• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Living the Questions

You are here: Home / thinking / bible stuff / Horse Gods – C.S. Lewis, Xenophanes and John Piper’s blaspheme

Horse Gods – C.S. Lewis, Xenophanes and John Piper’s blaspheme

February 14, 2012 by Bo Sanders 32 Comments

I spent this past week explaining that saying God has given Christianity a masculine feel is like saying ‘God has given America a Capitalist feel’. It was the point of my post “Bananas, Bullies and the Bible – you can’t start in the middle.” 

I never struggle to believe in God. I believe in the deep core of my being. I have faith in my bones. I breath this stuff. I am filled with Holy Spirit and that gives purpose to my day and direction to my life.

I never doubt the reality of the Christian faith … until I listen to a conservative like John Piper or Marc Driscoll talk. Then, it is all too apparent to me that we are (at least partially) projecting our greatest hopes and dreams onto the screen of the heavens. We are outsourcing our fears and evils onto a cosmic bad guy called the devil. We have created a galactic father figure in the sky (paging Dr. Freud).

It is so clear when Piper talks that it makes me want to retreat into the post-liberal work of George Lindbeck!  

Xenophanes is famed to have said:

“If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses and oxen would draw them to look like oxen, and each would make the gods bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.”

It gets boiled down to “If horses had gods – they would look like horses.”

Most days I can stave that off. I can avoid the haunting suspicion and nagging doubt … but what Piper does is create a God in his own image – there is no other way to say it – it is idolatry.

So what? you may ask. Why even bother with it?  Because, I believe that there really is a God.

C.S. Lewis wrote a poem one time called “a footnote to all prayers” (it references Pheidias who was  a legendary statue maker in the ancient world) 

Footnote to All Prayers

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

This is why we must acknowledge what it is we are doing when we pray, when we preach, and when we practice. We are doing the best we can with words, symbols, sounds and images. But if those images are solidified and codified past their point of original artistry, mysticism and metaphor – then it becomes something deadly to the soul and dangerous to the one seeking the real and living God revealed in Christ.

 

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, engaging, latest, living, news, post-something, sermon, songs, speaking, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, C.S. Lewis, faith, footnote on all prayers, George Lindbeck, God, horses, jesus, John Piper, Marc Driscoll, masculine, masculinity, poem, prayer, Xenophanes
25 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
JoeyStewart
JoeyStewart 5pts

The most dangerous idol is not of wood or stone, but of Ideas. - Alan Watts

MattBarlow
MattBarlow 5pts

If God is in essence, "unexplainable" - then how do we know that our explanation is any better than that of anyone else?

MaryRichter
MaryRichter 5pts

I haven't read all of the comments but I do want to bring up one thing as a reminder. Semi-quoting the Bible here with this but: "and God made them in His own image, male and female He created them". I do agree with what you're saying though that we can make things dangerous by in a sense, turning God into an idol through giving Him a certain appearance. But I think God can forgive us for giving Him a physical appearance. After all, we have such a hard time understanding Him. He is of the spiritual and us creatures are more tuned-in to the physical.

JasonValentine
JasonValentine 5pts

 It is just that shaping God into our image that creates war and limits our understanding of the Divine. We should not be trying to fit the Infinite into a box...we should be trying to expand our minds to fit God. 

Connecticut
Connecticut 5pts

 @MaryRichter I Agree with you.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Connecticut  @MaryRichter  I would also like to point you to my post called "God never changes ... or does she?"   http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/07/25/god-never-changes-or-does-she/  would love to hear your thoughts on it!   -Bo 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Connecticut  @MaryRichter  I get what you are trying to say but I want to point out two areas of caution -  

1) The constant referencing of God as 'he' is interesting. We know that our english language has a problem with pronouns but we know that God make both male and female in 'his' image. That in itself should cause us to pause and realize both the limit of our language when it comes to God-Talk and it should also help us see that we use human image-analogy for thinking about and talking about God. 

