So What?

Idolatry 5: Classic Idolatry in a Postmodern World

I will be making the case that classic idolatry is alive and well in our postmodern age.  Whilst I appreciate the view there are no longer any grand narratives, I am also suspicious of it.  Is it that there are no longer any grand narratives, or that we choose to overlook them?  It may be true the old grand narratives are no more but it does not follow there are no grand narratives.  Plato reports Socrates as saying 'the unexamined life is not worth living'.  The invitation to examine our lives is an invitation to step into another world, quite different from the one we think we know.

The first thing to do is to clear up some possible misconceptions about classical idolatry.

First, the prohibition of idolatry in ancient Israel, took place in a political context.  It is likely the concept of God developed from arguing that many local gods were each a manifestation of one God.  These local gods had idols and many worshippers transferred their allegiance to the one God, worshiped through their local idol. 

The Israelites were also known as Hebrews, a word which originates as a social rather than ethnic designation.  Often the idols would have been controlled by political elites, the one God was a movement of the nomad, the marginalised, the dispossessed.  Later we see the focus shift to the dominance of a temple elite. 

This complex history is fascinating and we need to take care not to confuse its vagaries with the deeper concern beneath the politics of the time.  What is important is the way our idols form our lives in the present.  We do not need to believe the nations surrounding ancient Israel were evil because they worshiped false gods.  Our task is to identify our own false gods and understand why they are so dangerous.

Second, I am not writing about bonkers sects.  There is no end to the bonkers things people believe in.  In this series of posts I am not concerned with debunking bonkers beliefs.  Plenty of writers have had great fun doing this but it does not concern me here.

Third, a discussion of idolatry carried out by a professed Christian is likely to raise the suspicion that the aim is to question other faiths.  This is not my intention.  The best way to settle this for the present is to say you will see in later posts, I do not see Christianity as exempt from the dangers of idolatry.  One way or another all faiths have to struggle with this issue.

In this series I will explore how idolatry works across the generality of Western society.  Once this is complete, it may be possible to engage with atheism in a constructive debate.  Atheists may be suspicious of what I write and so they should be.  If we take idolatry seriously we should all be radically suspicious.

What I hope to do is to show how idolatry is very much a part of our world.  Indeed, we make idols out of many abstract concepts but I want to show how so many of our idols are material, not far from the graven images in the second commandment  and described in Psalm 115 .

Idolatry 4: The Classic Idol

Next I turn to one of several Old Testament descriptions of idols.  At the time it might have seemed legitimate to mock those who worship idols.  But how much was down to rivalries between Israel and other nations, rather than a concern for a right relationship with God.  Remember the concern was always for the nation rather than individuals.  Did marking nations as idolatrous justify war with them?  Or did it explain why they invaded Israel?

Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. 

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands.

They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.

They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.

They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; they make no sound in their throats.

Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.  (Psalm 115:3-8; NRSV)

This is about physical idols; idols you can see and touch.  It is customary these days to say all manner of abstract things can be idols, such as money or celebrity.  I will explore this view later. 

The mockery is based on the question, why worship something that is not alive?  It exists alright but it is dead matter.  It has no capabilities whatsoever (unlike the God of Israel).  We need to pay attention to this because we need to be careful we don't project our own fears onto the writers and first readers of these texts.  This passage shows they are capable of distinguishing between what is real and what is not.  They make a real distinction between what is capable of many things and what is capable of nothing.

Atheists might wish to argue that the God is verse 3 is also an idol, a figment of the imagination.  They might be right and I will explore this view in a later post.  But the point is this passage does not allow such a simplistic dismissal of their ability to discern between what is real and what is not real. 

If they are able to see that material idols are not real, why assume they cannot discern that their God although not material might also not be real?  Why should they believe that material idols are false but that an imaginary God (as some atheists would have it) is true?  Why couldn't they see they are both idols? 

There are only two possible explanations.  Either this is an attack on people of other faiths, rubbishing their gods, or they had genuinely perceived something about the nature of reality.

Perhaps the last verse is a clue to what they perceived.  They make a distinction between those who worship idols and so are like them, unable to do anything of their own volition, and those who worship God and so somehow share in God's freedom.  (Compare the last verse with the first.)

