Introduction
In our previous three articles, we have seen the historical, theological, biblical, and pastoral dangers in the modern idea of idols of the heart. The great error of well-intentioned writers such as David Powlison and Tim Keller is to indict even genuine and repentant Christians of idolatry. This error flows unavoidably from their contention that anything and everything can be an idol, and that idolatry is the source of every sin. When making such claims, they define idolatry figuratively as one’s trust, obedience, or service rendered to things other than God. They never intended it, but as we saw in part two, even with their figurative definition, their claims would mean that every Christian is apostate, without the comfort of assurance or the hope of perseverance. We have seen that this concept does not arise from Scripture, as well as the theological and pastoral dangers inherent to it. In this final article, we will take a closer look at Keller’s project of “rebranding sin,” and close with an alternative approach to preaching and counseling to replace the idea of idolatry of the heart in pastoral ministry.
Rebranding the Bible’s Definition of Sin
As Keller sought to make sin more relevant and believable to postmodern audiences, he expressed a need to “rebrand the word ‘sin.’”1 Elsewhere, he explains that he was able to overcome a “cultural allergy to the Christian concept of ‘sin’” by reframing sin as idolatry.2 Defining sin as a violation of God’s law (cf. WSC 14) would only bring the objection of cultural and moral relativity; defining it instead as idolatry “neutralized (for the moment)” those objections.3 But as Iain Campbell notes, “For Keller, idolatry is not simply one expression of sin, but the root out of which every sin arises.”4 Although Keller acknowledged the eventual need to address sin as “rebellion against God’s law,”5 Campbell concludes that his initial definition of sin as idolatry contradicts the traditional and biblical definition of sin as law-breaking (1 John 3:4), because it is not grounded in Scripture, it is subjective, and it reverses the biblical order by making idolatry the cause rather than the symptom of our sinfulness.6 Campbell’s critique, though quite helpful, is mainly limited to Keller’s identification of idolatry as the source of every other sin. Our critique must go farther: liberally calling any sin or sinful desire an idol wrongly, albeit unintentionally, identifies genuine Christians as idolaters and apostates.7
Pace Keller, and imputing to him the best intentions, sin does not need a rebranding, and the attempts at rebranding sin as idolatry have proved unhelpful at best. One may see this particularly in how the concept of idolatry of the heart flattens the complexity of sin. By collapsing all sins into the specific sin of idolatry, Keller and others make all sins of equal heinousness. As we saw in part two, this is a rhetorical device that Paul himself used (Eph 5:5; Col 3:5), but he did so sparingly, in order to communicate hyperbolically that the vice of greed is characteristic of unbelievers, like idolatry. The purpose of appealing to figurative idolatry is to communicate that another sin is similar to idolatry in some way. Powlison and Keller claim that all sins are similar to idolatry in terms of service, trust, and the like, but they fail to recognize that idolatry is the climactic sin of apostasy in Scripture. It is more heinous because it is more “immediately against God” than other sins.8 Therefore, comparing other sins to idolatry unavoidably communicates that they are of the same or similar heinousness. This is how Paul uses figurative idolatry in Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5. But by expanding Paul’s use of figurative idolatry to every sin equally, Powlison and Keller destroy the distinction between more or less heinous sinful desires and open the door for a heavy burden to be placed on Christians with weak consciences.9
Further, as we saw Powlison argue explicitly in part one, the idea of idols of the heart makes the solution to every sin the same: repent from false worship, and worship the true God. Powlison and Keller would certainly have different applications of that singular solution, but the core counsel given to someone with a besetting sin will be the same: stop worshiping the figurative idol of (for example) sexual pleasure, and redirect your worship to the true God. At least in application, if not in design, this approach oversimplifies the process of mortification, and presents the solution to sin more as the work of a believer than of the Holy Spirit. Instead of instructing believers to avail themselves of the means of grace, which the Holy Spirit will use to enable them “more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness,”10 Keller says that “spiritual disciplines are basically forms of worship, and it is worship that is the final way to replace the idols of your heart. . . . Analysis can help you discover truths, but then you need to ‘pray them in’ to your heart.”11 At least in Keller’s treatment, the discovery of one’s idolatry is not, or at least not only, an occasion to run to Christ for justification and sanctification, but to remove those idols by one’s own work of spiritual discipline.
