mosque, the forest
or in the Alps. Some even find it in taking drugs. These experiences and
feelings point to the transcendent, to the reality of a god, but apart from the
Gospel you cannot know God as He is revealed in Christ.
This is not evangelical repentance and rebirth but the sham
conversion all too common in the annals of Roman Catholicism. Soon we'll be back
to Dark Age monks performing sensationalist feats. It is appropriate that
Breakpoint, the poisonous legacy of the unrepentant criminal Charles Colson continues
to propagate this false understanding of Christianity.
Indeed modern church buildings also represent a bad type of
theology but in this case both sides are wrong. The answer to modern
Seeker-style buildings, bands and Praise Teams is not to return to the Judaized
High Church.
And this is precisely the problem with the Colson
perspective. This is not a matter of style or things indifferent. Colson's
perilously defective, even heretical theology comes out in this very brief
commentary. He knows nothing of a Christological understanding of Scripture.
His reading of the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christ.
He completely misses the typology, let alone the fulfillment!
The grandiosity of the Temple and the splendour of Old Testament forms were not
about beauty for beauty's sake nor were they providing a mandate to generate
art.
The system was theologically symbolic, typological and
anticipatory of the coming Christ. These things had a specific meaning.
Artistic license and creativity were not in view. These were patterns, God
ordained models transferred into space and time that represented the Gospel,
the Kingdom and the course of redemptive-history.
Did Colson miss that the Old
Testament was another way of saying the Old
Covenant? These things were covenantal and particular. The law and cultus
of Israel were not universal and nowhere does the New Testament encourage emulations
in the form of Church architecture, sacred art, music or any other such
notions. The assertion of artistic expression as a form of worship is based on
rank fallacy. We need not be cultural philistines but given the destiny of This
Age our interest in such things will always and necessarily be limited.
The New Testament teaches the Old has been fulfilled and
abrogated. To return to these forms is to call into question the completed work
of Jesus Christ. Additionally, Christ reiterated in Matthew 15 that all
man-made religion is vain. These two errors, championed by Colson are at the
heart of Roman Catholicism's egregious system in terms of its tradition-based
sacerdotal order and its Judaized liturgy.
Both Colson and Metaxas are leading people astray. The modern
Evangelical Church is rightly condemned but you don't cure a wasting disease by
imbibing arsenic. These are blind leaders of the blind.
Francis Schaeffer's theology represented a degenerate
remanifestation of the thought of Abraham Kuyper. Colson built on this sorry
foundation and has helped to lead Evangelicals into a theological wilderness, a
doctrinal quagmire from which there is no escape.
Am I being unduly harsh! No, I'm sounding a warning. These
people are the enemies of Christ and His Kingdom! They represent a far greater
threat than Richard Dawkins, Hillary Clinton or ISIS.
Christians seem to have forgotten that the greatest threat to
the Church is from within. The message replete throughout the New Testament has
fallen by the wayside. This is yet another rotten fruit of Dominion theology.
By turning the Church into the world, the enemies of 'the Kingdom' are now
cultural and political. While there's plenty of evil in the culture and
certainly in politics, the real threat is spiritual. It is the wolves and false
prophets who represent a threat to the flock, who would lead people into sinful
thought and action.
This is why I continue to warn about figures like Schaeffer,
Colson, Keller and a host of other false teachers.
You're right that Metaxas et al. are leading people to worship at veritable "high places", but I think the general discomfort of Evangelicals at utilitarian, business and avertising, churches reflects something good. The desire for beauty is not a bad thing, and sensible is not necessarily a source of evil.
ReplyDeleteDo you have alternatives or thoughts about how liturgy ought to go? Sometimes you seem to advocate a kind of aniconic idealism. While the man-made traditions above reflect the creation of "high places", this was not a condemnation of aesthetics tout court.
I don't see any emphasis on aesthetics in the NT... or interestingly in the synagogue either. That may or may not be related depending on how one wishes to approach the issue and whether or not there's a correlation.
DeleteThe only icons in NT worship are bread, water and wine. The Word is not an icon per se but also serves as a bridge or connection between the Kingdom and This Age. It is also sensory in the sense that it is heard through proclamation.
That's the glory of our heavenly worship during this Already-Not Yet age. As pilgrims we can worship in the desert, in a barn, a cave, the forests, a room. Worshiping thus we also proclaim judgment on This Age. We declare its doom and that Christ is coming... soon.
Aesthetics in our personal lives... that's an issue of conscience and even liberty to some degree.
