Ancient Paths Blog

Can You Say, "New World Order"? - Unfolding Reaction to the Global Financial Crisis

The phrase "new world order" has been in use at least since the aftermath of the first world war gave rise to the League of Nations, and post-WWII agreements formed the United Nations.  After the first Gulf War President George H. Bush used the phrase in a speech lauding the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.

What these 20th century new world orders represented however seemed to be neither new nor worldwide.  While the maps were redrawn the world remained divided between east and west; between nations based on freedom and democracy (in politics and economy) and those not so.  Even as the crashing surf changes the beach - it's still sand and water in the morning.

But what has, or is in the process of emerging in the wake of the recent global financial crisis seems to be genuinely something new; something genuinely worldwide in scope; and something which will order every life.

For the first time the nations of the world, whose individual economies have heretofore functioned side by side in a somewhat random symbiosis called "the global economy," have been drawn up short by the near collapse of the whole thing - a swerving toward the precipice that set every passenger clutching at his seat with white knuckles, if not screaming out loud.

The response to this has been nearly universal with calls for worldwide coordination and strict regulation of the world's economic activity.  As the crisis spread from America to Europe at the beginning of the month the EU's leaders "called for a global summit to draw up nothing less than a new international financial system" (Guardian.co.uk).

A week or so later we heard "On Tuesday [British Prime Minister Gordon] Brown called for new international rules on trade, saying 'We must now create the right new financial architecture for the global age'" (Time.com).

The Christian Science Monitor reported analysts and government leaders saying, "'...the current crisis requires the kind of global regulatory reforms that have eluded major powers in the past ...there is urgency in the air,' says Simon Serfaty, an expert in US-Europe relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington..."

[French] President Sarkozy said, 'We cannot continue along the same lines,' he added, 'because the same problems will trigger the same disasters.'"

[European Union Commissioner President Jose Manuel] Barroso was more succinct: 'We need a new global financial order.'"

Although I'm not a prophecy or "end times" fanatic these developments have really got my attention.  Especially recalling the prophet Daniel's vision of those gentile empires which will rule the world arising at a time when "the four winds of heaven [were] churning up the great sea" Dan.7:2.

The "great sea" is no doubt the Mediterranean - in contrast to the lesser seas of Galilee and the Dead Sea.  Being the locus around which the gentile nations of the Biblical world clustered the great sea became a symbol of the world in opposition to God and His people; and its churning a contrast to that peace that God gives.  So Daniel sees the arising of world dominating empires at times of great upheaval.

In the New Testament counterpart to Daniel, the book of Revelation,the author alludes to Daniel's vision seeing in ch.13 a beast (empire) whose rule of the earth will be total and unchallenged.  Part of that control will be the imposition of a global economic structure.

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name" Rev.13:16-17.

Such a structure has been untenable in a world economy formed of loose and informal associations between nations who maintian individual sovereignty over their finances.  This historic state of affairs seems to have run its course.  Something is emerging on a scale which the world has not yet seen.  Now you can say "New World Order."

Ancient Paths - Why That Name?

Having sent out notice of my blog's revamping I immediately received an inquiry about the significance of the name.  My wife asked, "...Ancient Paths instead of Path?  Isn't there only one path?  Or do you mean something different?"  Some explanation is called for.

First, the name alludes to a scripture passage out of Jeremiah (6:16) where the LORD addresses His people through the prophet saying, "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls."

In this verse both the Hebrew and the Greek for "paths" is plural.  This clause is in parallel with "the good way," which is singular.  Whatever the significance behind this shift in number it seems to be a common one in old testament wisdom literature.

The wise father warns his son about keeping company with sinners saying, "...my son, do not walk in the way (singular) with them; hold back your foot from their paths (plural)" Proverbs 1:15 ESV.

Similarly, Wisdom calls out "On the heights beside the way (singular), at the crossroads (or 'paths,' plural) she takes her stand" Proverbs 8:2 ESV.

Both a reference to the covenant, which is the one way of fellowship with God and therefore to life; and a reference to the Torah, the covenant's law and its manycommandments may be implied.  I wouldn't be surprised if this underlies the variation in some way.  At any rate the prophet is calling God's people to the way of wisdom instead of folly.