Another way that rebranding sin as idolatry has proved unhelpful is its subjectivity.12 Powlison and Keller argue that everything can be an idol, and that idolatry is the source of all sin; but how can a person know what particular idol is the source of their sins or when something has crossed the threshold from an innocent desire or object of desire into an idol of the heart? By redefining sin as idolatry rather than as lawlessness, Powlison and Keller have at least given a secondary place to the objective standard of God’s law. Instead, the standard for discovering sin, which is idolatry, becomes subjective—you must ask yourself, “Has something or someone besides Jesus the Christ taken title to your heart’s trust, preoccupation, loyalty, service, fear and delight?”13 No longer is it sufficient to point to a biblical command that one has transgressed, even to prohibitions against idolatry. Now one must measure one’s sin according to how much trust or delight one has in God, or in other things. At best, this opens the door to ambiguity and contradictory opinions about what is or is not an idol. And at worst, it empowers people to manipulate the concept in a legalistic manner. As an example of contradictory conclusions, the values of the political right are considered by some to be idols of the heart—as in Christopher Wright, who claims that patriotism and capitalism are examples of idolatry.14 But many others consider the values of the political left to be idolatrous and would bristle at the idea of calling patriotism an idol. Within the framework of idols of the heart, both sides of the contradiction are valid claims. In that framework, anything can be an idol, including values of the political left or right. Unless the framework of idolatry of the heart is rejected, a person could only defend himself by saying that patriotism can be an idol, but that it is not one in his case.
There may be similar subjectivity and the opportunity for manipulation in the identification of sin in general. For example, Wright could have just as easily labeled patriotism as a sin, rather than as idolatry. The idea of idols of the heart, however, goes further than just labeling something indifferent as a sin. It opens the door to labeling something indifferent as the most heinous sin. This makes the subjectivity and opportunity for manipulation more dangerous. Further, if Wright assumed the traditional (and biblical) definition of sin as “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (WSC 14), then he would have to attempt to show from God’s law how patriotism transgressed it. Without an appeal to God’s law, calling something a sin falls flat—but that is not true within the framework of “idols of the heart.”
As for the ability to manipulate the ambiguity, one might bind the conscience of someone under his authority, calling an idol of the heart what actually may be good or at least indifferent.15 One may easily imagine how a pastor or counselor, intentionally or not, might condemn sins of less heinousness with disproportionate severity. Even worse, they can do so with matters that ought to be left to Christian liberty. In our divisive political climate, for example, it can be far too easy to label one political party as guilty of idolatry, whereas faithful church members may have legitimate conscientious reasons for supporting that party over another. The results have the potential to be devastating to sheep who, though they may certainly go astray and kick against the goad, have not wandered so far as to follow another shepherd.16
Who decides what can be an idol of the heart, and who decides when something becomes an idol in a particular heart? Proponents of the idea of idols of the heart will argue in response, following Powlison, that they do not encourage “idol-hunting.”17 But is not the purpose of using the concept in pastoral and counseling ministry to identify the supposedly idolatrous source of another person’s sinful behavior? This, and not an abuse of the concept, allows for a dangerous ambiguity and manipulation.
Not only have many problems sprung from the effort to rebrand sin as idolatry, but the effort itself is unnecessary. The biblical language to describe sin is sufficient, and calling the root of all sin idolatry is unbiblical. Modern people, even postmodern people, still understand laws and rights. Sin as law-breaking is not a foreign language. Further, Scripture does not simply label sin as law-breaking, but as covenant-breaking. Perhaps this addresses the relational resonance that Keller sought in his effort to rebrand sin as idolatry. All sin is in relation to God, as a violation of the covenant between God and mankind, but that does not make all sin idolatry.
