Varieties of Contra
Mundum
At around the thirteen minute mark, Reeves probes into the
matter of Dualism, the question of matter vs. spirit. This is the common motif
associated with Gnosticism and Dominionists and modern Transformationalists of
every stripe will whip out the label and use it against everything from
legalistic prohibitions of alcohol and tobacco to a reticence to participate in
politics. In every case (they argue) a Gnostic tendency is at work and some form
of matter/spirit dualism has been embraced.
In a few cases this can be verified but in most occasions the
legalism of Fundamentalist and Holiness groups stems not from dualism but rather
from flawed cultural metanarratives. As is usually the case the Dominionist
'Worldview' analysis is completely flawed.
In the case of other groups that oppose the Dominionist
paradigm their reasons for embracing duality
(as opposed to an absolute dualism) are rooted in the New Testament itself.
Once again it must be said that the appeal of Gnostic thought
was often due to its similarity with New Testament Christianity. This will not
be the last time this is mentioned.
The New Testament teaches an ethic of world-rejection, not
the affirmation someone like Reeves advocates. Christ told his followers to not
worry about power, money, possessions and even to go so far as to put out an
eye if it caused you to stumble. While some of the language is undoubtedly
hyperbolic the Dominionist tendency is to all but explain it away.
Their concepts of stewardship and the celebration of Creation
actually hint more of a Pantheistic mindset and a worship of the created order.
In many cases one gets the impression they are echoing a Pantheistic and
Platonic tendency to reify the Ideal on Earth, to make the Kingdom 'concrete'
through their actions.
The Biblical teaching is to use this world's things, even
marriage itself, as that which is passing away. Creation was created good and
yet sin corrupted it. Reeves echoes his teachers is saying that creation is
good and that sin does not change that reality. This is the only way they can
retain the Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1 and try to apply it across the board.
On the contrary the Scriptures place this world (this age) under
curse. Satan is referenced as its god. The creation groans, our hope is not
here but in heaven. We must put to death the deeds of the body. While flesh (sarx) often refers to the sinful nature,
a careful reading of the well known Romans 8 passage (and others) indicates
that the soma, the corporeal body
(skin and bones) is also under this curse. This extends beyond the reality of
physical death. These concepts are not rooted in Gnostic narrative regarding
the evils of matter or a world created by the Demiurge, but in an understanding
of the curse resulting from The Fall. Like Gnosticism, the Apostolic teaching
looks to the transcendent as the realm of truth and the ideal. This world, due
to the curse of The Fall is relegated to that which is temporary and yes, even
futile as the Scriptures teach. How contrary is the teaching of Romans 8 to the
Judaizing-Dominionist model! It cannot be overstated.
The Gnostics pursue the ideal through either asceticism or in
some cases libertinistic indifference as a form of conquering or mastering
Creation.
The Judaizers seek to transform the Creation into the
Eschatological reality. This Earth becomes heaven. This is the vision of the
Christ/Heavenly Kingdom rejecting Jews and their 'Christianised' descendants
who beset the pages of the New Testament and plague the work of the Apostles.
The Scriptures teach this sin-corrupted Earth is burned up
and that we will have a New Heavens
and New Earth. Our problem is not
with matter or creation but with this
Earth and corrupted creation. Our hope is in the Resurrection and the Age to
Come. This is why the cares of this world are secondary to us. While Reeves
decries the New Testament teaching as Gnostic
once again it can be said that Scripture's teaching sounds a little like the Gnostic understanding when viewed superficially.
The answer to Gnosticism is not to embrace a Hellenised
Judaistic view of creation and/or a vision of the Kingdom of God that makes
this world absolute and divine.
The New Testament condemns legalistic asceticism which is
rooted in either false doctrinal assumptions or in extra-Scriptural obligations
or as a form of salvation by works.
But contrary to Reeves and his ilk, the New Testament absolutely
teaches otherworldliness, and teaches the transcendent Spirit-wrought nature of
knowledge as the source of the Christian Life.
This again points to both the similarities and the dangerous
potential confusion with Gnostic thought. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 can praise the idea
of a Christian singlehood and celibate life and uphold it as the ideal and yet
at the same time in 1 Timothy 4 condemn as demonic the notion of marriage being
forbidden.
Reeves so clearly doesn't grasp this as is established later
in the lecture. He refers to students who in their youthful but zealous impetuosity
declare they don't want to marry because they want to be devoted to Christ as
stupid or 'bozos'. A typical academic, Reeves is caught up in his theoretical
world and demonstrates that he's actually unfamiliar with Biblical content, let
alone its concepts. The Apostle Paul is not a 'bozo', a 'clown' and yet clearly
the ideas he expresses in 1 Corinthians are out of bounds for the concepts Reeves
has embraced.
