A Critique of Christian Fundamentalism by Pilgrim Simon - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

THE VISIONS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION

REFICIATION

Reification refers to the projecting of the contents of a subjective exper- ience to some sort of external existence, such that these contents are con- sidered  to  have  an  objective,  independent  existence  ‘out  there’.  It  is  to transfer something subjectively perceived and imagined into something that has an independent, concrete, objective existence. In spirituality it is a danger that we have to be constantly aware of. With the reification of an  experience  there  arises  a  whole  raft  of  burden  of  proof:  If  we  say something  like,  for  example,  an  angel,  exists  ‘out  there’  then  it  is  quite right that people ask should ask for proof, for evidence of it’s objective existence and it is reasonable for people to want to observe, measure and have such proof or evidence for the existence of this angel. However, not all mystics or those who have spiritual experiences claim such objectivity to their perceptions and experiences – they do not all insist that their ex- periences  have  an  objective,  independent  existence  ‘out  there’.  The Hindu  teacher  Shankara,  for  example,  argued  that  such  notions  of  ob- jectivity are a mere projection on our part and that the contents of these experiences have no substance.

REIFICATION AND THE JUDEO/CHRISTIAN TRADITION

However,  reification  is  the  tradition  within  early  Judaic/Christian thought. Thus, if a person had some sort of unusual, subjective experi- ence  whereby  they  had  an  unusual,  transcendent  experience  whereby they saw, let us say, an angel, then this experience became interpreted as being an objective occurrence – it was considered that an angel literally appeared to them in objectively real, physical space ‘out there’ and com- municated  to  them  -  as  opposed  to  any  idea  of  the  person  concerned  having  an  internal,  subjective  image  and  sound  arising  in  their  minds. When  Jewish  people  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  had  unusual dreams or had visions or heard voices, the tradition was that they were often  understood  as  objective  visitations.  The  Judaic  tradition  did  not merely  say  ‘I  had  an  unusual  dream’  or  ‘I  had  an  ecstatic  experience whereby I went into a trance and heard a voice or saw certain images’. On the contrary, their traditional interpretation of such experiences was to  reify  the  contents  of  these  experiences  to  concrete  objective  reality. Thus, they would say: ‘God appeared and spoke to me in a dream’, or ‘When I was praying the Temple, an Angel appeared to me and gave me a command from God’ and so on.

REFICIATION AND TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE

Indeed, it must be said that some mystical or transcendent spiritual experiences  do  appear  very  Real.  This  is  because  when  we  experience them,  we  operate  in  a  different  and  non-usual  mode  of  awareness. Normally, we are active in the way that we interpret our experiences and perceptions  of  the  world  –  we  actively  categorise,  conceptualise,  label, systematise, synthesise and place values on our experiences in order to make sense of our world so that we can make effective predictions concerning  outcomes  and  thus  function  and  survive  in  the  world.  This means that to a great degree our experiences and perceptions are mediated  through  our  conceptual,  linguistic  and  value  categories  that  we have created throughout our life – we assimilate experiences through a hierarchical  web  of  meaning  and  value.  Mystical  experiences  however are  often  described  as  Immediate  or  Non-meditated,  and  we  are  often Passive rather than active such that we feel that they are Received rather than actively created by us. Transcendent spiritual experiences, whether arising spontaneously, or through the practice of meditation or through the taking of drugs, tend to various degrees, to by-pass our usual, active- rational mode of being and functioning. Indeed, the taking of drugs or the practice of meditation or contemplative prayer serves to quieten and subdue  our  active-rational  mind.  It  is  this  temporary  bypassing  of  the active/rational mode that gives the sense of Directness, Immediacy and Transcendence  and  thus  the  contents  of  such  experiences  appear  very Real and True.