I enjoy the arts as much as the next person but I see zero emphasis on these things in the NT. When they're brought into our meetings, they are always (to me) a distraction.
An OPC I attended many years ago met in a small hotel conference room. It was great. No distractions. And compared to the cost of a building it was dirt cheap too.
Recent archaeology has found that 2nd Temple synagogues did have art, in the form of mosaics of created things (plants, animals, etc.) or of particular saints (Moses, David, et al.) But that's not relevant, because I don't think the Church is a parallel to the synagogue, but is rather a fulfillment of the Temple (because Christ is the antitype to the Jerusalem Temple).
DeleteNow, I don't know what this means exactly. And while you're right to say Word, bread, wine, water, these raise interpretive questions. How is the Word present and arranged? How does this relate to song and how is this performed (especially since an entire book of the Bible is a book of songs)? How does one partake of the Supper(hence the question of full (agape) meal or token meal, kneeling or sitting, leavened or unleavened bread, etc etc.)? All of this has a certain movement or rhythm to it, especially if done week after week, which is the question of aesthetics. This is not strictly adiaphora, because how one does these things can convey the wrong point. I can appreciate, as an intentional overreaction, why James Jordan thinks churches who use grape juice instead of wine are in sin.
Yes we live in Pilgrim times, but Scripture does not shy away from the sensual ("taste and see the Lord is good", "the beauty of holiness" etc.) I don't want to discard these texts by intellectualizing them, I don't think the material and sensory world is itself voided in the New Covenant. But then again, I don't think the fact we still use bread, wine, and water are on account of Human weakness or inability to perceive the spiritual, but reveal something integral to life as God created it.
I guess the original point I wanted to get after was that this post won't stem the tide of people listening to the Jeroboams at Crosspoint, Issues etc., and all these other advocates for High-Places. You might just write them off as not being concerned about things of the Lord, but I think this is a serious question that needs to be thought through. This is why I like Cranmer's thought behind the Book of Common Prayer: it was a liturgy structured to immerse people in the Word of God, the whole Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ, with a proper placement of the elements.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless, and always take them seriously as words soaked in wisdom.
cal
I agree the Church is patterned after the Temple, not the synagogue. I only raised the question because I remember this discussion was in the air many years ago. The 'unregulated' synagogue argument some appealed to did not prove very fruitful. It didn't quite line up with the rigid RPW positions of some and yet failed to satisfy liturgical innovators.
DeleteI was unaware of the mosaics though I certainly have heard of live plants being located in their assemblies.
The questions regarding standing, sitting, perhaps arrangement of seating, light etc... are on one level aesthetic and yet if they are essentially indifferent... then aesthetics as a question related to a comprehensive integration of applied ideas and even ethics seems to not be applicable. In other words I'm not sure these are really aesthetic questions since there is no principle at stake. Apart from 'good order' as opposed to chaos where in the NT are these questions even raised?
I've seen some terrible arrangements of how the Supper is done but usually the problem isn't aesthetics, it's their doctrine of either the Church or perhaps the Supper itself.
Considering the emphasis placed on aesthetics, style and presentation by most churches in our day, it's rather astounding that the NT is all but silent concerning these questions. Music is at the center of contemporary worship and yet one can barely come up with even a few verses that address the question and even then it's only in passing. Congregational singing has more support from Justin Martyr and Pliny's Letter to Trajan than the NT. The Church certainly sang but it was not at the center of what they were doing. I daresay if it was then the NT would have had a lot more to say about it.
That argument assumes sufficiency. I'll grant if that principle is misguided then certainly innovation and all the other concerns and motives that go with it are in play.
I'll put it this way. If I abandoned Sola Scriptura cum Sufficiency then I would certainly go High Church. There's no question about that.
Jordan would call me a Gnostic. I of course believe him to be a rank Judaizer. That said, he is interesting at times, though I haven't read him in a very long time. There is an appreciation of Redemptive-History and typology in his thought. Sadly he gets it all very wrong. Dreadfully wrong.
I also think it's an error to use grape juice. I don't know that I would go so far as to call it a sin. I think the issues behind it are certainly erroneous and represent the cultural rot of American Christendom as opposed to sound exegesis. If it is sin then I couldn't attend a church that utilises it in the Supper. Wow, if that's the case then we're pretty limited in the United States! Whenever I've been part of a small house-type meeting we use diluted wine... even in communing children.
