. Sips tare ar Ge Te ee ee ee Beta

Ad 4 ? “ Fv o>
< ] a TA
,. ‘

Idolatry — 1965
May 5, 1968
Exodus 20:1-3
Matthew 23

I've always had trouble with the word "{dolatry", and I expect you have too,
It is one of those things we are supposed to be against - but the content of that, Be en!
against which we ought to take a stand, has never seemed very real to me. I've never |
seen a golden calf, nor have I ever literally bowed down before the "Almighty Dollar" - age
whatever that means. I haven't consciously worshipped success, or security ol thought ne ay
I'm quite interested in both. In short, the classical definition of idolatry ~ setting
up 2.graven image and falling down before it - seems to me, much too simple and not very
meaningful. Pan
And yet, ot the very heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the conviction ; >
that the peoatest threat to true religion is nothing other than idolatry. Some have gone "3
so far as to say that the root sin, the fundamental cause of man's broken relationship pe
with God, is some form of idolatry. Certainly the Old Testament minces no words: the i
ten commandmonts begin with this injunction: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you o,
out of the lend of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. - You shall have no other gods
before mc." That's clear enough. And when Moses came down fromMt. Sinai with the stone
tablets to discover the people of Israel worshipping ahome-made golden calf, it was =a
fairly obvious that they had broken this first and fundamental commandment. Later on, <
when the Israclites worshipped the Banl gods of the Canaanites, it was equally obvious &
that they were “having other gods before the Lord God." - é
But by the time of Jesus Christ this particular form of idolatry was no
longer occuring. The Jews had become a solidly monotheistic nation. There was only
one God, and his name was Yahweh. He was not just one out of many gods: ho was the i ges
only God: there was none other. The threat of idolatry seemed to be passed.
But, in reality, it's not quite that simple. A more carcful reading of the 4,
First Commandment revcals that there is more to this matter of idolatry thon the :
ackiowledgnent of the existence of a competing deity. The command itself begins, not
with the restriction against other Gods, but with tho statement; "I am tho Lord your
God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.* And once
that is cstablished, once God has been defined as the deliverer, the source of liberty _
and freedom, the narrative moves to the command - you shall have no other gods before .

ee *

Mee = \

That is to say -— there is a connection here betweon being delivered from =
bondage and acknowledging the Lord asGod. Likewise there is a negative connection between ina
being in bondage - and having other gods, i.e. idolatry. Amd at this point the whole ; ay
Old Testament notion of idolatry takes on new and relevant meaning for your life and - 5,
mine.

Idolatry is not just the simplified act of dancing around a totem polo, it
is any kind of ultimate commitment to that which is less than ultimate. Idolatry is Se
not just building a golden calf ~ it is any kind of loyalty or obedience to any person, mS
principle , notion, law - any thing, any goal, which restricts our freedom to oboy Bu.
God and God clone. Idolatry is to give away our freedom to anything - to be idolatrous ee
is, thercforc, to be in prison. To the ancient Israelite ~ bondage, slavery moant So
one thing - Egypt. And they were freed from that bondage only when they began to ot
radically obey God. Then they walked out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, across the - Es

desert and into a land of their own. . Then they were free to become the nation God ra
had created them to be. =
this motif, grounded in history, becomes a symbolic struggle through out re.

the Old Testcment. Whenever the Jews were less than obedient to their God, thoy 4 We
slipped back into a kind of bondage. Whenever anything replaced that obedience — er
patriotism, logalism, racial purity, materialism - they were guilty of idolotry. As a ee
matter of fact, the greatest induce nent +o idolatry was the formal religion iteclf. ; ee:
: eel ne

a” . 7. ; | = a sl

spe Bs
This is subtle, and it requires some careful thought to understand it: but the story
the Old Testament tells is one of a religion, the original intent of which was to pro-
vide a way of responding obediently to the good and gracious acts of God, actually
replacing God in the hearts and minds of the people, and in the central arona of the
nation's life. Over the years, the greatest emphasis was placed not on the Lord God,

but on religion; on the formal structure - the laws, rules, rituals and cercmonics.

This is idolatry of the most subtle and dangerous type,

dnd it is into this kind of idolatrous situation that Jesus Christ cance.

It was within the context of this kind of subtle idolatry that the Gospel of Jesus
Christ took form and shape. Everywhere he looked Jesus saw idolatry -— and to his
contemporaries he preached a Gospel of radical freedom. To him, the pious Jew,

trying with all his might to obey the 613 separate legal injunctions of the llosaic code,
looked like a slave ~ and he called him to a new freedom in obedience to God. ‘To

him, the wealthy property owner, tearing down old barns to build new ones, looked like
a bonded servant strapped to the endless restrictions of materialism and he called him
to be freo of these restrictions. To anyone who would listen he advised gciting rid
of everything that restricts, wealth or poverty, family — even rcligion — ond it's no
wonder that he ran head-on into the rigid establishment, particularly the religious
establishment.

This conflict between Jesus and the formal religion symbolized by ‘the Pharisees:
this conflict between freedom to obey God, and restriction in idolatry, is articulated
in length in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, part of which was read this morning. The
Pharisces, according to Jesus, didn't practice what they preached. They laid heavy
burdens on mens' shoulders — burdens hard to bear. They were so enamourcd with the
formalized niccties of their religion and their own roll in the perpetuation of the
ecclesiastical structures that they h 4 for*otten about the original intent of their
faith. They didn't care if men obeyed God, so long as they maintained the facade of
religion. They were, that is to say, making, a God of religion itself,

In that 23rd chapter we read the seven woes: "Woe to you, scribes and Phari-
secs, hypocrites!" The three words went together, and seven times Jesus took them to
task for the superficiality of their lives, the sheer phoniness of their religion. The
best known of these terse and uncom fortable accusations sounds like this: “ioc to you,
seribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly
appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and ali unciconnoss.
po you also ouiwaraly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of wunclcanness
and iniquity." That's pretty strong medicine. It makes me uncomfortable just reading
it. It is om indictment of allkinds of idolatry — without specific idols: idolatry
which inducce mon to sell their souls for a mess of pottage: idolatry which prompts
men to become slaves instead of free men. And if we are going to think about idolatry
in 1968 - it is this motif that must guide our thinking.

