Mystery of wisdom

Dancing in the Kingdom- Table of Contents

Dancing In the Kingdom – Part 2 – The Kingdom Revealed – Chapter 13 – Distinctives within the body of Christ

Mystery of wisdom

[Bible references: Exodus 28:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; 1 Kins 3-4; 11:11-16; Psalm 49:3; 90:12; 111:10; Proverbs 1-4; 8; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Colossians 2:1-5; 3:15-17; James 1; 3:13-18]

The limits of reason

It is not just that the world is immensely complex, but it seems to contain unexplainable attributes like Beauty and Truth – and something about us seems designed to need to find a reason for our being and a sense of morality. The tools of philosophy and science have been very helpful in understanding our world – but those tools are limited. Philosophers are constrained by our limits to comprehend our world through using reason alone.

After surveying the significant problems we confront in trying to make sense of this world, [John] Lock remarked: “From all which it is easy to perceive what a darkness we are involved in, how little it is of Being, and the things that are, that we are capable to know.” … [Alexander] Pope concedes that this universe appears to be incoherent and ambiguous. Yet Pope insists that we have to acknowledge the frailty and fallibility of human moral and intellectual capacities in reaching this judgement. … [John Banville] . “I saw a certain kind of pathetic beauty in the obsessive search for a way to be in the world, in the existentialist search for something that would be authentic.” …  was forced to deal with the irreducible fragility and provisionality of human knowledge. … The hope of finding the Enlightenment’s Holy Grail, the crystalline clarity of rationalist certainties, gradually gave way to a reluctant realisation of the irreducible complexity of the world, which simply could not be expressed in terms of the clear and necessary ideas that the Enlightenment expected and demanded.[1]

Scientists are equally constrained by our limits to comprehend our world through measurement and experiment alone.

Those who invoke the political nostrum “follow the science” need reminding it is an activity that’s never free of value judgement … scientific findings are empirically-based descriptions of the patterns and regularities that we find in the world around us. They are not the be all and end all of explanation. . They are local explanations of aspects of the world around us, that are provisional in nature…. Science does not say anything about the ‘meaning of life’, the nature of causation, the origins of the universe, whether there is ‘free will’, etc., until its findings are combined with additional premises in an argument. Arguments, being made as they are in human language, are strictly speaking, philosophical in nature … Scientific reasoning can never prove the truth or falsity of its own assumptions (which are values), nor can it have much to say at all about normative questions, only indirectly. A scientific argument can be used to support a premise used in a philosophical argument about some conclusion, but it cannot constitute the argument.[2]

When we look to find meanings in the context of Biblical cultures, we find differences between the Hebrew and Greek cultures. While each culture has its strengths, as we talked about in “Limits of theology” (p.161), the different languages can shape our thinking by focusing on different priorities. The following table presents some of those different focus points.

Hebrew cultureGreek culture
nephesh refers to whole being (soul and body are integratednot just a soul that exists apart from the body,
shema = listen and obeyAkouo – listen, hear
objects described in terms of functionObjects describe in terms of physical description
supernatural and natural worlds are integratedsupernatural and natural worlds are separate
historical narrative is about meaninghistorical narrative is about chronological sequences
material goods measure God’s blessingsmaterial goods measure personal achievement
value is on what we dovalue is on what we think
knowledge is about ethics and moral practicesknowledge is about intellectual categories
worship was a function of service, what we do in the bodyworship was a function of service what we think

The Hebrew language has fewer words and focuses on creating stories and not creating descriptions. The fewer words that are used can have a wider range of meanings which the Hebrew writers of scripture use to create stories with intentional ambiguities and is sparse in details and descriptions. The Hebrew worldview assumes a world where the natural and supernatural are intertwined and there is an actively involved God. Hebrew ethics are focused on what is done than what is thought.

The Greek language is amenable to creating complex words and is amenable to developing philosophical and scientific thought. Greek story telling is full of details and descriptions and exact definitions. The Greek worldview separates the spiritual world and the physical world, where the spiritual world is considered the most important and that the activity of the gods does not necessarily affect events in the physical realm. Greek ethics are focused more on what is thought than what is done.

The church has been affected by the Greek way of thinking.[3] One idea, called Gnosticism, held that salvation could be obtained through secret knowledge; leading to the development of “secret” societies like the Rosicrucian’s where only those within the society have that knowledge. Another idea was dualism, where spiritual things are considered to be good and material things are considered to be bad. The consequences of that thinking have led to heretical teachings about the nature of Jesus, severe asceticism, unhealthy thinking about sexuality, neglecting our stewardship of creation, rejection of the arts, etc.