Pastoral Considerations
In light of our historical, biblical, and theological conclusions, the concept of idolatry of the heart should be rejected. Yet, since it has become such a common tool for preaching and counseling, rejecting the concept has pastoral implications. First, how should pastors preach from biblical passages that mention idolatry? This depends on the specific passage. As indicated above, in 1 John an idol is a false theology taken to such an extreme that the heretic worships a false god. In a passage such as Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3, one must emphasize that both literal idolatry and greed are dividing lines between believers and unbelievers. But in general, pastors should preach such texts like any other warning passage in Scripture—not with a wink to the regenerate, as if the passage were not relevant to them, but with a serious warning of the consequences of idolatry and apostasy. The Holy Spirit uses such warnings as effectual means unto the perseverance and repentance of the elect, so that although the regenerate must be warned not to commit idolatry, yet they will never totally nor finally fall away as idolaters—not even as idolaters of the heart.
Beyond that, the motivating claim of Powlison, that a gap lies between modern people and the biblical condemnation of idolatry, remains unconvincing. By placing so much emphasis on figurative idolatry, writers such as Keller and Powlison give the impression that literal idolatry and apostasy are not serious problems facing the church today. This is not the case. Many people walk away from the church every year—especially young people—as they are influenced by the values of the world, which include literal idolatry. Powlison’s foregone conclusion, that biblical references to idolatry need to be contextualized in order to become relevant to modern people, is unfounded and unrealistic at best. One may quickly learn that literal idolatry remains a problem in the church by briefly scrolling through Ligonier’s “The State of Theology” survey.18
Instead of broadening idolatry to include sins like sexual lust or being a “workaholic,” pastors should expand their understanding of literal idolatry. Any appeal to any transcendent reality besides the Triune God, or the worship of any image of any divinity (including the Triune God) is idolatry. Therefore, passages that warn of literal idolatry present a good opportunity to condemn modern forms of it—for example, claiming that all religions worship the same God, using horoscopes, or appealing or praying to “the universe” as a spiritual force.
When it comes to biblical counseling, however, the method that Powlison suggests is valuable until he uses the language of idolatry. His method is to dig deeper into a sinful behavior to determine what specific sinful desire might be motivating it. The greedy person might be obsessed with wealth because he desires worldly status, or because he is seeking security in his wealth. These require different kinds of pastoral care and admonition, just as the lustful person and the idol worshiper need different admonition. Powlison also shows that these sinful desires can be passed down generationally: a person obsessed with work may have been influenced by the example of her father, or her childhood experience of poverty.19 These are valuable insights, and by excising the language of idolatry, Powlison’s counseling method retains all its strength, while removing the assurance-endangering practice of calling hangry Christians active idolaters.
Conclusion
Despite the prevalence of the concept of idolatry of the heart in the church today, it cannot be found in Scripture. In previous articles, we noted the differences between the modern concept and historical similarities. Importantly, we saw that Calvin’s famous line about the heart being a factory of idols has nothing to do with the concept of idols of the heart. We also concluded that Scripture always presents idolatry as apostasy, even the two texts that come closest to supporting the idea of idols of the heart (Eph 5:5 and Col 3:5). This undermines the three foundational claims of the modern idea of idols of the heart, as argued by Powlison and Keller: that anything and everything can be an idol, that idolatry is the source of every other sin, and that (therefore) Christians in good standing are idolaters. The final error is the greatest, but it is inseparable from the prior two errors. When a biblical definition of idolatry, even figurative idolatry, is imported to these claims, the results are devastating to a believer’s assurance and the doctrine of perseverance. If these three claims are contradicted by Scripture, then the modern idea of idols of the heart should and even must be abandoned. Keller’s attempt at rebranding sin, albeit well-intentioned, must be deemed biblically and theologically unnecessary and unhelpful.
Pastors should remove the language of idols of the heart from preaching and counseling, because the three foundational errors of the concept have serious implications on pastoral ministry. Idolatry is a grave sin, one which a person should not accuse someone of lightly. To call a Christian an idolater, even a figurative idolater, is to say he has apostatized, abandoned faith in the true God, has become an enemy of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18), and will have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (Eph 5:6). If anything can be an idol, and all sins flow out of idolatry, then Christians are rendered unable to keep themselves from idolatry (cf. 1 John 5:21). Although never the intention of Powlison and Keller, this contradicts the valuable doctrines of assurance of salvation and perseverance of the saints, by not only making it possible, but even unavoidable, that Christians apostatize.
