No condemnation?

A reason for this [that David's sacrificing as he moved the ark wasn't condemned] may be that the ark is part of Yahweh’s constellation and therefore technically not a different deity from Yahweh, as opposed to something like Baal or Chemos, who have their own distinct constellations. Incidentally, the calf altars at Dan and Bethel (and also the golden calf at Sinai) are probably also intended to be aspects of Yahweh. The difference in these cases is that Yahweh, and therefore orthodox Israel, does not recognize the legitimacy of these; that is, Yahweh does not declare them holy, as he does with the ark. Similarly, the command to make no graven image (of Yahweh; Ex 20:24) is given because images fragment the divine identity into separate aspects, which, while still representing the same deity, are distinct enough that they can even fight each other. If Arbela goes to war against Nineveh, then Istar will be fighting against Istar. Israelite orthodoxy will not allow Yahweh’s identity to be fragmented in this way; there can be no “Yahweh of Jerusalem” and “Yahweh of Samaria.” This is why there is only one sanctioned temple (in Jerusalem) and one sanctioned image (the ark), and no other image or cult center can be tolerated (see Deut 12).— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 113 n. 28

<idle musing>
I've heard the idea about the golden calves being intended as representations of YHWH before (I think it's in John Bright's History of Israel). It's also claimed that the golden calf in Exodus was intended as a manifestation of YHWH. I'm not sure I buy it. But, I must admit it's an attractive idea—almost too attractive, which is probably why I am not convinced.
</idle musing>

Unfortunate reversal

Behind the line of argument here [Rom 1:23] would seem to be the biblical tradition, stemming from Gen 1:26–28, where human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, are given dominion over the rest of creation (fish, birds, animals, reptiles), a motif given more poetic expression in Psalm 8 (esp. vv 5–8). Idolatry represents the summit of “futility” (v 21) in that it has human beings submitting themselves in worship to the creatures over which they were meant to rule. This perverts the whole raison-d'étre of the non—human created world, subjecting it to “futility” (8:30).—Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 38; quoted in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93

Divine presence

We may conclude that the image functioned in the cult as a mediator of the divine presence. It was the means by which humans gained access to the presence of deity. As such it represented the mystical unity of transcendence and immanence, a theophany transubstantiated. Jacobsen therefore sees the functioning image as an act of the deity’s favor: “The image represented a favor granted by the god .thinsp;.thinsp;.thinsp;a sign of a benign and friendly attitude on the part of the community in which it stood.” Berlejung provides a useful summary of our study: “A cultic statue was never solely a religious picture, but was always an image imbued with a god, and, as such, it possessed the character of both earthly reality and divine presence.” From deity to people, the image mediated presence and revelation. From people to deity, the image mediated worship.—Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd ed., pages76–77

Bring out the stones!

It's that time of year again when the christian nationalists get to turn the worship of God into the worship of country. Well, they always are doing that, but on the two Sundays surrounding July 4th, they get the stage. Roger Olson has a great post today on the difference between nationalism and patriotism, and why nationalism is idolatry.

Here's a short excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

Nationalism is patriotism on steroids; it is patriotism degenerated into jingoism and chauvinism. It is near idolatry of country and often appears in mixing celebration of nation with worship of God. Patriotism thanks God for the good of one’s country and asks God to “mend its every flaw.” Patriotism is honest about the country’s failures and urges leaders to push on toward better achievements of its founding ideals. Nationalism rejects all criticism of country as almost (if not exactly) treason. . . .

Idolatry is such a subtle and seductive force (nobody ever thinks they are engaging in it!) that Christians ought always to be on guard against it. It is best to steer clear and wide of it. That’s why I prefer not to have a national flag in any worship space. While it might not constitute idolatry, it presents that possibility. Too many people even in Christian churches do treat the national flag as an idol. One “good Christian man” I know threatened violence to anyone who removed the flag from the church’s sanctuary.

<idle musing>
So, bring out the stones and cast them at all of us who think that the nationalism displayed by far too many who call themselves christians is really just idolatry and worship of a false god. I personally would go even further than Roger Olson in saying that much of what is called patriotism is also veiled nationalism. For example, I don't see how a Christian can recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand and sing the national anthem. For me both of those are idolatry.

So bring on the stones! You're probably going to get your Supreme Court justice who will cause SCOTUS to endorse the death penalty anyway, so why not do it now? : (
</idle musing>

Those blasted atheists!