As I've argued elsewhere NT liturgical simplicity is specifically rooted in the Last Days impermanence of our era. This point comes out strongly in 1 Corinthians in terms of our ethics and how we interact with the world. It's built upon the earlier discussion at the beginning of the epistle with regard to questions of mystery, wisdom, doctrinal prolegomena and apologetics.
DeleteAs I argued in another essay, I think the Sacralist Church in its Judaizing tendency has ventured to another extreme... Their anti-gnosticism (as it were) has led them to a place where they have not only misunderstood the gnostic heresy but they are actually identifying a great deal of NT doctrine as gnostic!
God has accommodated us and granted some tangible experiences in our worship. We hear the Word preached, which is sensory... but also a spiritual exercise. Baptismal waters are tactile and visual. Bread and wine are experienced by all the senses. And yet in this age of maturity, this era beyond the time of tutelage we don't need all the props and models. We don't need the tactile and sensational, things Paul deems weak and beggarly elements. This is of course in reference to things God once ordained but have been fulfilled. Paul is just as impatient with innovative attempts to foster spirituality and to enhance one's service to God. Otherworldly motivation is proper in terms of keeping the body under. Tactile experience as a basis for some kind of higher worship he soundly and severely condemns.
Remember, contrary to Colson and his lot, there is nothing about the Gospel that would be appealing to lost people. It is foolishness to them. A Christian aesthetic (if there is one) will not be comprehensible to the world. It would be spiritual, Spirit-wrought and thus foolishness to the world. I realise this is completely at odds with a great deal of apologetic emphasis in our day but they have completely ignored and misunderstood Paul's message in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians.
I don't just write off the various Jeroboam's you reference. I think they are indeed sincere but have been deceived and are deceiving. One cannot help but admire Cranmer as martyr but his ecclesiology and the motives behind it... I'm not so sure. I think the whole Edward VI/CofE episode to be rather misguided. It certainly backfired didn't it?
I appreciate the thoughtful comments. Good stuff to consider.
Yes, those issues involve, in part, good order. But order is also a question of aesthetics, and I don't see sharp divide between truth and beauty, though it's certainly complicated in a sinful creation. The point is not to tickle the senses, but to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ, that carry through in physical bodies and movement.
DeleteI don't know about your comment about singing, I see it all over the place.
I think Augustine was right to see the rites of the New Covenant are conjugations of old covenant signs; they're not total breaks nor are they merely extensions. I don't see Paul condemn the tactile, only when it's broken off from its actual referent. I don't see Scripture at all condemning the tactile, except when it's taken for its own sake. I guess this is where aesthetics must always be seen as integrated with truth and right living, if art is for arts' sake, it's purely of the flesh and usually ends in an abomination. I just don't think the spiritual is separable from the sensory, even if there is a distinction, in that the sensory can be cut off from the Spirit. This is Paul's dichotomy of war between Spirit and flesh.
Yes, the cross is offensive and a stumbling block, but that's because it's the location of a crisis of sorts. I mean this in the literal definition, it's a decision. Hence, when Christ is crucified, there is only two categories of people: those who see God's revelation and believe, and those whose eyes are shut and are in unbelief. Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "lost". If you mean people who don't believe in the moment, then no, the revelation of Christ is the moment when the Spirit might work salvation. Hence, why earlier church fathers can refer to the fact that pagans are shocked by seeing Christians meet their deaths with bravery and love. The martyrs' last moments become a revelation of Christ, the shape of the cross in Human life. Thus, the liturgy of the church's worship can be itself a revelation of this. But by this, I don't mean grandeur or sensory overload and pleasure. But I'll leave this off for now.
Your comment about Scriptural sufficiency feels like a dagger in the back, as if any who disagree over this, in terms of worship and church order, have neglected or rejected the principle. It's a question of how we read Scripture, and we're always functioning with a "regula", a rule, that guides how we read. The more important question is whether our rule actually maps onto the Scripture, not merely derives, or it's being imposed on it. A clear case is John 5:39; Christ reveals that He is the key to Scripture, but this is not something that pops out of the text through a historical-critical method. I don't see every advocate of thinking through the tactile as a rejection of sufficiency.
Yes, Cranmer was a brave martyr in the end, but the course of his life revealed failure, cowardice, betrayal and foolishness. Sure sounds like the apostle Peter! In fact, that's a reason why we ought to venerate him as one of the great cloud of the faithful. My reference was more specifically about the creation of the book of common prayer as a form of liturgy that grasps what Scriptural worship looks like, though later attempts to reify it were disastrous.
