When we make G-d small enough to put in our pocket, that's idolatry (we hold G-d instead of G-d holding us).

The word idolatry is derived from the Greek word eidos (meaning "essence").

Idolatry doesn't exist in the fact of the object itself, but in the eye of the beholder. It is the way in which one engages with an object (or idea) that makes an idol an idol - rather than some kind of property within it. For instance, in the past many Romans would have perceived a statue of Apollo as the visible representation of divinity, while today we appreciate it purely as a sculpture or ancient artefact (Pete Rollins, How (not) to speak of God, p12).

Idolatry can be understood as any attempt that would render the essence of G-d accessible, bringing G-d either into aesthetic visibility (in the form of a physical structure, such as a structure) or conceptual visibility (in the form of a concept, such as a theological system). Like an aesthetic idol (such as the Golden Calf in the book of Exodus), the conceptual idol refers to any system of thought which the individual or community takes to be a visible rendering of G-d. The only significant difference between the aesthetic idol and the conceptual idol lies in the fact that the former reduces G-d to a physical object while the latter reduces G-d to an intellectual object.

The word ideology is derived from the Greek terms eidos (meaning "essence") and logos ("reason").

Ideology refers to any system which is held as a verbal representation of how things are.

When systematic theology becomes ideology (in the sense that it claims to give us the essence of G-d) and does not recognise that G-d is bigger than the descriptions it has of G-d, that system opens itself up to the possibility of being idolatrous. In the same way, the search for clarity about G-d without acknowledgment of the mystery of G-d can become idolatrous.

This is not to say we cannot saying anything about G-d! It is to say that anything we say about G-d is not contained in our descriptions of G-d, and that - if we are doing it anything like right - those who hear our G-d-talk also hear an invitation to surrender to the mystery of the One who cannot ever be held, but who beholds us in love.

Technorati Tags: idolatry, Pete Rollins, theology

God has given us a verbal representation of himself – His Word. And what makes it so amazing is that it is His Word about himself, not man’s (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21-21). We are told that we have been given EVERYTHING we need for life and godliness, not just parts (2 Pet 1:3). In addition, we are told that the mystery has been revealed – it is Christ (Col 1:26-27). And Christ wasn’t just a partial representation of God – He was God in ALL his fullness, the very image of God (Col 1:15, 19, 2:9).

Paul wanted the Colossian church to have FULL riches and COMPLETE understanding (Col 1:6,9, 2:2) so that they could KNOW the mystery of God – Christ! And in Christ is hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). Why all this emphasis on understanding and revelation of the mystery – Col 2:4.

I am not saying that I am going to perfectly understand God in my finite mind, but what I am saying is that there is no need for additional revelation of who God is – He sent His Son as a complete/perfect revelation!

reply to this comment

Posted by: HG 08 Nov, 2007 - 15:43:14

Hi HG

It might seem like my post is saying that we can't know anything about G-d who is clouded in shrouded mystery. But remember, from previous posts on this topic, that my understanding of mystery is as "infinite layers of meaning".

So the more we get to know G-d, the more we find out how unfathomable He is.

The purpose of Scripture is to equip people to do good works. As long as we keep it in its proper place, that's good. Of course it reveals things about G-d, but if we say that Scripture completely grasps G-d we make it into an idol - which is what the main thrust of my post is about.

It's interesting to contrast these verses you gave above with a stack of verses about the unknowability of G-d. Keep listening...this is a topic for a later post!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 09 Nov, 2007 - 00:22:03

Roger thanks for this upholding and reminder of the ultimate mystery of G-d, where our imagination and faith are fired, as opposed to this compulsion to explain that we suffer from in the west.

I'm really with you, and I understand your position as a mature one, not as something lobsided. Don' stop defending the Unbeheld, no matter how much you might be misunderstood.

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 12 Nov, 2007 - 20:31:56

Rodger,would it be idolatory if i said that Rollins is a demigod? That book is incredible, pure poetry.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Curtislove 18 Nov, 2007 - 21:54:16

Warning: Parameter 1 to NP_Captcha::event_FormExtra() expected to be a reference, value given in /home2/futurech/public_html/old/admin/libs/MANAGER.php on line 319

Name:
Email / URI:
Remember Me

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription