The Subtle Deception of Idolatry and History Repeating Itself

https://danhult.com/2024/09/19/as-for-me-and-my-house-americas-household-idols/

A great deal could be said about the arguments put forward by Hult. Not a few would take issue with his prioritisation of family over Church but for me the most glaring problems are found elsewhere.

And it should be noted that he's right regarding the fact that idolatry is often equated with adultery and/or fornication. This is why I think it unfortunate that many of the newer translations choose terms like 'sexual immorality' in the book of Revelation as opposed to the more flexible term of 'fornication'. I think often what's being condemned is idolatry as opposed to specific sexual activities. This does not make light of the latter but rather many openly engaged in idolatry/adultery/fornication can render these passages as non-applicable because they see them as only referring to forbidden sexual activity.

This brings us to Hult's rendering of household gods which represents a departure from Scriptural thinking or rather a sleight-of-hand exchange - moving from Bible to Right-wing politics without missing a beat.

His condemnation of Black Lives Matter sidesteps the issues involved. Is the movement misguided? It certainly is - as are all political movements, including the extra-Scriptural Judaizing Theonomy espoused by Hult.

Apparently he is unfamiliar with the larger history of police and judicial abuse and the way the US prison system works. Again, this doesn't mean Black Lives Matter (BLM) is always right, but it would be folly to just dismiss their concerns or turn a blind eye to what has happened in American society in the many decades since the end of the Civil War. We won't even touch at this juncture upon the story of what took place before.

I hope he would condemn the many militias that have risen up in Right-wing circles and the rioters who stormed the Capitol in 2021.

If he can't see the corruption in the system, then I'm left somewhat speechless. His movement ultimately leads to political violence and yet its adherents often can't seem to make the connection. And it often seems that the violence only offends them when certain people engage in it.

I join with Hult in condemning feminism and yet I find that an overwhelming number of Evangelicals and Confessionalists have already embraced it to some degree. In fact in many respects what is considered normal or 'conservative' would have been reckoned as radical feminist just thirty or forty years ago. In addition there is a kind of willful blindness harking back to the rise of Industrialisation and the 'Golden Age' of Capitalism and the role these societal changes played in fomenting feminism - not to mention how post-World War II capitalism has waged war against the family effectively forcing the two-income paradigm. Conscious rejection of it leads (in most cases) to a fall from the Middle Class and in my experience nothing could be more abhorrent to Dominionist thinkers as the poor are not going to be able to exert influence in society. They are not the movers and shakers and thus unlikely to play a role in the 'transformation' of society so critical to the Theonomic Reconstructionist paradigm.

I agree that feminism is anti-Christian but even conservative Churches have fallen into this trap. Maybe he would agree - I don't know, but I have also long observed and commented on the schizophrenia in Reformed circles regarding daughters, education, and career - and most of all money and lifestyle. It's no wonder so many in those circles are engineers, doctors, and the like - they can pursue the ideal because they alone are able to maintain the upper middle class lifestyle while their wives stay home - or pretend to. But even this is getting more and more difficult. The role of capital and credit could be discussed at this point. Some in these circles decry credit but in doing so they only admit they do not understand the history and fundamental basis of the economic system they champion - and the aspects of it that played a critical role in building modern Western society, which they seem (at times) to celebrate as Christian.

The illegal immigrant question is highly problematic as most Christians view this through a nationalist lens which completely skews their thinking. As Christians we belong to a Kingdom that transcends all nations and thus the interests of individual kingdoms and empires are not ours. I understand a nation will guard its borders and that men will hoard their wealth and protect it. So be it, but I'm not going to demonize immigrants - all the more when their reasons for flight are all too often connected to US economic policy, political meddling, and often clandestine action and proxy support for paramilitary groups, gangs, and cartels. The history on this point is extensive. From NAFTA to the Drug War, to Wall Street and the IMF, many societies south of the US border have been decimated and subjected to upheaval. And this has been happening for more than a century.

Hult errs in simply applying mutatis mutandis the laws of the Old Covenant to a contemporary situation like the United States and questions of property and immigration. It's a classic mistake made by the Judaizing theology that dominates Christo-American Evangelicalism in our day. This is in addition to the word games and a generally dishonest handling of the situation - which stems from politicisation not exegesis.

I am as opposed to scientific materialism as he is and yet his treatment of the issue is slippery to say the least. There's no doubt that such Materialism is being established as the new religion of the culture - and yet it's largely failing to do so, which is in itself interesting.

The 'Science is Real' proclamations on people's lawns is in reference (once again) to politicised issues. For the most part it's in reference to climate change and for a time it was also connected to the issue of Covid.

While the Mainstream may be mistaken in their response to climate change, and we can debate over the causes and the extent of manmade influence, to deny the fact that it's happening represents a willful ignorance and a rejection of data that most people find conclusive. In this case as with Covid there are some fairly serious ethical dimensions which also come into play - all of which are either ignored or rejected by the Christian Right.

There are serious problems with assumptions of Scientism but I am troubled when Christians allow their thinking to be hijacked by politics and then are willing to twist Scripture in order to make it all fit into what is erroneously deemed as a Biblically faithful coherent model. It's troubling that such Christians are not only shaped by politics but seem willingly blind to understand the motivations behind the manipulation of science - namely the plutocratic interests that run the country. The New Testament denunciations of mammon are largely ignored by these folks - a point I will return to momentarily.

