Introduction

In recent decades, the concept of “idols of the heart” has become nearly ubiquitous in the American church, and particularly in Reformed churches. In part, the popularity of this concept has come from a couple of prominent Reformed pastors and theologians, David Powlison and Tim Keller. This modern idea of idols of the heart has found its way not only into popular books and blog articles, but even many pulpits and lecterns in Reformed churches and seminaries. Pastors use this concept when applying and trying to contextualize passages of Scripture that concern idolatry, but perhaps its greatest influence has been as a tool for pastoral counseling.

The popularity of the concept and the number of godly men who have articulated it make criticizing “idols of the heart” difficult. In the past, some have endeavored to critique the concept, but only in part, most commonly by arguing that it leads to “navel gazing” or “idol hunting.” I am convinced, however, not only that “idols of the heart” must be critiqued, but that the ax must be laid at the root. There are multiple reasons to fundamentally question the validity of the modern concept of idols of the heart: the concept is absent from the pages of Scripture, its fundamental assertions lead to confusion about important Reformed doctrines, it causes more harm than good for the Christian life, and it has little to no historical precedent. In future articles, we will examine each of these reasons in depth; but before critiquing the idea of idols of the heart, we need to understand it fully. This article will first summarize and preliminarily evaluate the modern concept, as articulated by Powlison and Keller, and then briefly compare the modern idea to possible parallels throughout church history.

A Summary of the Idea of Idols of the Heart

In order to define idolatry of the heart, we must define idolatry itself. In order to define false worship (i.e., idolatry), however, we must first define true worship. The literal definition of worship is to honor or praise God in religious ceremonies or rites.¹ This is what Christians are engaged in during public or private worship. Two different kinds of literal idolatry correspond to this: The first applies literal worship to transcendent realities other than the true God, a violation of the first commandment. The second applies literal worship to physical idols or images (immanent realities), which may represent any transcendent reality, a violation of the second commandment. However, no one suggests that a person worships idols of the heart literally. Therefore, one must distinguish between literal and figurative worship: Figurative worship, according to Brian Rosner, is loving, trusting, and serving the true God.² Figurative idolatry applies figurative worship to any transcendent reality besides the true God (i.e., false gods). But even this does not describe the kind of worship with which the idea of idols of the heart is concerned. Rather, it postulates a second type of figurative idolatry, one that applies figurative worship to any immanent reality (e.g., material possessions, sinful pleasures).

Writers who use the concept of idols of the heart assume a figurative definition of both worship and idolatry. They argue that all of life is either true or idolatrous worship. David Powlison argues along these lines in his influential article, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair.’” He maintains that the concept of idolatry of the heart keeps the Bible’s concern for idolatry relevant for modern people, and that it is the key tool with which biblical counselors can untangle the complexity behind the motivations for sinful behavior.³

Powlison introduces idols of the heart by briefly reflecting on his hermeneutical struggle with 1 John 5:21: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” He argues that, instead of warning against literal idolatry, which is absent from the rest of the letter, John pushes his readers to ask themselves, “Has something or someone besides Jesus the Christ taken title to your heart’s trust, preoccupation, loyalty, service, fear and delight?”⁴ Note the close alignment between Powlison’s question and Rosner’s definition of figurative worship above. Powlison argues that John lists some of those alternatives to Jesus throughout his letter (2:15–17; 3:7–10; 4:1–6; 5:19), as in 2:16: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life.” Therefore, an idol, according to Powlison, is synonymous with “desires of the flesh.” This sheds light on the title of his article, which he explains elsewhere as a reference to the traditional three enemies of the Christian: the world (vanity fair), the flesh (idols of the heart), and the devil.⁵ An idol of the heart, then, is not simply a sinful desire or object of desire, but the sinful flesh itself. This helps to reveal Powlison’s main point: idolatry is not one sinful behavior among many, but is rather the source of all sinful behavior. As Powlison states, “The causes of particular sins . . . can be truly comprehended through the lens of idolatry.”⁶

Powlison acknowledges that idolatry is most often literal in Scripture. He argues, however, that Ezekiel 14 “internalizes idolatry,” because in this passage “the worship of tangible idols is, ominously, an expression of a prior heart defection from YHWH.”⁷ He further argues that idolatry in the Old Testament is functionally equivalent to desires (epithumia) in the New Testament, since both characterize sinful humanity’s drift from God. But he goes further, citing Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5 to argue, “Interestingly (and unsurprisingly) the New Testament merges the concept of idolatry and the concept of inordinate, life-ruling desires.”⁸ Thus, from these passages (1 John; Ezek 14; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5), Powlison claims that the concept of idolatry of the heart is biblically derived, and that the concern of Scripture, particularly in the New Testament, moves from literal to figurative idolatry.