When paired with a biblical definition of idolatry, the idea of idols of the heart makes regenerate Christians guilty of apostasy in the form of idolatry, which renders ineffective the Spirit’s regenerating, sanctifying, and preserving work in a believer’s heart. Therefore, the concept of idols of the heart leaves Christians unsure of their standing before God, whether they are apostate or genuine, and whether they will persevere in faith or fall away. Further, the solution to idols of the heart, as presented by Keller, is the believer’s work of practicing the spiritual disciplines, rather than the Spirit’s work of renewing us after the image of God. But if the Spirit has taken away a heart of stone, and put a heart of flesh in its place, can such a heart truly turn to false idols? Or more precisely, since Keller and Powlison argue that idolatry is the source of all sin: can such a heart of flesh, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and yet has “remnants of corruption,” be inescapably idolatrous by nature? As Paul poses the question, “What agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor 6:16). A Christian cannot be simultaneously the temple of the living God and the temple of dead idols.
Notes
- Tim Keller, quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Has the notion of ‘sin’ been lost?,” USA Today, March 19, 2008. Iain D. Campbell cites this article in “Keller on ‘Rebranding’ the Doctrine of Sin,” in Engaging with Keller: Thinking Through the Theology of an Influential Evangelical, ed. William M. Schweitzer (Grand Rapids, MI: Evangelical Press, 2013), 34.
- Keller, Center Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 126–27.
- Keller, Center Church, 127.
- Campbell, “Rebranding,” 41.
- Keller, Center Church, 128.
- Campbell, “Rebranding,” 37–45. In other words, Keller says that idolaters go on to break God’s law, while Campbell argues that Scripture says that law-breakers go on to commit idolatry.
- Campbell seems to accept this aspect of Keller’s argument. “Rebranding,” 44.
- Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 151.2. For more on the different levels of heinousness in sin, see WLC 150–51.
- As Stephen Spinnenweber noted in “Homosexuality, Concupiscence, and the PCA,” Heidelblog, August 16, 2022, Keller explicitly rejected that some sinful desires were more heinous than others. I would contend that this conclusion flowed out of his view of idols of the heart.
- WSC 35. In other words, Keller makes sanctification a work of believers instead of “a work of God’s free grace.”
- Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 175. Emphasis original.
- On this subjectivity, see Campbell, “Keller on ‘Rebranding’ the Doctrine of Sin,” 39, 43–44.
- David Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 13.2 (1995): 35.
- Christopher J. H. Wright, “Here Are Your Gods”: Faithful Discipleship in Idolatrous Times (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 22.
- For example, some say children or family can be an idol (good), and the same is said of social media (indifferent). Of course, one can have a sinful approach to either, but how do you know when the immense love you have for your children becomes idolatrous?
- I.e., not simply another pastor, but a shepherd besides the Chief Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ.
- David Powlison, “Revisiting Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 27.3 (2013): 39.
- For example, in 2022, 56% of evangelical respondents agreed that “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.” Ligonier, “The State of Theology,” accessed August 9, 2023.
- Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” 39.
©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
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 ›
Great stuff man!!!!!! I never saw why people love Tim Keller so much. I have great buddies who I respect and love but yeah idk why they love Tim so much. I always thought from just his preaching that the guys wasn’t solid. I mean look at his church it’s just a seeker friendly place. Dude I have a question though ur a PCA guy. Why doesn’t the PCA just kick out churches that aren’t reformed. There are so many churches like Tim’s that as time goes you recognize almost nothing of what our father would have intended for the church. Food for thought. But thanks again bro good stuff
Thanks Larry. The PCA has a history of being more broad than most other NAPARC denominations. Keller was never heretical, he had a faithful and fruitful ministry. But like you said, he wasn’t as intentionally and comprehensively Reformed as some of us strive to be. Many people think that Reformed just refers to our theology, and forget our distinctive piety and practice. I’m afraid that this has happened fairly extensively within the PCA. My other fear is that we often fall into pragmatism.