One reaction in the church against the Greek philosophies led to a type of anti-intellectualism called fideism,[4] which intended to focus exclusively on a type of faith that ignored the use of reason

The ideas of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, would resurface later during the Renaissance led to the development of modern science.  However, the church hindered the development of astronomy for a while when it stubbornly clung to Aristotle’s geocentric view of the universe.

The limits of enlightenment[5]

[Bible references: Ps 111:10; Proverbs 2; 11:2; 1 Cor 1:18-31; James 3:13-18]

The church was involved various attempts to reclaim the glories of the past and to elevate the human condition in what used to be called the dark ages.[6] The discovery and rediscovery of the writings of Greek, Latin and Muslim philosophers and scholars enriched the thinking within the Roman empire. The sum of all these eventually led to the period of “Enlightenment.”

  1. 9th Century Renaissance.[7] Monasteries were involved in the laborious process of preserving manuscripts by hand-copying them. However, for many years, some of the Latin and Greek classic writers were neglected in favor of Christian works. Charlemagne, the king of the Holy Roman Empire, was interested in giving everyone an education that included the Roman and Greek classic writings (such as the writings of Plato and Cicero). The main impact of this renaissance was on the development of literature.
  2. 12th Century Renaissance.[8] Christians escaping the spread the Muslim empire brought new Greek and Arabic writings to the West. These included the writings of Aristotle about logic and Arabic writings about natural philosophy and Latin works about law. This renaissance led to advances in social organization, the law, technology, intellectual pursuits and attempts to make Christianity more human which led a general spirit of optimism and desires for a more personal and intense religious experience.
  3. 14th century Renaissance.[9] The continued introduction of Greek texts from Christians fleeing the Ottoman Empire combined with the advent of the printing press made possible the wide publication of Greek ideas, particularly from Plato, whose ideas that some thought were more compatible with Christianity. These discoveries combined with discontent with the church led to the development of humanism, which elevated the capacity of humans. At first, humanism was very much a Christian topic but over time, humanism became an antithesis to Christianity.
  4. 18th century Enlightenment.[10] The invention of the printing press in AD 1439 further supported the spread of science as well as humanism and would also be central to the Protestant revolution in the 1500s. During the same period, developments in shipbuilding and technology enabled the development of European empire building and the success of that contributed to the age of Enlightenment (AD 1714-1789) with the emphasis on liberty, progress and reason having priority over theology. The Enlightenment version of humanism, (different than the Christian version of humanism) stated that people are essentially good and do not need God to progressively improve over time. This version impacts even our modern-day culture and sometimes the culture within the church.

Advances in knowledge is a good thing, but knowledge constrained by human pride does not lead to wisdom. The “Enlightenment” was the name given by people who were proud of the age where God was cast off and where human knowledge replaced the wisdom of God.

Accepting paradox[11]

[Bible references: Matthew 5:6; 7:14; 11:29-30; Luke 17:10; John 6:35; Romans 3:28; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 2:10; James 2:24]

Paradox: A seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which, when investigated, may prove to be well founded or true. (The Oxford Dictionary). A situation or statement that seems impossible or is difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics: (Cambridge Dictionary)

Religious truth often pivots on paradox … full truth about Jesus outruns the ability of human reason … all of the core truths of Christianity are twin realities, delicate paradoxes …it is dangerous to insist on flat yes-or-no answers to the big and perennial questions of life … we live in a fast-moving and rootless time when numerous theologians are trying to restate the Christian faith in relative and fluid terms that reflect the mood of our times more than biblical foundations (Callen, Barry L. Caught between Truths: The Central Paradoxes of Christian Faith, Emeth Press, 2007)

Embodying the gospel is … more than individualism. God is a social reality (trinity), faith should be a social reality, the best way to witness on behalf of the church is to be the church … More than rationalism. We are more than rational animals; rationality has its place but there is mystery that only faith can approach. Spiritual experience and interpretive concepts are reciprocally related. Doctrine is important but primacy is given to the transforming personal and community encounter with God in Jesus Christ … More than dualism. We are whole persons. Sin is both personal and systemic … More than knowledge. Knowledge, even biblical knowledge is not good in and of itself. Orthodoxy includes orthopraxy (Callen, Barry L. Caught between Truths: The Central Paradoxes of Christian Faith, Emeth Press, 2007)

The Bible is not written as a textbook that presents a list of topics and propositions. The views and values of the Bible are presented in the context of a story – a story of God and his image-bearers. The Bible’s focus is on relationships, and its views and values are found in the context of the stories of those relationships. Those stories sometimes reveal paradoxes.