2) Your splitting of the spiritual and the physical is ... well - I just think that it is odd the you quote a Jewish text back as some sort of proof and then use a non-Jewish configuration as it's application :)   

 

so I guess what I am saying is that we still need to be cautious about making a God who is just a big version of our hopes and fears projected on the screen of the heavens.   

 

Thanks for you honest feedback! i do appreciate it   -Bo 

Jim W
Jim W 5pts

My question was genuine. I truly wanted to know what your god looks like and see how it compares to a god you claim is different as presented by two well-known "names" in relatively fundamental Christianity. I don't like Driscoll at all. I think he is an arrogant, posturing braggart who is out for all he can get for himself. Piper, on the other hand has a long and earned reputation as a thinker and devoted follower of God as revealed in the only venue we have, the Bible. While I see some slippage in his attitudes of late, he most certainly is no blasphemer. Where do you get your definition of "Inspiration"? Who determined that it is "the filling UP and expanding of human intent"? Finally, sure God has female attributes. The Bible is clear on that. However, God chose to reveal Himself to us as a Father, NOT a mother. It wasn't patriarchal bias that caused the writers of the Bible to use Father instead of mother, God inspired them to write it that way. Jesus Himself called God Father, not mother, or something else. And you still haven't answered the original question. Since you appear to be incapable of direct communication, this project can end right here. I have no desire to waste any more of your time. Good day to you.

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Jim, Just so you don’t think that I am being intentionally difficult, you asked for specifics and I was setting up the arena for response - but you found that frustrating. SO I wanted to give you some concrete examples. 1) God is not male nor has god given Christianity a masculine feel. That is something that we did. It is because all religious language is historically situated and culturally conditioned. Of course Genesis uses the masculine pronoun - it was participating in its cultural moments (as Peter Enns says in the latest pod) 2) I'm not sure that God told Israel to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan. Their either A) thought that ‘he’ did. OR B) they never actually did it anyway (archeology is telling us that there are no swords at that level of soil in Israel) and it was a National Myth constructed later to legitimize their occupation of the land. Either way I read this through a Christilogical lens as I believe (in faith) that Jesus is the highest revelation of God. 3) Jesus was a male - not to endorse maleness - but because the time he lived in was SO patriarchal that the things which needed to happen would not have in the same way. Jesus challenged the status quo of his day in regards to women’s roles and values and set a trajectory for us so that we should continue to challenge limitations and as-is structures for women. please accept this as my peace offering.

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Jim, it is clear from your responses that you are getting what I am saying! So why do you say that I am "incapable of direct communication"? It's very strange to me! Like in the first note when you presented either/or options and then accused me providing dichotomies. I'm just intrigued. let me be clear on two things: 1) I can say that Inspiration does not OVERride humanity because the authors of scripture did not go into a trance. Both the book of Mormon and the Quran were authored differently than the Bible. This is important! 2) the anthropology behind authorship is VERY influential. It sounds to me like you want a Bible that magically wrote itself with no influence from its magical authors :) I apologize if I have frustrated you. It seems like your hear exactly what I am saying and just don't like it ... then say I am not communicating. -Bo p.s. I also wanted you know that I have moved the conversation over to here to open it up to others. I think it is a good discussion and I want to hear what others have to say on the subject.

Jim W
Jim W 5pts

Well, first of all, thanks for a response. Second, no offense, but you use an awful lot of words to not say too much. Or, to say the same thing over and over while denying that you are saying one thing, yet actually affirming another. Since I don't have any real idea what you believe Piper and Driscoll believe, I still don't know that you are painting a different god or not. You start out saying that all expressions of God are only a best attempt, but then you claim to believe the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, which is it? Our best attempt, or Holy Spirit inspired? See the problem there. It's either one or the other, can't be both. Certainly the Bible is written situationally. God could have inspired men to write it so it only made sense at one point in the entire course of time, or He could have inspired it so that it meant the same thing from beginning to end, from the beginning of time to the end of time. And written so that ordinary people could figure it out with a little help from His Holy Spirit. Which is what I believe. You seem to believe that only post-modern thought with a lot of help from certain philosophers can figure out this whole humility, relation, human thing. Sorry, way too many creeks have flowed over their banks throughout history for me to believe that only recently have we been smart enough to figure this whole mess out. God (Holy Spirit) inspired the whole Bible. He could have very easily caused His writers to use words that wouldn't mean anything to their (at the time, current) readers, but would only matter eons later. IF that is what He intended. Again, you haven't showed me anything but dichotomies, and nothing of substance that disproves anything Piper et al believe-which I still don't know what you believe they believe.