REIFICATION AND ASSURANCE

The  cultural  tradition  that  the  contents  of  such  unusual  experiences have an objective existence ‘out there’, when taken together with the Im- mediacy,  Directness  and  sense  of  Truth  and  Reality  of  this  non-usual mode of being, can produce a very great certainty, assurance and confid- ence  and  may  on  later  reflection  lead  to  deep  theological  insights.  It  is common with mystical experience that afterwards, the powers and func- tions of the rational mind are brought to bear on it in order to evaluate and understand it. Such an insightful doctrinal scheme together with the confidence with which it is held may well carry on in those that become followers  or  advocates  of  the  person  who  had  the  original  experience and indeed, a new form of religious orthodoxy may well be established as a result.

PAUL AND THE DAMASCUS ROAD EXPERIENCE

I  suggest  that  this  exactly  what  happened  with  the  disciples  and  the Apostle Paul after the death of Jesus. Their culture and tradition did not incline them to say: ‘I had a vision, dream or subjective experience where it seemed to me that I saw Jesus risen from the dead’. Rather, their tradition and culture inclined them to say: ‘The risen Jesus appeared to me in a  dream  or  vision  –  therefore,  he  is  literally  alive  and  risen  from  the dead! I know that that this is true because Jesus has appeared not only to me  but  to  others  as  well!’  Paul,  after  his  Damascus  Road  experience, went into effectual retreat for a number of years during which time he had  more  immediate  experiences,  the  contents  of  which  informed  and shaped the theology which he established and formulated in the light of his  experiences,  background  and  culture.  He  avoided  communicating with the disciples of Jesus for quite some time, eventually meeting with them to verify his understanding and become an associate with them. It is  this  theology  that  dominates  the  New  Testament  literature  and  also makes up its oldest texts, written about 18 – 20 years after the death of Je- sus. Three of the gospels, though seemingly based on an older narrative of  the  life  of  Jesus,  were  not  to  be  written  for  another  thirty  or  forty years. The fourth Gospel attributed to John is written last of all and takes a more mystical strand.

 Returning  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  attributed  to Luke,  potentially  an  associate  of  Paul,  gives  three  accounts  of  Paul’s Damascus Road experience in the book of Acts in Chapters 9, 22 and 26. They stand together reasonably well in agreement:

Saul as he was then known, was a strict traditional Jew – a Pharisee, one skilled in Judaic law, and he was ardently and obsessively opposed to this disruptive and upstart sect of Christianity that had emerged with- in Judaism. Saul went around issuing murderous threats and persecuting Christians, arresting them and having them put to death, approving for example of the stoning of Stephen. He went from synagogue to synagogue preaching against them, having them punished and forcing them to  blaspheme.  He  obtained  letters  of  authority  from  the  High  Priest  to give authority for his actions and he even went to foreign cities to hunt Christians down.

It  was  on  one  such  journey,  to  Damascus,  that  about  noon,  a  bright light  in  the  sky  blazed  around  Saul  and  his  companions  and  they  fell down. Saul heard a voice in Aramaic saying:

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Saul asked: Who are you, Lord?”

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” the voice replied. “Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”

The men travelling with Saul were speechless; they saw the light and they  heard  the  sound  but  did  not  see  anyone  and  they  did  not  under- stand the sound.

Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So Saul’s companions led him by the hand into Damascus, because  the  brilliance  of  the  light  had  blinded  him.  He  was  blind  for three days and did not eat or drink anything. Eventually Saul’s sight was restored  by  Ananias.  Saul  spent  several  days  with  the  disciples  in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among the Christians there?” Yet  Saul  grew  more  and  more  powerful  and  baffled  the  Jews  living  in Damascus by showing from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah.

