A common vanity in the theological salon...
Here's something you'll run into in environments where apologists and theologians and seminary professors and seminary students and seminary graduates and other similar types, formally educated or not, are discussing theology and doctrine and so on: they will always reject or scorn or disdain any common or commonly known influence that is mentioned. Their vanity is to always be seen to be one or two steps ahead of anybody else, and they affect this by rejecting or scorning or disdaining, or just lightly brushing off, any classic or common work no matter how central to their own learning that work may have been and no matter how classic that work may be (if they've actually spent any real time and effort with any of the classic works, which is always questionable).
This has the effect of promoting an endless, vain blather session where intellect is constantly on display but what's most important takes a back seat.
It's powerful to find solid, sound, foundational, on-the-mark influences to learn from and then to actually conquer them and make them a part of you. Now see how easily and blithely yon seminary grad brushes off those influences when you mention them. Usually it's done in a manner that is the equivalent of a vain car officianado brushing off mention of a type of BMW because it doesn't have the latest fender style. The basic car itself is still very much a BMW and is where the worth of it resides, but, you know, hey, it's got last year's fender. The same is done if you mention a, for instance, Witsius in these environments. Everything in Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, for instance, will be inanely disdained and rejected (usually in a way where you can actually see an accompanying wet grin) and mention of the latest scholarly work on covenant this or that will be placed in Witsius' place. Of course the new influence will have a fraction of the worth overall that Witsius' work has, but it's just not cool to even say "Witsius."
So the very notion of having your foundational influences that you conquer and make your own (possess) is deemed somehow dumb or uncool; with a further effect that the very notion that one can find the rock-solid foundational truth of biblical doctrine - or, horror of horrors, suggest that anybody in the 17th century was actually able to do that - is now made questionable.
These are the same intellectuals who avoid the actual Word of God like the plague (and mock anybody who actually takes the Word of God seriously and talks about actually reading it and actually does read it).
So I go into one of these salons and mention William Ames' Marrow of Theology, or worse, quote it, and I'm instantly tagged a neophyte. Ames' Marrow of Theology is a book of doctrine that I actually read and took to. I'm drawn to it. I learn from it. I see more in it than is offered in the usual fare of systematic theology. I'm drawn to the unique poetical qualities of scholastic works like the Marrow. It's an influence, a work of biblical doctrine, I choose to make my own. To possess. To conquer. I have others as well. By the standards and vain rules of the salon, though, they're all uncool to mention. Plus, the very fact that I actually find foundational sources and learn biblical doctrine and then stand on it makes me a fool in the eyes of the salon. They need the perpetual turning of the wheel to give their vanity a stage to be on display.
If they stood on a rock foundation they'd have to then actually look around them and possibly formulate the question: so now what? (That 'so now what?' leads to seriousness in the faith...)
4 Comments:
Well, I'm being playful with words in calling various type blogs and forums 'salons'. They have much in common with the old fashioned salon and salon culture, anyway.
In a salon where the subject is, for instance, art, or music, or politics, or literature, or all the above, then vain displays of wit and learning are what is called for. It's more of a social and worldly event, with the motivations and mores and what not - shallow or not, usually shallow - that correspond to social and worldly events and gatherings.
But when the subject is biblical doctrine and salvation and heaven and hell we are not involved in subject matter that is a fit vehicle for worldly and vain displays and motivations.
So what I was specifically talking about - foundational, on-the-mark, classic influences in the realm of biblical doctrine and theology - these are works that one can get alot from (it goes without saying), yet they are treated as if they are beneath and beyond the learning and patience of the typical salon talker.
Beyond that (and really more to the point) the foundational, on-the-mark biblical doctrine itself is taken at a level and use that is for mere fodder for any one of these salon talkers to display his learning and vanity to the others.
They consider themselves not only above a Witsius or an Ames, but they consider themselves above biblical doctrine itself. They talk doctrine and use it like it is philosophy rather than the very Word of God revealed only in His Word and not coming from the intellect of any human being.
But the main fall-out of it all is there develops this devilish, man-fearing policed type environment where you are pushed into (the innocents unknowingly) thinking that finding an influence and owning it (conquering it, possessing it) is somehow uncool and neo-phytish, so nobody actually builds their foundation and then stands on it but continually chases the vain shadows and reflections of philosophy-as-biblical-doctrine leading nowhere but to more opportunities for more vain displays of intellect and wit and similar great worldly things.
What needs to happen when you are a Christian is this: lay the foundation; then build the structure on the foundation. Don't talk and talk and talk about the foundation day after day after day, never laying it and having it to stand on and to build on. But that is what the mainstream level of Christians is doing. Day after day, the same thing, as they inch closer and closer to their deaths. Usually when you seek to do vain things you end up a vain, empty, fool in the end too.
When a person starts to do what you describe, stop in their tracks, and say: "Hm, that's true", it's a sign of conscience awakening.
Of course they're acceding to what they sense or discern is truth, or more in the direction of truth, than where they were, and they're not necessarily 'giving in' to another human being and another human beings 'truth'.
I think when vanity and worldly pride and self-will are in control every acceding to a different view or opinion - or just to truth - seems like a giving in to a human being.
When conscience starts to awaken (conscience being among other things your ability to discern truth and value it) then truth is valued in and of itself and personalities and human and worldly allegiance to this and that become not so important and take a back seat.
Still talking to youself?
Jeff isn't real. CT just posts to make believe someone would waste their time giving her an intelligent response to her insane rantings.
Your dispair & madness sustains me!
Jeff is a regular over at Dave Armstrong's site, and Dave has HaloScan and can very well see that he is not me (he can see I. P. addresses). So, please, this lame meme of yours is just empty. Take me on on the field of ideas if you are so concerned to make me look bad. If you can...
Post a Comment
<< Home