Where's the emphasis on music in the meeting? Singing and making melody in our hearts doesn't really pertain to the questions of order that Paul deals with when say, he tells women to be silent.
DeleteEveryone has a Psalm, a hymn.... but beyond that it's difficult to make a case for music in NT worship. There's not a lot of evidence let alone emphasis.
In a sense we're going in circles. I believe Sufficiency means we stick to the text. Teasing out concepts like aesthetics is more the province of philosophy. This is where I think doctrine and theology can be split. Doctrine is authoritative, theology tends toward speculation and development. Now I'm not so ignorant as to suggest that all doctrine is grasped through simple common-sense plain-Jane readings of the text. Principles have to be worked out. Even much that passes as common sense actually is something else.
I'm not sure why you felt stabbed in the back. You know we don't agree on these questions.
Where in the NT does it suggest that we use OT rites and patterns as starting points or foundations for developing NT worship norms?
At risk of sounding Dispensational to the Monocovenantalists who dominate Reformed circles, I would say the NT makes a pretty sharp break with the OT.
In terms of aesthetics and the question of beauty... you should know by now I'm more or less a sceptic. Philosophy's only real use for us is to destroy and negate. That's taking every thought captive. The classical definitions of beauty as reflecting the 'true' and all that are I would argue without basis. It's subjective, contextual and largely temporary.
True beauty is something that eye hasn't seen, the ear hasn't heard... it hasn't even been fully formed in our hearts as of yet if I may paraphrase.
Those references alone are telling. Why is there an assumption that worship can not involve singing? Why is it not a given, based not only on passing reference, but in the general sense of how worship is reflected throughout the entirety of Israel's Scripture? While I'll not raise the question of instruments, at the very least, song is a subset of the word, and falls under that. There are all kinds of assumptions about how language and Human speech works, and none of this requires additional philosophical theories of language to see, it's in the pattern of worship.
DeleteI don't mean to sound dramatic, I apologize for that. It's just that there might be alternate conclusions grounded in the same commitment to scriptural sufficiency. So, when you say, 'hey, I'd be "high-church" if I lacked principled commitment to Scripture', it seems as if my position is, from the get-go, compromised. It's not that there's a disagreement over interpretation. Rather, it's a kind of ruthlessness about the boundaries of claims to Scriptural sufficiency. There's an obvious difference between your position and, say, Kuyper's anionic hyper-intellectualizing of worship. But it might not be clear unless you look at the foundations. I think some of the Reformers were not merely scrubbing the pillars of Rome, but they worked out their application of Scriptural sufficiency in a different way. They could be wrong, but it was not a sheer rejection.
I would say the theme of fulfillment, over and against abolition, as the principle of the New Covenant, which has less to do with temporality, but the entrance of eternal forms into time and space (the new is new because it is eternally new). Hence, the Tabernacle Moses built was based on a heavenly pattern. The epistemic dimension is seeing how the revelation of Christ makes sense of the old, but then realizing that the old were in fact patterned on the new covenant's reality (as opposed to its temporal, and pedagogical, old form). It's the way Paul can say that, on the one hand, Christ is the Second Adam, but that, in fact, Adam was a type of the Christ who was yet to come. Again, I don't think thus the Old covenants forms need to be regurgitated in a willy nilly fashion, which is similar to how a lot of liturgical reformers seem to think. But it means they aren't a mere shell. I'm not making an argument for some particular thing or another, but rather, on principle, I'm not so hostile to the aesthetic elements, as if that is what Paul means when he talks about the beggarly elements.
Yes about true beauty and philosophy's role. However, it doesn't mean some of that true beauty doesn't miraculously appear in shimmers and fragments in the here and now. Of course, there's the question of 'what' true beauty is, and that is grounded in the revelation of God's beauty manifest in a sinful world, and not philosophical reflection.
While in terms of the nature of the kingdom and politics, I'm "Vaudois"/"Anabaptist", but in broader theological categories, I'm more in the Anglican, reformed-catholic, camp, though that's still pretty vague. A lot of what passes for high-church is, as you point out clear, Jeroboam-like and a critical error.
I've heard Stanley Hauerwas describe himself as High Church Anabaptist. (smile)
DeleteI think you may have been misunderstanding my tone.... maybe. While no, I'm not High Church and yes I argue pretty vigorously against that position... don't take it personally!
I'm not in agreement with High Church principles but I've certainly worshiped in many such congregations and I believe somewhere in my writings I even admitted that at one point I donned a robe and administered the Eucharist. That was long ago and far away!
