God is God
The identification of God with Being has its origins in God’s revelation to Moses on Sinai
Patrick Henry Reardon is a Senior Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity
T
here is a glaring fallacy in the contemporary presump- faithful have been thinking about them seriously ever since.
tion that idolatry is found only in polytheism. I admit, of Typical of the faithful in this respect was St Gregory of Nyssa,
course, that all polytheism is necessarily idolatrous, but it who interpreted the words to mean that God revealed himself
seems not to have occurred to most folks that the confession of as ‘the Existent One’ [Against Eunomius, 2.4]. The same writer
one false god is just as idolatrous as the confession of several. reflected further, ‘all things depend on Him Who is, nor can
Monotheism is no defence against idolatry. This modern mis- there be anything that does not owe its existence to Him Who
understanding about idolatry, moreover, is the twin and steady is’ [The Great Catechism, 25]. Gregory asserts two things in these
companion of another, the strange fancy that all monotheists texts. First, it is of God’s very being that he exists, which is to say
necessarily confess the same divinity. that God exists of himself. Whatever exists, besides God, exists
Arguably the clearest spokesman for the latter fallacy may only because of God.
be that C.S. Lewis character who forthrightly declared, ‘Tash is Christian thinkers have converted these theological consider-
another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and ations into apologetic arguments for the existence of God. First,
the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Cal- there is God as Being in Himself. Now it is a fact that no pagan
ormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. philosopher ever thought to identify God as Being. This his-
Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know torical fact is perhaps difficult for us to appreciate, because the
Who. That’s why there can never be any quarrel between them. history of Christian reflection has so accustomed us to a propo-
Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan sition unknown to ancient pagan thought.
is Tash.’ The striking fact about this argument is that it never occurred
The telltale line in that discourse, I submit, is ‘We know better to anyone outside of the data of biblical revelation. Nor is there
now.’ On matters respecting God, I cannot think of anything we is any reason to believe that it would have entered anyone’s mind
know better now. The character that made that proclamation except for that voice on Sinai.
was, of course, the Ape in Lewis’ The Last Battle, and it really This thesis, too, provided an argument for God’s existence, an
was an apish thing to say. Although I have heard his thesis pro- inductive, a posteriori case known as the Cosmological Argu-
claimed times out of mind, it cannot stand up to two seconds of ment. This line of reasoning, which is found explicitly in Holy
critical reflection. Scripture itself, endeavours to discover an explanation (or effi-
Let us recall that monotheism made its appearance in this cient cause) for the existence of those things that do, in fact,
world in the same voice that identified the one God’s essence exist. Both of these approaches to the existence of God are based
with his existence: ‘I am the One Who Is.’ When Moses heard in the voice from Sinai, in which God identified himself as the
that auto-identification, perhaps he did not have a clear idea, at Existing One, the One who, needing nothing from us, nonethe-
first, what it meant, but he faithfully recorded the words, and the less decided to talk to us. ND
Sacred vision Les saintes femmes au tombeau
W
illiam-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905) was one of the The colours are severely muted; the robes and gestures, even the
most popular and well regarded stonework, show a family likeness with his
of the high Victorian school of French classical subjects, though coarser and less
painting. Idealized, hyper-realist, and delicate. If Athens is for the aristocracy,
rich in detail, his draughtsmanship of Jerusalem is for a poorer class of people.
the human form is exceptional (far better The young man in white, only just
than his older contemporary Ingres, visible in the light that comes from the
for example). He produced sentimental tomb, is there presumably because he has
pictures of young women and children, to be; in terms of the painting he is largely
and classical subjects which provided the redundant. The first and third women are
proper excuse for sinuous nudes. well composed, but all the meaning and
In the midst of this secular production, power of the picture is focussed in the
he also painted a smaller number of central figure, in her face and her clasped
traditional Christian subjects in the same hands.
intense and colourful style. If they evoke Influenced by photography, there is
a devotional response, it is not one of an immediacy and vividness. And then
any great passion, but they are certainly what? Surely, it takes more than a facial
gorgeous, more than merely decorative, and expression to convey meaning. For all its
his Virgin Mothers are certainly stronger effectiveness, there is surprisingly little
than most we see from the same period in depth to this depiction of the empty tomb.
our churches. This is Easter day, but not the 49 other days
This, Les saintes femmes au tombeau, was of the Easter season.
first exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1890. Anthony Saville
12
■
newdirections
■
April 2008
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36