One dimension of those paradoxes is revealed in how the values of the Bible are upside down compared to the views of the surrounding cultures. For instance, the Bible presents one God instead of many. The Bible presents a world of order which has a particular end in mind instead of repeated cycles of disorder with no end point in view.

Another dimension of those paradoxes are statements in the Bible which seem to contradict one another. Some examples are:[12]

• “We are worthless servants.” (Luke 17:10) “We are his workmanship.” (Ephesians 2:10)

• “Blessed are those who hunger.” (Matthew 5:6) “No one who comes to me will ever be hungry.” (John 6:35)

• “Take up my yoke and learn from me.” (Matthew 11:29) “Don’t submit again to a yoke.” (Galatians 5:1)

• “A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28) “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

• “My yoke is easy.” (Matthew 11:30) “How difficult the road that leads to life.” (Matthew 7:14)

Presenting values by means of paradoxes forces one to more completely understand those values by exploring them in different dimensions.


[1] McGrath, Alister. “On Truth, Mystery and the Limits of Human Understanding” Religion and Ethics www.abc.net.au/religion/on-truth-mystery-and-the-limits-of-human-understanding/10096364

[2] Copeland, Peter. “Knowing the Limits of Science” Convivium www.convivium.ca/articles/knowing-the-limits-of-science

[3] Got Questions “What is Hellenism, and how did it influence the early church?” Got Questionswww.gotquestions.org/Hellenism.html

[4] Got Questions “What is Fideism?” Got Questions www.gotquestions.org/fideism.html

[5] Dartmouth. “Medieval Book Production and Monastic Life” Dartmouth sites.dartmouth.edu/ancientbooks/2016/05/24/medieval-book-production-and-monastic-life/; Kreis, Stephen. “Lecture 26 – The 12th Century Renaissance” Mr Mccubbins Classroom folder mccubbin.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/1/5/23153786/lecture_26__the_12th_century_renaissance.pdf

[6] Hughes, Tristan. “Why Was 900 Years of European History Called ‘the Dark Ages’?” Historyhit www.historyhit.com/why-were-the-early-middle-ages-called-the-dark-ages/

[7] Kulik, Rebecca M. Carolingian Renaissance Britannica www.britannica.com/topic/Carolingian-Renaissance

[8] Reeves, Andrew. “The twelfth-century renaissance” LibreTexts, humanities human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/Book%3A_World_History_-_Cultures_States_and_Societies_to_1500_(Berger_et_al.)/12%3A_Western_Europe_and_Byzantium_circa_1000-1500_CE/12.15%3A_The_Twelfth-Century_Renaissance

[9] Cartwright, Mark. “Renaissance Humanism” World Historywww.worldhistory.org/Renaissance_Humanism/

[10] Encyclopedia.com “The Renaissance and Enlightenment” Encyclopedia.com www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/renaissance-and-enlightenment

[11] Moen, Skip. “Paradox” Skipmoen Hebrew Word Study skipmoen.com/2020/10/paradox/

[12] Wilson, Aaron. Lifeway Research research.lifeway.com/2019/03/19/14-biblical-paradoxes-every-christian-should-know/

Reflect

Does a person need great knowledge to be wise?

Observe

Read 1 Kings 3:1-28 and 1 Kings 11:1-13. How does someone with Solomon’s wisdom make the kind of failure he did concerning women?

The context of theology

Dancing in the Kingdom- Table of Contents

Dancing In the Kingdom – Part 2 – The Kingdom Revealed – Chapter 13 – Distinctives within the body of Christ

The Context of Theology

[Bible references: Matthew 22:37-39; John 13:34-35; 15:1-17; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12; 13; Ephesians 4:11-16]

More than doctrine

Everybody has an opinion of some sort when it comes to ideas about God. That is, everybody practices theology. According to one classical definition, theology is “faith seeking understanding.”[1] The only question is. whether our theology is good or bad. That said, there are some who may question whether or not to make a big deal of theology because it seems to create such divisiveness and others think that we should just keep everything as simple as possible.

