Counterfeit Gods 2

When I first read this, I was surprised: God IS love, I thought, ala 1 John. But then I realized it was romantic love being discussed. Yes, I agree that romance can be an idol and substitute for love of God. It is what our society turns to while rejecting God and think of all the damage it causes when misunderstood.

These author photos: actually, Keller's is not too bad-- are they publicity shots? I find usually I'd just as soon not see them--they seem cliched and distract from from the subject at hand. Some seem slick, some fake, some are a little creepy--and I have a hunch they don't the capture the writers well. Then I wonder, why such a stark, relentlessly head-on, close up, unflattering shot of Dorothy Sayers and then such glam shots of some other writers? I know, Scot, you probably pick up whatever pix is at hand, but why are these the shots at hand? Does an unflattering portrait of Sayers put up on a Web site by "somebody" make her less threatening? What of the shot of the guy below who wrote the Facebook book: do the publishers really want him to look like a New Age motivational speaker? Maybe they do. I just wonder how much thought goes into these portraits and how much say the writers get in how they're portrayed. But that's perhaps another topic. :)

Diane, that's so funny. I actually thought earlier that this pic of Keller seems more appropriate with each post. He looks intensely thoughtful and like he's forming the next words to speak. This idea of waking up with Leah instead of Rachel - it's easy enough to see it once someone puts it out there but it's a creative thought, especially when there are such deep, well-traveled ruts laid down for this story. I wonder if he wore that expression when wrote the thoughts in question today.

The pic of Sayers - it kind of sticks with you. I thought she looked intelligent and approachable; not demanding but not interesting in nonsense. It's little bit of a Mona Lisa expression to me - she seems maybe just a little shy or retiring and but also interested in the person she's looking in the eye. This is not at all how I would have pictured her after watching Strong Poison but I like the real image better.

I reacted positively to both photos but it seems both of them put you off a little. I find that fascinating.

MatthewS,

I posted my second post before I saw yours, so as you see, I love the Sayers photo and more especially, I LOVE the way you describe it. That's wonderful! I was more uneasy with the reasons why that photo might be "out there." I 'n not entirely at home with the Keller photo--I mean he looks nice, etc.-- but the fingers on the forehead, the Thinker/Dr. Spock from Star Trek pose ... is he mindmelding with God? -- I don't know about that. It's seems to bespeak a touch of "artifice."

I do have a question about the idol issue. In the first post, it stated:
"Keller skillfully interweaves what we want most -- our Isaacs, our deepest desires, things that become our idols, our counterfeit gods..."

This post states:
"Love itself can become a counterfeit god. In fact, it can become "apocalyptic romance" -- that is, love can be used to attempt to gain transcendence, meaning, and ultimate joy."

Therefore, would not "transcendence, meaning, and ultimate joy" be the idols, and "love" just a tool to get those idols?

MatthewS

Interesting ideas - which go with Scot's comment, presumably Kellers idea, on love in the post: The stereotype desires of both males and females do not find their intended aim in any human person.

But - I wondered a bit if the Isaac story was really appropriate for Keller's point, I also wonder about this one.

Is it an appropriate use of this passage?

MatthewS,

Yes - great sermon wrong passage.

On the other hand, I think that Keller is using the OT stories in a fashion consistent with both NT authors and early church fathers use of the OT. It simply is not consistent with the literal view of reformation thinkers and most of evangelicalism. Maybe Keller's approach is actually one that we should use more as we look at the story of scripture.

RJS,

I think we are mostly on the same page on this. I would say that I don't think we can appeal to NT authors' use of the OT to establish practice for today. We don't really understand what they were doing. Their hermeneutics do not arise from our worldview and we can't really put ourselves back then to understand what they were doing. We have to assume they were acting fairly within their context but how could we assure we would do the same? Also, we aren't apostles. All of that says to me its better to let their teachings stand but not try to re-create and build on the parts of their thinking that are most opaque to us today.

Rick,

My take on this is that the longings just are. At the well, Jesus assumed the woman was thirsty and would be thirsty again. Her thirst is assumed. But what water to drink? Relationships? (Five husbands plus one) Or "living water?" (John 4) Same with Jeremiah, who prosecuted God's complaint that his people were digging broken cisterns, rejecting the spring of living water (Jer 2:13). Their thirst is assumed, it's the water they drink that is bad.

I take this to be the kernel of truth in Piper's teachings, that our longings just are and the most self-interested thing we can do happens to be the most "spiritual" thing: take our longings to Jesus, the fountain of living water. Don't pretend we aren't thirsty. It takes honesty and humility to admit our deep thirst and our inability to quench it. (Sadly, I think Piper saddles that pony up and rides it off into an unwarranted sunset but that's a whole other issue...)

Short story: thirst/longings just are. Admit them and take them to the one true God. We go to him because we need him. Any other god (counterfeit gods), like the stereotypical dishonest car salesman, will disappoint. There is one God who is the fountain of living water. And you and I are thirsty. So Jesus stands up at the feast in the gospel of John and shouts to humanity, Come to me and drink living water!