The above words of the "Christian" existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard may seem striking, even heretical, to the conservative Christian. For someone to say that it is completely arbitrary as to what or whom religious devotion is directed but that only the manner in which said devotion is conduction can decide the truthfulness of the situation is preposterous, a manifestation of the denial of the Scriptures, and a clear sign of a liberal conception of plurality.
Kierkegaard, in other works, speaks of the "letting go" of the objective rationality of God's existence, attributes, etc. and making a "leap" of faith into the unknown. Only such, says Kierkegaard, can be constituted as a genuine faith (See Kierkegaard's The Absolute Paradox found in Philosophical Fragments).
Yet it is this same conception, this conception of the subjective, existential, passionate moment, this "letting go," this "leap" contrary to rationality, that drives many "conservative" Christians today in both doctrine and worship.
Dealing with doctrine first, I don't know how many discussions I have been in with other Christians and have found a certain point of disagreement concerning what the Bible says. When something of this sort comes up, my first move is to systematically work from the Scriptures, to exegete a passage of Scripture that elaborates the point of discussion, not merely to cherry pick a verse, drop it, and leave it at that. Of course, if the person opposite of my position is one of at least some biblical competency, they will retaliate with Scripture concerning their position. My next response is one of dismantling their usage of the passage, explaining what it says in light of the context. More often than not, their response to my correction is one like this: "Well, there are some things we just can't know about God. He's much greater than our understanding." The existential move of the "letting go" of objective knowledge is instituted, side stepping the issue, though the Bible clearly attests to the objective truth to which I am holding for the purpose of our understanding said truth. In essence, such a person is saying, "My faith is pure enough to the point that I don't need to know this. I am leaping into the unknown, but you have to have things figured out. Shame on you, you unfaithful rationalist!"
Now to be sure, I in no way believe God can be comprehended in His entirety, but I do believe that the Scriptures teach us what we are to believe concerning God. Such an existential move of "letting go" of the reasoning of Scripture cannot hold such a view, that God reveals Himself in the Scriptures. If one treats a single truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture as something that cannot be known, on what basis can any other truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture be known? A single negation of the efficacy of the Scripture to reveal to us a truth that is expressed in the Scriptures must cause either skepticism concerning the rest of what Scripture says concerning Him or a flat out denial of the rest.
Perhaps a tangible scenario should be given. Let us say that a self-proclaimed Bible-believing Christian states that God does not sovereignly control all things but leaves some things to contingency, to chance. Some verses that are contrary to this view are Matthew 10:29 ("Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.") and Ephesians 1:11 ("[He] works all things according to the counsel of His will."). One can either accept what the Scriptures say, that God is sovereign over creatures that aren't worth a penny and, indeed, all things, however small and insignificant they are, or one can make the existential maneuver and say, "We can't really know this about God. This is a mystery." If the latter is the position stated, then what the person is really saying is, "We can't really know this about God because the Bible is insufficient in imparting such knowledge to us on this topic." And since such truth is clearly laid down in Scripture, one is saying, by implication, "We can't really know anything about God from the Bible because it lacks sufficiency." Indeed, this is where Kierkegaard ultimately fell, believing that revelation is objective and is, therefore, against faith, which is subjective. One is therefore forced to believe in a God who they cannot know about for they have denied the sufficiency of Scripture to impart knowledge. They must take a leap of faith unguided by the objective truth, the Scriptures.
Such a position cannot be lauded as biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that truth is objective; it is outside of our own conceptions. We do not determine truth subjectively. God is truth (John 14:6). The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Such an existential maneuver as seen above is a denial of the truth, God and His Word.
Such an existentialist view of the Scriptures makes its way into Christian worship. The emphasis on subjectivity rather than objective truth in much of Christian worship is quite apparent. Lighting, lazers, and the like are used in order to provoke the passionate, existential moment. "Real worship," "true worship," "spiritual worship," turns into something that has to be felt, something that makes one warm and fuzzy inside, though there may be no appeal to the mind. The elements of it must appeal to the affections first and foremost. Thus worship, to the Christian existentialist, is more about the experience than objective truth. The existential moment of passion is in the hyped feelings of the worship experience. It is with this passion of the infinite, the mysterious, the unknown, that the cause of "true worship" is found.
This is, however, not what worship is about. A very simple statement in the Scriptures is very indicative of how one is to worship. John 4:24 states that "Those who worship [God] must worship in spirit and in truth." There is no doubt that the existentialist Christian worships in spirit, disregarding mere formality. Passionate worship I believe is much needed. They have passion, but passion for passion's sake. They reject the objective "truth" in which Jesus commands people to worship; they jettison the truths concerning God in the Scriptures for God is "unknown." And by neglecting the truths concerning God found in Scripture, they neglect God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
Worship is to be informed by the truth of the Word concerning God. If we do not know who God is and what He is like from the Scriptures, our passionate worship is merely worship of self.
I find what John Piper said concerning John 4:24 to be very true:
The two words, spirit and truth, correspond to the how and the whom of worship. Worshiping in spirit is the opposite of worshiping in mere external ways. It's the opposite of formalism and traditionalism. Worshiping in truth is the opposite of worship based on an inadequate view of God. Together the words "spirit and truth" mean that real worship comes from the spirit within and is based on true views of God. Worship must have heart and worship must have head. Worship must engage your emotions and worship must engage your thought. Truth without emotion produces dead orthodoxy and a church full of unspiritual fighters. Emotion without truth produces empty frenzy and cultivates flaky people who reject the discipline of rigorous thought. True worship comes from people who are deeply emotional and who love deep and sound doctrine (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/god-seeks-people-to-worship-him-in-spirit-and-truth).Truth about God must be known to worship God aright. And such objective truth concerning God can be only be found in the Scriptures. If those truths do not spark a passion in worship, then those truths are not really true to the worshiper. If there is a presence of passion in worship without truth, then it cannot be said to be the God of Scripture who is being worshiped.
In conclusion, to avoid false worship, one must accept what the Scriptures say concerning God. To pull an existential maneuver, calling something that is clearly stated in Scripture to be ambiguous in order to protect one's own favored position from the accusation of falsity, leads not only to a practical denial of Scripture's sufficiency to convey truth and, if one actually believes that their existential maneuver is correct, the denial of the "truth" aspect of biblical worship.
Soli Deo Gloria.
No comments:
Post a Comment