We were created by God with mind, body, and soul – and it is through all those means that we can come to know God. The formal field of study that we call “theology” has often been restricted to academia, focusing on the intellectual – the mind; but as beings created in the image of God it would be a mistake to restrict our theology to just our mind. It is through our whole being that we can come to know and be transformed by God. Jesus once said that this transformed people would be recognized not by their knowledge, but by their love. Although it is beneficial if our love is informed by our knowledge, love is expressed in its action. In fact, Jesus identified the greatest commandments as loving God and loving our neighbors. Therefore, the practice of following Jesus (aka discipleship) is something we practice in community.

Once we understand all this, that our understanding of God requires the effort of our whole being, then we can see that while theology may have an academic component, it is more than an intellectual exercise. In fact, our soul, or spirit, is the first place in our being to examine our theology. Our theology is lacking if our God’s love is not overflowing through us into the rest of our lives.

To evaluate what our overflowing love might look like, we can consider the descriptions we find for the “fruit of the spirit” as shown in Galatians 5 and in 1 Corinthians 13: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, does not envy or boast, is not proud, rude or self-seeking, is not easily angered, takes no account of wrongs, takes no pleasure in evil, rejoices in truth, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. We can also consider how we express our love through the various gifts of God that He provides each one of us for the purpose of building each other up in the faith: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophets, discernments, tongues and their interpretation, leadership, serving, exhortation, giving, mercy, helps apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher.

It is interesting that many non-Christians, even those with limited knowledge of the Bible or of the church, are able to critique Christians by contrasting Christians with Christ. They may possibly misunderstand Christ, but because they have been designed as image-bearers of God, even they have some basis to compare the behavior of others to Christ.

The whole of faith

Meanwhile, in this in-between time, even disciples of Jesus are affected by sin and our theology is subject to corruption. We misuse theology in various ways: sometimes using it as a tool to achieve something else such as gaining power or justifying bad attitudes (e.g., arrogance or hatred), sometimes by focusing on just the academic side while neglecting the spiritual or practical aspects; or sometimes neglecting the academic side and try to avoid the truth or complexities of theology and simply stop asking questions, preferring instead to yield to fideism, which can be described as the “exclusive or basic reliance of faith alone” [2]

A robust faith is not a blind faith, but rather a thinking faith, a faith with eyes wide open to the realities of life’s circumstances and the reality of God’s providence,[3] a faith that seeks God with our whole self: body, mind, and spirit. So, we should not ignore the academic side of our faith or our theology. The process of taking all the knowledge we have gathered about God and then using that to “build up into an organic and consistent whole all our knowledge of God and of the relations between God and the universe” is called systematic theology.[4]

The all-encompassing nature of systematic theology requires care. Scientific models are helpful in understanding natural phenomena but are limited in predicting future behavior because the models are only approximations of the phenomena they describe. Similarly, our systematic theologies are helpful in understanding the infinite God and his works, but we need to be aware of its limitations. One of those limitations is how our perceptions are influenced by our particular personality, our particular environment/culture, our particular language, and our particular historical context.[5]

The problem of the other

Ever since the creation of humanity, we have continually chosen to idolize ourselves and to not love God, which also meant we have chosen to not love others. This mindset then causes us to blame whatever problems we have on others or even to blame God. It is this sort of mindset that would cause the New Testament church to disconnect itself from its Judaic heritage, setting the church up for continued divisiveness in the future. So it is worth exploring what led to the church to the severing its Judaic roots.

We know that Jesus spoke of how scriptures – and he could only be referring to what we call the Old Testament scriptures – pointed to him and his ministry, and how he was the fulfillment of those scriptures. That would mean that Jesus’ ministry was a continuation of God’s love and grace as set out in the Old Testament. Later on, as the ministry of the church strongly expanded to Gentiles, the apostle Paul spelled out that the Gentiles in the church were like the branch of a wild olive tree being grafted into nurtured tree; the tree being the Jews that were in the church and whose roots went back to the Old Testament people of faith. Paul then warned the Gentiles not to become arrogant about any of the other branches that were broken off because God is capable of grafting the original branches back onto the tree.

As the ministry to the Gentiles proceeded and expanded, Christian Jews still met in the temple and the synagogues with the non-Christian Jews, increasing their ministry there even as many of the non-Christian Jews strongly resisted. But there were two events that would change the trajectory of the church.

In AD 66 the zealots started to revolt against the Roman government. The Christians in Jerusalem want to avoid getting caught up in the rebellions and moved to Pella, causing tension between the zealots and the Christians. After the rebellion was defeated by the Romans in AD 70, the temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered, but now there was increased tension between the Christian and non-Christian Jews.

