1 March 2005
Newton Garver
Idolatry
The most common image of idolatry is the golden calf that Aaron made while Moses was absent on the mountain, and it is reported (Ex. 32:27-29) that its worship led to the slaughter of some 3,000 idolatrous Israelites by the Levites. The lesson is made explicit (Ex. 34:14-125): “You shall not prostrate yourself to any other god. For the Lord’s name is the Jealous God, and a jealous god he is.” Anyone searching the Scriptures can find many other instances of idols and idolatry, but the golden calf remains the popular paradigm.
We live in a sea of idolatry, worshiping, paying tribute to, trusting and depending on, and submitting to false gods. As a quick list of the false gods I am tempted offer a catalog of seven P’s: Princes, Politicians, Priests, Preachers, Police, Prisons, Pentagon.It is a tentative list because But I am not a seasoned prophet, and I lack the rhetorical certainty a true prophet needs. It is never easy to know how to apply a paradigm, since all applications occur far removed from the original circumstances. The image of the golden calf leaves us, for all its appeal, unclear about what constitutes worship and what makes something an unworthy object of worship even though it does have real value. I think it is helpful for understanding both our society and the resurgent fundamentalism to say that we generally bow down to and pay tribute to the Seven P’s, but saying that deserves closer scrutiny.
WORSHIP
Worship is one of those grand things we often speak of with little understanding of what we are really saying. What is worship, really? We might start with forms of worship, the most distinctive of which are kneeling and prostration. Kneeling or prostration puts one in a defenseless and submissive posture, in recognition of a greater power to which one submits. For worship to be religious, in a way that binds the community together, there must also be rites or rituals of obeisance in which people participate together, where absence and other forms of nonparticipation count as disloyalty or apostasy, perhaps punishable by death. Furthermore, worship normally involves tribute (e.g., tithing), which serves to enhance either symbolically or really the power of the object of worship. Throughout the Scriptures we find the practice of these forms toward false gods condemned as idolatry.Why is it not idolatry when a man on the Honors List kneels before the Queen? Only because the Queen, with popular consent, has relegated unto herself to serve as head of the Church of England, protector of the faith, and God’s chief representative within the realm. To a Puritan the ritual of knighthood is indeed idolatry.
Idolatry cannot come into play without a recognition that the proper object of worship is God. In Islam this core idea is present in the Islamic ideal of prostrating oneself only to God, and never submitting oneself in like manner to any human authority. The practice of Islam may fail of this ideal where caliphs or sultans or mullahs seek recognition that borders on idolatry – the very sort of idolatry they see Catholics bestowing on the Pope. But the ideal of worshiping only God, trusting only in God, submitting only to God, is a powerful ideal that breeds courage and even heroism in true believers, not only in Islam but throughout the Abrahamic religions. There are thousands of stories of persons who remain heroically steadfast, submitting only to what is divine. My own favorite is that of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian peasant who refused to participate in Hitler’s godless war and was consequently beheaded in Berlin in August, 1943 (See Gordon Zahn, In Solitary Witness). A similar heroism on the part of Thomas Beckett is celebrated in T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral.
The root of this conception of worship is found throughout the Old Testament. It is expressed succinctly in the opening verse of Psalms 46: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”
The second clause of this verse reminds us that times of troubles are just the times to turn to God, rather than times when we might be excused for turning instead to princely powers. To believe that God is my refuge and strength has never meant that I will thereby or therefore be preserved from such ravages as princely powers may inflict on me. It means that I will nevertheless not bow down to or pay tribute to those powers, whatever ravages they threaten. That is where heroes enter and martyrs are made.
FALSE GODS
The very idea of idolatry involves that nothing earthly or human is worthy of worship. The idea itself entails an ideal, and indeed the very sort of ideal that religions have nourished. Jägerstätter, for example, was a devout practicing Catholic, and his resistance to Hitler came through his being able to see clearly (as his Bishop did not) that Naziism was incompatible with his faith. Everything human falls short of that ideal. So bowing down to something earthly or human, or having any such thing as one’s ultimate master, or giving any such thing the first fruits of one’s labor or one’s uncompromising submission - - that is idolatry.
No one can even conceive of idolatry without a commitment to something that transcends earthly arrangements. Uncompromising commitment to justice is insufficient, and may indeed itself be a form of idolatry. A charge of idolatry can only be brought by a prophet, someone calling the people back to their original and underlying faith.
The Old Testament, being full of prophets, is also full of charges of idolatry. Consider again Psalms 46, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” It clearly speaks to people suffering trial and tribulations. A closer look at the first clause provides some light on how false gods can be recognized:God is our refuge and strength.