Saul  then  seems  to  return  to  Jerusalem  and  while  praying  in  the temple there fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking:

‘Quick! Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’

“‘Lord,’  he  replied,  ‘these  people  know  that  I  went  from  one  syn- agogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

Then the Lord said, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”

In  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  Paul  gives  us  his  own  account  of  what followed:

‘The gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. You have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how in- tensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was  extremely  zealous  for  the  traditions  of  my  fathers.  But  when  God, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was,  but  I  went  into  Arabia.  Later  I  returned  to  Damascus.  Then  after three  years,  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  get  acquainted  with  Peter  and stayed  with  him  fifteen  days.  I  saw  none  of  the  other  apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally un- known to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he  once  tried  to  destroy.”  And  they  praised  God  because  of  me.  Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting  privately  with  those  esteemed  as  leaders,  I  presented  to  them  the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running  and  had  not  been  running  my  race  in  vain.  As  for  those  who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me;  God  does  not  show  favouritism—they  added  nothing  to  my  message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the  Jews. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those  esteemed  as  pillars,  gave  Barnabas  and  me  the  right  hand  of  fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Now I am not qualified to comment on Saul’s state of mind as he persecuted the early Christians and indeed after all these centuries, any such assessment can only be speculative. Luke seems to quote Saul himself in the strong descriptions of his obsessive opposition to Christianity. Certainly, on the Damascus Road, something external happened – a flash of very bright light from the sky that one way or another seemed to blind Saul for three days – they all seemed to see this light and they all heard a sound  –  but  only  Saul  made  sense  of  this  sound  in  terms  of  a  voice speaking to him. This puts some considerable doubt on the external objectivity of this voice – though perhaps not on the fact that there was a sound – because only Saul heard it in this way. Typically and consistent with his Jewish tradition, this whole episode was reified into an external appearance and communication from Jesus. That Saul was the one most affected may say more about his mental and emotional state at this time than  about  the  nature  of  any  of  these  external  events.  Saul  certainly seemed to have a predisposition to trances and ecstatic experiences, be- cause  on  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  he  has  another  trance  experience,  re- ified again as God speaking to him and telling him to leave Jerusalem. According to his letter to the Galatians, he relied on further visions and trances, because he says quite plainly – ‘…the gospel I preached is not of human  origin.  I  did  not  receive  it  from  any  man,  nor  was  I  taught  it; rather,  I  received  it  by  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ’…that  is,  in  and through a set of reified experiences. It was quite a few years before he actually met the disciples in order to verify his message. The gospel that he preached was approved of by the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and he was regarded as one sent to the Gentiles or non-Jews, just as Peter had been sent to the Jews – both of them declaring Jesus as the Messiah.

This reified view is how these events are presented to us in the narratives – as though some external event occurred – as though Jesus literally appeared in the objective external space ‘out there’- in front of the disciples or Saul, just as if you or I might stand in front of someone. Thus we  read  that  Jesus  appeared  to  hundreds  of  followers  following  his  death. It does not read that hundreds of followers had subjective impressions  in  their  minds  concerning  Jesus.  This  second  interpretation  also sounds far less impressive in terms of any miraculous event. This way of presenting these events in the New Testament narrative – that Jesus actu- ally  and  objectively  appeared  –  often  gives  further  weight  and  bias  in our own interpretation of these events, a bias towards an objective event occurring instead of a subjective one, thus reinforcing and continuing the more miraculous-sounding reified view. I am not suggesting in any way that the disciples or the Apostle Paul for example were in any way duplicitous or dishonest in this. I consider that this is the traditional, cultural way  of  interpreting  these  kinds  of  events  for  those  within  Judaism.  I think that Paul firmly believed that he had met with Jesus on the Damascus Road, not in terms of a subjective experience, but in terms of an objective encounter. In the light of this understanding of the experience and in the light of Paul’s cultural background and learning in Judaism, he applied his Pharisaic Judaic theology and extended it to accommodate this new situation and the Pauline theology of Justification by Faith emerged as a result. What Paul considered to be the objective appearance of Jesus after his death on the cross was accommodated and assimilated within Paul’s Judaic understanding as a Pharisee, which in turn, was extended and  developed  to  what  we  know  as  the  predominant  New  Testament theology,  since  the  bulk  of  the  New  Testament  is  either  written  by  the Apostle Paul or by his close followers or assistants – though there still re- main  in  some  writings  –  in  the  Gospel  of  John  in  particular  –  a  more mystical interpretation.