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Jim - I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I wrote the response that you didn't have an agenda when you asked your 'question'. Some people use language like you did to sarcastically make a point, but I was hoping that was not the case. Now I see that you did have a agenda in asking the 'question'. So I will be more direct this time ;) 1) I did use a lot of words, but it was to say quite a bit. Unfortunately it was not what you were looking for so you think I didn't say much. I assure you that I say quite enough in my 300 words to get in a lot of trouble in many circles! 2) You are 100% wrong that "It’s either one or the other, can’t be both." Inspiration is not the OVERriding of human intent - it is the filling UP and expanding of human intent. Inspiration does not make something inhuman. You are thinking of something else not inspiration. Then you accuse me of dichotomies? Weird. I am talking about a participatory-relational model that transcends either/or thinking. You must be confused. 3) Here is an example of the difference (which you apparently were not able to pick up on): It is equally a valid to call god She as it is to call god He. Because in the end, god is neither. Those are pronouns that stand in for their antecedent but which do not entirely explain god or contain god's ontological reality. God did not give Christianity a masculine feel. We did. God is God that is beyond our biological categorizations and anatomical classification. God is no defined by those - we simply conceptualize God and these terms and portray those conceptions in our language. Now do you see what I am saying? ;) respectfully -Bo

Jim W
Jim W 5pts

So, what does your god look like? And how is that look any different from Piper's or Driscoll's?

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Thanks for asking! Actually there is quite a substantial difference. Let me point out just a couple of things to start: 1) I don’t believe that language about God is univocal (as I have said). SO we begin in humility understanding that all our words, metaphors and concepts are OUR best attempt. 2) I believe that langue (since it is not univocal) functional relationally. When Jesus uses ‘Father’ language, he is talking about the WAY in which relates to a father. Not that God’s ontological being is Father in an exacting and representative way. It is an expressive use of language. That is the nature of language. 3) The way that Scripture is expressed is historic. I believe that the Bible is Inspired by Holy Spirit. That means that Holy Spirit was at work in the authors and ultimately in those who collected and validated the canon. (I confess this by faith). Those authors were historically situated and particularly located. They expressed their thoughts in their best language in their best frameworks. We see that historical locatedness and account for it when we engage their writings. 4) Whether you call it ‘original sin’ (I don’t) or ‘human nature’ or (my favorite) relational brokeness and conflicting biological impulses ... humans have a problem. We are not 100% whole. Something is wrong (we don’t even do the good we WANT to do). That means that in every epoch and era there are things in place that are not perfect. Those show up in scripture - since it is a snap shot of its environment. The Bible is fully human (and I believe fully divine in a Process sense) but it is not ABSENT of humanity. It is full of humanity. So If you take just those 4 things in contrast to Piper and Driscoll, then my God talk is: A) in Humility not certainty or pushy B) Relational not static or exacting C) Historical not trans-historic d) Human not un-human Does that help? SO that is my starting point. From there I diverge wildly from the other two.

Corey
Corey 5pts

In the last month since I encountered your 'audiological goodness', I think Tripp's vernacular has started to have an influence on me. At first the FM rock station informality put me off. I mean, theology is serious, right? Now, after much listening with interest, delight and laughter I've become a new fan. Currently delving into the archives. Thanks so much for what you guys do!

Corey
Corey 5pts

Righteous asses shall tremble before your Bo-dacity.

Corey
Corey 5pts

Bro Bo, Has anyone told you recently that you kick righteous ass?

