Getting Behind the Mask of Traditionalism

The use of idolatry as a metaphor has far-reaching theological ramifications that are unhelpful. That might seem to be a pretty radical statement, but the Biblical definition of idolatry is worshipping something/someone other that God as a god. I do not believe that the Pharisees were cognitively attempting to worship something/someone other than God as god. So, beyond the incredible leap in logic here between Pharisaism and traditionalism (whatever that really is), it's inaccurate to use idolatry as the means of attacking this problem. Idolatry is only used as a metaphor one time in Scripture (Phil 3:19) and this leads me to think that we should carefully limit our use of that concept. The plain reading of Mark 7 indicates that the worship of the Pharisees was worthless, not that it was directed toward another god.

I don’t think the usage herein these articles is metaphor, but if Phil 3.19 is “metaphor,” Scripture validates that. One occurrence is enough.

But with all of Scripture our duty includes asking the question, “What does this look like in my time and place?” There are many subtle ways to swap something unique about God out for some easier or more desirable (we think) alternative.

At it’s root, idolatry is that kind of swap.

I think of it this way:

• Worship has formal expressions in praise but it includes love, devotion, trust, and obedience.
• Idolatry is replacing worship of God with worship of not-god.
• So replacing the unique and supreme love, devotion, trust, and obedience we owe to God with something else is, fundamentally, a worship-swap.
• Therefore it is all variants of idolatry.

But even we want to take the position that the term “idolatry” should not be used of these wrongs, the similarity to idolatry is clear and instructive. (I take the view that it is not really just similarity. It’s, in essence, the same thing. Because all of life is a kind of worship for us.)

Edit to add: In the case of the Pharisees, they literally had God standing in front of them and chose their traditions. Not idolatry? It seems hard to sustain that.

Hello Aaron, nice to hear from you. Thanks for your feeback. I think that fuzzy theology creates fuzzy practice. Most of the uses of worship in context refer to some of the cultish practices of worship like Pharisaical hand-washing. If you redefine idolatry as something other than what it is, the worship of a false god as if it was God, then you create a category that Scripture doesn't really anticipate. There's a reason why the "idols of the heart" argument gets most of its data from the pre-exilic texts of the OT. Post-exiilic Israel just wasn't idolatrous. In fact, Malachi's own argument against Israel isn't for idolatry, but for the inadequacy of their worship--its weakness.

While I'll admit that there can be correlations that seem to appear between idolatry and the sin that we experience, using that as the tool for sanctification arguments ignore other passages such as Galatians 5 where idolatry is a subset of the flesh.

If Paul wanted to argue against Pharisaism and idolatry (as if they were one and the same), then he would have done so in Romans 6-7, right?

I'm swimming upstream with where most people are at today I know because "heart idolatry" is a really popular argument. I just don't think it's a biblical one. :)

Have a great day.

MW

So I just wonder what a good biblical definition of “idolatry” is, then. Does there have to be an object to bow before?

But it’s probably not really important. I mean, we’re agreed I’m sure that it’s bad, and a serious sin, to replace the authority of God with the authority of tradition or some other thing (I’m not even sure the Pharisees really cared about tradition except as a tool for personal power, prestige, and ambition—a way to dominate people).

The “idolatry of the heart” thing did seem overdone to me. Maybe it still is, but I’m not seeing as much as I used to. My main gripe with that wasn’t that they were using “idolatry” too expansively in reference to attitudes and actions that rival God. It had to do more with reducing all problems to “attitudes and actions that rival God,” and then turning all solutions into “just repent.” I’m prepared to believe just about all human problems have some partially idolatrous feature. Even believers still have the condition usually termed ‘total depravity.’ But “partially idolatrous feature” is far from “every problem is pure idolatry at its root” with the remedies that that thesis exclusively looks to.

I've been watching these articles, and am curious about who David Minnick is. Is he any relation to Mark Minnick? His writing is intriguing if so. It's intriguing anyways, but that would be especially interesting. And if you visit Rooted Thinking, you can "cheat" and see the next installment....

But to the topic, I am in partial agreement with Matt, but in agreement with Mr. Minnick at the same time. Pharisees and modern day "traditionalists" both have the pattern of adding on to God's Word to be a "buffer" against the possibility of sin, and in both cases, I would argue that they do from time to time violate God's Word in order to "protect" it.

It gets a little stickier when we use words like "idolatry" or "legalist" in discussing these matters, as while the Pharisees did indeed admit they trusted to their mitzvot or works for their standing before God, most modern "rules fundamentalists" do not admit this--and to call them "legalist" simply ends up picking an unnecessary fight. So I use "rules fundamentalists" instead, though I don't really know that it's much better.