Larry, I’ve lived in New York City, I kept my church membership and preaching license there long after I moved away, I have numerous friends still in that area, and I’ve seen the damage that Tim Keller’s ministry has done to faithful confessional Reformed churches. I share your concern about Keller.
However, I think we need to take people in context. Prior to Tim Keller beginning his church, New York City (and particularly Manhattan, less so the outer boroughs) were regarded as the graveyard where Reformed church planters go to die. People pointed out that New York has been the hotbed of heresies dating back at least to the eras of Charles Augustus Briggs and Harry Emerson Fosdick, and a case can be made that New York’s problems date back far before that.
For all of Keller’s problems, he managed to do something that nobody in modern memory has managed to do — create a loose, but still recognizably Reformed, church in the largest city of the United States that got MAJOR attention from the cultural elite following 9/11.
Keller couldn’t have done what he did in the OPC or one of the more confessionally Reformed denominations. He would have been brought up on charges and spent much of the last two decades of his ministry fighting off allegations of deviation from important but secondary parts of the confessions.
In the PCA, the fact that his church was “successful” and “growing” made him a star of what in the broader evangelical world would be called “big Eva.” To some extent, even with his Reformed theology, he became part of that.
The PCA does not throw out big churches, particularly if they are growing and successful, unless they develop major problems that can no longer be ignored. Pushing women ministers or homosexuality has proven to be a step too far, and the PCA deserves credit on those points. But there’s not much else the PCA will act against if the church is big enough.
I hope I’m wrong in saying that. I don’t think I am.
The problems with Keller run deep. While it may work well in NYC, it also poisoned many PCA churches in much less Marxist areas, so, in total, he was far more corrosive. His denomination within a denomination spread his nonsense throughout the country. We can hardly look at NYC today and see it as a bastion of any the faintest sort of true piety.
The people I know who have respected Keller and his ministry have the highest commitment to piety I know of, and point some of it to Keller’s ministry. Whatever your thoughts on him, the man preached the gospel and the pious living we are called to be Christ. The attacks simply calling him and those he taught “Marxist” are quite interesting to me as I’ve found no evidence for the claim.
Chris,
I’ve made some criticisms of Keller. Not long ago some of us did a Heidelcast episode to discuss them but those criticisms of his pragmatism have to be counterbalanced by a fair appraisal of his ministry.
Your criticism doesn’t hit that mark.
From above:
“Instead, the standard for discovering sin, which is idolatry, becomes subjective—you must ask yourself, “Has something or someone besides Jesus the Christ taken title to your heart’s trust, preoccupation, loyalty, service, fear and delight?”13 No longer is it sufficient to point to a biblical command that one has transgressed, even to prohibitions against idolatry. Now one must measure one’s sin according to how much trust or delight one has in God, or in other things.”
When I read our Lord’s words regarding God and mammon in Matt. 6:24, and read Calvin’s Commentary on that passage, it frankly sounds more like Keller and Powlison than not.
Thanks for the comment David. I’m not sure what you’re referring to specifically from Calvin, or how this exactly relates to the quotation from the article. For clarity, I’m not arguing that we can’t sin by valuing something too highly, or that introspectively examining one’s heart isn’t important. In the quotation, I’m pointing out that the standard has changed when seeking out sinful relationships to indifferent things. God’s law clearly tells us that covetousness is sinful, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils, etc. Our hearts are much less reliable guides (e.g., how much trust is too much? How much loyalty is too much?), and such subjectivity is concerning when it is in the service of labeling something as the most heinous sin (i.e., idolatry).
Concerning Calvin’s comments on Matt 6:24, I find him to bolster the argument against Keller and Powlison, that genuine believers can’t be idolaters (this is central to their concept): “It is, no doubt, true, that believers themselves are never so perfectly devoted to obedience to God, as not to be withdrawn from it by the sinful desires of the flesh. But as they groan under this wretched bondage, and are dissatisfied with themselves, and give nothing more than an unwilling and reluctant service to the flesh, they are not said to serve two masters: for their desires and exertions are approved by the Lord, as if they rendered to him a perfect obedience. But this passage reproves the hypocrisy of those who flatter themselves in their vices, as if they could reconcile light and darkness” (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels, on Matt 6:24). I hope you have read (or will read) part 3 of this series, where I treat Matt 6:24 briefly.