At this stage, I will not take this any further except to note that before we jump to conclusions we should heed their warning about what happens to those who worship false gods.  As a further warning, this video shows what happens when you mess with idols.

 

What Sin is Not

OK, so I'm saying religion does not make you happy  and engages you with the world .  It is spiritual but spirituality engaged.  So, what does this mean, what does religion do for you?  I have to say I don't know because the word religion is too general. 

I suppose it's possible that all religions do the same for you.  I think this is unlikely but I'm not going to explore that road.  I can tell you about the religion I do know.  If we are to understand what Christianity does for us we need to understand sin.  This post is about what sin is not.

You may find some of this surprising.

First, sin has got nothing to do with the ten commandments.  Lots of reasons.  Most people tend to focus on the later ones and ignore the ones about loving God and graven images.  This makes it easy.  I haven't murdered anyone or coveted my neighbour's wife and so I am not a sinner.  Actually I'm not into graven images and I go to church most weeks and so I must love God.  That just about wraps sin up for me.

I'm afraid not.  So, am I saying the ten commandments are necessary but not sufficient?  No, I am not.  I am saying obeying these commandments or any others is not the point.  For a start, biblical Hebrew has no word for obey (unlike Biblical Greek or Aramaic).  They are actually signs of friendship between God and humanity.  God is saying to Israel, behave like this and consequently things will go well for you.  But even this is not good enough.

Sin is not simple disobedience, it is a perception of the world that is unrealistic.  It is a disengaged perception which places me at the centre and expects everything else to revolve around me.  Consequently my behaviour will always be to some degree inappropriate.

Second, sin has nothing to do with sex.  Let me be clear here.  Sex tends to get tied up with the false perceptions we all have about our place in the world.  But it is these false perceptions which are the problem. 

This problem goes back to Augustine of Hippo (illustrated).  Prior to him, there were suspicions about sex but they were largely socio-economic, the wealthy and powerful use wealth and power to sexually exploit the weak.  This was frowned upon because in Christ the early church was understood to be a church of equals. 

Augustine introduced the idea of original sin.  Let's be clear this is the idea that the next generation is infected by sin (as it were) through the sex act.  Jesus was without sin because there was no sex involved in his birth.  Neat!

It is hard to imagine any doctrine which has and continues to cause more problems.  I don't particularly want to let Augustine off the hook but the reason his views made sense for hundreds of years was the doctrine of the fall.  There was an original state of grace (presumably based upon Platonic ideals) from which humanity fell.

This is why evolution is such a problem for some Christians.  Evolution means there was no original state of grace and so no fall.  I've never understood why this is a problem.  The vision of perfection could as easily be a future state.  It is not a goal of evolution but a gift from God.  We know we can be better.  

The problem for theologians is we know we can be better than we are but don't know how to get there.  Evolution cannot get us there any more than laws or commandments, so what do we do?

On Being Comforted by Religion

So what do I mean by religion helps us with things that make us alive rather than happy ? 

Sometimes preachers tell us that Christianity / the Holy Spirit / Jesus comforts the uncomfortable and discomforts the comfortable.  It may be trite but there is a lot of truth in this so long as we are clear about what is meant by comfort.

The word in old English is subtly different from the way it is used in modern English.  For example, it used to be possible to comfort a statue.  This meant to position it on its plinth so that it has a snug fit.  Today we would think the statue was upset!

The other story is that King Harold is shown on the Bayeux Tapestry's depiction of the Battle of Hastings, comforting his troops at the point of his spear.  I've no idea whether this is true or not but I've illustrated this article with a possible scene from the tapestry.

However, the point is to be comforted is to be engaged.  This is what religion does for us, it doesn't make us happy but it does invite us to be engaged with the world with all its pains as well as it pleasures. 

Does Religion Make You Happy?

A conversation about happiness on BBC Radio 4 yesterday.  Apparently happiness depends upon a range of things, eg money, family, friends, work ... and of course religion.