Later on, in AD 132, a zealot nicknamed Bar Kokhba (meaning “son of the star”) arose to start another rebellion. He, with the support of a prominent rabbi, declared himself a messiah. Now, the Christian Jews not only did not want to participate in a rebellion, but they had to refuse to acknowledge a messiah other than Jesus. And the zealots, who supported Bar Kokhba, declared Bar Kokhba as messiah, thus rejecting Jesus as messiah, which quickly led to a hardening of those non-Christian Jews against the church, making them more resistant than before to the gospel. When the Romans defeated the zealots, Jews were now banned on penalty of death, from entering Jerusalem.

After this point, when leaders in the church tried to reach the Jews with the gospel, they encountered hardened hearts. However, instead of the recognizing that it had been foretold that Jews hearts would be hardened until the time of the Gentiles was over, the leaders in the church now arrogantly hardened their own hearts and became increasingly anti-Semitic. This resulted in the church increasingly turning away from their own roots and thus becoming susceptible to increasing influence of Greek philosophy. This would create dramatic effects in the development of theology in such areas as the rejection of the human body and sexuality as evil and sinful, and the conversion of asceticism from a form of spiritual discipline to a rejection of the pleasures God created as good things.[6]

The limits of language

Early on, in church history, there was an attempt to overcome the problem of the language barrier in the church. It was thought that the church could be united if theologians across the church world could use a common theological language. This attempt in the 5th century, when the languages included Aramaic, Greek, and Latin as well as all the local languages, did make it easier to find solutions to theological problems, but the negative consequence was that differences in theological views became heightened, leading to what may be the inevitable schisms in the church.

Theologians believed that one faith has to be expressed in one language … Distortion of language, they believed, inevitably leads to distortion of the common faith … ‘Byzantine scholasticism’ emerged in the post-Cyrillian era. This shift had both positive and negative consequences. The positive ones were that theologians started speaking one language. This helped them to easier find solutions to theological problems … The negative consequences of language-centrism were that when theologians disagreed on terms or categories, the regarded their disagreements about theological formulas as essential theological difference. This became one of the most important reasons of the church schism in the post-Cyrillian era.[7]

We cannot approach any field of study as a blank slate. All of our particular factors contribute to which particular theological method people may choose to use. Charles Hodge identified three general classes of methods used within the field of systematic theology: Speculative, Mystical, and Inductive.[8] Given all of that, we can see that there can be many approaches to even framing the questions we might ask about God, never mind the types of answers towards which we may lean. Engaging in the quest of trying to understand the current multi-faceted state of the current church can be overwhelming and most people don’t have the time to study a typical church history book of 800-1000 pages. To make this task more bearable, the approach here will not be to present a comprehensive study but to develop an overview of the church by focusing on 1) the internal and external issues that affected the development of the church, and 2) the main questions that the church has asked and briefly sharing the different answers formulated by different congregations.


[1] Migliore, Daniel L. “Faith Seeking Understanding”  William B. Eerdmans Publishing, third edition. 1991

[2] Amesbury, Richard. “Fideism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ©2016 plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism

[3] Migliore, Daniel L. “Faith Seeking Understanding” William B. Eerdmans Publishing, third edition. 1991 (pp. 3-5)

[4] Bible Study Tools “Chapter III – Method of Theology” Bible Study Tools www.biblestudytools.com/classics/strong-systematic-theology/part-i-prolegomena/chapter-iii-method-of-theology.html

[5] Migliore, Daniel L. “Faith Seeking Understanding” William B. Eerdmans Publishing, third edition. 1991 (p.205) Confession of Jesus Christ takes place in particular historical and cultural contexts … our response to questions of who we say Jesus Christ is and how he helps us will be s shaped in important ways by the particular contexts in which these questions arise … all theology is contextual

[6] Dualism rejects the physical world as evil or not desirable. “Mystery of Wisdom.” (p. 166)

[7] Hovorun, Cyril. Studia Patristica Vol. LVIII, Volume 6: Neoplatonism and Patristics, Peters 2013.  Importance of Neoplatonism on Formation of Theological Language” (p. 17-28)

[8] Hodge, Charles, “Systematic Theology” (Chapter I: On Method) Eerdmans Publishing Company, (Chapter I: On Method) 1940

Reflect

How can love affect your ability to know someone?

Observe

Read John 15:1-17; Ephesians 4:11-16. How do these passages relate to each other?