Our refuge and strength is our god.Since the text is an identity or equation, we can turn it around and see the same idea from another perspective. Where do we turn in times of trials and tribulations? Where did we as a nation turn after 9/11? Where do we turn when we sense that our property is in danger? Or that youth will get out of hand? Or when people have defied the law? Or when we decide where a tenth portion of our wealth is to go? - Is it not to the Seven P’s? Do we not live in a society where a visiting Martian would say that “our refuge and strength” is entrusted to Princes, Politicians, Priests, Preachers, Police, Prisons and the Pentagon?
THE SEVEN P’s
Princes and Politicians regularly proclaim that we are in grave danger, and it is they who will protect and save us, if only we give them the funds and the faithful trust they need. Some may suggest that this is only the case where there are democratic elections, but one will find other forms of it in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as well as in non-Christian civilizations. Politicians’ grab for power is regularly disguised as salvation for the rest of us, and popular consent may be obtained either tacitly or electorally. The election of 2004 absorbed billions of dollars, including a portion of my own wealth, and in earlier times the sums collected by the monarch were referred to as tribute.. There was little or no thought that the campaign contributions or imperial tribute should be given instead to God. On the contrary, Constantine had the brilliant idea of claiming that he, the consummate prince and emperor, was sanctified by the church and therefore was to be adored in the same manner and to same degree as the Bishop of Rome. Ever since, political heads have claimed divine blessing and have themselves thereby become new paradigms of idolatry.
George W’s remarkably successful courting of religious sanction for his aggressive military actions shows that he is as much a student (perhaps by osmosis) of Church history as of Machiavelli. On September 14, 2001, which he had declared a national day of mourning, he made a rare visit to the National Cathedral in Washington and declared war. The Bishop of Washington might have - and to my mind should have - chastised the President for transforming mourning into vengeance and abusing the sanctity of the holy place. But perhaps his silence was arranged in advance. Even though less eloquent than the rabble-rousing sermon of Urban II at Clermont in 1095, which led to the first Crusade, or the more powerful and polished sermons of Bernard of Clairvaux at Vézelay and Speir in 1146, which fueled the Second Crusade, the silence was all that was needed to confer a religious blessing on the “war against terror” that led US troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The Crusades were a despicable perversion of religious ideals, but President Bush astutely imitated their success in diverting public support and devotion to the princely military powers of the Presidency, newly sanctified, again, as “our refuge and strength.”
Priests and preachers collect huge sums each week, largely on their claim to represent God. I have no doubt that many priests and preachers are admirably modest in their claims and really do help their flock to hear to voice of God. But there are many others who take center stage themselves. In this age of McCluhan the critic has upstaged the author, the interpretation claims priority over the text, the medium is the message, and adoration of the preacher or the pope takes priority over adoration of the Lord. And perhaps McCluhan is right, that this has always been the case, with the church as intermediary building uncountable riches and worldly power, while all the while pretending that contributing to its worldly wealth is really a way - perhaps the best way - of paying tribute to God. The church and its potentates are worshiped; that can hardly be denied. Whether or not this worship is idolatry is too complex an issue to be undertaken here. But that there are priests and preachers who lead their flocks astray, into worshiping false gods of one sort or another, is not likely to be denied by even the most fervent of believers.
As to the police, I welcome them and all the other public servants as contributors to civilization, but I decline to honor them as “the thin blue line” that separates civilization from barbarity. Humans do at times commit barbarous atrocities, but sometimes the perpetrators are the police themselves. Unhealthy submission to police authority is common in the form of the refusal of police departments to allow civilian review boards, thus holding themselves above the law. A minor illustration of granting police immunity from the law occurred in Amherst, NY, in connection with a “bait and shoot” program to reduce the suburban deer population. The program was implemented, and everyone assumed that because Amherst is a densely populated suburb within a cluster of counties where no gun more powerful than a shotgun (with slugs for deer) may be used, residents would be safe. But a slug from a high-powered rifle penetrated the outer wall and lodged inside one residential home. People were outraged, of course, but it was explained that police were not subject to the restrictions that apply to hunters, and the policeman in question was therefore entirely within his rights to have used a high-powered rifle in the program. Exempting persons from the law is a way of treating them as objects of adoration, golden calves of a sort. So it is with the police.