“If anything can be an idol, and all sins flow out of idolatry, then Christians are rendered unable to keep themselves from idolatry (cf. 1 John 5:21). Although never the intention of Powlison and Keller, this contradicts the valuable doctrines of assurance of salvation and perseverance of the saints, by not only making it possible, but even unavoidable, that Christians apostatize.”
This seems to me to be a Wesleyan form of argument, not a Reformed one. This is how the Methodists argue for Christian Perfection from Matt. 5:48.
In contrast, WSC 82, “No mere man…”.
David, asserting that Christians are kept by the Holy Spirit’s preserving grace from the most heinous sins is not Wesleyan. This is historically and confessionally Reformed. I just read a section along these lines in the Marrow of Modern Divinity (I don’t have it with me right now, or else I would give a page number). I’m also not sure how that quotation would relate to a Wesleyan interpretation of Matt 5:48. I addressed this concern in part 2, but I’m not arguing that anyone can keep the law perfectly, only that the saints do in fact persevere. They don’t fall away into apostasy, of which idolatry is the major biblical example.
Thank you for your responses, very helpful.
“His method is to dig deeper into a sinful behavior to determine what specific sinful desire might be motivating it. The greedy person might be *obsessed* with wealth because he desires worldly status, or because he is *seeking security* in his wealth. ”
I would love to have heard more of your analysis of sins a la Powlison without the idolatry framework.
It was the diagnostic ability of the idolatry framework that attracted me to it. Within the Keller world, watching one’s motives was a big part of Christian discipleship. I believe it made me a more honest man.
I have learnt a lot from this series. Especially the clarity around “literal idolatry” yet when i read the above quote it appears to me that you too end up with subjective categories with which to analyse one’s own sinful actions. I could ask as you do above, ‘How much is an obsession’?, ‘at what point am I seeking security’?
I’d appreciate your feedback on these thoughts.
Thanks Richie, I’m glad my series has been helpful, and I’m glad that Keller has been helpful to you as well. To address your thoughts briefly, subjective and introspective analysis is certainly required as we examine ourselves and repent from sin. I don’t mean to deny that, and I think that emphasis of Powlison and Keller was right and helpful. However, what I object to is making the definition of sin subjective–i.e., sin is idolatry, and an idol is anything you love, trust, serve. Instead of the objective definition: sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God (WSC 14). The latter definition still allows for and even requires subjective introspection, but that subjective introspection is founded upon an objective definition. For example, in the quote that you give, we are talking about greed–it is clear from God’s law that greed is a sin, and that opposite virtues are required (like generosity). I still need to examine myself subjectively to determine whether I have committed the sin of greed and if so what sinful desires motivated my greed. But in doing so, I can point to explicitly biblical prohibitions and examples of greed (e.g., Ananias and Saphira) to aid in my introspection. Whereas, defining sin as idolatry requires subjective introspection not just to evaluate if you have fallen into sin, but even to determine what a sin is. Further, labeling sinful motivations as idolatry, as Powlison does, brings many dangers and problems, which I have noted throughout the series (e.g., to one’s assurance of salvation).
This is probably too simplistic, but I might accept all or most of Keller and Powlison’s practical points when it comes to discovering sinful motivations, as long as we retain an objective definition of sin and refrain from calling those sinful motivations idols (for the reasons explained throughout the series).
I hope this explanation is helpful, and again, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Having read all four parts of your series, I find I am ultimately unpersuaded. I think the main weakness of your argument is your interpretation of Col 3:5-7 (with Eph 5:5) and Phil 3:19.
You assert that scripture never refers to something (e.g., money or power) as being an idol of the heart (that is, something one doesn’t think is divine but which one worships, figuratively, by giving it the sort of love, service, or trust which only God deserves). This assertion seems to founder on Col 3:5-7, with the other passages.
