Liturgy Trap: Part Two

The Second Commandment

There is no problem with the actual act of bowing.  The problem is “to what do we people in the context of worship and liturgy?”  The second commandment is very clear that we are never to bow in giving veneration toward man-made objects (24).

The second commandment isn’t saying there should be no pictures of God (a point for another day), but that no image of anything can be set up as an avenue of worship to God and the court of heaven (24).

Only one pesel

Pesel is the Hebrew word for “carving.”  Jordan neatly takes the argument a step forward by pointing out that “there is another pesel in the Book of Exodus:  The Ten Words, which God carved with his own finger” (26).  “The opposition is between God’s content-filled graven Words and man’s silent graven images.”

God’s pesel is how he relates to us.  The relationship is verbal.  It is personal.  “It is God-initiated.”  Jordan comments, “When men set up a pesel it is always man-initiated” (27).  “The ‘veneration’ of man’s pesel is not a conversation with God, but prostration before a man-made object.”  This is the one objection even the most articulate anchorite cannot answer: is conversation–words–possible?

Anchorites love to counter that “Well, God commanded Israel to make various carvings.”  So he did. We say, however, “what is prohibited is the creation of a contact-point with God in the likeness of other creatures” (28).

Jordan makes an interesting observation:  nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures do we see God’s people condemned for making a picture of God.  Rather, they make up images of God and use them as mediators (29).

Application

“God initiates the mediation between himself and us, and He controls it” (29).  “God’s mediation is verbal…God’s mediation is his pesel, the Word.  Manmade mediators are images.”

Jordan concludes the chapter with a reflection on God’s 4th generation curse on image-worshipers.

Liturgy Trap 1

Jordan, James.  The Liturgy Trap (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press).

Jordan defines the “Liturgy Trap” as seeing worship as a technique for evangelism (xiv).  Whatever else our liturgy may be, it must always be a response to the Word of God.  Said another way: The Word of God comes first.  The rest of the introduction explains why evangelicals would be tempted to high church traditions.  Since that’s is fairly well-documented by theologians and sociologists (Christian Smith et al), I won’t belabor the point.

The Saints

Should we venerate the saints?  We should at least ask, “What does the Bible say?”  Critics might respond, “Yeah, well the Bible doesn’t say anything about the term Trinity, either”   True, but assuming the Bible to be part of tradition (which I don’t assume), shouldn’t we at least pretend it is the most important part?

Jordan first notes there is no biblical warrant to pray to saints (18).  Since the disciples asked Jesus specifically how to pray, and he gave them a specific template, it is telling that venerating saints is absent.  Jordan then gives the standard biblical arguments against necromancy,  pointing out that Saul was condemned for talking to the dead Samuel.

Interestingly, had the early Christians talked to dead people, the Jews and Judaizers would have had a field day condemning them, yet we don’t see that.

Jordan writes,

The notion that the saints can hear our petitions means that a given saint can hear thousands of petitions coming from people all over the world.  This means that the saint has become virtually omnipresent.  What happens when that saint gets his resurrection body and is once again limited to being in one place at one time? (21)

This would be prioritizing spiritual disembodiedment over Resurrection em-bodiment.

Observation on the FV fracas after the fact

I think I can write this as someone who has no stake in the FV debate.   Having read the church fathers and medieval theology in detail--often in original languages--for about a decade (and eventually standing in a rather critical relation to them), I think I can bring a unique  perspective to it.  I am going to evaluate Jim Jordan’s article “How not to do Reformed Theology Nowadays.”

The first section is somewhat vitriolic in tone.  That’s unfortunate, for whatever faults critics of FV have, this only gives them more ammo.  But in any case, content matters.  Jordan is responding to Prof Strange,

Concerning “theological reformulation” and “living within a received system,” Jordan notes

Again, I wonder if this is for real. Does Strange think that there has been no theological development since the Westminster Assembly? Does he utterly reject the work of Cornelius Van Til, of Herman Bavinck?

There is some truth to this, though Bavinck stayed rather close to the post-Reformers.  

There is the danger of saying “We only use the Bible’s language.”  On one hand that’s good.  Hearing healthy doses of biblical language is refreshing.  What happens when you get to the Trinity?  Further, I do worry that “we just use the Bible’s language” can be an easy way out when we come to hard passages.  I think the “Vanilla-ers” are justified in their caution, even if I don’t go with them all the way.

Part 2

I think I can agree with Jordan that when people criticize a movement for “over-emphasis” arguments, we can probably just ignore the criticism.  Emphasis-argument claims are almost too subjective to really be effective.

The next paragraph addresses the claim that FV guys are too sympathetic to NT Wright.  I can only think of one guy who might be: Rich Lusk.  The rest of the FV guys are quite critical of Wright.  I, for one, enjoy reading Wright.  I don’t follow him (whatever that means).  I

Jordan then follows with an interesting description of the PCA’s early history.

Jordan then writes,

The Reformers to whom Calvinists and Presbyterians look, such as Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Beza, and the Westminster Divines, were theocratic (Christocratic; Bibliocratic), postmillennial, sacramental, and except for some of the Divines, liturgical (sung prayerbook liturgy and weekly communion).

This is a kind-of truth.  With the exception of historic premillennialism, to say that a group of men were “post” or “a-mill” is anachronistic.  The rest of the paragraph is probably accurate.  Dabney himself thought Calvin to be too sacramental.

Part 3

Jordan says the Federal Vision holds to 5 principles, and it is to this the critics object

1. The Bible is given to help us mature and grow up as images of God so that we take dominion wisely over all of life.

2. The Bible is also given, because of Satan’s rebellion, to teach us holy war against principalities and powers.

3. The Bible is also given, because of Adam’s rebellion, to show us the history of redemption.

4. Because God is Three and One, so is human society, and so the history of redemption is not just about the salvation of individuals but also about the salvation of societies.

5. Jesus Christ has been given all power and authority, and has commanded His people to disciple all nations, promising to be with them and strengthen them by His Spirit until this has been accomplished. There can be no question that Jesus will successfully accomplish this programme, and at the end deliver all to the Father.

I agree with all 5, and I further agree that “TR Vanilla-ism” might have trouble with a few of these, but I don’t think this is why the critics object to FV.  On the other hand, if you preach a “doom-and-gloom” eschatology, it’s hard to see how one can affirm Jesus’s statement to disciple the nations.  

This section ends with the inadequacies of amillennialism.  While not postmillennial myself, I agree with his criticisms.