Prisons have two distinctive features - they are brutally violent and they are politically sacrosanct. Paradoxical, perhaps, but it is a paradox inherent in false gods. All punishment is violent, since it is the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering on persons. If we fail to see the violence - as is generally the case - it is because we regard the punishment as justified. It is no doubt partly justified by some prior infraction on the part of the prisoner, but such infraction does not justify any and every sort of pain and suffering. To my mind what makes the violence justifiable is, at a minimum, that it is designed to make the criminal fit to re-enter society. In practice that is rarely the case, for while they are in prison inmates are generally treated by those in authority as unworthy to be in society, thereby reducing the chances of a successful re-entry. Politicians bow down to prisons, which play a role in state government analogous to that of the Military in our national government. They constitute an ever-expanding and unexamined expenditure against which neither party dares raise a finger. USA now has a higher proportion of its citizens in prison than any other civilized country, having in the past two decades surpassed South Africa and Russia, both of which reduced their prison populations after democratic revolutions. Sanity would suggest that we re-examine what prisons are for and whether we need to spend so much of our resources on them. But the only reform recently undertaken has been to “privatize” prisons without in any way calling into question their role as a “refuge and strength” against the trials and tribulations of civil society. On the contrary, they get worse. When George Pataki became governor of New York State, one of his first acts was to revise the rule that allowed inmates to enroll in college courses through the state’s Tuition Assistance Program. This action substantially reduced the prognosis for successful re-entry into society after release from prison, but it placated resentful prison guards. Prisons are sacrosanct in America, and their personnel are like temple servants.
Of all the forms of idiolatry we practice in this country, our idolizing of the Pentagon is the most egregious. As with police and prisons, one can acknowledge that armed forces may sometimes be beneficial. I myself remain unconvinced, because the military establishments of the world generally consume rather than produce national wealth, and the benefits seem incidental and accidental (such as racial integration, and quality education for service families) rather than intrinsic to the mission. But let us grant that, in proportion, some level of defense force is indispensable for a modern nation. In USA the expenditures are all out of proportion, and the continued increases are by any rational assessment insane. But of course it is not a matter of reason. Reason has been blinded by paranoia and drugged by our worship of the Pentagon as our only and true refuge and strength against “terrorism.” We lay at the steps of the Pentagon the first fruits of our labor. Over half the national budget (excluding Social Security) goes for military expenditures, and in 2004 our military expenditures accounted for nearly half the world’s total and exceeded the combined expenditures of the next fifteen countries. The Pentagon budget increases each year, sometimes more than the Pentagon requests, without regard to which party is in power and independently of how good or bad a job the Pentagon has done. Inefficiencies are mind-boggling but irrelevant. Disputes in Congress about Pentagon spending resemble instead disputes as to whether a goat or a lamb is the right offering to the god.
A visitor from Mars who understood the categories would have to conclude that the Pentagon is an object or worship rather than of practical reason. Our refusal to apply rational criticism and assessment to the budget and the practices of the Pentagon constitutes the foremost example of idolatry of our time.
THE VOICE OF A RELUCTANT PROPHET
Who am I to be talking about idolatry? A modern prophet? Another Ezekiel or Jeremiah? As mentioned earlier, it does take someone like a prophet to make charges of idolatry, since such charges entail commitment to God. It is a good question.
There are two answers to this sound query. One is that it takes only a thoughtful observer to notice the difference between worship and practical reason. Those categories are common enough, even though not well defined, and the difference between them is not so subtle that a thoughtful observer will be tricked by Pascal’s Wager into confusing them. The other part of the answer is that I am both a Quaker and a Jeffersonian. As a liberal Quaker I have little truck with theology or altars but I do believe that we live our lives in a divine presence, and that there is in every person something of God that George Fox referred to as the Light to live by or the Seed Christ. I have no objection to identifying this Light with the moral sense that Jefferson called as much an organ of a human being as an arm or a leg, and in as much need of exercise. It has been a part of my experience in this world that my refuge and strength lies in this moral sense or Seed Christ in others, and part of my conviction that all these forms of idolatry accorded to the Seven P’s denigrate this divinity, scoff at this sort of strength and security, and seek to replace it with their worldly powers.The prophets were never voices of the mainstream, which at least since Constantine has regularly sanctified what I have labeled as idols. But the prophetic voices were embedded in tradition, not voices in the wilderness. Nor is my voice a voice in the wilderness. It is the voice, or one of the voices, of dedicated people all over the globe, in all sorts of cultures, who know (without relying on evidence) that there is something friendly and cooperative and immeasurably valuable in every person, and who seek to nurture and encourage that something through service, servant-leadership, education, and fellowship. Such people exemplify alternatives to the Seven P’s. their service, leadership, and fellowship with strangers as well as with close companions are patterns and examples that eloquently undermine the false theology of the Seven P’s and attest to the old faith to which I mean to call people back. My naming of idols and false gods has roots in this broad and buoyant fellowship.
Copyright 2004 by Buffalo Report, Inc.