Icons or Idols?

This is part three of my discussion on Peter Rollins How (Not) to Speak of God.  Click here for parts one and two.

A/theology, this tension between what we know about God and that we can't possibly know objectively anything about God, provides us some great opportunities as participants in the emerging conversation.  We must embrace this opportunity to recognize that our old models for evangelism are wrong and, perhaps more importantly, use this a/theology as a worship aid that creates space for God to work in our lives as the Holy Spirit wants, not as we want.

First, our old models for evangelism.  

As more and more people "freak out" by the lack of people in the pews, there is increasing talk of what it means to be a "missional" leader: to create spaces, worship services, etc. that invite the "no religious preferences" to come to our church or, perhaps more accurately, so that they offer their money to our projects.  And this tends towards a heaven/hell scare tactic, especially around more evangelical traditions or a "rational discourse" on God, especially with the more mainline Protestant traditions.  Rollins points out that these two options tend to "create thousands of converts with no heart." (38)  

Rather, we should be inviting people to encounter God in their own way. Like the smell of freshly baked chocolate chip cookies invite us to taste and see that they are delicious, so too should our methods of "evangelism" invite those to whom we are speaking to taste and see that The Lord is good.  

We are past an age where we can and should tell people what to believe anymore.  We have hundreds of thousands of people who claim to be Christian that don't really understand what that means outside of going to church on Sunday morning.  So why should they continue to go to church when they could be part of a club or team that is a more meaningful aspect their identity?  Christianity is, at its worst, a "feel good religion" that doesn't offer meaningfulness in our world.  The language we (as Christians) have been speaking is stale and archaic at times, and only by speaking the language of the culture can we truly show just how counter-cultural the Gospel really is.

The benefit of a/theology in the midst of this conversation is that we are reminded again and again that we do not need to keep speaking an archaic language to convey the good news of God's work in the world.  The parable of the dishonest steward doesn't mean anything for your congregation?  Translate it into the language that your people would understand.  Use a farmer or a CPA instead.  A/theology invites us to subjectively come to experience God in our lives, instead of just the lives of those who lived 50 years, 500 years, or 2000 years ago.  Again, subjectively here doesn't mean relativism, but intimacy.  God is a subject that we desire to experience again and again as we grow and learn, not an immutable object that becomes idolatrous.  

Second, a/theology creates worshipful space within ourselves.

When we recognize that God is not just who we say He (or She) is, but rather the great "I AM WHO I AM" itself a name that challenges our need to put labels on everything. We can stop demanding that God work in one particular way in one particular place.  God cannot be limited to working through the pulpit in a twenty minute didactic sermon.  God cannot be limited to Eucharist or Baptism (although as a good Lutheran, I fully expect God to show up there).  Instead we must open ourselves up to the "extraordinary means of grace."  

These are the means where the Reformers realized that God was at work, but not in the traditional ways we expect.  This is when God shows up because two or three are gathered, and the Spirit shows up to stir a love of God and neighbor in someone who was neither "religious nor spiritual."  This is when God reveals Godself in people like Mahatma Gandhi who, although not a Christian by any standard definition, embodied the radical nonviolence of Jesus in way not seen since. 

We can use a/theology as an icon, a worship aid, because God reveals God in the midst of a/theistic tension.  This only works if we recognize the difference between an icon and an idol.

An icon is a prayerful tool that provides a glimpse of God and God's work.  It's an invitation to see how God's work may take different forms throughout the ages, but the work is still God's.  It's a stained glass window into the divine which allows us to see God's light, without going blind.  

Photo Credit: Tim Crummitt

An idol, is when this beautiful image that we use to help us glimpse God become as God in our minds.  It's almost too easy for this to happen to us.  C.S. Lewis talks about how a man looks at a particular corner every night as he prays and he eventually starts to see that corner as where God dwells instead of as a tool to help him focus his thoughts and feelings into prayer. (The Screwtape Letters)  We desire to make sense out of what confuses and astounds us.  We want objective and concrete facts especially when all there is to found is subjective knowledge.  We want answers even when the questions escape us.

A/theology, as icon, helps us steer clear from these idolatrous tendencies by reminding us to live in the tension and encounter God on God's terms, not our own.  We have to be careful with our a/theology so that we do not turn this a/theistic approach into an idol that replaces God instead of allowing us to encounter the living God. 

After spending two days at the North Carolina Synod's Fall Convocation, where the keynote presentations were on preaching, I really want to start thinking about how to incorporate this invitation to engage God on God's terms in my sermons.  How do I preach sermons that are iconic, not idolatrous?  How do I craft my words in such a way to remind people that they are staring at an impressionist painting, where they are encouraged to allow the painting to affect them?  How do I proclaim the good news as if I were baking cookies, inviting people to come closer and taste for themselves? 

The hard truth of the matter is, I'm not sure this is a question that I can objectively answer.  (There's that a/theology slipping in again...)  I think it's a skill that has to be developed contextually as each congregation needs different kinds of invitations.  Each member has their own experience and encounter with God that I am blessed to experience with them as we point out God's work in our lives to each other.  I cannot and should not see God for them, but I can model what it looks like to experience God in a variety of ways.  I can encourage them to look for where God is in their midst.  Shouldn't that be enough? Why not let the Holy Spirit do all the heavy lifting?