Ain't It Shiny?

     "How could the Hebrews have been so stupid!" one of my students spluttered the other day, remarking that they had just been led by the Lord from Egypt across the Red Sea, and almost without time to catch their cultural breath had fashioned for themselves the golden calf.

     I chalked it up to the blockheadedness of man, and most of the time that's as good an explanation as any.  But I also suggested that maybe the Hebrews were surprised to hear that they had committed idolatry.  Who knows but that they intended the golden calf to represent their Lord?  If that is so, then the Lord punished them not for worshipping a golden calf, but for worshipping Him as if He were a golden calf, or as if He were properly represented by a golden calf.  He had been so generous with them, after all, as to tell them His Name -- I AM.  One might suppose that the name "I AM" would rule out golden calves, but then there is that old problem of blockheadedness again.

     Or maybe also a certain pride.  One of my friends labels it OSD: Original Sin Disorder.  The people who compelled Aaron to fashion the calf sinned not by irreligion exactly, but by religion -- by insisting on a religion to meet their specifications.  In their case, they wanted to be like Other People.  Other People enjoy worshipping at the feet of idols; why should not we, especially since our god has been so good to us?  Of course, that "reimagining," or perhaps I should say simply that "imagining" of God inverts the ontological hierarchy between God and man: now He is not the ground of our existence, but we are the ground of His; we have "made" Him into a calf.

     The problem is not exactly that God remains infinitely beyond our ken.  He does; yet we Christians believe too that He has revealed Himself to us, and since He has, we know certain things about Him.  We do not have to imagine.  We know His Name -- that is, we know Him as the One whose essence it is to exist.  And we know Him as Father, because the Son has so revealed Him.  If we contemplate the Fatherhood of God, we are on firm ground, following in the footsteps of the Son, who was using no metaphor, but uttering a Name; and if that contemplation calls into play, as it inevitably will, our faculty of imagination (I am not talking about iconic representations of the Father here), then our imagination will not be vain, since it will have been ordered by the Truth Himself.

     Any other "reimagining" of God, of His essence, that we are not taught by the Son, submits Him to our specifications -- as if we were Adam, looking at the creatures, and naming God accordingly.  Then anyone who calls God "Mother," even if he intends to worship that same God who delivered the children of Israel from their bondage in Egypt, has thrown his earrings into the cauldron and urged Aaron to fashion us an idol, that we might be like Other People.

Comments

[Ethan Cordray]

What a fine and enlightening post.

[Bill R]

I had been hoping for a discussion of idolatry here on MC, for I think it's a topic little discussed today. I think Tony's analysis is spot-on. It goes directly to the recent brouhaha in Presbyterian circles about using "imaginative" names for the Holy Trinity, which names ought to cause Christians to blush with shame even to repeat. But it's true: such naming reflects an idolatrous spirit, and violates the Commandments not to make graven images or likenesses of the Creator or to take His Name in vain.

[James A. Altena]

Fr. Samuel Edwards (Anglican) wrote an absolutely brilliant paper on this topic some 15 years ago with respect to so-called "inclusive language" as a form of idolatry that seeks to "re-image" God to suit ourselves. I have a print copy; if I can find it on line, I'll post a link.

[ralphg]

I don't think it was deliberate idolatry as much as it was a result cultural conditioning.

They had just come from 400 years of living "God-less" in Egypt, where animal worship was the norm.

I suspect that they felt making the gold calf was an appropriate gesture. But God had to now point out to them, in a forceful manner, that idolotry was no longer permitted in this new era.

One other item: the calf was made with the gold given to them by the Egyptians. Being forced to eat the ground-up gold meant that they could no longer rely on the power it represented, but had to rely on this new-to-them God who was now leading them.