Secondly though, I wanted to raise the banner of continuity with that ancient "faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and so dissent from the chronological snobbery of today's Evangelicalism, which only values what it has produced in the last five minutes.

The Case For Creeds - What Could Be More Relevant?

If I may continue my discussion on the use of the creeds, especially the Apostles' Creed, in evangelical worship: another objection that is often raised is that of relevance (...overused and annoying word) - how could something so old speak with any freshness to our present situation?

As cliche as this objection is I admit we do need to consider whether some topic is relevant to discipleship and so worth the Church's time to consider.  If I proposed to our church that we gather to read through the city phone book name by name, or that we monitor the wholesale price fluctuations of fresh tuna in the Tokyo fish markets I would be guilty of leading the church into activities that are not relevant to discipleship.

But I suggest that the Apostles' Creed has never been more relevant to the Church than today; and a grasp of its teaching would invigorate us for the present and prepare us for what lay ahead.  In what way?

Many believe we are living in the last of the last days.  Therefore, the scriptures teach us we can expect certain things.  The apostle Paul writes to Timothy, "The Spirit clearly says that in the last days some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1Tim.4:1).  The context of this statement indicates that this will take place within the Church.  In other words, the teaching found in the Church will have its origins either in God or in Satan.

Therefore, the apostle John warns, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..." (1John 4:1).  Similarly he says, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.  This is how we know it is the last hour" (1John 2:18).  Again John says, "Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son" (1John 2:22).

So - in the last days the spirit of Antichrist will be powerfully at work to obscure and deny the glory of Jesus Christ - His uniqueness, deity, supremacy, and sufficiency as a Savior.  Because of this the Father is denied and with Him the whole doctrine of the Trinity.  It is therefore the great task of the Church in every generation - but especially that generation of the end times - to maintain a clear Trinitarian theology and the essentially Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith.

Interestingly, the two most powerful religious forces opposing the Church in the west today are Islam and the nebulous theism of the pop-culture religion.  Both of these claim a relationship to God, yet in their denial of Jesus as the unique Son of God, they are manifestly Christ-less and so are part of that antichrist religion described by John.  They deny the "Father and the Son" and so deny the triune nature of God.

Now to the extent that the Church has a weak or non-existent understanding of the Trinitarian nature of her faith - to that extent she is in danger of being swept away by the aggressive expansionism of Islam, or absorbed, diluted and dissolved by the generic spirituality of our pop-culture.

We should recall that these forces have always been at work and were particularly active in the decades before the Apostles' Creed was formulated.  Powerfully influential voices in the Church were denying the deity of Christ (and therefore the Trinity), causing the Church to consider what the Bible taught about Him.  It should come as no surprise then to note the clearly Trinitarian structure of the Apostles' Creed.  So as to relevance: it is one of the most timely study tools for our day and the last days.

The Case For Creeds - the Kindling of Spiritual Passion!

One of the objections some have against using the creeds in evangelical worship is their association with ritualism in general or one's own ritualistic upbringing.  Mere mention of the creeds brings back haunting memories of compulsory confirmation classes or the stale, scripted congregational response: "we-will-rejoice-and-be-glad-in-it."  And of course in the Evangelical mindset this is patently false worship.  But is this connection fair?

I think we have to be careful of this word ritual. While the dictionary's definition is quite neutral: "Any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner" (s.v. at dictionary.com), the word can be used positively or negatively. 

Negatively, ritual connotes a practice characterized by apathy or indifference; the perfunctory performance of some action without any corresponding inner belief or without any appreciation of the meaning of the practice.  To distinguish this negative aspect of the word we sometimes attach the suffixes -ism or -istic and say, "mere ritualism" or "too ritualistic."

On the other hand, ritual can be used positively, when we mean something done with passionate devotion or sincere dedication, as "An hour of piano practice was his morning ritual."  Though in this sense we often change the word to "religiously" as in "She exercised religiously in order to loose weight."

But given these distinctions it is apparent that evangelical worship - creedless as it often is - is not immune to ritualism.  Any aspect of worship, any spiritual discipline can be done ritualistically - whether saying "Praise the Lord," reading one's Bible, or praying - all can be done in a merely perfunctory manner.