As mentioned above, Powlison’s unique contribution was to apply this concept to biblical counseling. He suggests that the language of idolatry is the most effective way to identify the sinful motivations of a person’s sinful behavior. For example, he says, “I am an active idolater when normal hunger pangs are the wellspring of problem behavior and attitudes.”⁹ This raises the question of how literally he uses the language of idolatry. Does he really think a “hangry” person is guilty of idolatry in the same sense as a pagan? Thankfully, he clarifies elsewhere, implying a negative answer: “I think that ‘idols of the heart’ is a great metaphor (if we don’t overuse it!).”¹⁰ Despite his strong and at times imprecise language, Powlison does distinguish between literal and figurative idolatry. He argues that the metaphor is great because “behavioral sins are always portrayed in the Bible as ‘motivated’ or ruled by a ‘god’ or ‘gods.’”¹¹ Further, if a counselor tells someone that all his behavioral problems are always religious, a matter of idolatrous worship, then the need for a religious solution already becomes more apparent to the counselee.¹²

Tim Keller followed Powlison in his book Counterfeit Gods, where he argued, “We may not actually burn incense to Artemis, but when money and career are raised to cosmic proportions, we perform a kind of child sacrifice.”¹³ In other words, the immanent powers or benefits represented by the transcendent pagan gods are still present today, and modern people still worship these idols when they seek the same powers or benefits.¹⁴ Keller does not limit his definition of an idol to benefits once associated with pagan deities, though: “Anything can be an idol, and everything has been an idol.”¹⁵ Following Powlison, who equated the sinful flesh to idolatry, Keller even writes that “idolatry is always the reason we ever do anything wrong.”¹⁶ Again, like Powlison, Keller defines idolatry not just as a particular sin, but as the cause of all other particular sins.

A Preliminary Evaluation

Although future articles will critique the above view in depth, a brief evaluation will help prepare for those critiques. As Powlison noted, when Scripture addresses idolatry, it almost always addresses literal idolatry—that is, either worshiping a god besides the Lord, or using physical idols in the worship of the true God or false gods. For believers to commit idolatry in this literal sense is the ultimate form of apostasy. More importantly, as we will see in part two of this series, Scripture’s limited treatment of figurative idolatry concurs: a professing believer characterized by even figurative idolatry is guilty of apostasy. This is the definition and implication of idolatry that I will defend throughout this series. Powlison and Keller, however, both broaden and soften the concept of idolatry, so that it is something less than abandoning the true God for false gods. Their three fundamental assertions, which I will endeavor to demonstrate are fundamental errors, are: (1) every sin may be put on the same level as idolatry; (2) the source of all sin is idolatry; (3) therefore, regenerate Christians can be accurately (i.e., biblically) labeled as idolaters. To be sure, when they make such assertions, they have a figurative definition of idolatry in mind, even though that is not equally clear in all their articulations.¹⁷ Since much of the critique of Powlison and Keller concerns their definition of idolatry, one might be tempted to dismiss this critique as being simply about semantics. I will argue, however, that there is a substantial issue with their concept of idolatry of the heart. Even with a figurative definition of idolatry, they end in the same place that they would if they had defined idolatry literally. That is, they unintentionally label Christians as apostates.

Their assertion that idolatry is the source of all sin is somewhat ambiguous. Do they mean that idolatry is the actual sin from which all other actual sins flow, much like Augustine’s identification of pride as the first sin?¹⁸ Or do they mean that the corrupted nature of mankind (i.e., original sin) is unavoidably idolatrous? The latter seems more likely, particularly based on Powlison’s identification of “idols of the heart” with the biblical concept of “the flesh,” which is sin’s corruption present in every human heart, even regenerate hearts.¹⁹ Likewise, Keller states that “idolatry is not only one sin among many, but what is fundamentally wrong with the human heart.”²⁰ Either claim, however, would make regenerate Christians inescapably idolatrous, since no one can claim not to have sin or that they have not sinned (1 John 1:8, 10). If both literal and figurative idolatry are rightly defined as forms of apostasy, then, even though they do not acknowledge that biblical definition, Powlison and Keller’s claim that idolatry is the source of all sin unavoidably labels Christians as apostates.

