Knowledge of Self and of God

It's interesting to see how Calvin talks about the interconnectedness of our knowledge of God and our knowledge of self. He claims that unless we have a realistic understanding of ourselves we will see little need for God, beyond recognizing His creative power. But when we begin to grasp the depth of our sin we begin to understand our desperate need of a Savior. The knowledge of God as Creator may be almost instinctive for many of us, in fact you could claim that it is part of our human nature to respond to God in this way, almost a religious impulse; but the knowledge of God as Redeemer depends, at least to a degree, upon our apprehension of our fallen state. Calvin writes, "Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find Him." (1:1).

On the other hand, without knowledge of God there can be no true knowledge of self. We are experts at remaining, willfully, in ignorance, pretending that there is no problem when, self-evidently, there is. We love to judge ourselves by lesser standards and so find ourselves spotless. Calvin says, "For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy - this pride is innate in all of us - unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness..." (1:2) It's only when we set ourselves against the standard of God's purity that we are able to recognize the folly of our sin. Only when we see the brightness of His glory are we able to see ourselves as we really are.

So, which comes first, knowledge of self or knowledge of God? Logically, the latter; but in reality we need both. And the knowledge of God, which goes hand-in-hand with knowledge of self, begins when true reverence and love are joined.

On Chastity

I'm working my way, with others, through Calvin's Institutes, and have just come across an interesting sentence in the preamble, in which Calvin addresses the French king, Francis. He outlines a number of objections to the work of the Reformation often raised by Roman Catholics. In a section refuting the claim that the Reformers are violating the faith delivered by the Church Fathers (that is, the early Christian leaders such as Augustine), Calvin points out that one of the Fathers denied the need for a celibate priesthood.

"It was a father who denied that marriage should be forbidden to the ministers of the church, and declared that cohabitation with one's wife could be chastity." (Prefatory Address Section 4. p22 in the Battles translation).



Obviously, Calvin's point was that opposition to married clergy was not universal in the early Church, indeed, that at least one authority (Pathnutius the Confessor) spoke out strongly against clerical celibacy. Except in Roman Catholic circles, that is a dead argument nowadays. We no longer have to argue in favor of married pastors.

A more interesting point concerns Calvin's use of the word "chastity." He uses it to describe the cohabitation of a husband and wife. In this, he seems to support those who interpreted the, now defunct, line in the constitution of the PC(USA) that used to hold church officers to the standard of "chastity in singleness or faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman," to mean that sexual behavior outside marriage could be regarded as, in some sense, "chaste." I don't think that this argument holds at all. Calvin appears to be referring to the purity of a relationship; he would hardly have countenanced modern libertarianism as chastity. It's interesting to see, though, how things have changed, and how language intended to promote moral purity can be twisted to include licentiousness.

The Catholics accused Calvin of moving the boundaries of belief. His reply, that the Medieval Church had moved the boundaries, and that he was simply reinstating them, is equally valid for us. When Evangelicals within the denomination are accused of moving away from traditional Presbyterianism, one has to ask whether boundaries of belief are being moved or reinstated.

Just Imagine

I note that Cee lo Green has been getting in trouble with the musical purists for messing around with John Lennon's lyrics while singing "Imagine" on New Year's Eve. As you may know, Lennon's original, which has become something of an anthem for secularism, contains the line "imagine... nothing to kill or die for, and no religions too". Green decided to change this about a bit and, on live, national TV, sang: "imagine.. and all religions true."

I suppose the question is, which version is more unacceptable to orthodox Christianity? The first is clearly unacceptable. It is a straight denial of the existence of God.

Imagine there's no heaven.

It's easy if you try.

No hell below us,

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people

Livin' for today.

You, you may say I'm a dreamer,

But I'm not the only one.

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one.

Very nice, I'm sure. A celebration of atheism. Not a bad tune, but the lyrics are beyond the pale for Evangelical Christianity. I remember someone asking if they could play the song at a wedding. They had never taken any notice of the words, they just liked the tune. The answer was, "No!" in case you're interested.

But it's worth wondering whether the bigger threat isn't posed by Cee lo Green's alternative. You can't tell from the clip whether he is singing "all religions true" or "all religion's true" (i.e. all religion is true). Either way, he seems to be advocating a radical inclusion that is equally offensive to Evangelical Christianity. If Green is really claiming that all religions are equally true, then he is ignoring their competing claims. This is the universalism that has infected the mainline churches and undermined evangelism. If all religions are true, then we have no business seeking to convince anyone of the claims of Christ. It is not possible for us to praise Jesus Christ as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" because Buddha is just as much a way to God. Every truth claim in the Bible becomes relative since we assert the metanarrative of universalism. Christ is not the way, he is, at best, a way. How dare we judge another person's religious experience?

Perhaps it is this non-judgmentalism that lies at the heart of Green's attempt to re-write Lennon's lyrics. I have a better idea. Just dump them. Neither atheism nor post-modern relativism can answer the longing in the heart. That longing can only be satisfied by Jesus Christ. No amount of re-writing is going to change that.