[pence]

The real idol for modern man is his own idea which replaces the Living God to whom one prays and who has revealed Himself in a particular way. Leftists have ideologies, individualists have spirituality and conservatives say that "Ideas have consequences"(which really means "conservative intellectuals matter") One's "Higher Power" or god "as you understand him" is an image(eidon) in one's head rather that a real God who has spoken and makes demands requiring obeeience. Intellectuals especially have to constantly guard in prayer life from talking to oneself about ideas rather than talking and listening to the personal God. God is like gravity--there is a certain reality He exerts that is not dependent on the other body's conception.

[Nick]

I would tend to disagree that this was simply cultural conditioning. There is a strong undertone in the account that Aaron issued a warning and was forced into the sacrifice. He, after all, isn't obliterated. He also makes an attempt in to divert the people from setting up a generic sacrifice. He delays the festivities and makes a point of issuing early sacrifices.

I might suggest that this was a conscious choice against God. They didn't want to give up their freedom. They wanted a God that served them not the other way around.

Idolatry has a strong streak of selfishness. We worship these things in a hope that they will give us something: The metal idol for the rain, the basketball player for fame, the teen idol for sex. Idolatry has nothing to do with love, it has to do with bargaining, literally, with the devil.

[Tony Esolen]

James,

I have a suspicion that I've seen that article -- and if it's the same, it really is brilliant. By all means, if you can find it, send it along.

[Doug Taylor-Weiss]

I've never forgotten the uneducated lady in a former parish. When I was telling her about the mainline's "Re-Imagining Conference" some 10 years ago, she finally retorted, "I didn't have to imagine God in the first place!"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I've never forgotten the uneducated lady in a former parish. When I was telling her about the mainline's "Re-Imagining Conference" some 10 years ago, she finally retorted, "I didn't have to imagine God in the first place!"<<<

That's why we have icons, to say nothing of hesychia. Something that is real can be experienced; you don't need to imagine it.

[Tom Austin]

I have read that pagan religions of the day frequently depicted their gods riding on a bull or calf. By sculpting an riderless calf, the Israelites may have been attemting to have their cake and eat it, too: worshipping the invisible God while still having something tangible to latch on to. It's more relevant that way, you see?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have read that pagan religions of the day frequently depicted their gods riding on a bull or calf.<<<

You read wrong.

[The Rev'd Michael Philliber]

1st - Mr. Esolen: Beautiful! Calvin is noted for having said (& said more than once)that the human heart is an idol factory.

2nd - Ralph G & Nick: Remember, the Ten Commandments had just been spoken out of the fiery cloud on Sinai to all Israel. The 2nd Commandment (as Reformed folk number it, or the conclusion of the 1st commandment as RC & Lutherans number it) specifically prohibited what they did. Then 40 days later they seemed to have had social amnesia maybe? No, Psalm 95 assumes this episode under the 'Harden not your heart as in the rebllion...' So, they had chronice heart failure!

3rd - If the article by Fr.Edwards is worth passing about, might we have the link to it?

Be of good cheer!

[Nick]

Reverend Philliber,

I think we agree. The Isrealites failed because they weren't interested in doing the right thing. They wanted a more pliable god. Aaron I think recognized the problem and was, wrongly, trying to set up a middle way.

[James A. Altena]

I have print copies of the article I mentioned by Fr. Samuel L. Edwards from 1989 ("The Breaking of Images: Inclusive Language and the Corruption of the Christian Mind") but so far have not found a web link to it or a computer file. I am now trying to contact Fr. Edwards directly. Failing that, I will be happy to mail print copies (albeit heavily marked up with my underlining) to anyone who sends me his or her mailing address. (Help with postage and photocopying expenses in that case would be appreciated).

[Crockett]

Mr. Altena,

If you find yourself mailing copies of the article, I'd like to receive one, and would gladly pay you for copying and shipping. How do I get my address to you?

Thanks.

Daniel Crockett

[James A. Altena]

GREAT NEWS, FOLKS!!!

Fr. Edwards just phoned me and forwarded to me a .pdf file of his essay. I will in turn forward that to anyone who sends me his or her e-mail address (click on my name to send a message). It is absolutely one of the most brilliant theological articles I've ever read, and should be a mainstay in any orthodox Christian's library.