Idolatry

What Happens When We Ultimize Government & Politics?

Kirk E. Miller

The following are points of reflection from a sermon I delivered at CrossWay Community Church (Milwaukee) on 2/16/2020 from Ecclesiastes 9:13-10:20.

To “ultimize” (i.e., make ultimate) our view of government and politics is to look to it as an ultimate solution for ills of this world. To put our stock and hope there. In short, it is to look to it as a savior–something which it can not live up to.

Another way of speaking of this is making government (and by extension, politics) an idol. And as the New City Catechism helpful defines idolatry, “Idolatry is trusting in created things rather than the Creator for our hope and happiness, significance and security.”

What happens when we do this? This list is not exhaustive. But here are some thoughts… 

  • When we ultimize government, it’s only one more step to ultimize our politics (our views of how government should be conducted).
  • And when our politics are ultimized, politics becomes sensationalized and alarmist. It’s infused with the highest of stakes.
  • We feel a sense of desperation to achieve political gains.
  • We soar to disproportionate heights and an inordinate sense of promise when “our side” wins, and crushing despair when they lose (when the “bad guys” win).
  • When our politics are ultimized, they take on an almost religious (transcendent) quality. And as such, those who disagree become “the opposition”—they jeopardize, threaten, and get in the way of our path to making this country better. No longer are they our neighbors whom we are called to love. They are an insidious “enemy.” “They must not love this country. They have ill motives.”
  • Our political idols are precious to us. They’re a part of us. They shape our identity. And so if you attack them, it’s personal. Expect to be attacked back.
  • We find ourselves cursing God’s image (our fellow human beings)—meaning that any of our claims to Christian motives and values are superficial and stained with hypocrisy.
  • When our politics are ultimized, our favored political parties or candidates can also become ultimized.
  • And when we become partisan in this way, it becomes far more easy for us to become biased surveyors of the truth—believing what we want, only listening to what we agree with.
  • Even without knowing it, we can compromise our ethics to fit our party’s positions. Instead of politics becoming a means to pursue the good, our political loyalty has begun to define for us what we view as good.
  • We find ourselves making excuses for politicians we support.
  • Our politics become our ethical “operating system,” rather than scripture. We interpret scripture through the lens of our politics, rather than allow scripture to critique and inform all politics, regardless of our political leanings.
  • As Christians—as those who care about being shaped by scripture—it becomes incredibly easy for us to see our political opinions as “the Christian view”—to “baptize them.” When we do this, we infuse them with an authoritative quality as “the Bible’s view” of politics. Those who disagree therefore must be spiritually compromised; they must not be faithful to scripture.
  • We find unity in the church difficult with those who disagree. Those who disagree with us likely feel marginalized by us or disdained.
  • Out of all places where we should be able to model healthy conversations about political differences—the church—we find ourselves unable to have these conversations.
  • We find more unity with others in the church over our political opinions than the gospel.
  • When we find out that another believer in the church has different political opinions than us, we find ourselves attributing it to a lack of spiritual maturity. We question their commitment to Jesus and scripture.
  • Politics becomes fuel for our pride, therefore, rather than an arena for us to demonstrate and increase in humility.
  • We’ve created unnecessary road-blocks to the gospel with our unbelieving friends due to things we’ve said online.
  • We spend more time concerning ourselves with political news and commentary than we do God’s Word.
  • We find ourselves talking more about government and politics than we do the gospel, scripture, Jesus, and his church.
  • We show more enthusiasm about our political opinions and interests than we do telling people about Christ.
  • Based on our actions and speech, it would seem to show we are more concerned about the next 4 years than we are about eternity.

An investigation of “they whored after other gods” (Judges 2:17)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In 2:17 the author states that Israel whored (זָנ֗וּ) after gods other than YHWH. The question for the exegete is multi-faceted. What theological implications does this language carry? What does it mean for Israel to “whore” in this seemingly metaphorical sense? What does this language imply about Israel’s relationship to God? Might a more thorough evaluation of the word זָנ֗וּ or its semantic range provide any assistance in wading through these questions? Most assuredly, rich interpretive insight is bound up with answers to these questions. The exegete does well to investigate this matter for clarity and perception.

As Holladay (90) notes, זָנ֗וּ can denote the literal action of fornication, adultery, whoring, having illicit sexual encounters, cult prostitution, etc. (Gen 38:24; Num 25:1; Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:17, 24; Hos 4:13) (Holladay, 90). Such actions of course connote an extreme level of faithlessness. Consequently, Biblical authors at times use such language to express Israel’s faithlessness to God (as Holladay says, to “wantonly turn from” e.g., Hos 1:2; 4:12; Holliday, 90). However, Soggin claims that this word is a “generic term for prostitution” and is not that which is used for cultic prostitution (39). This faithlessness, placed in terms of adultery, would seem to assume a level of commitment, specifically the commitment involved in Israel’s covenantal relationship. As Soggin notes, this relationship was often understood in terms of and parallel to a marriage bond (39). Implied is the equation of Israel with God’s unfaithful spouse (Niditch, 49). In other words, because of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God, Israel’s act of worshiping other gods besides YHWH was a violation of that covenant relationship, an act of infidelity and spiritual whoredom far more severe than the violation of any human marriage relationship. In concrete terms, this “whoredom” meant polytheism and idolatry. Boling believes that this theological metaphor arose “from the early clash of Yahwism with the commonly assumed fertility rites of sub-Mosaic religion” (75). Likewise, Block adds that adultery serves as an appropriate metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness because (1) YHWH’s relationship with Israel is often placed in terms of marriage (hence adultery) and (2) “the gods competing with Yahweh for the allegiance of his people are lusty young fertility gods, who seduce the Israelites with promises of prosperity and security” accompanied with erotic cultic rituals (129). And as a final note, this theme is not unique to Judges, but is in fact picked up by various authors across redemptive history. Throughout scripture, God often describes his relationship to his people in terms of a marriage covenant (e.g., Eph 5:32; Rev 19:6-9); and likewise, His people’s infidelity is expressed in terms of unfaithfulness to that relationship (e.g., Ex 34:15-16; Deut 31:16; Hos 2; Jer 2; Ezek 16).

In conclusion, this author believes that the metaphor indicated by זָנ֗וּ is most likely adultery (assuming a covenantal relationship) rather than prostitution. Whether or not זָנ֗וּ carries the semantic range of “prostitute,” in the given context, in which Israel has an established relationship with God, it assumes faithlessness to that relationship, not pure erotic and/or cultic indulgence. Conversely, this metaphor assumes a covenant marriage relationship with God, one explicitly mentioned in 2:20, a relationship that demands absolute faithfulness.