With regard to 'love is love' - yes, there's no doubt this in reference to the sodomite perversion that has overtaken the culture. I do not defend it for a moment but once again I'm forced to think of passages like Ezekiel 16 and the decadent culture of Sodom - a culture very much akin to the so-called Christian culture that has devolved into the modern West. The implication is that such mammonism - the pride, gluttonous abundance, and idleness (the decadent result of wealth), and the exploitative crushing of the poor - lead to this abomination. So it is in today's West and especially in America. The very Classical Liberalism of the Founders with its emphasis on individualism, rights, democracy, and social contract along with the exaltation of autonomous human reason and free markets has created the very sort of culture and nation that was Sodom in the ancient world.

And wonder of wonders, the American Church has synthesized these ideals and equated them with Christian doctrine and the teaching of the New Testament.

I would guess that as a Theonomist, Hult rejects Classical Liberalism and yet I wonder does he still count himself a flag-flying patriot? Such cognitive dissonance has become all too common.

And has he truly rejected it? I find that some of the Theonomic and Dominionist types remain the most ardent advocates of free market economics and not a few have attempted to conflate their Judaizing Theonomic proclivities with (of all things) the ideals of Libertarianism - some even attempting to read the latter Enlightenment system into the Theocratic order of the Old Covenant. It's no wonder their movements continue to fragment as such dissonance will not stand.

If 'kindness is everything' refers to the kind of toleration Hult is talking about then I can appreciate his point but in fact I don't believe that's what most of these people mean. I think they're referring to the nasty brutish spirit that has taken over US politics - a process that began in earnest with Nixon and Reagan, took a leap under Newt Gingrich and the GOP opposition to Clinton in the 1990's. It then went off a cliff with the Obama-era Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and finally the obscene person of Donald Trump - a man who stirs violence and hate. Does Hult not see this or does he merely not have a problem with it?

I find his treatment of the so-called yard sign creed to be lacking and disingenuous. This does not mean I have sympathy with or affinity for such signs or the people who erect them.

But worse, how many common household idols did Hult omit? I can think of several that dominate Christian, conservative, and Right-wing households in the United States. You see the yard sign folks elicit a roll of the eyes but they have no effect on the Church. Ignore them.

However there are other very dangerous forms of idolatry that are entrenched in the Church and yet very few are willing to call them out. Hult certainly had a chance to do so but instead took the political line.

First is mammonism which as already alluded to plays a huge part in shaping ethics from how profits are put over people. This results not just in the wanton destruction and damaging of the Earth - leaving calamitous conditions for posterity, but also in the exploitation of the poor - which always ties in with the immigration question. And also money, profits, and even the decadence of self-interest and personal comfort were (during Covid) put over the lives of neighbours, and over a million people died as a result - just in the United States.

The realities of this idolatry render the 'pro-life' proclamation of the Christian Right an absolute joke, an absurdity. For mammonism also fuels a host of other questions, from guns to foreign policy, war, and the like. There's no hope for genuine reform in the American Church unless this is addressed. That's a pretty significant idol but instead we're to worry about black people protesting injustice and brown people trying to escape desperation and danger - in no small part brought on by the mammonism of the American Empire.

And often connected to mammon is the false religion of nationalism which more or less dominates the American Church and has largely subverted New Testament Christianity. The banners of empire are lifted up in the assemblies and often treated with more reverence than the Word and Sacrament. Nationalism is a religion tied to pride and power and for some it takes a further dark turn with the emphasis on tribe. It's closely related to mammonism as the narratives and the ethics of nationalism justify and at times demand the right and duty of America to use violence to protect what it perceives as its interests and to block others from trying to share in the same.

This idol has another head or aspect which is a mythological narrative - an idolatry connected to the history of the nation, the whitewashing and justification of its conduct and its crimes, the functional beatification of revered leaders and the men who wear its uniform and kill in its name. Those who die will doing so are functionally treated as holy martyrs - in the popular mind (and theology) granted instant access if not exalted status in heaven.

Maybe Hult would also condemn these idols? I hope he does but I also know the churches who do so will quickly find themselves emptied and given the popularity of Doug Wilson and the CREC - that's clearly not the case.

Let's condemn the idols in society but I don't seen New Testament authors terribly worried about the latest political and cultural fads in the Hellenistic culture of imperial Rome. I do see them worried about Hellenism entering the Church as well as the tendency to Judaize. The combining of Enlightenment philosophy with a Judaized reading of Scripture has produced a set of ideals, theologies, and ethics which have affected the Church and still do. And I see Hult offering no remedy.

Would that Church leaders recognized this peril instead of distracting their congregations by condemning political opponents even while affirming and celebrating the system. They are the progeny of the false prophets who comforted the apostates by saying 'peace, peace' - in other words God will not bring judgment on you but on your enemies. You have nothing to repent of since you're faithful. The problem isn't you but these other people out there, these evil forces that arrayed against you.

God of course revealed a very different narrative through his prophets and we also learn that those enemies were in fact judgment sent by God and with them He sought to bring down the whole worldly syncretist system His unfaithful people had adopted.

And worse by baptizing the idolatry and the ideals of the world (in part or in whole), today's false prophets open the doors of the Church to the world. And as such we are witnessing widespread apostasy. Hult's warnings ring hollow and are no succor to the Church in this perilous hour.