Anthropology talks about a concept called tempocentrism, the belief that your own time represents the norm and that all other times are to be judged by it. It’s never easy to escape the trap of tempocentrism. To put it bluntly, we think we’re smarter than everyone else that’s ever lived.
Part of that, I guess, is the influence that evolutionary concepts have on us. We believe that society is progressing, moving forward, growing far beyond what it used to be. Therefore, our ideas are inherently better than those of people from other times.
It’s not easy to reconcile this view with a high view of Scripture. If you approach the Bible tempocentrically, you either have to believe that God revealed things to the ancients that they had no hope of understanding or you have to think that some of the things expressed in the Bible are just wrong. The liberalism of the 19th and 20th century held to the latter of those views; they sought to sort through the “mythology” in the the Bible to find the truth. This led to the “search for the historical Jesus,” among other quixotic quests.
Contemplation of Jewish cosmology led me to all of this. To put it bluntly, the Jews believed in an active spirit world which expressed itself in the world we know. Spirits, demons, angels, false gods… these beings existed and affected our world. When God led the Israelites out of Egypt, he triumphed not only over Pharaoah, but over Pharaoh’s gods as well. (Exodus 12:12) Witchcraft was forbidden, not because there was no truth to it, but because it involved dealing with ungodly powers. When Daniel was visited by an angel, in response to his prayer, the angel said that he had been delayed “by the prince of Persia.” (Daniel 10:13) Paul says that, by eating food sacrificed to other gods, Christians can enter into fellowship with demons. (1 Corinthian 10:20–21)
All of these things, and many more, reflect a view of the world that is far different from the modern view. Do we write it off to the inferiority of ancient understanding? Do we chuckle and say, “Yes, yes, they believed such silly things”? To what degree do we adjust our own worldview based on the worldview of God’s people in ancient times?
I want to explore this a bit more, but I want to hear from you. Whose worldview is inadequate, theirs or ours? Or is there a middle ground?
In the western world, it seems the millennial generation and those who will follow them are more open to a world in which there is unseen spiritual powers (both good and evil) at work. For me personally, it has always been a challenge to accept this part of the biblical worldview because of the way I was raised. But since I am trying to adopt a thoroughly biblical worldview rather than a Western or American worldview, this is not a challenge I need to back away from.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
On the flip side, I’ve often thought that the Psalms illustrate a level of intellectual and creative capacity that is equal to anything in human literature, ancient or modern. The Psalms are good only because they are inspired. They are good because they were crafted by truly great writers. Same goes for Isaiah, Job, etc…
Tim,
i think the mark of the modern version of tempocentrism is the notion that the beliefs of modern western industrialized society are in no way perspectival, historically/culturally situated, but rather are somehow objective, universal, and impartial. What privileges us with such a ‘view from nowhere’?
–guy
Tim, someone more erudite than myself can probably come up with the reference, but C.S. Lewis refers to this idea as “chronological snobbery,” a phrase that I find particularly captivating. I find it amusing that we think all other cultures and all history before us as quaint, antiquated, illiterate or somehow deficient.
Someone once pointed out that when modern man has climbed the last mountain of human achievement, Moses is going to greet them and say, “What took you so long?”
I look forward to you future thoughts –
Paul
It seems that each age of humanity has its characteristic vices and virtues. We are no different. We see toleration as a virtue and dogmatism as a vice. Earlier ages reversed those two.
Either view can be taken to an extreme. Maybe Aristotle was correct when he said that virtue is the balance between competing vices.
That is a shocking idea! That Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century BC could have a better definition of virtue than we?
I would love to have the spiritual depth of a first-century Jew and have his/her concept of what was meant by “the Holy Spirit” or when Jesus said “the Comforter/Advocate/Stander-Beside.” I think we miss a lot of the richness of the concepts, terms and phrasings Jesus used when we argue about which definition or meaning He intended … and He may have intended many.
Took a little different direction than I expected but one that is needed. Look forward to reading more.
There are nuances to historic tempocentrically derived ‘guilt’ for lack of a better word, that I wish to point out.
The ever popular pitch ‘ “Christ died for your sins” and THEREFOREr you… as a member’ should be party to this club in which EACH person involved has self-anointed themselves in (perhaps): guilt and a feeling of debt and moral obligation to ‘toe the dogamatic line.’
It doesn;t end there, as on Mainland China, 250 million Chinese have been told that they (the Han) have suffered “100 years of humiliation,’ and THEREFORE you… as a member ‘ should put a coin in the can, and be party to this club in which EACH person involved has self-anointed themselves in (perhaps) reverence, guilt and a feeling of debt and moral obligation to ‘toe the dogmatic line.’
In both of the above cases, the personal feeling among those that raise their hand as ‘subscribers’ to the myths need adopt a tempocentrism, (and ethoncentrism for the latter) as a core value which is played-upon by either a profit making religious organization or a Communist political institution. For both, a form of’ Us against Them’; the ‘Them’ being either inifidels, or simply non-Han. In both cases, logic and veracity escape inspection, and to bring any points up towards that direction would place the individual on a critical path towards expulsion or re-education. The human need to ‘belong’ blinds logical introspection, and self-abasement for the good of the ‘Organization or State,’ such that atonement can be reconciled through personal sacrifice (for the Organization or State.