At the mention of religion, the programme became interesting.  The woman who was speaking seemed to be rather embarrassed at the word.  Of course, she said it's not so much religion as spirituality.  She stumbled around this several times before settling on spirituality rather than religion.  So, spirituality makes you happy and religion does not and that's official!

Of course we can all see what she's driving at ... dreadful church or temple or mosque services ... men who lead and don't allow women or gays to lead.  We've all been there ...  But it does seem likely religion does make some people happy, if only the men who control it ... and in reality many more than them.

Some time ago, Jonathan Sacks , the Chief Rabbi, said something which rang true to me.  Religion is, he said, applied spirituality.  It is (this is me) spirituality applied in a particular time and place.  It is spirituality grounded, not just in the head.  It is spirituality made public. 

So, religion is spiritual but spirituality is not necessarily religion in this specific sense.  Is the reluctance to see religion as a source of happiness an admission that spirituality as a source of happiness is an escape from reality?

But who said religion aims to make us happy?  Religion is only in the hands of tiresome old men (or indeed other tiresome people) if we let it be so.  It is ours to apply together in any time and place we choose.  As such it helps us make sense of our lives but it is not painless.  When we deal with religion, we are dealing with things that make us alive, not necessarily happy.

Atheists: Are they Angels?

I am fascinated by the debate between the new atheists, eg Dawkins and Hitchins, and whoever listens to them.  It seems to me though, much of the debate misses the point.  I remember many years ago reading Bertrand Russels' essay Why I am not a Christian.  Here Russel suggests two beliefs are essential to the Christian faith and then proceeds to knock them down.  I remember when I first read the essay, my thought was that as a Christian I found neither of Russels' beliefs essential to my faith.  (For the record they were: (1) that God exists, and (2) that Jesus was the best man who ever lived.)

The modern debate is just as full of non-sequiturs.  It does get a bit wearing when Dawkins tells me I believe something I don't believe and then calls me an idiot for believing it.  The point to grasp is this debate is not about atheism (or theism); it is about idolatry.

Dawkins' particular target is creationists, and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he says about their beliefs.  This leads me to apply my own label to the new atheists.  They are angels.  This Greek word means messenger and, by applying it to the new atheists, I mean they are messengers from God.  They have been sent by God to help us identify our idols.  They should therefore be treated in debate with utmost respect.  As God's messengers they are loved by God and Christians must never forget to give thanks for their ministry.  (The photo is of the mourning angel in the churchyard of San Miniato al Monte, Firenze, Italy).

However, (didn't you know that was coming?) there is a problem with atheism.  Atheists don't go far enough.  All of us have images of God that are idolatrous.  To be consistent atheists should empty their minds of all images of God.  These crop up in all sorts of places, for example, the invisible hand that keeps capitalism ticking over or the rather inchoate mind that guides evolution according to Dawkins.  Of course, this is the journey taken by Christian mystics, it is an emptying, known by theologians as kenosis.  It is interesting that when the mind is emptied of all preconceptions, mystics do not find nothing, or if they do it is not the sort of nothing they expected.

Atheists are profoundly mistaken if they believe rejection of God leads to the conclusion there is nothing outside the known universe.  We have as much evidence for the existence of nothing as we have for the existence of God.

Of course, according to Barth, we should all do this exercise because all of us have false images of God.  The only image we have is of God crucified on the cross, an instrument of Roman Imperialism.  And it is in that context where we see the consequences of idolatry.  False idols are never benevolent and this applies as much to atheists as it does to the rest of us.

Atheists are right to point to times in history where Christians have been driven to war with each other and people of other faiths because of our idols.  My other blog is solely concerned about healing the wounds between Christians.  But atheists cannot present themselves as blameless in this regard.  Idols work on atheists as much as they do on Christians.  Think back to the last century: the wars, the weapons of mass destruction, the landmines, the gulags, the holocaust.  Most of these horrors can be traced to atheism, the rejection of religion.  The rejection of one set of idols left human minds open to others more terrible than the first.  My worry is that whilst most Christians might have learned this lesson, have the atheists?

Christianity is, as far as I know, the only faith that places at its centre an instrument of torture and death.  Despite our history, it is not there to incite us to violence but to warn us of the dangers of leaving anything solely to the warped timber of humanity.