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

No. not besides Tripp ;) but thank you! I receive that with an open heart.

matthew
matthew 5pts

I don't know if Piper is drawing his own God, perhaps he is misnterpreting what God has drawn himself. Afterall we aren't oxen or horses drawing our own God. If anything we ourselves are the drawing. Who is the creator?

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Matthew, I would like to respond because I think I know where you were going. I need you to write just a little more so that I can see what you are up to -Bo

Jason
Jason 5pts

Thank you for this post. I empathize with these doubts as they mirror my own. This is something I have been thinking about, especially since you interviewed Merold Westphal and he said (I am paraphrasing of course) "The God I pray to has always been an idol." Of course he makes a distinction by saying the God who hears him is not an idol but the point being we all, at least in part, create God in our own image. Epistemic humility (thanks Dustin for that) is important, and when we speak of unity it is only when we all start in a place of humility that we will ever achieve it.

Dustin
Dustin 5pts

This is really lovely-thanks for posting this. I like Lindbeck for lots of reasons, and epistemic humility is one of the big ones.

Ben Verble
Ben Verble 5pts

Hey Bo, This really sounds like it is from the heart and I definitely agree with you on this. It seems to me that this ought to be an area of unity. We all pray to a God who we are not supposed to boil down into an idol, no matter which part of the spectrum we find ourselves on. I think the more delicate conversation lies in Biblical interpretation and these categories are difficult to separate out: piety and interpretation. Could a better defining these categories help "conservatives" and "progressives" (loosely defined) worship and serve together? My assumption would be "yes." (with the exception of yourself and Mr. Piper and Mr. Driscol holding a Bible study together). I don't need to agree with someone on every point of doctrine in order to cooperate and share in prayer or other aspects of Christian piety. Easier said than done, yes. I just wanted to affirm the unifying qualities of this blog post. Well done.

Bo Sanders
Bo Sanders 5pts

Ben, you are absolutely right. I originally had a thing at the end where I put all these disclaimers about John and Marc still being Christian brothers and still going to heaven and a whole bunch of other things :) I took it out to let the final paragraph have its place. But YES - you are right and I even have Bible study with think that language is univocal and that God IS a father, so you are right to clarify that. -Bo thanks for the note!

paula
paula 5pts

Brilliant. One of the best things I've read in a long time. Thank you.

Trackbacks

  1. She Who Is Not says:
    February 21, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    [...] by Bo Sanders Leave a Comment Last week I had a post about language and God talk. It was called Horse Gods and it incorporated C.S. Lewis’ poem “A Footnote on All Prayers”.  Part of what [...]

  2. Trayvon Martin, Ex Nihilo, Rachel Held Evans, & a Violent God: Why the Short Story is a Violent One says:
    July 20, 2012 at 7:26 am

    [...] and a graven image. We need to repent of this line of reasoning and own up to the fact that we have created a God in our own image who loves all the things we love and supports all the things that benefit [...]

  3. God Never Changes ... or does She? says:
    August 21, 2012 at 8:57 am

    [...] That is silly. We must acknowledge as Merold Westphal told us in his visit to the podcast that all our knowledge is situated or what we call perspectival. This is where Elizabeth Johnson’s book “She Who Is” becomes so valuable. I wrote about this in ‘She Who Is Not’ and ‘Horse Gods’. [...]

  4. Fake Picture, Real Prayer and God's Wrath says:
    October 29, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    [...] had written multiple times about John Piper's stupid storm theology and simple Bible reading] A Christian religious leader has already claimed that Hurricane Sandy is further proof that “God [...]

  5. Not All Differences Are The Same – or simple God talk « navigating between the everyday and theology says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    [...] while ago I wrote a little blog about John Piper and his horse like faith. It got quite a good readership at first and then, as most posts tend to, faded into the shadows of [...]

  6. Praying Against Big Storms « navigating between the everyday and theology says:
    November 28, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    [...] had written multiple times about John Piper's stupid storm theology and simple Bible reading] A Christian religious leader has already claimed that Hurricane Sandy is further proof that “God [...]

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in