Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven Part Eight Part Nine Part Ten Part Eleven Part Twelve Part Thirteen Part Fourteen
1 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 1 beautifully reinforce one another. In 2 Peter 1, Peter actually appeals to his own extraordinary experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. He says that John, James, and he were “eyewitnesses of his [Jesus’] majesty.” They heard the voice from heaven, meaning that they actually experienced something extraordinary. Yet Peter does not make that experience the final foundation. He says: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy.” That is remarkable. Peter had genuine experience, but even genuine experience does not elevate above God’s revealed Word.
So when we get to 1 Peter 2:2 — “the sincere milk of the word” — we have a consistent Petrine theology. It says, “Don’t live by the instability of experience. Feed upon the pure Word.” And the milk is “sincere” precisely because it hasn’t been tampered with
Here someone can push a crime-scene analogy (I used earlier) one step further. Suppose the investigator has one uncontaminated photograph of the crime scene taken before anyone entered it. That photograph becomes enormously valuable as subsequent observations of the crime scene contaminate it. The analogy isn’t exact — the Bible is infinitely more authoritative than a photograph — but it illustrates the point.
The Word is not another contaminated piece of human evidence. It is God’s revelation. Therefore, when our perception conflicts with scripture, we don’t say, “Well, scripture says one thing, but my experience tells me another.” Instead, we say, “My experience must be interpreted and corrected by scripture.”
“Lying Eyes” Confirm False Beauty, Or Ugliness Posing as Beauty
This connects directly to the discussion of aesthetics. The eye may see something accurately in one sense but judge it wrongly. The ear may hear something accurately but evaluate it wrongly. The heart may experience something intensely but interpret the experience wrongly. A person can say, “that music is beautiful,” but what he may actually mean is that music produces a pleasurable experience in me. Those are not the same proposition. Likewise, “I felt God’s presence” does not establish that God approved of what was happening. The experience is real. The interpretation of the experience very often is false.
This is why “taste” is such a dangerous standard for worship. If taste becomes the criterion, then the person culturally trained to love sensuality will call sensuality beautiful. A person trained to love theatricality will call theatricality beautiful, love emotional intensity will call intensity spiritual, and love entertainment will call entertainment worshipful. Because the experience is pleasurable, it becomes self-authenticating: “I know it was good because I felt good.” The Word of God will prevent that. The sincere milk of the Word says, in effect: “Don’t ask merely what you experienced. Ask what God has said.”
The World System Reshapes Aesthetics
Once experience becomes the measure for people, they inevitably select aesthetic forms for their effects upon themselves. If excitement is the desired outcome, they choose forms that excite. When sensuality produces emotional intensity, sensual forms become attractive. As theatricality produces attention, theatricality increases. When repetition produces ecstasy, repetition increases. If celebrity produces enthusiasm, celebrity increases. When loudness produces bodily sensation, loudness increases. The aesthetic question has now been replaced by a pragmatic question: “What works on people?” And that is exactly how man becomes the audience.
Peter’s “lust” language is especially significant. Peter doesn’t merely condemn false doctrine. He exposes the appetites behind it. 2 Peter 2:14 says:
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices.
The false teacher’s problem isn’t merely intellectual. His heart has been trained. That phrase — “an heart they have exercised” — communicates this thought. People can exercise their hearts toward particular desires. And the reverse is true. Through repeated exposure, people can become trained to desire particular forms of religious experience. What initially seemed strange can eventually become normal; what once seemed sensual can eventually seem beautiful; what once seemed worldly can eventually seem spiritual; and what once seemed theatrical can eventually seem worshipful. The heart has been exercised.
The Transformation of Perception
You could summarize the process this way. Worldliness supplies the forms. Lust supplies the desire. Satanic deception supplies the false interpretation. Experience supplies the perceived authentication. Pragmatism supplies the institutional justification. Then the cycle reinforces itself.
Many churches might say:
People respond to this; therefore, this must be effective. It is effective; therefore, God must be blessing it. And since God is blessing it, we should do more of it.
Eventually, they conclude: “This is what worship is.” The institution moved from revelation governing experience to experience governing interpretation of revelation.
1 Corinthians 1–3 Warn Against Precisely This Worldly Wisdom
Paul’s answer is not merely “don’t use bad methods.” His answer goes deeper. “The church must reject the world’s standard of wisdom.” He writes in 1 Corinthians 3:19:
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
And 3:18:
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
Then 3:21:
Therefore let no man glory in men.
That last statement is especially important for worship. Don’t glory in men.
Don’t make the gifted preacher, the musician, or a worship leader a celebrity.
Don’t make the congregation the judge, and
Don’t make numerical growth the evidence of divine approval.
God’s church is to glory in God’s wisdom, not man’s impressive methods.
A Direct Connection to Beauty in Worship
The world can train people to call something beautiful because it gives them pleasure, but true beauty, Christian beauty, cannot finally be defined by pleasure. The question is whether the form corresponds to reality. That is why the biblical concept of holiness is so important (Psalm 96:9):
O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.
Beauty is not detached from holiness, and holiness is not detached from God’s character. Therefore, true beauty should correspond to what is true about God. If a form communicates something contrary to God’s character, its attractiveness to fallen human beings does not prove its beauty.
More to Come