Worship vs Idolatry

Worry: Given all of the stuff mentioned in the last post on idolatry it seems next to impossible to avoid idolatry.  So, how is it possible to avoid idolatry?

A super short answer is this: It is damn hard to avoid idolatry. But, if these doctrines--the doctrine of analogy and the doctrine of pure actuality--are true, then they actually help us rather than hurt us. They help us in two ways, I think. First, by keeping us aware that nothing in creation (not matter, souls, angels, words, concepts, ideas, thoughts, etc) is an exact representation of God (see below for stuff on Jesus). So, DON'T confuse any of it with God. Second, by reminding us that some things a better at imaging God than others. 

A Long answer:

First, while my post does not address this (though it probably should have), from the fact--assuming it is one for now--that all things other than God are analogues of God (or images) it does not follow that everything is an analogue or image to the same degree. So, it is possible and actual, it seems, that some things in the creation and some concepts more closely image God or represent Him than others.

For example, a rock, a tree, a dog, and a human are all similar in lots of ways. They are all material objects, that take up space, and travel through time (we are all time-travelers!). They are all contingent, made up of various parts, colored, etc. etc. But (and here I am borrowing from Aristotle and Aquinas) a human is more like a dog than like a tree, and more like a tree than like a rock. In some sense, a tree has all of the same stuff as a rock but adds being alive. In some sense, a dog has all of the same stuff as a tree but adds being sentient (having organs of various senses plus the ability to use those various organs and their operations to sustain its life). In some sense, a human has all of the same stuff as a dog but adds being rational (being capable of grasping universal, general rules, abstract principles; being able to respond to reasons in both thought and action, etc). Being alive saturates the same sort of stuff that makes up a rock and gets us a tree, being sentient saturates the same sort of stuff that makes up a tree and gets us a dog, being rational saturates the same sort of stuff that makes up a dog and gets a human.

So, even within the created realm we can see that some things are more alike than others, even across kinds. The same, it seems, is true with respect to God's relation to the creation. Some things are more like Him than others, though no one thing is identical. There is no univocity or sameness of being or conceptual content between the creation and God. But that does not mean that no concepts or concepts are closer to being like God than any others. In other words, given that God is the paradigm and everything else is an image, and given that within the creation some things have more being or actuality than others, those things that represent God as having more being rather than less will be more accurate images of God. So, humans will better image God than non-humans (even angels, I think). There is a tighter analogy between being human and being God than being a dog or being a tree or being a rock and being God. Of course, it does not follow that those things do not image God as well. Indeed, it follows from the doctrine of analogy that they do.

The same then can be said with respect to our concepts of God. Some represent him better than others, more accurately than others. In fact, that follows from the doctrine of analogy plus the doctrine of pure actuality. Those concepts that are closer to representing full actuality are closer to representing God. For example, being omniscient implies being a knower, which implies being intelligent, which implies being personal (esp if we see that omniscient plus perfect goodness implies being wise). So, God is all-knowing in a sense that resembles what it is like for us to know, but divine knowing or divine knowledge is beyond what our knowing and knowledge could possibly be. One implication of this is that attributing omniscience to God is more accurate than attributing ignorance to Him, for the reasons just given, as well as the fact that ignorance implies unactualized potentialities.

So, one way to think about all of this in relation to worship is that God, in the fullness of his being, as purely actual, is beyond all of our concepts, but our concepts can more or less accurately portray or represent Him. Here's another analogy: no circle I draw can be an exact representation of a real mathematical circle. However, some can be a lot closer to the real mathematical circle than others. But we should never confuse my drawing of a circle (or anyone else's) with the real thing. Similarly, our concepts and words and prayers and songs can be closer to the reality of God or pure actuality than others. I once thought of God as a more like a genie than a loving father. But a loving father is a more accurate representation than a genie. Being a loving father gets closer to the real nature of God than being a genie, and being a genie implies more inaccuracies than being a loving father does. Of course, my concept of being loving can be closer to or farther from what real, genuine love actually is. Many think of God as being bad or evil or despotic or a tyrant or… But those concepts can’t apply to a being who is purely actual (I will post on this at some point).

So, how does this help us worship God?

I think it helps because when I am conscious of this stuff--the doctrine of analogy, the doctrine of pure actuality--I can (a) be ready for God to reveal Himself to me in many many more ways. I am less liable to squeeze God into one of my concepts of Him. I can allow Him to be outside of my conceptions, and thereby allow him more majesty, more glory, more reality, more being than I can conceive of. I am, as it were, more disposed to let God break through any limitations my concepts must necessarily place on Him (for example, by thinking or tending to think that knowledge and love or power and love or ... have nothing to do with one another, or by thinking that romantic love is somehow better than other kinds of love). (b) It also seems to help me remember that I am worshipping and entering into a relationship with a real being that exists beyond my thoughts, concepts, ideas, and images. I don’t think the above two doctrines are required for this, but they surely imply it. In other words, if the two doctrines are true, then God for outstrips anything I can literally imagine. No concept fully represents Him. Keeping that in mind, helps me to remember that He is for more real than I am capable of thinking. In an interesting sense, I think this actually helps to see God as being deeply personal.

So, perhaps the key here is to remember that it’s the doctrine of analogy and not the doctrine of equivocity. The latter implies that none of concepts bear any resemblance at all to the nature of God. The former does not.

Lastly, we must not forget the wonderful fact that God became a human. Assuming the doctrines of analogy and pure actuality, we get a God who is incredibly unlike anything in the created realm, but who is constantly active in it, on it, over it, etc. Add to that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and we get a God that we can see and touch and hold. Perhaps, the incarnation is precisely what we need to ensure that the God we worship is the one true God. If we have met Jesus, we have met God. If you do not see God when you see Jesus, you do not have an accurate representation of God. Something like that.*

*How the incarnation can be true while all this stuff about pure actuality, simplicity, the one, and existence itself is true, is a story for another day J.