Idolatry and Ethics in the Reformed Tradition – with Douglas Ottati

By -
I’ve never much liked how many people characterize the Reformed theological tradition. Talking about “the 5 points of Calvinism” or “TULIP” might work for some people as a starting point, but it breaks down really quickly – at least if you’re a true inhabitant of the Reformed tradition and not a reactionary (either as a peripheral hanger-on without connection with a historically Reformed church or as a member of a splinter group within that historical family). Other folks talk about the importance of God’s “sovereignty” in Reformed theology. This isn’t wrong, but it’s also very closely connected with the “5 points” business.
Together, these approaches set up a picture of God as some kind of all-powerful, supernatural potentate that must be obeyed unless you want to risk dire consequences. I don’t find this image particularly compelling, either on its own merits or as a reading of the Reformed tradition. And, honestly, it makes me think of the line from Jesus Christ Superstar when Jesus sings in a quiet voice full of regret: “[None of you] understand what power is, understand what glory is, understand at all.”

In other words, I think these ways of talking about the Reformed tradition ultimately come down to an exercise in idolatry - which is rhetorically convenient, for my present purposes, because that’s what I think the Reformed theological tradition is ultimately about: idolatry – what it is, how to spot it, and how to avoid it.

Furthermore, I’m tempted to think that idolatry is the besetting sin of our time. Well, of all times, really. But in our day we have a particular version of it, especially in the West, that is taking up a lot of space and driving a huge share of the cultural zeitgeist. Or, perhaps better, once again openly doing these things. It’s been around a while, kind of went underground for a bit but never went away. That exercise in idolatry is American Christian Nationalism, “Americanity,” or whatever else you may want to call it.

What got me thinking about this? There I was, minding my own business, not thinking about the rank idolatry of American Christian Nationalism, and reading along in Douglas Ottati’s very interesting and engaging book, Living Belief: A Short Introduction to Christian Faith, and I came across the following passage. I’ll leave it to you, gentle readers, to connect the dots between Ottati’s trenchant reflections and my forgoing reflections. As always, bold is mine and any italics are in the original.
Idolatry is the fashioning of a god in our own image or presumption. To paraphrase John Calvin, we imagine a god and then fashion a likeness or representation of it with our own hands. The idol, then, is the product of our wants and preferences; it embodies, guarantees, and not surprisingly, also legitimates them. Or, again, the idol is a false deity whose purposes, so long as we adhere to the correct formulas, we may manipulate to accord with our own interests and aims. But if this is so, the idolatry ruins the ‘objectivity’ of the deity’s ethical demands in the sense that they no longer stand ‘over against’ us and our wishes. (Perhaps, then, we should refrain from killing and be truthful only when it suits us and our aims to do so. Perhaps a community should uphold impartial course of law only when impartiality serves a ruling groups aims and wishes.) Often enough the purposes of such a god are simply identified with those of our own group or nation and its typical interests and practices - a temptation to which, as the prophets saw, Israel and other nations succumb to repeatedly. Idolatry, in short, results in a loss of divine transcendence. The lost of transcendence leads, in turn, to an erosion of norms and values, such as the worth of persons and justice (especially for the vulnerable) – values that might otherwise enable us occasionally to take a critical view of our own desires, as well as of the practices of our own group or society. Indeed, the humane treatment of aliens and the poor will probably be one of the first things to be compromised. (p. 162)
Ok, I can’t resist one quick bit of commentary.

“But wait (says the reactionary)! If our position is a form of idolatry, your liberal / progressive / woke / (call it what you will) perspective is too! If we’re not allowed to think that God totally agrees with us, then you’re not either!”

True. The big difference in this whole thing is that one side seems to want to provide humane treatment to those on the margins of society, and the other sides thinks that “humane treatment” means convincing or coercing those on the margins to conform to their sensibilities, go elsewhere, or otherwise get out of or be removed from the way. For my money (and Ottati’s book can walk you through some of this, as can many others), the biblical witness to Jesus Christ around which Christians should gather comes down pretty decisively in favor of the former rather than the latter approach.

Anyway, if you want to read more posts on the same broad topic, I offer you the following: ==================================



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s...
Keep reading

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri...
Keep reading

George Hunsinger’s gloss of the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2

By -
Image
I’ve been reading George Hunsinger’s (my doktorvater , for anyone who might be new around here) entry in the Brazos Theoloical Commentary on the Bible series on Philippians. Anyone who has studied with George will find this book to be a compendium and application of many of his most characteristic and beloved analytical tools and patterns, and I’ve been enjoying it immensely. But one of the things that really stood out to me was how he glossed the so-called “Christ hymn” of Philippians 2. George Hunsinger, Philippians , Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2020). The gloss that Hunsinger provides is not a historical-critical interpretation. Rather, it is an ecclesial, ecumenical, and theological interpretation that attempts to fill in the blanks for how to understand this proto-liturgical formulation in light of the later formulations of the ecumenical creeds. In order to achieve this gloss, Hunsinger engages in “ecclesial hermeneutics” and makes “...
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from...
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that...
Keep reading