- Nothing is appropriately worshipped except God.
- Jesus is appropriately worshipped.
- Therefore, Jesus is God.
This argument is valid. But is it also sound?
It may depend on what is meant by the term “worship”. It seems to me that many contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians understand “worship” in a way that makes 1 true by definition. For them, “worship” is an other-directed state or activity which (1) can only really be given to one being, and which (2) can only appropriately be given to the one true God. It is something like an stance of honoring which involves a total self-giving, a total surrender.
On the other hand, you might think 1 is obviously false. If worship just means “honoring”, then lots of things other that God are appropriately honored. But reasserting the above line of thought, one may say: “worshipping” just in honoring something as God – because it is the one God, or because it has the features which only the one God has. So then 1 would mean, “Nothing is appropriately worshipped as God but God.” To my eyes, this is trivially true.
But then on this reading of “worship” 2 changes from very plausible to doubtful. Jesus is by several people worshipped or honored in the NT, and a couple of history of theology scholars have emphasized that Jesus was highly honored in ways similar to how God (the Father) was honored very early on in Christianity, and not, say, post-Nicea, as some would prefer to think. Certainly, he honored in some of the same ways God is – bowing, verbal praise, etc., and certainly for some of the same reasons as – e.g. moral excellent, various benefits rendered to believers. But was he honored “as God” – i.e. because he was believed to be numerically identical with God, or to have all the same honor-worthy features which God has?
It can’t be the first, because the NT writers presuppose that some things are true of Jesus that are not true of God, and vice-versa. So, they’re presupposing them to be numerically distinct. Many Trinity theories take this into account.
Are they worshipping/honoring Jesus because he has certain properties, all of which the NT writers assume God has? It seems not.
…he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. So at the name of Jesus everyone will bow down, those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. And to the glory of God the Father everyone will openly agree, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil 2, TEV)
So here, Christ is to be worshipped/honored because he humbled himself, obeyed God, was obedient through a very nasty and sacrificial death, and has been consequently exalted by God. Moreover, Paul seems to be thinking that worship/honor given to Christ, as it were, passes through him and lands ultimately on God. It would be misleading, it seems, to say that Paul affirms that Christ should be worshipped “as God”, because some of the grounds of the honor, the reasons for it, apply to Christ, but not to God.
I starting to think that the above argument has little chance of being sound. If “worship” is defined as a kind of mental stance appropriate only to YHWH, or to beings with all and only the same features as YHWH, then 1 will be true, but 2 will be false. And if “worship” is taken in a broader sense – just some sort of honoring for a reason, then 2 will be true, but 1 false.
And it seems we do need such a broader concept of worship, where it is thought of as a three place relation, in predicate logic: W(D,O,R) – Devotee D worships an Object O for a Reason R. Polytheists can be consistent when the worship many gods. For example, she might worship goddess X for blessing her with fertility, and god Y for giving their nation victory in battle. I’m thinking of worship as a mental stance or attitude which one typically expresses in various kinds of actions, mental and physical.
(Thanks to my colleague Andy for a helpful conversation on these matters.)
Next time: wrapping up.
Technorati Tags: monotheism, worship, Jesus, worshipping Jesus, polytheism, Philipians
Pingback: trinities - Jesus and “god” – part 11 – Review and Conclusion (Dale)
I suppose one’s spirituality is key here; that is– one’s spiritual practices? By that I don’t mean mere bodily postures, etc., but an intentionality and volition that supervenes over bodily postures. I suppose if one’s knowing that God is the most desirable thing (and so to be loved) and by that is not motivated to worship God, then what is required are divine commands. God commands us to love him. So, if the ‘aesthetic’ (or something like that) fact doesn’t motivate, then being commanded to do so is what comes next.
I suppose though if it is a situation where a person knows God is the most lovable thing, and wants to love God, but just fails to produce the volition to do so, then the person should attempt some baby steps to ‘get there’. Baby steps = participate in liturgy, daily office, various prayer techniques. If we are creatures that imitate what we see/hear, then doing things that ‘imitate’ worshiping God might lead us to actually worshiping God.
I’m sure Moral theologians have a list of possible vices here that could identify ‘the one who knows, knows what is best, but chooses the more deplorable path’ (that’s Ovid).
I think you were getting my point. I was just curious about how the kind of worship-inducing knowledge of God would be different from abstract/detached/academic (I can’t seem to come up with the right label) knowledge of God.
(Though, I suppose some might say that true ‘academic’ knowledge of God is always worship-inducing, but I’m not necessarily inclined to agree with that.)
Hi JT –
I’m not sure worshipful feelings are required for being in a worshipful state. I’m thinking of it as kind of an inner bowing… it’s akin to generic humility, but this is to an object, and for one or more reasons. One may wonder why I’m calling this “worship” and not, say, bowing, singing, or doing something specifically religious, such as some liturgical activity. The reason is in the NT, Paul teaches that one’s who life is to be an act of worship. I take it he means that we go about our lives with this mental stance, and that we do our many actions as (in part) an expression of it. That is the way God wants to be worshipped, in the NT.
But perhaps I’ve missed your point – do continue…
Suppose someone has knowledge of who/what God is, and so their ‘beliefs’ are true, but suppose also that those beliefs don’t put them in a ‘worshipful’ state of mind, so to speak (i.e., those beliefs don’t particularly motivate them to worship or anything like that).
Hi Scott,
Excellent question. I’m thinking of what goes in the third place (other than worshipper and object of worship) as a reason, i.e. a belief about the object, had by the worshipper. So, you can worship God for multiple reasons, even if divine simplicity is true – it’s just what makes all these various beliefs of yours true – e.g. that God is good, powerful, everlasting, etc. – are all the same thing – God.
States of worship – the mental stance – will be fitting or not depending on the beliefs and the object, and even sometimes on how they relate to the worshipper.
So if you worship Jim Carrey as the creator, that’s unfitting, because he isn’t your creator. And if you worship your ancestor as the bestower of your good fortune, again, he ain’t, so that’s an unfitting act of worship. Or if you honor St. Jude because your prayer was answered… you get the idea.
One issue that arises from the proposed ‘3-place’ relation is one’s take on divine simplicity. Do I ‘worship’ God b/c he has love? Or for some other reason; I think Scotus argues that God is the most lovable object and should be loved no matter what (or again, God must be loved in every possible world). One of the interesting bits is the ‘reason why’– is this something somehow distinct from God?
Pingback: trinities - Jesus and “God” - Part 8 - What is monotheism? (Dale)
Comments are closed.