When considered as a religion in that time, the most obvious oddity was Christianity’s “atheism”—that is, the refusal to worship the traditional gods. Yes, of course, as we have observed, Christians shared this exclusivist stance with Judaism. But pagans could write off the well-known Jewish refusal to worship the gods as an ethnic peculiarity. The aggressively transethnic appeal and spread of early Christianity, however, gave it no such character and made Christianity seem much more “in your face.” Other religious movements of the time had their oddities too. But early Christianity was not simply odd; it was deemed dangerous to traditional notions of religion and, so it was feared, also for reasons of social stability.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 184

<idle musing>
I always cast about for a good comparison—and I always come up empty. Perhaps the way we view an anarchist? But that's not quite accurate, either. But rest assured, the idea of Christianity was not readily welcomed by the ruling elites. It was unsettling. Chaos was at the door, and Christianity was letting it in—at least that was their opinion. Remember, the gods kept Chaos at bay. You served the gods to keep the status quo—it didn't really matter what you believed or how you acted, just as long as you placated the gods with the appropriate honors.

But along comes Christianity. It says that not only are the gods not to be worshiped with sacrifices, but indeed, those "gods" were actually evil demons! That idea isn't going to get a good hearing! Especially to those who have the most to lose. It is similar to the reaction that you get when you tell people that as a Christian you really should think twice about saying the pledge of allegiance...
</idle musing>

What are they thinking?!

Having adopted the new stance demanded by their conversion to Christian faith, they were to withdraw particularly from making sacrificial offerings to the gods of their household, their city, and the empire, and now were to practice the exclusivity in matters of worship that was expected of members of the ekklēsia. These newly converted Gentile Christians would have seemed to fellow pagans, however, to be making an abrupt, arbitrary, bizarre, and unjustified shift in religious behavior. This total withdrawal from the worship of the many deities was a move without precedent, and it would have seemed inexplicable and deeply worrying to many of the general populace. In their eyes, people other than Jews simply had no right to do this, and, no doubt, it would have drawn a lot of objection and even harassment, perhaps especially from the families and closest acquaintances of Christian converts. It would have seemed to the general public a kind of religious and social apostasy, an antisocial stance.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, pages 53–54

<idle musing>
What in the world could they possibly be thinking?! Why, the social fabric will be rent asunder by their neglect of the gods! The empire is sure to suffer setbacks because of them! Feed them to the lion!

Think about that for a minute. What would your family do if you suddenly refused to offer sacrifice to the lares and penates who keep your family and household safe? It would be like you were spitting on your ancestors and parents, saying they don't exist anymore!

Needless to say, that isn't the best way to ingratiate yourself to those in power... In fact, it's almost like they don't care about impressing and influencing those in power! Maybe we could learn something from them?
</idle musing>

They have an excuse. What about you?

The difference and distinguishing feature of the early Christian stance agains “idolatry” is this: In the eyes of ancient pagans, the Jews’ refusal to worship any deity but their own, though often deemed bizarre and objectionable, was basically regarded as one, rather distinctive, example of national peculiarities. Whether residents of Roman Judaea or in their many diaspora locations, Jews were commonly thought of, and thought of themselves, as a distinct people, an ethnos, a “nations” in that sense. The wider Roman-era public was well aware of, and generally accommodated, the ethnic diversity that made up the empire.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, pages 52–53

Gods, gods, and still more gods!

In addition to such “high” deities, there were also lesser and other divine beings that, nevertheless, figured regularly in religious practices. In Rome, for example, these included beings called Lares that functioned as guardians over various settings. The most common were domestic Lares of each household (Latin: Lares domestici), which represented spirits of family dead who had been elevated to a special kind of spiritual existence on account of their goodness and/or importance. These spirits protected the family, and all members of the household were expected to reverence them daily in offerings and prayers at the Lararium, a small altar typically placed in the Roman house. But there were also protective Lares of bridges, crossroads, and other sites, and even Lares Augusti, seen as guardians of the Roman state. In comparison with the more well-known gods, the Lares typically had more restricted spheres of power, but they likely figured much more frequently in the day-to-day ritual life of people.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 46

<idle musing>
And the Christians refused to worship them! Can you imagine?! Why, that would be just as bad as if a person refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance! Seditious! Rebellious! A threat to the social order! Away with them! They are a treasonous bunch! Feed them to the lion!
</idle musing>

It's alive!