On the other hand, we should recall that there are in evangelical worship rituals (in the popular, dictionary sense of the word) - baptism and the Lord's Supper.  What's more we are not free to forgo these out of a principled aversion to ritual!  Since God has seen fit to include these rituals as part of the Church's formal worship ritual is not bad per se.  Practically speaking, they summarize tremendous spiritual realities into a brief performance; and their unusual nature draws us out from this present world to what is transcendent.

So whether one's worship is ritualistic or full of passion is more of a matter of the heart than what element of worship is included.  Reciting the Apostles' Creed can be done in either way.  One man likened it to the kiss a husband and wife exchange at the door when they part ways each morning.  (James C. Howell, The Life We Claim, [Abingdon: Nashville], 2005, xi).

It can be done ritualistically, that is, with apathy and indifference.  Or there can be even the slightest lingering with that kiss - a lingering where the taste, the scent and the feel of one another enters in - a lingering which leads to the momentary kindling of a deeper, abiding passion between them.

Done in this way, that kiss at the door in the morning says, "I love you, and you alone.  I am passionate for you and committed to this marriage.  I will come back to you at the end of the day."

Ideally, all our acts of worship, whether saying, "Hallelujah!" or reciting the Apostles' Creed are like this kiss - a kindling of passion for the living God, our Savior.

The Case For Creeds - The Bible Is Not Enough!

At our decidedly Baptist Church I've been leading several of our adult classes through a study of the Apostles' Creed - a wonderfully enriching study, if I may say so myself.  But, perhaps not unsurprisingly, I've had to begin each time by offering an apology - not saying "I'm sorry" - but apology in the classic sense of the word: providing a defense of why we should do such a study.

You see, unlike other branches of the Church, Evangelicals in general and Baptists in particular do not give much if any attention to the creeds of the Church.  This was not always the case, but certainly since the days of Charles Finney's revivalism large branches of evangelicalism have pulled away from, if not discarded altogether, use of the creeds in worship and discipleship.

While reasons for this avoidance are vague in most peoples' minds, certainly one reason for doing so is that it seems to many that it is contrary to our heritage as Protestants.  As heirs of the reformation we are "people of the Book."  Sola scriptura - scripture alone - was and is our motto.  The Bible alone is our rule for faith and life.  But the creeds intrude on this hallowed ground, invariably becoming a second authority in competition with the Bible.

But is this true?  It doesn't seem to have bothered the reformers themselves as they were great advocates of the creeds and crafted many confessions of faith as part of their work of reform.  This is because they understood that creeds should not be considered a source of authority on par with the Bible, but as a summary of what we believe the Bible to teach.  While creeds cannot bind the conscience of the worshiper, they help in summarizing the essentials of the faith.

I often hear Baptists insist that we're "non-creedal," but I wonder if they know what that means.  At best it is another way of saying sola scriptura; at worst it implies we don't believe anything!  After all, that's what the word creed means -something believed.  Is it true that we don't believe anything?  Maybe that's true for some, but certainly not all.

If you ask a Baptist what he believes he'll say, "I believe what the Bible teaches."  But it's immediately apparent that such a position is not sufficient.  Why?  Because even Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists believe that - not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims!  All alike (at least profess to) anchor their belief in the Bible.  And while he would consider those in the first three groups part of the Body of Christ (though misguided - say - in their view of baptism!); he certainly would not consider those in the final three groups in any way part of the Church.

So the Baptist then proceeds to spell out, in contrast to these, what he believes the Bible to teach: salvation by grace through faith; inspiration and authority of the scriptures; believer baptism, etc.  In other words, it is very evident that he does have a creed!  It may not be written down but it exists nonetheless.  And in an ecumenical discussion it soon becomes plain who is a Christian, who is a Baptist and who isn't.  His creed summarizes what he believes the Bible teaches and it identifies him from others who believe differently or not at all.

The problem with such private, unwritten creeds is that they are not available for scrutiny.  They can easily become stunted and provincial, even malformed - like the person (or church) obsessed with a certain scheme of eschatology who is able to sketch that out to the nth degree, but who can articulate little else about the doctrinal foundations of the Christian faith.  Such a creed obscures the true richness of the faith and isolates rather than unites.

Ideally, the creeds spell out for us "the faith once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 1:3).  They state what the Church has held together throughout the centuries and creates a unity that works across denominations, cultures, and any other barriers that inevitably divide the Church.