The Matter of This Age
How could such an antithetical message gain traction within
the early Church?
Once again because there's a similarity to Biblical
categories which not only differ from Gnostic impulses but from the Evangelical
views of Reeves, ones he believes represent the Christianity of the New
Testament.
In Romans 8 we read of the struggles of the flesh and spirit.
As mentioned previously flesh is usually equated with the sinful nature and yet
in this passage the interchangeability with 'body' or soma indicates the question is a little more complicated. Creation
groans, and it's made clear the effects of the curse are such that there is no
redemption to be found in this age. Redemption is Spirit-wrought, resting in
hope... hope in the age to come when all will be reconciled and made new.
Reeves as well as the New Testament Hellenistic-Judaizer reject the idea that
the creation is subject to futility. They believe that through their own
efforts they can effectively undo this reality and transform this age into the Kingdom of God.
Once again we point to the well known 1 Corinthians 7 passage
and its exhortations regarding marriage, but not only marriage, rather our
posture toward this world or age in general.
We are commanded by the Apostle to use the things of this
world as a form which is passing away. In other words this world is temporary,
an impermanent order. Once again this implies in philosophical terms that This
Age is something less than true. It does not endure. It is not timeless, it is
not permanent. Again this is not an attack on the notion of material creation
but rather a broadside on this present cursed age/cosmos. This world, this
creation is indeed under curse.
In this light, Paul suggests that it is actually better not
to marry. He would that all were even as him. While Dominionists and most
certainly modern Evangelicalism glorify conjugal relations, the New Testament
does not. We might add for many of them the political aspect is of particular
import, a notion not only outside Paul's teaching but opposed to it. The
commentary on the world in 1 Corinthians 7 is built upon the sentiments
expressed regarding the world back in chapter 5. Clearly the Apostle does not
share either the vision of the Dominionist or his assumptions.
Again, here's the danger, the point of close contact with
Gnosticism. The Gnostics tended to reject marriage because coitus produced a
multiplication of matter, it perpetuated material creation. This is not the
view of Paul or the New Testament and yet the Apostle clearly does not embrace
the view of marriage now common in our contemporary circles.
Marriage is reckoned holy and covenantal when cast in terms
of a Christian relationship. In that sense it is redeemed as a type of the
relationship between Christ and the Church.
And yet in another sense it is clearly impermanent and
temporary. Marriage does not continue into The Age to Come. In this sense the
institution is ultimately part of the common order. It is a means and not an
end.
As our Lord makes clear there will be no marriage in heaven
and thus even conjugality is necessarily temporary. Assuming a role akin to or
perhaps even higher than the angels such relations will also be forbidden to
us.
This point in particular demonstrates the nature of the Age
to Come vis-à-vis Eden and even necessarily adjusts our notions of heaven and
the accompanying Biblical typology that echoes the Edenic narrative. While the
image presented to us in Revelation reveals a repetition of the garden imagery
and the Tree of Life, this New Eden as it were will be qualitatively different.
If one wishes to push the parallels we can be drawn to
re-examine the nature of the so called Dominion Mandate and its command
regarding multiplication and fruitfulness.
Did Adam and Eve fulfill this command in the way we would
today understand? Did they engage in marital relations while in the garden? The
fact that no children were produced, that we're told of, indicates that either
we've misunderstood the nature of the Edenic order or perhaps it instead points
to the brevity of their pre-lapsarian tenure in the garden.
The Bible certainly doesn't view creation as 'crude' or 'icky'
to use Reeves terms. Its fallen status is not intrinsic or inherent, rather
it's revealed as corrupted, polluted, cursed, dying and destined for
destruction. In this light our attitudes as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven are
certainly affected and produce a life-focus and ethic that differs from the
Gnostics to be sure but is also radically different from the
transformationalist tendencies of modern Evangelicalism.
What is true and real? That which is eternal.
The Bible looks to the New Heavens and New Earth for true
everlasting light, water and thus matter. This is why there is such emphasis in
keeping one's focus on heaven, laying up our treasures there and living as
those who already experience life and
union with Christ.
The Gnostics and Hellenistic Judaizers perverted these
doctrines by a process of philosophical syncretisation. Like all philosophical
systems they sought to create a coherence that reconciled eternal truths (mostly
speculations in their case) with physical realities. This generated a set of
ethics. For the Gnostics the focus tended to be on a divine unity or what we
might call in today's terms a singularity. The Hellenistic Judaizers took some
of the concepts and depending on the school of thought mixed and matched them
with visions of ultimacy and eternity found in sanctified creation and the
permanence of a physical regulated order reigned over by them and the members
of their sect.
Reeves and Dominionists seek in pantheistic fashion to reify
and essentially deify creation in This Age. Their understanding of the division
or break between This Age and The Age to Come is minimised and downplayed. They
see it more in terms of a transition rather than a radical break with severe discontinuity.
In this sense, in many ways and aspects they exhibit a resonance with the
Hellenistic Judaizers. The form is not exactly the same but near enough and
though our context is different the gravity and nature of the error are the
same.
For them the Kingdom is present in This Age through the
sanctification of the physical order. Quite literally the Kingdom is built through
the sanctification of dirt, marital relations, art, politics and the like. By
sanctifying, or holy-ising these things they make them part of the divine
transcendent order (the Kingdom) and thus it is no great surprise to find that
many of them (borrowing from the Dutch Reformed) embracing the notion that the
cultural achievements of this age will be with us in the hereafter.
In other words we will in some sense take it with us.
On the contrary we through the Spirit, through Union with
Christ we who live in the space/time of this creation participate in the
transcendent, eternal, spiritual even Real Kingdom. The Kingdom is not here.
This world comes into contact with it through the ministrations and presence of
the Spirit. Like aliens, like the pilgrims and strangers we are, as
Spirit-bearers we live in This Age as exiles awaiting our return. People
encounter the Kingdom through our witness and testimony and through the power
of the Spirit to transform lives. Our meetings are not artistic expressions of
cultural affirmation and power but rather are transcendent gatherings and
participations in the Divine Counsel. We are elevated as it were into heaven,
meeting with the saints before the Heavenly Throne. Our worship takes us to
heaven.
The Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2) speaks of a realm and
existence that has not even entered our minds, it is imperceptible to this
worldly epistemology. The New Age will be of such an order (Isaiah 65, 2 Peter
3, Revelation 21) that the former things will no longer be remembered. Even if
this is taken to be hyperbolic it still defeats the Dominionist belief that
culture survives the Eschaton.
The Dominionists would pull down heaven and unfurl it across
the earth in the form of conquest and transformation. The implications of this
doctrinal inversion are so profound as to completely transform the nature of
the Church, yea the nature of our faith and how it is defined.
The Dominionist-Evangelical view advocated by Reeves is not specifically
Gnostic but Judaizing and more specifically Hellenised-Judaizing for even the
Dominionist view is riddled by and infected with Hellenistic notions with
regard to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics. It represents a
holistic philosophical framework that presents a coherence, but once again
something other than what the Scriptures teach. The forms, methods, concepts
and goals are different. Like the enemies of the Apostles, they appropriate New
Testament concepts, pattern their language and even some of the ideas with that
of the New Testament. But ultimately their form of Christianity is a deviation
and has imposed another gospel on the Church.
Continue reading Part 4
Continue reading Part 4