The Sanctified Gods of Christendom

https://breakpoint.org/a-theology-of-idolatry-for-the-twenty-first-century-part-1/    

The Family Life Network (FLN) has replayed this BreakPoint commentary more than once and after hearing it again, I felt compelled to comment. It is a very rare occasion indeed that I find myself agreeing with these commentaries. In fact it's remarkable to me how one organisation can so consistently be wrong, how even when some truth is arrived at or spoken about it is immediately thrust into a theological, ethical, or other interpretative framework that turns it all on its head.

In this case, the commentator (one Michael Craven) wants to argue the 'gods' that so long ruled the West were done away with and replaced by the rise of Christendom.

They disappeared. Their temples are empty.

On the one hand this could be argued as self-evident but one is left wondering how familiar Craven is with Church history and the arguments typically put forward by historical Protestantism. I understand that BreakPoint is a thoroughly ecumenical organization. The late Charles Colson was a key architect of the 1994 Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) framework which was extremely controversial at the time and led to a lot of different people falling out, and old friendships and relationships being broken. It was built on the concept of co-belligerence developed by figures such as Francis Schaeffer, and as a result the attitude among Evangelicals toward Catholics has completely transformed over the past three decades.

Previous to this Roman Catholics were not viewed as fellow Christians and much of the history of the Middle Ages was not celebrated. As a result of ECT and politically- connected revisionist historians, events such as the Crusades which were once decried are now defended and even celebrated. Cathedrals have always been a source of wonder and yet were theologically rejected. Not so today. In general the age of Christendom has been completely re-written in the Evangelical mind and such romanticism is on display in Craven's commentary.

I suppose Craven would be baffled to hear that the gods are in fact still there and still worshipped. They've undergone a transformation but are still the same idols. Their visages have changed and their stories are not quite the same but they live on in the Catholic cult of saints.

It is well known and even well documented that many a Christian saint is in reality a mask for older pagan worship connected to these gods - the Slavic Perun became St. Elijah for example. One of the farcical aspects of Christendom and its evangelisation was its syncretism and accommodation. And you see it everywhere in the literature, art, and architecture - as well as some elements of Roman Catholic theology. People were not converted by a gospel of repentance and faith but by decrees issued from tribal chiefs and petty kings. Religion was imposed top-down, from the throne, and rites and rituals were changed accordingly - one thinks of the Saxons forced to be baptised or face the sword. Charlemagne massacred 4,500 of them in his misguided zeal, demonstrating he knew nothing of the gospel of Christ - and yet if oft celebrated and praised by Protestants as some kind of ideal king.

But despite the outward forms of 'Christianisation' (an unbiblical concept), people held on to their traditions and cherished beliefs, and for many centuries church leaders tolerated this hybridization. In fact as long as you went along with the prevailing view and didn't question the foundations of the system in the way groups like Waldenses or Cathars did, the Roman Church was remarkably tolerant. People engaged in all manner of superstitious practice and pagan ritual alongside of church-sanctioned worship and a great deal of it was tolerated. And since everyone was Christian, the immoral behaviour that would certainly emerge with a population of largely unregenerate people was generally tolerated. The bar was lowered and just about anything could be forgiven through imposed rites and certainly with money. It was an antichrist system - a satanic masterpiece to be sure.

The Counter-Reformation sought to roll back Protestantism but the Jesuits who were instrumental to that project were not at all like the Traditionalists and conservatives of today, the Opus Dei and SSPX types that are pushing for Latin masses or a return to older cultural norms through Right-wing political activism. The Jesuit mission strategy was often syncretistic (to the point of being highly controversial) especially in places like Latin America and Asia. In the latter they found ways to theologically justify the continuation of ancestor worship and they have used a term for 'God' that allowed for some ambiguity in the minds of Catholic converts. Catholicism has always been about a 'big tent' approach, the bringing in of societies and cultures, often resulting in a Christian veneer with very little actual spiritual change. The forms become everything. They become equated with the substance of religion. In addition to the spiritual rot that develops, it makes such cultures recalcitrant to gospel penetration, but this is the very model the ECT Ecumenists like Colson seem to celebrate because they're looking to build political blocs and they need the numbers and the money. For a Machiavellian like Colson, the fact that 60 million Catholics were untapped and many had been (for decades) tied in with Democratic Party (back when it used to support blue-collar workers) - the thought of winning them over to the GOP was tantalizing. His project has been very successful - to the utter detriment of American Christianity.