Not to split hairs but okay, let's split them a bit.... There are different attitudes and approaches to High Church liturgy. I've sat in on Anglican discussions about ritual that would make both of us wretch. The two men with whom I was sharing a meal were going on about turning to the right vs. the left, what colour the border should be... on and on. A lot of rubbish and nonsense. Just to clarify, these men were both Church of England clerics based on the continent.
On the other hand, yes there are those (like Cranmer)... good men who are sincerely trying to (in a sort of Isaac Watts fashion) transform OT concepts into NT terms. They're not trying to 'dream up' new things or root what they're doing in cultural sensibilities or the latest psychological-academic fad.
While I respectfully disagree with such men of good intention who are trying to apply Scripture as they see fit... I would not lump the two together, nor would I say their departure from Sufficiency (as I reckon it) is of the same magnitude or order. I would not equate what you're saying with the positions of Keller, Colson, Hybels or Warren.
In one sense I can say... from my vantage point they are all on the 'other side' of the line and perhaps to some extent you are as well. But I would certainly make significant distinctions!
I hope that helps a little... I'm not trying to be insulting. I just wanted to post this at present. I have to run but I will re-read your comment when I get home.
Firstly, I was using Cranmer's theology (if you like) behind the prayerbook as an example to ground liturgy and order within the patterns of the new covenant. I'm not endorsing every reform he instituted, even in terms of worship. You may interpret this type of reform as Judaizing and a return to Old covenantal patterns, but I don't see it that way.
DeleteSecondly, I would not describe myself as "high-church", in part because that label refers to as specific conflict in the Church of England; using the term only muddies the waters. Yes, those two men are extreme examples of liturgical thought out of control. I also think about the bloody controversy in the Russian orthodoxy about using two or three fingers for making the sign of the cross. But, that's because their sense for the liturgy is not grounded in Scriptural patterns, rather they innovate liturgical motions, maybe derived from an idea in Scripture, and fuss over it. I have a problem with replacing wine with grapejuice, and to an onlooker, I would get lumped in with the Russians and the two ministers as fretting over something stupid. But that's because I don't think the sensory and tactile are not the problem, rather it's whether it's relevant to the new covenant patterns.
I don't take it personally, it's just frustrating. You can plead to certain Presbyterians all you want, you will just be a Baptist according to their criteria for defining what a "real" paedobaptist is. I get a similar feeling when I'm trying to explain why Scriptural sufficiency could mean something different than the conclusions you draw.
And thus, even though you meant it as a joke, I despise Hauerwas as a generally incoherent theologian. He is full of bluster and personal branding, but when asked for specifics or clarification, he hedges. He is a fool, and I rue the day I ever wasted time with his books. Anything useful in his work you can find with much greater punch in Yoder. He is just a bitter liberal theologian.
Thanks for your responses and thoughts. I respect and honor you as a man of God, and always enjoy your words, even when we reach an impasse.
may peace go with you,
cal
Correction: "I don't think the sensory and tactile are the problem"; I get carried away with my negatives!
DeleteI guess I get particularly irked when I'm called a Baptist because by my reckoning the vast majority of Presbyterians are actually Baptists who just happen to do wet dedications. Their adherence to the rite of Confirmation... a ritual without Biblical or even solid historical standing... demonstrates that their view of paedobaptism is not understood to be efficacious. They continue to view soteriology through a solely subjective and experiential lens.
DeleteNo I did not mean to insult you by referencing Hauerwas. I've enjoyed hearing him interviewed and yet his books are like you say... liberal and wanting.
Our disagreement reminds me of the Conference of Bergamo and the split between the Vaudois/Poor of Lyon and the Poor Lombards. The former were reformist and more rooted in Church history. The latter were radicals and iconoclastic. Obviously for good or ill I belong to the latter category.
Poking my head in on a tangent again... ProtoP, am I to understand from your incidental comment that you don't think women should sing in church? I always understood those verses to prohibit prophecying (however understood) and teaching, due to the word 'speak'.
DeleteYou are right about the vastly inflated importance of singing and music in meetings. I grew up in charismatic circles, so I've seen what can result.
No I did not mean to imply that women cannot sing in church. I suppose I can see how you got that from what I said. I was differentiating between Paul's exhortation to sing and make melody in our hearts as a type of general Christian-life practice vs. the specific occasions when he's giving instructions that pertain to the meeting of the Church.