Words and their definitions are never more important than in the realm of theology and Christian practice. If a Christian started to refer to the source of his sin as his “lizard brain”—a term used to mean something like “your animal instincts,” inherited through the process of evolution—we might rightly question whether he had an orthodox anthropology, or at least whether his choice of words and definitions fit into an orthodox anthropology. Likewise, when Powlison and Keller speak of the source of sinful actions as “idolatry,” even though their hamartiology and soteriology are biblically sound, when they explicitly articulate it, we have warrant to question whether their words and definitions fit into the orthodox system of doctrine that they confessed and taught. It is my contention that Powlison and Keller’s concept of idols of the heart is a departure from the traditional and biblical way of articulating human sinfulness. Although idolatry is a thoroughly biblical concept, Powlison and Keller’s definition of it is not thoroughly biblical. Therefore, when a biblical definition of idolatry is imported into their concept of idols of the heart, the concept no longer functions as intended, and it in fact endangers the very Reformed doctrines that Powlison and Keller sought to uphold.

A Brief Historical Survey

Although it is not thoroughly biblical, the language found in Powlison and Keller is not completely novel. Some similar examples may be found throughout church history. For example, many appeal to Luther’s Large Catechism: “The confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol.”²¹ He then explains that mammon or money may be one’s god if one trusts in it. Tertullian seems to concur with Keller when he says in his treatise On Idolatry, “All sins are discovered in idolatry, and idolatry in all of them.”²² No less a preacher than the golden-tongued Chrysostom employed the kind of argument heard from many pulpits today, in his sermon on Ephesians 5:5: “‘I worship it not,’ thou wilt say. Why not? Because thou dost not bow thyself down? Nay, but as it is, thou art far more a worshiper in thy deeds and practices; for this is the higher kind of worship.”²³ Perhaps the most frequently cited quotation in support of the concept of idols of the heart comes from Calvin: “The human heart is an ‘idol factory.’”²⁴ Yet, it is at this junction, as the concept is traced throughout church history, where the question must be asked: Do these historical figures mean what modern authors are saying?

One may find the answer to this question by simply reading Calvin’s original statement in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Not only is this reference to Calvin often paraphrased imprecisely, but “idolatry of the heart” is nowhere in the context or intent of Calvin’s original statement: “From this we may gather that man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”²⁵ In context, Calvin does not argue that the heart of man harbors intangible idols such as greed or sexual lust, or that idolatry is the source of every other sin, but that the human heart is the source of physical idols. In this section, Calvin is concerned with how mankind is prone “to pant after visible figures of God, and thus to form gods of wood, stone, gold, silver, or other dead and corruptible matter.”²⁶ When we come to the famous quote, he is seeking to identify the internal origin of such external visible figures of God. Calvin summarizes his point: “Therefore, the mind begets an idol; the hand gives it birth.”²⁷

Neither do the other figures come close to Powlison and Keller’s concept. Luther may agree with aspects of their figurative definition of worship and idolatry, but he does not teach their main point, that idolatry is the source of all other sins. The statement from Tertullian, quoted above, seems to resemble Keller at first. Yet, Tertullian goes on to clarify by saying that all sins, like idolatry, are acts done in service to demons rather than God.²⁸ In other words, Tertullian’s point of comparison is not the ways in which a person’s relationship to an idol may be similar to certain sinful desires (i.e., service, desire, trust), but that anything done out of disobedience to God is done in obedience to demons, the true transcendent realities that stand behind idols. Tertullian sees a transcendent power behind all sin, but when Powlison and Keller speak of idolatry, idols, demons, and gods (i.e., the transcendent) seem to be furthest from their concern. Likewise, Chrysostom seems at first to agree with Powlison and Keller, but he contradicts their conclusion that regenerate Christians can also be idolaters. Commenting on Ephesians 5:5, Chrysostom concludes that “the covetous man apostatizes from God, just as the idolater does.”²⁹ In other words, Chrysostom acknowledges that idolatry is apostasy, the distinct sin of turning away from God—something that cannot describe a genuine Christian.