It's true the old gods were in decline by the time of the Constantinian Shift and Julian's attempted revival failed miserably - even comically. But the picture is a little more complicated. The rural people (a term that would become connected to the concept of pagan) retained old practices and local superstitions, which given the scope of the empire often did not directly involve classic conceptions of gods like Jupiter or Apollo. There's was plenty of syncretism there as well - localized versions of Mars, Venus, or some other god. But in the cities and among the more educated, the older belief framework had collapsed and this was largely due to the rise of the philosophical schools that sought other explanations for cosmology, phenomena, ethics, etc. And yet for many, philosophy was wanting as well, and less than satisfying. And so in a turn not unlike today's 'spiritual but not religious' mantra, which often just means seeking spirituality outside of institutional religion - people turned to the highly syncretic Hellenistic mystery religions. It reminds me of modern Western suburbanites flirting with Buddhism, crystals, and things like that. And it was probably just as ridiculous and superficial back then as well.

And while philosophy did not satisfy, even the Church turned to it in order to flesh out the message of Scripture, develop doctrine, resolve theological tensions, and deduce paradigms for society and culture. At this point we touch on very fundamental (and yet deep) questions concerning the nature of Scripture (revelation) and its purposes. Are the answers found in a grand philosophical framework that incorporates Scripture? Does Scripture provide a springboard for such a macro-philosophy - the worldviewism advocated by the likes of BreakPoint? Or are the Scriptures given in a covenantal context and thus not applicable to society at large? The latter suggests what they reveal is only for the regenerate and only able to be apprehended by those in union with Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. One is hard pressed to find justification for the macro-culture building views of the other camps from anything found within the New Testament text itself - and that touches on another question about what the Bible says about itself and how redemptive-history is to be understood.

Christianity certainly transformed the world, but we should be cautious before joining Craven on his victory lap.

The New Testament also repeatedly warns of false teachers and the threat of apostasy, and though it's an express minority view in our day, I would contend the era he celebrates is actually marked by this very apostasy. The gods he thinks defeated were not vanquished but simply allowed to change their garb and enter the Church and its worship. In Roman Catholicism especially, the cult of saints functions as a pantheon. They functionally wield power even if this power is said to be via intercessory means. If you stand at the tomb of St. Anthony in Padua there's little doubt the worshippers believe themselves to be in the presence of the divine - the saint functions as a god.

In our day the concept of idolatry has certainly become more complex. People aren't as inclined to worship little statues of household gods set in a corner shrine - though as one in lives in a heavily Catholic area, there are still plenty of Marian grottoes in people's yards, though I don't see them out there lighting candles and the like. I think the present manifestation of idolatry for most people is connected to the shining device they carry around with them that dominates their being and shapes their reality, and for many has become the most indispensable thing in their lives.

Ultimately Craven is not completely wrong. The gods did disappear after a fashion. Christianity changed the world. But his framing represents a less than accurate telling of the story. By the time he finishes his commentary, the uninformed reader will walk away with a complete misperception regarding what happened over the course of Church history. This historiography is crypto-Catholic and indeed that's how BreakPoint functions. I always argued that if Chuck Colson wasn't a Jesuit they should have made him an honorary member because he was doing their work. Even in Confessional churches I frequently encounter people who are confused on this point - the status of Rome, the papacy, and the nature of Catholic theology.

At present I'm concerned with the great inroads being made by Materialist thinking into Evangelicalism. Its presuppositions are shaping everything from psychology to child rearing, ethics and even ecclesiology. This is an idol of another sort. Humanism is the worship of man - man is the measure of all things. The epistemology guiding Science is the default 'real' in contemporary post-Enlightenment society. It's not always consistent when combined with sociology and things such as the tendency for contemporary psychology to frame gender in subjective terms. But ultimately this is the default and I increasing hear language and patterns of reasoning emanating from Evangelicalism that strongly suggest its influence. To me, this has become one of the elephants in the room that's going to shape the next generation of Christianity.

Again, Rome is a big tent to be sure and it's easy to see why it's attractive to some. There's a perceived stability in its long tradition and its grand presentation. There's a lot going on in the Roman fold and over the course of its long history and some things can be appreciated. On the one hand I can admire people like Dorothy Day and thinkers like Blaise Pascal and yet completely reject Roman Catholicism. I also tend to find the people I do admire were not always in good standing with Rome. I think again of Pascal, or someone like Ockham (to a limited extent), and others. Dorothy Day has her advocates, even pushing for sainthood but she also has some strong detractors and was despised by much of the clerical Establishment during her lifetime.

Unlike Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals, I am not for one second advocating that Rome and a thousand years of church history should just be written off. Anyone familiar with my writings will know that. The history is rich and yet it's not the romanticised or monolithic story some people seem to have in their minds. It's messy, ugly, and often weighty and depressing. And yet through all the murk there's a light shining, a testimony of truth. We can learn from the struggles, from the history. We need to. But a victory lap-commentary like this one offered by Craven is not helpful and is ultimately misleading. It may help the cause he pursues. The question is this - is that cause commensurate with what the New Testament teaches? Does he want to understand history or just use it in pursuit of an agenda?