The rituals outlining these procedures and the accompanying incantations are known collectively by the Babylonian titles mīs pî (“washing of the mouth”) and pīt pî (“opening of the mouth”). The mīs pî, as noted earlier, was primarily a ritual intended to purify the recipient in preparation for cultic activity. As Walker and Dick conclude, “the ‘washing of the mouth’ was essentially a purification rite which prepared the object/person for contact with the divine. It washed away impurities.” The mīs pî was performed not only on divine statues but also on the king and his royal insignia, royal statues, priests, individual humans, and various animals and sacred objects. By contrast, the mouth-opening rite (pīt pî) was apparently reserved for inanimate objects, including figurines and larger divine images, a leather bag, cult symbols, and royal jewels. It was thought to consecrate, activate, and/or enliven the object in preparation for cultic use. When applied to a divine statue, the Opening of the Mouth was thought to animate the statue’s sensory organs and limbs, enabling it to consume offerings, smell incense, and move freely. Once the mouth washing and opening were complete, the statue was considered a fully functioning, living manifestation of the divine.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 44

<idle musing>
Remember, the ancients were fully aware that it wasn't the deity—it was just a manifestation of the deity. But at the same time, it was the deity. Confusing? Maybe. But because in a very real sense it was the deity, Isaiah and the other prophets could have a good time making fun of the whole process.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the few people who actually read this blog, I could say we can compare it to the treatment that is given to the U.S. flag. It isn't the country, but it represents in a very real way the U.S. That's why people get so upset when people burn it out of protest. They are symbolically burning the country. Or, why the flag is never supposed to touch the ground, or you stand and salute the flag, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, or any one of a number of other "silly" rules about handling the flag.

Side question? Is the flag an idol?

You figure it out, but I would suggest it is...just as nationalism is an idol. Yes, especially "American exceptionalism."
</idle musing>

Don't sell yourself short

A metal or stone image (ṣelem) of a god cannot see or hear or act and so cannot represent the living Jehovah. The only authorized image (selem) of God in Scripture is humanity; thinking, hearing, seeing, speaking, acting humanity, filled with the Spirit of God. In Genesis 1, human beings are created to be the equivalent in creation of the cult statue in a temple! That is an astonishing claim.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 143

<idle musing>
I recently taught a two-day class on the ANE backgrounds to the OT. This is one of the things I mentioned to them, but I don't think they fully understood the import of it (not that I fully understand the import of it either!). This is radical stuff, mind-boggling in its ramifications.
</idle musing>

Overreach

To enhance its image the Gun Empire boasts of pure American values, yet preaches insurrection and plots the overthrow of a democratically elected government. It asks to be approached as one of the great religions of the world, yet lies to the American public. It claims God-given rights to be armed, but refuses any public responsibility for safety. Such pronouncements may in the short run wield significant power over a minority of gun zealots and a majority of apathetic citizens, but in God’s long run, it is doomed: “The Kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ and He shall reign forever and ever” (Rev 11:15).

The Gun Empire carries within the seeds of its own destruction, particularly in its classic overreach and promotion of violence. As it seeks more power through devious means and grasps for more exclusive privileges, it sets in motion undeniable and unconquerable spiritual forces that will inevitably lead to its own defeat. Its outrageous methods will eventually bring about its own demise. It will die as all Empires die, by claiming way too much. God still “scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts, puts down the mighty from their thrones, exalts those of low degree, fills the hungry with good things, and sends the rich and powerful away—empty” (Luke 1:51–53).—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 204

Violence is the answer!

When violence and guns are destroying the character and moral fiber of our nation, it is of infinite importance that the faith community wake up and boldly negate the nonsense that is noised that guns do not kill and the answer to gun violence is more guns.

For citizens to carry their guns everywhere (homes, schools, college campuses, bars, churches, athletic contests, and courthouses) is not an acceptable solution. If the signs for gun free zones are removed from our schools, bedlam will ensue. Relying on more firepower to reduce violence is not a message that faith communities, peace fellowships, the majority of NRA members, or the general populace could embrace. Our faith traditions, should they be honestly consulted, provide much more effective alternatives.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 203

<idle musing>
Ah, there's the rub. "Our faith traditions, should they be honestly consulted, provide much more effective alternatives." But they won't be. Why should we listen to those old dead things? After all, we have smartphones!

Maybe the phones are smart, but I doubt we are! When we think that we are the measure of all things, this is the logical result: violence and death. We reap what we sow—in spades! We sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind. Or, as I saw someone recently write, when you sow dragon's teeth, you shouldn't be surprised when dragons sprout!
</idle musing>

I'd say it is an epidemic

Every American today lives on the slippery slope of gun violence and each of us is endangered because public safety is not a national priority. Many Americans are armed with powerful guns and shoot their fellow citizens with increasing regularity. The total number of people shot in the United States each year has risen significantly from the beginning of the new century to 2008, the latest year for which complete federal data is available. Between 2000 and 2008, a total of 272,590 people died of gunshot injuries in the United States—an average of 30,288 per year, a number shocking by comparison to any other developed country. During that same time period, an estimated 617,488 people suffered nonfatal gunshot injuries in the United States. The total number of people shot in 2008 totaled 110,215—the highest total recorded during the nine-year period surveyed by the Violence Policy Center.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 199

Making the world safe...