DeleteThere's a debate over the Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 passages with regard to what Paul means. It's usually part of the argument over Exclusive Psalmody vs. hymns and some use the passages to justify praise music.
What I was getting at is that the passages aren't related to questions surrounding the Christian meeting.... like the passages in 1 Corinthians where Paul deals with headcoverings, women speaking, the Lord's Supper etc.
By the way the 1 Cor 14 passage (and some others) clearly indicates (contrary to the arguments some would make) there is indeed a difference between the normal life and the time when the Church gathers. Paul is not saying women can never speak but there's a time and place when they cannot.
I tend to view singing as a type of corporate prayer. I think when viewed as such the whole entertainment aspect is cast into a bit of a different light. It is rightly beautiful and can be very moving but there are real dangers in focusing on the musicality and trying to extract piety from melody and harmony. Do we 'dress up' our prayers? I think not.
OT appeals are often misguided missing the typological and didactic nature of OT worship forms. Trying to emulate them is to revert to the age of pedagogy and in Redemptive-Historical terms, the age of immaturity. Having come of age (as it were) in the era of the Resurrection we don't need to rely on what Paul essentially deems lower and base and even childish forms of worship and piety.
So we sing, but the OT form is not our model. The Psalms are still magnificent but we read them through NT eyes, through a doctrine of fulfillment. The Levitical bits so to speak are no longer applicable. Likewise the NT draws many parallels between the Church and the Temple but always spiritualises the analogy.
Ah, right. That makes sense.
DeleteAnd I agree in terms of OT/NT differences. I know you've written about how the 'crashing cymbals' can't be simply trnasferred to the church... not least through 100db+ speakers!
While reading your post, I could not help but call to mind something I just read from Abraham Heschel's book "The Prophets" (a better exposition of these people I cannot find among Christians):
ReplyDelete"Those who have a sense of beauty know that a stone sculptured by an artist's poetic hands has an air of loveliness; that a beam charmingly placed utters a song. The prophet's ear, however, is attuned to a cry imperceptible to others. A clean house or a city architecturally distinguished may yet fill the prophet with distress: "Woe to him who heaps up what is not his own, Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, For the stone cries out from the wall, And the beam from the woodwork responds. Woe to him who builds a town with blood, And founds a city on iniquity! (Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 11-12)
"These words contradict most men's conceptions: the builders of great cities have always been envied and acclaimed; neither violence nor exploitation could dim the splendor of the metropolis. "Woe to him..."? Human justice will not exact its due, nor will pangs of conscience disturb intoxication with success, for deep in our hearts is the temptation to worship the imposing, the illustrious, the ostentatious. Had a poet come to Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom, he would have written songs exalting its magnificent edifices, its beautiful temples and worldly monuments. But when Amos of Tekoa came to Samaria, he spoke not of the magnificence of palaces, but of moral confusion and oppression. Dismay filled the prophet: "I abhor the pride of Jacob, And hate his palaces.""
I like that quote a lot. I think Heschel tended to over-emphasize the prophets as a particular brand of outraged ethicist, that point can get lost among many theologically conservative Christians. But, as a non-believing Jew, I can appreciate what he gets right despite the fact he does not see the Messiah as the Crucified One.
DeleteAs a side note, his daughter is a historian and she recently did an interview about her new book "Aryan Jesus". It's about how German theologians in the early twentieth century, before and during the Nazi period, made a concerted effort to de-Judaize both Christ, the Bible, and the entire scope of Christian theology. She's definitely worth a listen.
Like I said in the reply above, a Christian aesthetic necessarily is going to be something incomprehensible to the world. Our criteria are completely at odds with the world's sensibilities.
DeleteThat rather interesting quote could be equally applied to how medieval underground Christians viewed the 'magnificent' castles and cathedrals of Europe. We are in awe of them today and indeed on one level they are amazing structures... as no doubt was the city of Omri and Ahab... and yet they are also deeply flawed and in another sense ugly and abominable.
Notice there's no discussion of Scripture... because there is none to back the presuppositions. The theology they speak of is pure fiction.
ReplyDeleteThe spirit of NT Christianity is unknown to these people, perhaps unknowable.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/raleighs-new-cathedral-is-a-beacon-of-evangelization
So I guess the proof-text for the baptismal shape as a "greek cup" doesn't count? I'm not totally sceptical of beauty as a theological category, but many Roman Catholics tend to be goofy (to put it very gently) when it comes to handling Scripture. Did you see the ad for USB sticks in the shape of Jesus, Mary, and mother Theresa? Blasphemous!
Delete