"Idolatry"? Well, at a certain point, yes, if it is the rules of men that one honors, there is a bit of self-worship and idolatry there. But then....practical consideration, does it reach people, or does it pick a fight?

I tend to fall on the "simply point out that their fence around God's Word causes them to violate God's Word in other ways" or (depending on the case) "that rule isn't specified clearly in God's Word". I do know that many times among "traditionalists" or "rules fundamentalists", you will get pulled aside for concern if you ignore the rules--while they wouldn't say they trust it for salvation, it is hugely important for them, and if you ignore it, they will often doubt your salvation. So it's at least closer to idolatry than many would like to admit.

(and a side note; you'll see a lot of the same quibbles/rules among liberal churches....when you walk away from the freedom of the Word, lots of things become attractive...)

I think the definition of idolatry is the worship/service to anything other than God as if it was a god. The final piece of that definition is important. When a preacher rails against "heart idolatry" (think of a speaker discouraging teenagers from making their relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend into "their god"), he changes the functional definition of what a god actually is. No ancient (OT) person would have considered one of his friends or relatives to be his god. We don't have any examples of that in the OT that I can think of (please correct me if I'm wrong there). For example, when Aaron formed the golden calf, it was declared to be "the god that brought (Israel) out of Egypt" (Ex 32:4, 8). When Moses arrived back on the scene, the people were worshipping the calf as if it was a real god (v. 23).

There really is no metaphorical concept of idolatry in the OT. Idol worship involved worshipping things as if they were gods (the Baals, Ashtoreth, etc.). I don't even think pagans had this kind of consideration in the ancient world.

Consequently, I don't think idolatry is anything that replaces God in your life (a car, a spouse, one's career, the list is endless). I think biblical idolatry is anything that replaces God as a god in your life. That means you have to genuinely believe that thing/object/person is a deity to become idolatry.

MW

If I understand Paul correctly, he twice either equates covetousness / greed to idolatry (Colossians 3:5) or, at least, associates covetousness with idolatry (Ephesians 5:5). I believe this suggests that NT Christians can be idolaters by virtue of failing to be free from greed / covetousness.

>>Pharisees and modern day “traditionalists” both have the pattern of adding on to God’s Word to be a “buffer” against the possibility of sin, and in both cases, I would argue that they do from time to time violate God’s Word in order to “protect” it.<< [Emphasis mine.]

I’ve always seen this tendency you describe as what happens to application long after those who applied it are gone. Given the rules on things that are unclean in the Law, and how often such things are likely to be encountered/touched during the course of an average day in an agrarian society, the idea that hands should be washed was likely at one point just an application by someone who wanted to avoid breaking the law. I don’t see how it was unreasonable for the person applying that to make such an application for himself. It may also have been taught as a good idea for others.

However, what happens long after this type of application is made is that it essentially becomes a tradition (we can easily see that same thing today in many of our churches or movements, if not about washing hands) that is seen as nearly as important as scripture (if not more so). At that point, we are indeed “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.” Jesus goes on at one point to explain how eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man. The law itself did not require that.

I don’t know exactly where I stand on the question of “heart idolatry,” but I do think that if something (whether it’s football or church traditions) becomes more important to us than worshiping God and doing what he actually says to do in his Word, then that’s a big problem whether or not we label it as idolatry.

How do you translate this phrase: πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία? English translations have "covetousness (or greediness) is idolatry." The word "is" (ἐστὶν) seems to mean that the one is the same as the other. Is that really true? Is the one exactly the same as the other? If I covet my neighbors house am I also committing idolatry? The answer to that question is sometimes.

The Father says about Jesus, "this is (ἐστὶν) my beloved son ..." in Matthew 3:17. In that sentence, the one thing (this) IS the same as the other thing (son). The Father is identifying Jesus. But what about Matthew 26:26? Jesus says: This (referring to the bread) is (ἐστὶν) my body. Is the bread the actual body of Jesus? I think the answer is no. The bread is a representation of the body of Jesus. It is not the actual body of Jesus (or we need to apologize to our Catholic friends). When Paul writes that πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία I think he does not mean that πλεονεξίαν is the exact same thing as εἰδωλολατρία. I think the word is (ἐστὶν) means that this is like that--that greediness is like idolatry.

If that's true, and I think that is a very reasonable exegesis of the text, then covetousness is similar to, but not the same as, idolatry. Think about it this way. The greediness that Paul is excoriating is sexual greed. It would be unusual to equate sexual greed with idolatry unless he is referring to the practice of idolatry in the ancient world, something that often involved sexual sin (see 1 Cor 6). In point of fact, this may also be a place where Paul is pointing out that coveting (10th commandment) is just as wicked as idolatry (1st commandment). Breaking the one is just as bad as breaking the other. What I don't think is happening is that Paul is changing the entire way we think about idolatry.