By the time that what we now know as New Testament accounts were put  in  writing,  anything  between  twenty  to  seventy  years  had  passed since the death of Jesus – and more and more fantastic stories and claims about him were being made. The view of Jesus changed from him being an influential itinerant preacher and healer to being the Word of God In- carnate,  born  of  a  virgin,  resurrected  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to heaven,  surrounded  in  his  earthly  life  with  miracles  and  extraordinary powers. This was becoming the new orthodoxy and soon, those holding alternative  interpretations  and  views,  such  as  the  Gnostics,  would  be classed  as  heretics  and  systematic  attempts  to  burn  and  destroy  their writings  and  silence  their  teachers  and  advocates  would  follow.  In  the end, only a few documents would make it into the canon, or rule of faith known as the New Testament and these would those documents thought have  been  written  by  first-hand  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  –  namely  some of the disciples and Paul. Through this sort of process, the reified view  held  by  Paul  and  the  disciples,  gained  almost  total  supremacy  as the orthodox Christian view.

If we consider that Paul and the disciples were mistaken in taking a reified view of these experiences, then we end up with a much more subjective spirituality – a spirituality of it’s time in the sense that we could say that God met Saul just where he was – full of anger and venom concerning  Christianity  –  and  led  him  to  deeper  insights  using  the  forms, symbols, types and figures that he was trained and educated in. Instead of  opposing  Jesus,  he  embraced  Jesus  –  but  still  accommodated  Jesus within his Judaic tradition. Paul did not stop being a Jew – he came to see that to be a Christian was to be a True Jew – not to be one circumcised outwardly only, but rather, inwardly, in the heart. He did not leave his Jewish heritage but extended and applied it to accommodate Jesus as the Promised Messiah.

THE ASSIMILATION OF TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE

This is true for all of us – God meets us where we are – and though there may be some radical change in our understanding and insight as a result  of  a  mystical  or  transcendent  spiritual  experience  -  there  usually also  remains  a  continuum  and  extension  of  what  we  have  learned.  We absorb the insights gained according to our capacity. Sometimes our existing  system  of  faith  may  become  more  established,  more  firmly  held, with  a  deeper  conviction.  Sometimes  we  may  appear  to  take  on  novel and new interpretations that make those of an orthodox persuasion feel uncomfortable – or make them feel that in some way we are becoming unorthodox or heretical. Nevertheless, sometimes, we may even change our belief system, say by moving from Christianity to Islamic Sufism or to Hinduism. In this present age of trans-cultural global knowledge via the  Internet  and  so  on,  such  outcomes  as  these  may  be  more  common. But whatever theological scheme seems best suited to our experience our cognitive scheme is nevertheless a delimited and bounded form that ultimately cannot embrace the Formless Infinite.