I'm afraid that if someone were to come to him expressing the
ideas and concepts Christ laid out in the Sermon on the Mount, Reeves would
probably also label them as having Gnostic tendencies. I continue to marvel
when hearing Dominionist preachers and teachers wrestle with the Sermon on the
Mount. It is little more than one great 'problem passage' for them. The usual
method is to put forward a point and then spend the majority of the lesson
backtracking and dismantling it, burying it under dozens of exceptions. In many
cases I've heard teachers quite literally invert the teaching of the verse or
passage. By the time they're done they've made it say the opposite of what
Christ was literally teaching. Turn the other cheek is transformed into a duty
to strike back, giving up one's cloak becomes a sinful example of bad
stewardship and the facilitation of sin.
The Dominionist takes great exception to much of what the
Apostles teach but their greatest foe and difficulty in the New Testament are
the words of Christ Himself.
This world is so venerated by these teachers that they quite
literally cannot understand or grasp what Christ and the Apostles teach about
not only The Age to Come, but This Age itself.
The Gnostic Spectrum needs to be refuted and yet the
Hellenised Judaizing theology of Dominionism and its pantheistic tendencies are
not the answer!
At the 15 minute mark Reeves lays out three fundamental
points he associates with Gnostic thought.
He argues a fundamental tenet of Gnosticism was the belief
that the world isn't real. Again this points to Platonic influence and the idea
of the real or ideal being found outside this world. Knowledge or gnosis of the
real is attained through initiation, ascetic practices etc...
The Scriptures teach the world is real but cursed. This world
is doomed but points to the truth of the real (eternal) world in the New
Heavens and Earth. This cursed world is destined for destruction and thus is temporary, as opposed to the redeemed
and holy world which is eternal and
therefore 'real'. There's a big difference and yet the concepts have some
similarity.
At this point we might also note that while Plato was lost
and wrong, his parable of the cave can (if interpreted rightly) find some
parallels in Christian concepts. We also tell of a better and true world. We
have eyes to see that the lost do not possess. They are indeed chained in the
dark, seeing only shadows. The shadows point to the existence of an outside, if
they could understand them properly. But even then one's rationality will only
go so far.
The Gospel message and proclamation indeed liberates the soul
from bondage and by faith they access the Truth. They pass from death to life,
from darkness to light, they are granted new spiritual senses, eyes to see and
ears to hear.
There are undeniable parallels and thus Christians have long
been fascinated in and influenced by Platonic thought. It's not too hard to see
why Christians could be pulled in by a charismatic teacher who (unbeknownst to
them) was guilty of syncretisation.
In modern terms one might experience a similar phenomenon
which watching a movie like 'The Matrix'. While clearly Platonic it's sometimes
confusing. It almost seems like it could be a Christian movie and yet very
clearly it's not. There are parallels and sometimes they're very strong but
with discernment the student of Scripture will realise there are fundamental
problems with the message of the movie. And in fact, it is profoundly anti-Christian. Like Gnosticism of old, it comes close
in some ways but entirely misses the mark.
That said, to wrestle with the questions is not a waste but
can be a healthy and even an edifying exercise.
The Dominionist answer to the Gnostic problem with creation
and matter is to turn to a Hellenistic Judaized Pantheism, a theology that
affirms and transforms this world, worships power and success and represents
many of the same impulses found in the Judaism of Christ's day, the same
impulse that found His message and Messiahship abhorrent. Coupled with
Hellenistic (or even in a broader sense Western) philosophical frameworks and
means of construction, the Hellenised Judaizers have erected a complex and even
coherent systematic theology. Its cohesion is based on philosophical
assumptions and speculations rather than Scriptural principles. It interacts
with Scripture and when necessary 'tweaks' it to conform to the paradigm. The
veneration and sacralisation of creation veers
dangerously close to deification. Often combined with a Calvinistic
cosmology in terms of Providence, a this-worldly monistic theology strays
uncomfortably close to Pantheism. From the perspective of this author, this is one
of the elephants in the room when it comes to modern Evangelicalism.
Reeves insists the Gnostics believed there was no truth to be
found in this world. Once again, this sentiment while flawed finds some
resonance with Biblical thought. It does not find resonance with the
Aristotelian tradition located within Christendom. This latter view which
elevates nature and downplays the noetic effects of sin often will argue that
nature and the self are the starting point in terms of spiritual knowledge.
Faith is based (as it were) on empirical evidences.
Contrary to this, the Scriptures teach that while man can see
enough to condemn and bring guilt, in all actuality saving faith is a mystery
revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. Our earthly knowledge may be true enough (as
far as it goes) but it cannot be verified and it cannot be integrated into a
system without subjectivity and thus (ultimately) the formation of idolatrous
intellectual and spiritual frameworks. There is truth in this world but because
of sin we turn it into lies and only through the Spirit can we be given sight.
Only through the revelation of divine mysteries can we hope to find Truth.
Again there's a similarity to be found with Gnostic concepts
and yet they are profoundly different. The Hellenistic Judaizing tendency of
modern Evangelical Christianity rests on a philosophical amalgam, a combination
of both certain Hellenistic influences on Gnosticism and an
anti-Kingdom/anti-New Testament impulse present within the Judaizing thought
Paul was forced to combat.
While Reeves believes Gnosticism attacks 'crude matter' and
overemphasises the spirit and setting it in opposition to matter we must ask
what do the Scripture say?
Continue Reading Part 3
Continue Reading Part 3