Tt ig no secret that there are a lot of little tin gods floating around in our
way of life: idols to whom the American people seem only too willing to scl their souls.
But rather than launch a pulpit tirade - such as I've heard a-hundred times myself,

I would rather direct your attention to one of the most descriptive documents I have
ever seen, one of the best interpretations of the first commandment I havo over cx-
perienced — I refer to the motinn pictures "The Graduate".

The unfortunate thing about movies like "The Graduate" is that pcople who are
neurotically ashamed of their own sexuality go with the intent of cating forbidden
fruit. Then they emerge, telling the world that it's a dirty movie — and of course,
they are right if that's why you go in the first place. The same mentality, of course,
would call the Song of Solomon hard core pornography if it ever came out in paperback
with a lusty picture on the front.

"The Graduate" came across to me’as a sermon bascd on the first commandment an
the 23rd chapter of Matthew: a judgmental, prophetic statement about the rampant —
idolatry in the American way of life. In this sonse, it was the most “moral" motion
picture I've secn in a long time.
If you have seen it, forgive me while I talk about it. If you »lan to see it,
you'll have to forgive me for revealing the plot. “The Graduate’ is a simple story ui
of a yourg man moving into the adult world and trying to find something real, some- —§—
thing of worth and integrity. He, as all the persons in the movic, is a caricature, |
on amplification -- an exaggeration, done for the purpose of making ao point. .
liis story begins at a party thrown by his parents to celebrate hic vory success-— We

ful collegiate career. But the people at the party are not real at all: they are Te
onc ond all wearing masks, playing rolls - in prison - particularly his parents. ieee
Their idolatry is in status, the image of busy success carned by their son. In re- et
vulsion against the sheer phoniness of it 211, Benjamin keeps trying to withdraw ee ae
to his room to think, and is finally dragged kicking and screaming into an affair aes

With the infamous Mrs. Robinson.

llis summer is one of involvement in American idolatry - fun, sex, booze, all
of it depersonalized, none of it real. Ho can't even establish a conversation with ae
Mrs. Robinson. There's nothing to talk about: she's not a person. lioonwhile the ) aes
pressurc increases for him to "do" something: to got started pursuing the other god |
of this vacuous way of life - success. It scems that Benjamin is lost - 2 captive el:
to tho phony, shallow world of idolatry all about him. ae

But then a real human being enters the story in the person of lirs. Robinson's a
daughter, Elaine. She is real: she cries when she's hurt. She is worth something.
And suddenly Benjamin becomes o man, no longer a slave. Suddenly ho is in charge and
the pursuit is on.

To the utter horror of Mrs. Robinson he revonls his intent to marry laine and
his manncr of pursuit is both funny and tragic. In order to stop him a hasty wedding
is arranged between Elaine and another suitor. And at this point the church ontors
in a very telling and harsh manner.

Whe wedding is in progress — in a Presbyterian Church, of coursc: all the
phonics are inside with smirks,on their faces -— and in he bursts just as the benedic—
tion is pronounced. In a frantic scene he rescues Elaine, beating back the enraged
mob with an ornamental brass cross. They escape - and he uses the cross to barricade
the door. Iveryone is locked inside the church, while Benjamin and Elaine escape
into freodom.

That, too, is strong medicine. That hurts, especially when all the hypocrites
get locked in the church with their own expensive, brass cross. Thot hit mo with tho
samc kind of impact that I imagine Jesus' statement about white-washed tombs had
on the Pharisees. And it made me a little bit angry. And for that reason it waa a
far botter sermon than you'll ever hear from a pulpit.

lie don't build golden calves any mora, but we are very much involved in a cult
of success. That has become the ultimate. Success is the god to which wo are willing
to soll our souls and bodies. We have no goddess of sex whom we worship, and yet just
the advertiscments in our slick magazines reveal that dceporsonalized sex is certainly-
one of the chief ends of man in 1968. Like the caricatures in “The Craduate", we are
very much motivated by “what other people will think." We are caught up in a way
of life that demands that we scll ourselves for a "moss of pottage™.

To what are we ultimately committed? That is the question raised throughout

the Bible - the same question raised by "The Graduate". Is it success? Tioney? Me
Security? Scnsual satisfaction? Is it perhaps the formal structurcs of our religion? - a
Can we answer these questions honestly? Can we say that we are not, cvory one of us,
involved in idolatry? :

a
5
i

ie
-

a

" “ath Gane tc ee a free was and that that precious and fragile Tiheyty =F
sred only in a relationship of obedience to him. That is y be has opie
hed! al to become slaves of some demonic force - whether ae sex or ergs

is to that kind of freedom that Javan Christ called his peaplo.: fmd ‘for =

thom it was too radical, too dangerous. And it is to that kind of fr + Se
calls you and me in 1968. He would have us committed ultimately only to. ee

which is ultimate. Anything less, regardless of the particular form oh akesy

“Fam the lord your God, wis rough you ‘out of: the lendiof Kaypt, out of the ‘
e of bondage." ~ . :

(

‘let us have no other Gods before him. Amen.

) Aone who alone art absolute, grant us tho Be icg ae soueias thoo only. Scns

from oll shallowness:give us the courage to live in the blessed ee thou hast
le Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Allen

i