Post Tenebras Lux

Revisiting Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair

This article is a reprint of the original “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair.'”

Summary

The article discusses the ways in which sin is more than just our bad behavior. In particular, our bad behavior arises through three, interlocking sources: flesh, world, and devil. Despite analyzing the origin of sin, the article is not meant to lead us on an idol hunt, whether in ourselves or in others. Given that flesh is only one source of sin, peering inside of ourselves to find our sin and ignoring our environment is shortsighted, especially since it is how we interact with our environment that shows our orientation. Powlison states, “When we take the Bible’s God-relational verbs and turn them into questions, we are exposed for what we are.” These are verbs such as “seek,” “love,” “fear,” and “trust.” What are our objects of these verbs? Sin is a “vertical” struggle, one between us and God; our knowledge of our sin is meant to lead us to God.

This article interacts with its contemporary psychological “motivation theories.” Though they aim to understand and “cure” sin, they try to do it without a Christian understanding of sin or its sources. The “idol motif” is a key theme of this article: all of our thoughts and actions are either of faith or idolatry. Idols are developed in our own hearts, but also peddled to us at Vanity Fair. If this is true, the solution to our sin is the full, unadulterated gospel, which calls us to repentance and faith. This is a radically different solution to ones offered by secular psychology, and even some Christian-esque psychologies.

Notes

1 John ends with a command for us to keep ourselves from idols. This ties up the rest of the letter, parts of which speaks of the sources of our idolatry: flesh (1 John 2:16), world (1 John 2:15–17, 4:1–6), and devil (1 John 3:7–10, 5:19). More academically, we can call these psychological, sociological, and demonological.

Idolatry in the Bible is not always mentioned as literal, physical idol worship. For example, in Ezekiel 14:1–8, the idea of “idols of the heart” is mentioned. With this and the commandments given to us, we can see “an unbreakable bond between specifics of heart and specifics of behavior.” Sin is “psychodynamic.”

John Bunyan coins the term “Vanity Fair” in The Pilgrim's Progress to highlight the idolatrous forces central in “the world.” In the world are various powers, be they enticing or intimidating, which, when interacting with an individual heart, attempts to lead it to their idols.

Idols counterfeit aspects of God’s identity and character, as can be seen in the vignette above: judge, savior, source of blessing, sin-bearer, object of trust, author of a will which must be obeyed, and so forth. Each idol that clusters in the system makes false promises and gives false warnings: “if only … then …” … Because both the promises and warnings are lies, service to each idol results in a hangover of misery and accursedness.

In footnote 9, Powlison highlights how Christian and secular psychologies are fundamentally different. For example, if co-dependency is in fact “co-idolatry,” then repentance is the necessary solution. But secular psychology tends to emphasize the behavior patterns of idols and how to replace them with idols that “work,” such as self-esteem; these “working idols” (or “eufunctional”, as the article puts it) are merely temporary (Psalm 73). “Therapy systems without repentance at their core leave the idol system intact. They simply rehabilitate and rebuild fundamental godlessness to function more successfully.” The eufunctional idols of happiness, health, and wealth are identified by the Bible as equally self-destructive as the more obvious dysfunctional idols of the unhappy.

All psychologies must address how we are “simultaneously socially conditioned, self-deceived, and responsible for our behavior without any factor cancelling out the other.” Powlison argues that no secular psychologies correctly do this. As examples:

Moralism—the working psychology of the proverbial man on the street—sticks with responsible behavior. Complex causalities are muted in toto. Behavioral psychologies see both drives and rewards, but cast their lot with the milieu, taking drives as untransformable givens. Both responsible behavior and a semi-conscious but renewable heart are muted. Humanistic psychologies see the interplay of inner desire/need with external fulfillment or frustration but cast their final vote for human self-determination. Both responsible behavior and the power of extrinsic forces are muted. Ego psychologies see the twisted conflict between heart’s desire and well-internalized social contingencies. But the present milieu and responsible behavior are muted. It is hard to keep three seemingly simple elements together.

Meanwhile, Christian psychology alone has the full explanation, because Christian psychology doesn’t have built-in, purposeful blindness to God. All of these things are true at the same time because all motivation is “with respect to God.” Terms such as psychodynamic or psychosocial only partly explain motivation. The fuller explanation of motivation captures what god our behavior is worshipping; our hearts are either oriented towards God or not. Things like “food drives” or “need for security” reveal the religious dispositions of our hearts.

Even “Christianized” versions of secular psychology can miss the fundamental aspect of idolatry in motivation. A popular example of this theorizes the need for love and presents the gospel as the only legitimate way to fill this need. This need for love is what causes us to look to idols for fulfillment. This model is subtly incorrect because it assigns the need for love as the motivation to idolatry, when in reality, idolatry is the primary motivation. This “need” for love is just another idol. Treating it as a neutral drive turns repentance into a secondary solution; the gospel becomes a way to fill the need for love, rather than a way to rescue us from our idolatry. In this way, the idea of a need for love is similar to the prosperity gospel in that the gospel is a way to satisfy our desires, which are idols.

Case study

Powlison uses a concocted case study to show how Christian counselors might understand how to help people using this model of idolatry in counseling. There is a lot of detail, but here are some salient points:

  • “Relationships are rarely static.” Our interpersonal idols and what behaviors they manifest change over time. This is the sociological aspect of idolatry. “Vanity Fair evolves…our hearts also evolve.”
  • “We become infested with idols.” Between our own hearts and the world, we are caught in a complex web of interacting “idol systems.” These can be cultural vices, even Christian subcultures that prop up some biblical values and exclude others, family expectations, and so on. Some secular psychologies focus for instance on the impact of parent-child relationships, but Powlison counsels that current major relationships may be more important to address than past ones.
  • “If we would help people have eyes and ears for God, we must know well which alternative gods clamor for their attention.” These influences don’t excuse behavior, but it is helpful to know what catalyzes our idolatry.
  • The combination of pride and fear of man is “run-of-the-mill human nature.” Each can result in many possible combinations of behaviors.
  • Using the idol model of psychology, we highlight a fairly common set of idols that generate endless variations of behaviors in different people. This is different from secular psychologies that dress groups of symptoms in the guise of a diagnosis or “root cause.” People may have dominant idols, but not root idols.
  • “Much of the varation among us is simply empowered by the ‘accidents’ of life experience.” Our environment and circumstances shape how our idols develop. See full quote below. The categories of idolatry and faith are simple but still account for the complex interactions between flesh, world, and devil.

Though this article focuses mostly on the interaction of flesh and world, other perspectives are still important to understand.

  • The influence of the devil reminds us that we are in spiritual warfare.
  • Somatic factors can exacerbate sinful behaviors, but they don’t create them.
  • Flesh, world, and devil don’t negate human responsibility—we still make decisions, even in the presence of overwhelming forces. The goal of the “idol motif” is to expand our awareness of the choices we make implicitly.
  • God sometimes providentially provides times of radical transformation (a “mountaintop experience”).

Though these are important ways of thinking, progress in these areas are usually “random.” When we only look at these things, we can become frustrated with the lack of consistent spiritual progress. The Bible’s solution is simply repentance and faith, as the problem is a “multiperspectival question of lordship” (see page 64). The gospel is not simply a point-in-time decision that yields a ticket to heaven. It has rich application for those who can recognize their need for help in fighting the forces of idolatry in their lives.

Two common Christian mistakes: Psychologizing

Christian counselors don’t always properly apply the gospel in those they try to help. There is often a tendency to either psychologize or moralize.

Psychologizing Christians tend to replace the biblical motif of idolatry with needs and “dysfunctional family patterns.” The emphasis is shifted from personal responsibility and repentance to having needs met. For example, “God loves you just the way you are” is a typical response to someone with low self-esteem or someone facing rejection from another; this is essentially a false gospel. God’s love for us is “contraconditional”—he loves us in spite of the way we are. He accepts us as Christ is. In essence, the first statement is truncated; God loves you just the way you are in Christ.

Christian counselors with a psychologizing drift typically are concerned with ministering God’s love to people who view God as the latest and greatest critic whom they can never please. But their failure to conceptualize people’s problems in the terms this article has been exploring inevitably creates a tendency towards teaching a “Liberal” version of the gospel. The cross becomes simply a demonstration that God loves me. It loses its force as the substitutionary atonement by the perfect Lamb in my place, who invites my repentance for heart-pervading sin.

We don’t need to defend God; the cross is the ultimate criticism against us (Counsel from the Cross, Elyse Fitzpatrick). It isn’t God’s criticism that needs to be addressed but the person’s idol causing them to view God in this way.

Two common Christian mistakes: Moralizing

Moralizing counselors tend to focus more on outward behaviors and the forgiveness offered for them. The influence of environment are downplayed to avoid the human tendency to shift responsibility to others. However, it is important understand the “Vanity Fair” for the sake of our “widening and deepening appreciation of Christ,” as well as our understanding of the influences in our lives in order to better fight the spiritual fight. Moralizers tend to neglect the need for progressive renewal in favor of reductionistic “let go and let God” mentalities.

In sum, one mistake tends to neglect the idols of the heart, and the other neglects Vanity Fair. These are mistakes as the gospel delivers from both.

The biblical gospel delivers from both personal sin and situation tyrannies. The biblical notion of inner idolatries allows people to see their need for Christ as a merciful savior from large sins of both heart and behavior. The notion of socio-cultural-familial-ethnic idolatries allows people to see Christ as a powerful deliverer from false masters and false value systems which we tend to absorb automatically. Christ-ian counseling counseling which exposes our motives—our hearts and our world—in such a way that the authentic gospel is the only possible answer.

Quotes

  • Self-analysis cannot save us. It can become simply one more form of self-fascination. Other-analysis cannot save others. It can become simply one more form of judgmentalism.
  • When we take the Bible’s God-relational verbs and turn them into questions, we are exposed for what we are.
  • Faith makes self-knowledge look to God and relate to him. Faith is not introspective…Love makes knowledge of others generous-hearted and merciful. Love is not judgmental.
  • Because diagnostic categories are philosophically and theologically “loaded,” a Christian who seeks to be true to the Bible’s system of value and interpretation must generate biblical categories and must approach secular categories with extreme skepticism.
  • Idols counterfeit aspects of God’s identity and character, as can be seen in the vignette above: judge, savior, source of blessing, sin-bearer, object of trust, author of a will which must be obeyed, and so forth. Each idol that clusters in the system makes false promises and gives false warnings: “if only … then …” … Because both the promises and warnings are lies, service to each idol results in a hangover of misery and accursedness.
  • Moralism—the working psychology of the proverbial man on the street—sticks with responsible behavior. Complex causalities are muted in toto. Behavioral psychologies see both drives and rewards, but cast their lot with the milieu, taking drives as untransformable givens. Both responsible behavior and a semi-conscious but renewable heart are muted. Humanistic psychologies see the interplay of inner desire/need with external fulfillment or frustration but cast their final vote for human self-determination. Both responsible behavior and the power of extrinsic forces are muted. Ego psychologies see the twisted conflict between heart’s desire and well-internalized social contingencies. But the present milieu and responsible behavior are muted. It is hard to keep three seemingly simple elements together.

  • I think Powlison is arguing here that need models seem plausible because idols can reduce to other idols; the “base” idol expresses a “need.”

    Any one of the idols may have an independent hold on the human heart. Idols may reduce to one another in part: for example, a man with an intractable pornography and lust problem may be significantly helped by repentantly realizing that his lust expresses a tantrum over a frustrated desire to be married, a desire which he has never recognized as idolatrous. Idols can be compounded on top of idols. But sexual lust has its own valid primary existence as an idol as well. A biblical understanding of the idolatry motif explains why need models seem plausible and also thoroughly remakes the model.
  • Even the counterculture values of his “radical Christian” subculture can be understood in part as an idolatrous narrowing of the Christian life in reaction to the opposite idolatrous equation of Christianity with the American Dream.
  • Much of the variation among us is simply empowered by the “accidents” of life experience: tragedies or smooth sailing, handicaps or health, riches or poverty, New York City or Iowa or Uganda, a high school or a graduate school education, first-born or eighth-borh, male or female, born in 1500 B.C. or 1720 or 1920 or 1960 or 1990. Much individual variation is due to hereditary and temperamental differences: kinds of intelligence, physical coordination and capabilities, variation in talents and abilities, metabolic and hormonal differences, and so forth. In the last analysis, idiosyncratic choice from among the opportunities and options one encounters encounts for the nearly infinite range for individuality within the “commonalities” that biblical categories discern in us.
  • Christian counselors with a psychologizing drift typically are concerned with ministering God’s love to people who view God as the latest and greatest critic whom they can never please. But their failure to conceptualize people’s problems in the terms this article has been exploring inevitably creates a tendency towards teaching a “Liberal” version of the gospel. The cross becomes simply a demonstration that God loves me. It loses its force as the substitutionary atonement by the perfect Lamb in my place, who invites my repentance for heart-pervading sin.
  • The biblical gospel delivers from both personal sin and situation tyrannies. The biblical notion of inner idolatries allows people to see their need for Christ as a merciful savior from large sins of both heart and behavior. The notion of socio-cultural-familial-ethnic idolatries allows people to see Christ as a powerful deliverer from false masters and false value systems which we tend to absorb automatically. Christ-ian counseling counseling which exposes our motives—our hearts and our world—in such a way that the authentic gospel is the only possible answer.