But the worst thing that we can do with regard to transcendent, mystical experience is to reify the contents of the experience as Paul and the disciples  did,  because  then  the  contents  are  presented  to  others  as  objective facts. I have already said that this then results in a burden of proof  being  laid  upon  those  who  follow  such  reified  ideas.  A  fine  ex- ample is the six-day creation story in Genesis. This is not necessarily an example of reification, but it is a passage that can be read metaphorically or literally – as though it were a series of objective facts. When this pas- sage is read literally, as though it were an objective series of facts, then people naturally look for evidence to substantiate the narrative. Thus we have  had  more  than  one  archaeologist  claiming  to  find  evidence  for  a worldwide flood in Noah’s time, only to be subsequently proved wrong. In the same way we have the Creation Research groups who constantly seek to show scientific evidence for a young earth and a literal six-day creation.  Arguments  and  debates  like  these  can  soon  become  burden- some  and  distracting  to  true  spirituality.  A  similar  process  and  similar set of problems arise when we reify the content of a transcendent experience. But in addition to this, reification also brings in the danger of ultra- orthodoxy.  Since  the  contents  of  the  transcendent  experience  are  por- trayed  as  actually  happening  ‘out-there’  then  these  events  become  en- shrined as THE objective truth. Paul in particular constantly refers to the fact that he and others were witnesses of the resurrection (via his reified understanding of the Damascus Road experience and others like it) and that  he  had  received  teaching  from  God  and  in  turn  had  faithfully  declared to others what he had received. These followers in turn, must re- main  faithful  to  this  teaching,  received  it  is  believed  through  a  literal, concrete, objective appearance of Jesus. Thus to deviate from this teach- ing and tradition is to fall into error, or worse still, to hold to ideas that are false and deceitful. Those who persistently hold on to such erroneous ideas  may  be  classed  as  guilty  slanderers  who  hold  forth  a  lie  –  as heretics who deserve to be cast out in case their deceit and lies corrupt the  true  disciples  and  lead  them  astray.  Before  long  the  leaders  of  the church  itself  persecute  them,  with  bishops  ordering  that  their  studies and written works should be burned. The end result of this imposition of orthodoxy – of one belief and practice – are of course organisations such as the Spanish Inquisition, or events like the Crusades and witch hunts. There is little room in theologies arising from reified experiences for tolerance, the use of metaphor, or for mutually existing but different theologies. At stake, in Christian terms at least, is an eternity in a literal heaven or hell.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIANITY

If we acknowledge that these experiences are subjective rather than a perception of objective phenomena, then the whole view changes. For a start, in the example we have been considering, we see this very much as Saul’s personal spirituality – an individual having a transcendent experience that is interpreted within his own personal world-view. When we compare  the  Apostle’s  teaching  with  that  of  Jesus  and  the  Disciples  – Paul adds to and enriches their theology with his own insights that he has  gained  through  this  subjective  experience.  But  it  is  nevertheless  a very powerful theology – as attested to by its prominence and survival down to this very day. It speaks to people’s needs and desires in many ways. But it is also a theology that is less and less tenable in the light of the scientific discoveries that have been made in the last century or so. Part  of  its  power  has  been  in  the  fact  that  many  of  the  statements  in Paul’s  writings  and  in  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  could  not  be  disproved  or seriously questioned. But these days, in the light of our scientific discov- eries, it is difficult to hold to the six-day creation story in Genesis for ex- ample.  The  reified,  supposed  ‘facts’  of  Genesis  contradict  and  oppose discoveries made in geology, archaeology, astronomy and physics – and this has a knock on effect in Paul’s theology, as we shall see in a moment.

The Gnostics sought a more metaphorical view of ideas such as the resurrection – they thought in terms of Jesus being spiritually resurrected or raised from the dead and indeed, had a whole range of different metaphors referring for example to the creation. But early Christian teachers like the Apostle Paul criticised these teachings as phantasms and as mere empty imagination in contrast to the basis of his faith and practice which was based on what was for him a literal physical, objective occurrence – the bodily resurrection of Jesus, of which he, through his reified mystical experiences, was a witness. For Paul, his theology was not based in metaphors, symbols, figures, types and empty imagination, but in real, concrete, objective facts. But this theology of Paul’s integrates within it the entire  Judaic  system.  Paul  refers  to  characters  such  as  Abraham  and Moses to show how their lives and teaching foreshadowed the message that Paul is preaching. In his explanation of the Headship of Christ, Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam and Paul makes comparisons between the  first  Adam  as  the  head  of  all  humanity  and  Jesus  as  the  Second Adam as the Head of all who have faith. Paul’s exposition seems to demand a literal view of the Genesis account: ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…if the many died by  the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that  came  by  the  grace  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  overflow  to  the many!.’  [Romans  5  v  12,  15.  My  italics].  If  we  embrace  Paul’s  theology properly, then we are obliged to embrace his view of a literal Genesis account and much more of the Old Testament in a similarly literal fashion too.

