Romerican Polytheism
History may not literally repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
The polytheism inherent in a multicultural melting pot can certainly accommodate for one more seat at the table, but what they cannot tolerate is anyone who wants to sit at the table with an alternative view that claims supremacy. With the pervading ignorance of history in the modern church, its aversion to doctrine, and its incapacity for asking the right questions, you get the religious landscape and culture of America today. The refusal to ask the “right questions” as Dorothy Sayers wrote many decades ago, “has grown, in our time and country, to the proportions of an endemic disease.”[1] If there are no questions being asked, then there are no answers being diligently sought, and consequently, nothing productive to discuss. The most observable example is that there are Christians en masse who say that they believe in Jesus while at the same time not knowing him as revealed in his Word. The Scriptures set forth knowledge of Christ as having moral implications and so any unwillingness to both ask and answer the question “Who is Jesus?” is anti-Christian (Prov. 1:7; Ps. 19:2; Rom. 1; John 17; 1 Pet. 3; 1 John 2:3-5; etc.). Christians are simply called to know him and increase in their knowledge of him (1 Pet. 3). To explain, I will first present the parallels between the church today and Ancient Roman syncretism to illustrate some parallels in the readers’ mind. Secondly, I will expound upon the implications on knowledge found in the First Commandment of the Moral Law as the foundational call for Christians to grow in their knowledge of the Triune God.
The Many Roads back to Rome
Some common examples, of which I am sure the reader can relate to many more:
“As long as you believe in Jesus, we’re good.”
“We are having a Bible study, it does not matter your denomination because we are just going to talk about Jesus.”
“There is no need to talk theology or doctrine, I too believe in God.”
“I am a Christian too, I believe in Jesus.”
… In response to each statement, we all should ask, “Which one?”
Ancient Roman culture in the first century was largely defined by tolerance and syncretism when it came to religion. The Roman government, acknowledging that the empire was a melting pot of varying cultures, traditions, and religions, neglected to alienate deities that were not originally a part of their pantheon. For political, economic, and social reasons, the Roman elite allowed the pantheon to grow. Fundamentally, they saw that there was no difference between the gods of Rome, Greece, Asia, and so forth. In one sense, they thought there was safety in numbers, that is, the more gods they appealed to in the cosmic game, the safer they felt from their wrath.[2] This “safety in numbers” helped maintain the perceivable peace and security that defined Imperial Rome. As David Garland wrote, “They basically said, ‘You may continue to worship your gods and goddesses; we will worship them as well and you can worship ours. That way no one’s gods will be slighted.’”[3] The only caveat was that each citizen had to submit to the imperial cult and proclaim that “Caesar is Lord.” Similarly, there are professing Christians who come together from contradictory denominations under the same mentality as the Roman elite. They basically say, “Let us put Scripture aside and you can worship your Jesus, and we will worship our Jesus, and we’ll put both versions under the title of ‘Jesus’ so that neither version of Jesus will be slighted.” Thus, a pantheon of Jesus’s have been conjured up. There is the Jesus of the Church of Christ, the Jesus of John 3:16-Onlyers, the Jesus of Episcopalians, the Pentecostal Jesus, the Jesus of the teetotalers, and, well, you can name the rest who all join together under the banner of peace. Instead of having to proclaim that “Caesar is Lord,” modern Christians just have to say that this abstracted “Jesus” is Lord to be received socially. Christians today worship a pantheon of Jesus’ who are subservient to a broad concept of ‘Jesus,’ which has no apparent meaning. At this point, why doesn’t someone start a church dedicated to an ‘unknown Jesus’ like the Athenians had an altar dedicated to unknown gods (Acts 17:23).
The only time the Roman Government would take notice of a religion is when it claimed to be the true religion by claiming its transcendence over Caesar. The claim to truth brought the notion of social dissension and political subversion in the minds of the elites, which should sound familiar to the Reformed reader. The Christian’s proclamation of “Christ is Lord” in the first century was inherently political and went directly against the utilitarian interest of polytheism that was preserved by their willful neglect of doctrine and truth. The Christian proclamation was exclusive, which was uncharacteristic of the religious inclusivity that pervaded the Hellenistic world. In so doing, the Christians received numerous charges against them by the Roman culture. One example is that the Christians in the first century were labeled as “misanthropes,” which means “those who are haters of mankind.”[4] Christians were referred to as misanthropes because they would not honor and worship Caesar or the various deities found in the Roman Empire. In short, they were seen as hateful and divisive because they would not back down from defending the Jesus of Scripture. Similarly, the Reformed exclusivity pertaining to the Doctrines of Grace and the authority of the Bible is antithetical to the inclusivity of the church at large. Today, these exact charges are leveraged against Reformed Christians by the pragmatic Christians who believe that unity is maintained by tolerance. These denominations preoccupied with utilitarian interests, like the Roman elite, must neglect doctrine and truth so that they can maintain their fellowship together. Projecting labels on Reformed Christian, such as “divisive,” “arrogant,” “just wanting to argue,” “worshipping the doctrine of demons,” and so forth is the reaction by those seated at the table. But, is not the one making the charge of “arrogance” in a state of arrogance from their self-perceived morally tolerant high ground? It is also ironic that the ones who say the Reformed tradition worships “The Doctrine of Demons,” are the ones who refuse to discuss doctrine. It begs the question how these individuals can refer to a doctrine while at the same time denouncing the very notion and importance of doctrine. It is illogical and, as Cornelius Van Til once wrote, “Your policy of inclusiveness has after all proved to be one of exclusiveness.”