The ESV has for Col 3:5-7: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, … and covetousness, which is idolatry. … In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.”
Contrary to what you wrote in Part 2, it seems to me the natural, intuitive interpretation of Col 3:5 is that covetousness (i.e., violations of the tenth commandment, which prohibits inordinate desire for things and people) is figurative idolatry in the sense, as commentator Curtis Vaughan writes, that “it puts self-interest and things in the place of God.” Much less intuitive and natural is your view that Paul merely means to say covetousness (or greediness, as you translate it) is as bad as literal, pagan idolatry. I don’t say your view is impossible. It just seems much less probable. (The appeal to the rabbinic sayings is not terribly compelling. For one, Paul may mean to critique them on this very point.)
Phil 3:19 (“their god is their belly”) also seems, if taken plainly, to teach that food (or some such) can functionally rule a person as if it were a god (at least at mealtime).
It thus seems that “idolatry of the heart” is well-attested in scripture.
I also take you to argue that, even if scripture teaches idolatry of the heart (in Col 3:5-7 etc), scripture never suggests that genuine Christians engage in idolatry of the heart. Rather, all such cases in scripture involve non-Christians or apostates.
But, the plain reading of Col 3:5-7 suggests that Paul is telling Colossian Christians to mortify sins with which they still struggle (“Put to death…”). Of course, the struggle isn’t like it was pre-conversion (when “you were living in them”). The implication is that the Colossians are still dealing with, among other things, covetousness, which is idolatry of the heart.
Thanks Josh, I appreciate that you gave my arguments your time, and I respect that you aren’t persuaded. I would challenge you to perhaps read a little closer, though, since I don’t quite argue what you have summarized.
I acknowledged that Scripture does speak of figurative idolatry in pt 1, but those passages of Scripture are extremely limited (2, possibly 3 depending on how you take Phil 3:19). This isn’t what you’d expect from the emphasis that many writers and pastors place on the idea of idols of the heart.
And only one out of those three passages could possibly allow for the interpretation that you presented–i.e., Col 3. Phil 3:19 is clearly talking about “enemies of the cross of Christ,” and Eph 5 is clearly talking about “sons of disobedience against whom God’s wrath is coming.” I agree that, at first glance, Col 3 seems to say that Christians may be guilty of these things. But I’m quite convinced that reading the parallel passage of Eph 5 clears up that ambiguity: “Everyone who is greedy, that is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of God and Christ” (v. 5). If Col 3 leaves us wondering, “Can a true believer be this kind of an idolater?” Paul clarifies in Eph 5 by saying, “This kind of idolater will not inherit the kingdom of God”–i.e., they are not true believers. Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly in pt 2, but space is limited.
In pt 4, I explained that the point of figurative idolatry is to compare another sin to idolatry in some way, but that this also comes with comparing the heinousness of those sins. I didn’t mean to claim that there might not be other similarities–I grant that there are–rather, my claim is that you unavoidably communicate that a sin is of similar heinousness when you compare it to idolatry in any other way. This is what Paul does, in my view, but what the concept of idols of the heart fails to account for. Figurative idolatry is like saying, “Lying is murder.” You might have other reasons for making that comparison, but it unavoidably communicates that lying is as bad (or nearly as bad) as murder.
I granted in pt 2 that true believers can commit unrepentant sin and live like unbelievers, but they will be restored through church discipline (e.g., David in 2 Sam 12). But in pt 2 I noted that we ought to view “greed” in Col 3 and Eph 5 as something more narrow than covetousness (I think avarice is the best translation). And like I said in pt 4, the purpose of passages like Eph 5 and Col 3 is the same as any other warning passage: the Spirit uses such warnings to keep the elect from falling. So, it’s true, pastors must preach to their flock, “Keep yourselves from idolatry,” as well as “Put to death… greed, which is idolatry,” because the Spirit uses these passages to keep the elect from idolatry and greed so that they persevere and therefore cannot be liable to the punishment of idolatry (not inheriting God’s kingdom, etc.).