But I have already said that the Judaic culture had a tradition of reifying  transcendent  experiences  and  indeed,  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  mixes  the  reified  content  of  such  experiences  with  literal  events such as battles, the reign of kings and the general history of Israel. This is why it is so difficult to take a metaphorical view when using the Bible as a  spiritual  guide:  the  writings  of  the  Bible  constantly  bring  us  to  what seem to be concrete, historical events, (however they are debated and interpreted by historians) – we have biographies, journeys, rivalries, love affairs,  battles  and  wars,  temples  being  built,  people  being  taken  into slavery and captivity and so on – all mixed in with the reified contents of transcendent experiences – so that amongst these events and narratives, we have the world created in six days, God appearing, Angels appearing, the devil deceiving, commandments written in stone by the finger of God, bushes burning without being consumed, the waters of a sea being parted,  people  wrestling  with  God  and  so  on  –  all  described  as  actual, objective events. And this is before we consider how these writings may have  been  written  in  such  a  way  that  myths  and  magic  stories  became added and infused into them for one reason or another. As soon as we try to adopt a metaphorical view of these Judeo/Christian narratives, we seem to be brought back down to the objective, everyday events within which these magical and metaphorical images are reified and embedded, making it difficult to take a purely symbolic and metaphorical interpreta- tion as the early Gnostics sought to do.

The  embracing  of  these  Judeo/Christian  ideas  and  concepts  is  no longer a tenable option for me. Even as symbols and metaphors they just no longer work for me and I find that the Bible constantly draws me back into a more literal view which in turn generates a reified view of God – usually as ‘Big-Stern-Old-Man-in-the-sky’. But modern discoveries have also  rendered  many  of  these  narratives  as  questionable  in  content  and historical  accuracy.  Of  course,  this  is  not  the  case  for  many  believers, who still sincerely hold to beliefs and loyalty with regard to their view of Jesus.

Where then can we go with this? Is there any way that we can find a spiritual path through these varying, conflicting, contradictory spiritual beliefs  and  loyalties  without  finding  ourselves  either  intolerantly  dismissing  or  condemning  a  whole  swathe  of  sincere,  spiritually  minded people to the dustbin of heresy and hellfire? Can we make any sense of all  this  or  do  we  have  to  consign  all  spirituality  to  the  drawer  marked

‘Irrelevant nonsense’?

FORMS OF THE FORMLESS

Some mystical traditions refer to the Divine Absolute as being Form- less – no form, concept or object can adequately encapsulate Divine Spirit. But, we are creatures of form – we have a bounded form ourselves by having a physical body, and we live in a material universe that is made up  of  different  bounded  forms.  To  try  and  relate  to  an  Absolute  Spirit that is Unmanifest and Formless is therefore actually quite difficult for us and though it is a spiritual path that is sometimes followed by a few, the formless, iconoclastic nature of such a path makes it seem very arid and dry indeed. We are creatures of form and used to relating to forms and concepts. Even within Christianity, there is a large section of the Christi- an community that makes use of altar pieces, paintings and statues of Jesus,  angels,  the  virgin  Mary  and  so  on  as  objects  and  forms  that  assist worship by giving us some thing or form to focus on. In other Christian circles,  the  use  of  such  statues  and  paintings  is  regarded  as  idolatry. Indeed, in the Old Testament, carved images of the Divine are forbidden because such forms cannot encapsulate the Divine and may even be seen as demeaning of the Divine Spirit. Of course, similarly in Islam, there is a prohibition on depicting Allah and even the prophet, for similar reasons. The  Apostle  Paul  contrasts  his  own  faith  with  that  of  idol  worship, which on occasion greatly distressed him. He felt that such worshippers were  giving  adoration  to  lifeless  blocks  of  wood  and  stone  whereas  in contrast, he served an objectively existing, living, resurrected Son of God as opposed to these lifeless carvings or mere figments of the imagination. Whatever our approach to such paintings and carvings, it is clear that we all tend to have some form or image before us when we worship. With