Conclusion

After summarizing Powlison and Keller and surveying a few theologians from church history, the differences emerge between the modern idea of idols of the heart and the similar language used in the past. The modern idea seeks to make the biblical concern with idolatry relevant to modern people, who are assumed to be too advanced to struggle with literal idolatry (more on this in part four). Writers like Powlison and Keller seek to do this by not only calling any sinful desire or object of desire an idol, but by placing idolatry at the heart of every person. The idea that idolatry is the source of every sinful action, even for regenerate Christians, has no clear historical precedent.³⁰ In this series, I will make the case that there is no biblical precedent for such an idea either. From a biblical survey, we will see that Chrysostom is right: Scripture consistently presents both literal and figurative idolatry as apostasy. And if idolatry is apostasy, then we are right to question the suitability of Powlison and Keller’s concept to Reformed theology.

Notes

1. Brian S. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 26–27.
2. Rosner, Greed as Idolatry, 26–27, 165.
3. David Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 13.2 (1995): 35–50.
4. Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” 35.
5. David Powlison, “Revisiting Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 27.3 (2013): 40. If he were to rewrite the article, he says the title would include “The Prince of Darkness.”
6. Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” 41.
7. Powlison, 36.
8. Powlison, 36.
9. Powlison, 39.
10. Powlison, “Revisiting Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair,” 42.
11. Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” 38. Powlison does not offer a specific argument for this, but bases this conclusion on the preceding biblical evidence.
12. “It is obvious that if idolatry is the problem of the ‘co-dependent,’ then repentant faith in Christ is the solution.” Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” n. 9.
13. Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), xii. In this work, he says Powlison’s article was “seminal” to his thinking (p. 208).
14. For a more detailed version of this argument, see: J. Douma, The Ten Commandments, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1996), 16–18.
15. Keller, Counterfeit Gods, xvi.
16. Keller, 165–66.
17. For example, see Powlison’s statement above concerning hunger pangs. Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” 39. Such strong and imprecise language is not isolated, but can be observed throughout Powlison, Keller, and those who adapt their concept.
18. Following Sirach 10:13. Augustine, City of God, 14.13.1.
19. On the latter, see Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 13.2.
20. Keller, Counterfeit Gods, 165.
21. Martin Luther, Large Catechism, The Book of Concord Online, 1, 1–3.
22. Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” in Early Latin Theology, ed. S.L. Greenslade, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), chap. 1.
23. John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. William John Copeland and Alexander Gross, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1, vol. 13 (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 134, Homily 18.
24. Keller, Counterfeit Gods, xiv. Keller does not cite Calvin, however. He claims this is “the Bible’s answer.”
25. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1.11.8. Neither is the paraphrase found in Beveridge: “The human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.” Henry Beveridge trans., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), 1.11.8. Compare the Latin: “Unde colligere licet, hominis ingenium perpetuam, ut ita loquar, esse idolorum fabricam.” Peter Barth, Wilhelm Niesel, and Dora Scheuner, eds., Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, vol 3, (Monachii: C. Kaiser, 1926).
26. Calvin, Institutes, 1.11.1.
27. Calvin, Institutes, trans. Battles, 1.11.8. Theologically and historically, “idolatry of the heart” has been more at home in Arminian systems of theology than Reformed ones. See for example the following Arminian revivalist sermons: D.L. Moody, “False Gods in America Today,” and Charles Finney, “Idolatry and the Fear of God.”
28. “All offences are against God, and everything which is against him must be put down to the demons and unclean spirits who are in possession of the idols.” Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” ch.1.
29. Chrysostom, “Homilies on Ephesians,” 133, Homily 18.
30. Our historical survey was restricted to three figures, but in my limited research I have found no other figure in church history who comes close to saying that idolatry is the source of all actual sins.

©Christian Bland. All Rights Reserved.

You can find the whole series here.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Christian Bland

  

  Rev. Christian Bland (M.Div. Westminster Seminary California) is a Teaching Elder in the PCA, serving as the Assistant Pastor of Spring Meadows Presbyterian Church in Las Vegas, NV. Christian is married to Michaela, and they have one child.

  More by Christian Bland ›