Today's readings are 2 Kings 5.9-27.
Today's reading in 2 Kings 5 puts me in mind of some reading I've been doing in early Christian history. Maybe it's relevant to some situations we have today as well.
In verses 17-19, Naaman, the Syrian whom God has healed of leprosy, says that he will no longer make sacrifice to the pagan gods but that when his king has him go into the temple and he bows to the pagan altar he will do so in a state of belief in the true God, unbelief in Rimmon. He asks that the Lord may forgive this action, done in the course of his responsibilities.
Church history is replete with examples of this controversy. Particularly in ante-Nicene Rome, believers were asked to burn a pinch of incense to the emperor. Some agreed to do so though they affirmed they still believed in the one true God. Some refused to do so, resulting in imprisonment or death. In the instances when this resulted in imprisonment, many who were imprisoned for refusing the worship of the emperor took issue with those who affirmed they could worship the triune God alone yet could burn the incense to the emperor, knowing it was a truly meaningless act. At times, those who had capitulated to Roman demands were excommunicated, sometimes permanently.
I think all Christians will likely agree that there is some sort of difference between an apostate life and a life in which one capitulates, however briefly, to demands placed upon him. Yet I'm going to ask my readers to try responding to these questions, though they are difficult.
#1 - Is there a good modern-day parallel to the situation the early Christians found themselves in when they were asked to do something that they may have viewed as a meaningless act of worship to a false god?
#2 - What, if any, consequences are biblically appropriate as a result of such a compromise?
Chime in!
Today's reading in 2 Kings 5 puts me in mind of some reading I've been doing in early Christian history. Maybe it's relevant to some situations we have today as well.
In verses 17-19, Naaman, the Syrian whom God has healed of leprosy, says that he will no longer make sacrifice to the pagan gods but that when his king has him go into the temple and he bows to the pagan altar he will do so in a state of belief in the true God, unbelief in Rimmon. He asks that the Lord may forgive this action, done in the course of his responsibilities.
Church history is replete with examples of this controversy. Particularly in ante-Nicene Rome, believers were asked to burn a pinch of incense to the emperor. Some agreed to do so though they affirmed they still believed in the one true God. Some refused to do so, resulting in imprisonment or death. In the instances when this resulted in imprisonment, many who were imprisoned for refusing the worship of the emperor took issue with those who affirmed they could worship the triune God alone yet could burn the incense to the emperor, knowing it was a truly meaningless act. At times, those who had capitulated to Roman demands were excommunicated, sometimes permanently.
I think all Christians will likely agree that there is some sort of difference between an apostate life and a life in which one capitulates, however briefly, to demands placed upon him. Yet I'm going to ask my readers to try responding to these questions, though they are difficult.
#1 - Is there a good modern-day parallel to the situation the early Christians found themselves in when they were asked to do something that they may have viewed as a meaningless act of worship to a false god?
#2 - What, if any, consequences are biblically appropriate as a result of such a compromise?
Chime in!
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment