Old People and Big Books

In America we often sweep our parents off to the side and out of the way, lest they slow us down. It seems that we forget that old people have lived life and know a thing or two. We forget that they have already climbed life’s tallest mountains and explored life’s deepest and darkest caves.

In America we like aphoristic books with pretty covers, though they don’t say much of anything. They merely give us equivocal anthems to post on our bathroom mirror or on our status update. There’s no substantial content, just a wisp of ephemeral air tantamount to a fart.

Old people and big books are alike in some ways. They are like treasure chests frequently teeming with wit and wisdom. Unfortunately for us, we in America seem to dislike old people and big books. We prefer young people with enthusiasm, and we prefer thin books with clever titles. Neither young people nor thin books generally have much wisdom to offer.

Old people belong in the mainstream of culture, and big books should be the thrones on which they sit. They should be our philosopher kings, but alas we prefer anarchy as long as the anarchy is shiny, bright, and young.

Of course, I’m being a bit facetious. But this past Sunday after church I had lunch with several older gentlemen from church, and it was fascinating and amusing to hear them talk about all sorts of things not least among their stories were their misadventures in China. Listening to them talk made me think it odd that we younger people don’t do more listening.

In a culture infatuated with prolonging youth, we shouldn’t forget that older folks have stories to tell, and we younger folks may do well to sit and listen.

The Sophisticated Audacity of Atheism and Dostoevsky

The "masses" believe in God. In fact so much so, that the masses develop all sorts of quasi-theistic superstitions founded on their vaguely theistic beliefs. It is little surprise then that various flavors of atheists consider themselves rather sophisticated for moving beyond the folk religion of the masses, for they, atheists of various sorts, are countercultural and thereby must know something or have come to some sort of realization, which is superior to that of the masses. Some atheists may then see themselves as brave heroes daring to lay siege on the seemingly imperturbable fortress of ignorance. However, this confidence exudes the modern stench of progress, which is nothing more than a disappointing fairytale like the belief in Santa Clause, albeit it is a fairytale that many of our American politicians still pretend has some credence. Such confidence is like that of a scuba diver deciding to take off his oxygen mask at the bottom of the ocean if for no other reason than the possibility of discovering the needlessness of the oxygen mask. However, first it might not hurt to scan the bottom of the ocean and to see the many skeletons that decorate the dark craters of the ocean’s gloomy landscape.

Today’s “new atheism” has all the newness of yesterday.

It is hardly uncommon for "new atheists" of various sorts to find fault with religious institutions. There have been and will be abuses within various religious institutions. It may be more illuminating, however, to find fault with humanity. But that is what religion often does, and far be it from an atheist to fault humanity in general.       

Dostoevsky went to great lengths to illustrate the bankruptcy of the modern atheism that was pervading his Russia, and I think he did well by not showing it to be merely insipid intellectually but by showing it to be rather inhumane. His rival Turgenev sought to portray atheism as a sort of liberation of humanity as do many atheists today. In response, Dostoevsky showed that what Turgenev considered to be liberation was actually a path leading to lunacy and death (e.g. Ivan and Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov). For Dostoevsky, atheism was not only bankrupt it was poisonous. This ethos surfaces throughout his novels perhaps most notably in Demons (otherwise entitled Devils and The Possessed depending on your translation). At the beginning of the novel is Luke 8:32-36, a reference to swine being possessed by demons and drowning. This sets the complexion of the novel and adumbrates its dénouement. Dostoevsky was caustic towards the atheism that was spreading across his Russia not because he was insular but because he saw and felt its danger. The structures of life were being threatened by all sorts of atheistic isms (sundry ideologies ending with “ism”), and the structures of life were not being replaced by anything other than vague and arbitrary autonomy that critiqued its very own foundations. For Dostoevsky the vision of the isms was shortsighted and was a short road leading only to death.  

Annoying People

It is impossible to be both prophetic and politically correct. The prophet is by nature countercultural and provocative. But of course it goes without saying that mere provocation of any sort is not necessarily prophetic, though the prophetic is necessarily provocative.  If the prophet’s job were to encourage the culture to continue on its current path, which is what a false prophet does, then his job would be superfluous because the culture needs no aid to continue on its current path. In this way, it is precisely the prophet’s job to step on people’s toes, knock their heads together, and poke their eyes. The prophet belongs to a class of unpopular annoying people: the prophet is like a person’s conscience. It might then be said that, yes, that gadfly Socrates was a bit of prophet.

Prophets get put in jail and do not have mega churches. Think of Jeremiah. He was imprisoned because people did not like what he had to say, among other things, and at the beginning of his career God told him that his career would not be a success. Not to mention, the prophet Nathan had the uncanny audacity to rebuke a king. In America we would say, “the life of a prophet is a bad career choice.”

I wonder what would happen to churches if pastors spoke a bit more like the prophets. Many people would probably leave and go to a different church.

It has been said, “prophets comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” (my paraphrase).

Worship: American “High Places”

A few months ago, I nearly posted a blog entitled, “Worship and Amusement Parks.” You can probably guess the contents. The essence of the blog pertained to church worship, which ought to be aimed at affirming God as God; that same worship, however, frequently devolves into entertainment for the congregation and follows the capricious tastes of that particular church’s target audience. I never posted the blog, and in fact I forgot that I wrote it until recently.  

Last week in a Reformed Worship class our professor said, “When the congregation becomes an audience, the worship has become idolatrous.” His accusation was twofold. First, such worship is idolatrous because the worship is aimed at entertaining the congregation instead of being aimed at affirming God as God. Second, such worship is idolatrous because the congregation ceases to participate in affirming God as God. His simple statement shakes the very foundations of many American churches’ worship, though like most earthquakes in California it shall go largely unnoticed.

Entertainment is a common flavor in American “Christian” worship, and it is poisonous.

References to “high places” are not uncommon in the Old Testament; they were places of worship. Some folks today may suppose that these high places were places of idolatry. Perhaps, in many cases they were, and it is likely that many high places were used for worship of local deities. It was also not uncommon, however, for worshippers of the Lord to worship the Lord at “high places.” In either case, high places were places for worship. In some instances, the Israelites were instructed to destroy the high places because they were being used to worship local deities instead of the Most High God.

In America, we too have built many “high places.” Perhaps similar to the high places in the ancient world, our high places are indeed places used to worship local deities instead of the Most High God.