For what it’s worth, Calvin interprets these passages along these lines: “Paul does not say that those who have fallen into those sins, and recovered from them, are not pardoned, but pronounces sentence on the sins themselves…. When men have repented, and thus give evidence that they are reconciled to God, they are no longer the same persons that they formerly were. But let all fornicators, or unclean or covetous persons, so long as they continue such, be assured that they have no friendship with God, and are deprived of all hope of salvation” (John Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians 5:5).
And commenting on Col 3:6, Calvin clearly says that this passages is not about the elect, but the reprobate: “[Paul] says, however, expressly, that the wrath of God will come, or is wont to come, upon the unbelieving or disobedient, instead of threatening them [i.e., the Colossians] with anything of this nature. For God would rather that we should see his wrath upon the reprobate, than feel it in ourselves. It is true, that when the promises of grace are set before us, every one of the pious ought to embrace them equally as though they were designed for himself particularly; but, on the other hand, let us dread the threatenings of wrath and destruction in such a manner, that those things which are suitable for the reprobate, may serve as a lesson to us. God, it is true, is often said to be angry even with his children, and sometimes chastens their sins with severity. Paul speaks here, however, of eternal destruction, of which a mirror is to be seen only in the reprobate. In short, whenever God threatens, he shews, as it were, indirectly the punishment, that, beholding it in the reprobate, we may be deterred from sinning” (John Calvin, Commentary on Colossians 3:6).
Not that quoting Calvin should automatically win a debate, but just to show that my view isn’t new or idiosyncratic.
If you remain unconvinced, I am still grateful that you gave my articles your time and attention. However, I wanted to be sure to clarify since you seem to have misunderstood some of my points. At the very least, I hope my arguments have chastened the over-use of the concept of idolatry of the heart.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. You have at least convinced me that all my plainly’s need to be changed to probably’s when it comes to the best interpretation of the relevant passages. I was too strident. The case is closer than I made it out to be.
I’ll conclude our exchange with two additional points (yours will be the last word, if you respond, and thanks so much for your engagement!).
(1) Col 3:5 isn’t the only possible passage which may teach that the regenerate regularly struggle with idolatry of the heart.
The implications would seem to be legion if one maintained that Col 3:5-7, Eph 5:5, and Phil 3:19 only involve apostates or reprobates but conceded (not that you do) that these passages effectively teach that figurative idolatry includes robbing God of the love, service, and trust he deserves and giving it to something else, like money or power.
The regenerate often give *some* of the love, service, or trust God deserves to other things. It would thus be hard not to extend the logic of the Col, Eph, and Phil passages to every verse in scripture, and there are many, which exhort the regenerate to trust in God instead of x, and the like with respect to love and service. All such passages would implicitly exhort us to – figuratively and wholly – worship God instead of x, y, or z.
(2) The term “worship service” is suggestive where pastoral, applicational speech is concerned.
The usual way we talk about the Sunday worship service makes “idolatry of the heart”-type language rather natural. In the worship service, among other things, we give God praise, declare who he is, receive his gifts, like the Supper, and declare our love for him. Then, during the week, in difficult circumstances, we struggle with loving other things and people instead of God, etc. It becomes very natural to say that we, analogously and figuratively but not literally, struggle with worship of that which isn’t God. We just professed our love for God in the *worship* service, and then we often proceed to give some of that love (which only God deserves) to other things and people.
Josh, on both points, I would suggest you read my above comment in which I quote Calvin’s commentary on Matt 6:24. A person can’t serve two masters. Though genuine Christians struggle against the flesh and often render it obedience, it is reluctant service which they hate, repent of, and sorrow over. I think a similar line of thought could be applied to your language of love, praise, etc. (i.e., though the regenerate may struggle with loving or “praising” other things, their sorrow for sin means such love and “praise” is not real love or “praise,” it isn’t evidence of idolatry but of Paul’s explanation of the Christian experience in Rom 7). Again, on your first point, those passages are very clear: if you commit figurative idolatry, you are an enemy of Christ and a son of disobedience. That precludes genuine believers. And on your second point, I would refer you to my discussion on worship in pt 3. Thanks for your interaction, and I hope this helps.