Put this into the equation--idolatry involves demons (1 Cor 10:20-21). If we expand the definition of idolatry to include coveting, then we have to grapple with the idea that coveting might actually involve the demonization of a believer. I think that's a bridge too far.

Before anyone points this out, I'll acknowledge that this entire post sounds a lot like former President Clinton "it depends on what your definition of is is." Hmm.

MW

Hello Dave, I hope you all are doing well on the other side of town. :) I want to push back on the idea that traditionalism is somehow functioning like Pharisaism. I don't think that's a fair assessment. There may be traditionalists who do add to Scripture, but I think most of the arguments fall on application of Scripture, not something added to it. In particular, it seems as if the issue involves how the BIble speaks to one's culture.

If a traditionalist says, "I won't go to the movies" because I don't want to support Hollywood, he might sound like a Pharisee, but I don't think he's acting like one. Both may be hypocritical, but the Pharisee is likely avoiding all kind of movies (in the modern sense) whereas the traditionalist just waits until it comes out on TV. That's my experience of this anyway.

I don't know that it makes the traditionalist better. It probably doesn't. But I rather doubt the apostle Paul would equate the two like some do today. His tradition was steeped in Judaism and maybe Jewish culture. Our traditionalism is less likely to be derived from something that thought out. :)

MW

Hi Matt, things are going well here. Hope they are the same with you.

First, I’ll agree with you that Christians today are unlikely to think things out the way the Pharisees did. Most Christians, and I would include myself, are nowhere near as disciplined or studied as they likely were.

That said, considering what you wrote above:

>>If a traditionalist says, “I won’t go to the movies” because I don’t want to support Hollywood, he might sound like a Pharisee, but I don’t think he’s acting like one.<<

At this point, I’d agree with you. He has clearly made an application that he believes is for his spiritual benefit. I don’t see that as an issue, any more than I would see the Pharisees themselves washing their hands before eating as an issue. However, the instant his application becomes instead “No one can go to the movies because we shouldn’t support Hollywood, and if you do so, you are sinning,” I would argue that’s exactly what the Pharisees were doing getting upset with the disciples not having washed their hands. At that point, the application made by one believer about movies has become “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.”

Christians make personal applications all the time. Personally, I think that is commendable. I do as well. Some of the things I restrict for myself, other believers don’t see as any kind of necessary restriction on them. However, to avoid breaking what Jesus said in Mark 7:7-8, I wouldn’t try to declare their actions as wrong or sinful, unless they specifically go against scripture. I might disagree with them and think they are being unwise, but I wouldn’t call it Phariseeism until I would try to declare them wrong before God for not obeying my application.

A pastor might ask the members of his church to covenant not to do something like that, and if they agree, they can do so. If that becomes part of the church’s unwritten (or even written) rules, and 100 years later, it’s still there with no one left who was part of that original application and covenant, I would argue that that item has become a tradition, which at that point, often does get equated (even if only implicitly) with a scriptural prohibition.

I concede that there may be churches with out-of-date culturally based covenants. Our church doesn't use a covenant, though we do have a creed. But taking those examples aside, what other evidence exists that this kind of mindless traditionalism is actually taking place?

Is there a modern-day example where Christians say both (1) I don't do this because I think it is a sin and (2) you should not do that either because I think you are sinning THAT IS DERIVED from adding to Scripture and not from applying Scripture?

Let's use an example on which I think we'd all agree.

I think a good application of Scripture (PRINCIPLE) leads us to reasonably expect Christians to avoid media that is pornographic (in any sense of that word). We expect that. This is because we are applying a bunch of Scriptures to our lives.

John Piper argued some years ago that Game of Thrones was tantamount to violent pornography and no Christian should watch that show. I don't think that's Pharisaism. You might disagree with Piper, but you'd likely agree with the initial premise of the argument.

What do you think?

MW

Matt, although I hesitate to name the church (though you might be able to deduce it), for a number of years, I attended a church that did what I described above. The extra regulations were not part of the church covenant per se, but they were part of a “standards sheet” that all members needed to subscribe to and sign if they were going to serve in any way in the church. It included not going to see any movies in the theatre, even something like “The Sound of Music.” Traditionalism at its finest. And yes, it was taught that the items on the standards sheet were among the minimum of things all believers should do to be in line with scriptural principle. Perhaps I extrapolate my own experience too much, but having online discussions with other believers on the internet who had similar experiences leads me to think that such churches were not extremely rare within fundamentalism, even if they are rarer now than 30 years ago.