Enough people believe more guns will resolve human conflicts to make this country the most dangerous in the developed world. With 300 million guns in private hands and three million more coming off our assembly lines every year, our citizens are armed and dangerous. The guns we purchase for self-defense inevitably become the instruments of murder and suicide among family and friends.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 198

It's all around you

Violence is the ethos of our times. It is the spirituality of the modern world. It is accorded the status of a religion, demanding from its devotees an absolute obedience to death. Its followers are not aware, however, that the devotion they pay to violence is a form of religious piety. Violence is successful as a myth precisely because it does not seem to be mythic in the least. Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It is what works. It is inevitable, the last, and often, the first resort in conflicts. It is embraced with equal alacrity by people on the left and on the right, by religious liberals and religious conservatives. The threat of violence, it is believed, alone can deter aggressors. Violence is thriving as never before in every sector of American popular culture, civil religion, nationalism, and foreign policy. Violence, not Christianity, is the real religion of America.—Walter Wink as quoted in America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 198

<idle musing>
I would have to agree with him. Or, as Walter Brueggemann says, the unexamined metanarrative of our culture is militaristic consumerism—which really boils down to the same thing, just in a shorter phrase with bigger words : )
</idle musing>

And when money talks, death results

For decades church folk pleaded with elected leaders to enact balanced legislation, but they turned a deaf ear. They listened only to those whose guns had become idols and whose checks made it into their coffers. They believed supporting any restriction on guns was a losing political strategy. Knowing what we know today of the pervasive power of misinformation, we are not surprised when we learn that the total effect of Congress’ inattention to guns made it easier for violent people to buy guns and harder for law enforcement to arrest them or those who sold them weapons illegally.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 193

I agree

Ted Gossard has summed up my feelings about this election year wonderfully well:

I am reticent to write on American politics for a good number of reasons. But the current debacle in the election process to the upcoming November 2016 presidential election is making me think and wonder.

I wonder if many of us Christians either already have, or are in danger of losing our souls over American politics. I’m not necessarily referring to our ultimate salvation. But I’m referring to the heart of our faith and the gospel in the present. Although I don’t think the deviation I perceive helps us at all to remain on the straight and narrow.

I see this tendency as equally a problem among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthoodox, not just the evangelicals who routinely are picked on and beaten up in the press and by each other. There is a tendency to see the state as the vehicle for the good life, for flourishing, in American terms, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The right, the left, and everything in the spectrum of American politics have plenty to say on this. It’s not my intention in this post to address any of that. I have my own opinions in regard to such politics, certainly subject to revision, but that’s not the point of this post, either.

My point is simple: Christians are to live and die for nothing less than the good news found in God’s grace and kingdom come in King Jesus, realized and lived out through both the sacramental and common life of the church. Within and from and through that is our answer to the problems of society: the problem of abortion, helping the poor, racism, stopping the slave trade, etc. Our answer is unique, grounded in Jesus Christ and the gospel. (emphasis added)

Do read the whole thing!

Of course it's logical—which is why it won't happen

The gun lobby will loudly proclaim that gun control will never work because “the criminals will always get their guns and good law abiding people will be always at their mercy.” To the contrary, keeping guns out of dangerous hands does work, not only in other countries but in our own. Indeed, it works very well! Strong intentional laws which keep guns out of the hands of felons, terrorists, and the mentally ill save lives. note the evidence in the chart below: The five states with the strongest gun laws have much fewer gun deaths and the five states with the weakest gun laws have far higher death rates. That not only makes sense; it works!—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 166 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Rule number one: Never use logic when discussing idols. It doesn't work. Witness Isaiah's critique of idols. Did the Israelites cease worshiping them? No. What about Habakkuk's scathing critique? Did they stop then? Nope!

Idolatry blinds people to logic. We're seeing that in this election season. Blind patriotism has become an idol, blinding people to logic. Don't touch my idols or you die!
</idle musing>

Feel Safer?

A gun kept in the home for protection is at least 11 times more likely to kill or wound a family member or friend, or be stolen and used in a crime, than it is to stop an intruder.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 
162

Yep. The US is in first place...

When all murders of civilians in all the developed countries of the world are tabulated, 86 percent occur in the United States.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 
160

In the United States, we register births, marriages, divorces, and deaths; we register cars, trucks, boats, trailers, bicycles, houses, lands, dogs, and cats—everything but guns.—America and Its Guns: A Theological Expose, page 
161 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Think there's a correlation there?
</idle musing>