The Only Road Out of Rome
Of the many roads leading us back to Rome, there is only one that takes us out. The only way out of a pluralistic culture and church is the fear of the one true and living God. The Lord told Israel in Exodus Chapter 20, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3, ESV). The Triune God of Scripture demands exclusive covenant loyalty, which in turn makes it necessary that we refuse to honor any rival loyalty. This means we must know who God is, who the false gods are, and how they manifest themselves. Our loyalty to Jesus Christ does not detract from our allegiance to the Father or the Holy Spirit because they are all God. As it pertains to this article, Christians must know who Jesus is, the real and living Godman, who essentially replaced the first table of the moral law with the commandment to follow him (Matt. 19:21 cf. John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Rom. 10:9; John 3:36; etc.). So, as Peter wrote, we are to “Grow in the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:8, ESV). On the one hand, apart from Scripture we cannot grow in any knowledge of God and so this call requires Christians to have a very high view of Scripture. It is God’s special revelation to us about himself; therefore, it cannot simply be ignored or pushed off to the side. On the other hand, Christians must understand false gods when they manifest so that they can differentiate the true Jesus from an abstracted ‘Jesus.’ This task of differentiation presupposes practical knowledge and understanding of the Jesus found Scripture. It is one thing to merely know something intellectually; however, it is quite another thing to know something to the extent of understanding where it differs in the minute details. That is why proverbs says you must seek the knowledge of God “like silver and search for it as hidden treasures” (Prov. 2:4). It is God who bestows the knowledge of Him to us and because of his gracious gift, we must joyously mine the Scriptures and his creation for the hidden treasures of knowledge therein. Christians must grow in the knowledge of Christ and differentiate him from false representations of Jesus. This ethical command by God in Exodus parallels the famous apologetic verse found in the first letter of Peter. Peter wrote, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). In other words, you must know Christ as revealed in Scripture before you can provide a coherent defense for your faith against abstracted Jesus’, secularism, and other heresies.
Conclusion
Not all Jesus’s are alike because the Jesus of scripture is truth, and truth is, by definition, exclusive. In Scripture, unity of the saints is always centered around truth and unity in doctrine, and so it will never be advanced by wishful thinking or mere sentiments. The whole of the Christian religion revolves around a correct understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The debate about which Jesus is the correct one is not a trifle subject, but it is central to the meaning of the Gospel message and the salvation of man. Is that not a doctrine written in blood (literally and figuratively) that must be fought for with the spiritual sword? So, when Reformed Christians are, to stick with the imagery from the introduction, refused a seat at the table for wanting to talk about Jesus Christ in Scripture, what is that really proving? Many professing Christians are constantly on the lookout for the anti-christ(s?), but I wonder if any of them have stopped to think if they themselves are actually fulfilling that role. You know, the role of the anti-Christ(s?) who would lead many astray from true doctrine. You could almost say their propagation of abstracted Jesus’ is having very similar effects to that of what they expected the anti-Christ(s?) to do.
The heartbeat of the Christian religion is the personal relationship that exists between the Jesus and his people (Eph. 4:21). What you cannot have is a personal relationship with someone you do not know, let alone an abstracted concept of something. It is, at that point, no longer personal. This abstraction would inevitably become self-serving and reduced to meaninglessness as seen in every counterfeit version of Christianity. The second you detach the name Jesus from his person and work and his revealed word; you have reduced the name to an abstraction. If an abstraction, the name is no longer indicative of the Person who lives, reigns, and saves sinners. The indelible ink that marks true believers from non-believers is the personal relationship with their savior that exudes from the depths of their re-created hearts. This new heart longs to know and desire the real and living Godman, Christ Jesus, which can only be done through studying His Word and dwelling among his body. To which your heart, then, produces the evidence of whether you are in personal relationship with the Jesus of Scripture according to your response to theology and doctrine. As Spurgeon once said, “if God regenerated and washed your hearts clean, he will surely wash your brains before you die.”
[1] DOROTHY L. SAYERS. THE MIND OF THE MAKER (p. 84). (Function). Kindle Edition.
[2] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 472.
[3] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 472.
[4] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 472.