With regard to GoT, I would agree with John Piper (and you) on that one. Back at the beginning, not having read the books or seen any previews, but hearing some things about the show, and thinking the concept was interesting, I actually started to watch just one episode, and I got only about 5 minutes into it before realizing that it was nothing I wanted to put into my mind. Violence would be expected in any show with clan warfare, dragons, etc., but the violence was extreme, and it didn’t take long for casual nudity to appear. I suspect from things I have read that much worse was to come. (Clearly I was naive and should have done more research than I did, something I have rectified since.) I would (and have to one immature new believer) tell any believer I don’t think it’s for any Christian, and why I think so, but I would (IMHO) have reasonably strong scriptural warrant to do so.

But that was an easy example. That other church I mentioned also believed that women should never wear pants, believing that any pants were men’s garments, and that there was really no such things as women’s pants, thus any use of them by a woman was a violation of Deuteronomy. That one didn’t affect me personally, of course, but I am married. Further, having to explain to my children (both girls) why I didn’t go along with that view of scripture was one of the things that eventually led me to leave that church for one with a (to my view) healthier view of scriptural principle and application.

I would agree that principles and applications can be preached, but for me personally, if I hear any that are not logically ironclad (i.e. good and necessary conclusions from the text), and involve too much hand-waiving, I would still name the preaching of violation of those principles as sin to be Phariseeism. Perhaps I’m not able to be perfectly consistent on this, as there are definitely difficult passages and concepts in scripture, but like Luther, if I cannot be convinced by either the text or logical argument from the text that a point is true, I refuse to make it even a principle, let alone equivalent to scriptural truth.

It would be an interesting study, particularly of the OT, to see what is connected with, and perhaps appositional with “worship/service to anything other than God as if it was a god.”

This definition from Matt does draw a nice clear line, so I appreciate the clarity.

I wonder though, if Scripture really intends to draw the line there.

I don’t want to overweight the importance of the question, but don’t want to underweight it either. The article series seems to make the idolatry connection because part of the argument is that if we fail to see how this kind of thinking and action is idolatrous, we’re not taking it as seriously as we should. The reasoning is certainly valid that if swapping the word and authority of God for an alternative that is not-God is idolatrous, it is for that reason a more serious error than it would otherwise be.

A hypothesis I’ll put out there is that the OT talks quite a lot about idolatry without using the term “idolatry.”

As an example, Jeremiah 2 comes to mind. Here, ESV…

¹ The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ² “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the Lord, “I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. ³ Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest. All who ate of it incurred guilt; disaster came upon them, declares the Lord.” ⁴ Hear the word of the Lord, O house of Jacob, and all the clans of the house of Israel. ⁵ Thus says the Lord: “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless? ⁶ They did not say, ‘Where is the Lord who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in a land of deserts and pits, in a land of drought and deep darkness, in a land that none passes through, where no man dwells?’ ⁷ And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination. ⁸ The priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the shepherds transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after things that do not profit. ⁹ “Therefore I still contend with you, declares the Lord, and with your children’s children I will contend. ¹⁰ For cross to the coasts of Cyprus and see, or send to Kedar and examine with care; see if there has been such a thing. ¹¹ Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. ¹² Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord, ¹³ for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. ¹⁴ “Is Israel a slave? Is he a homeborn servant? Why then has he become a prey? ¹⁵ The lions have roared against him; they have roared loudly. They have made his land a waste; his cities are in ruins, without inhabitant. ¹⁶ Moreover, the men of Memphis and Tahpanhes have shaved the crown of your head. ¹⁷ Have you not brought this upon yourself by forsaking the Lord your God, when he led you in the way? ¹⁸ And now what do you gain by going to Egypt to drink the waters of the Nile? Or what do you gain by going to Assyria to drink the waters of the Euphrates? ¹⁹ Your evil will chastise you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the Lord your God; the fear of me is not in you, declares the Lord God of hosts. ²⁰ “For long ago I broke your yoke and burst your bonds; but you said, ‘I will not serve.’ Yes, on every high hill and under every green tree you bowed down like a whore. ²¹ Yet I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine? ²² Though you wash yourself with lye and use much soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me, declares the Lord God. (Je 2:1–22)

We don’t have the term idolatry or idol here. Maybe it happens a few verses later. We clearly have “god swapping,” in, for example, v.10-11. But note that God, speaking through Jeremiah, goes immediately from God/god swapping to glory swapping and then to dependence and trust swapping (2:13).

I’m not ready to say that proves a whole lot other than that substitute of attitudes and affections that belong exclusively to God for not-God alternatives is closely associated with idolatry here—and I would hazard also in lots of other passages. We could say “things that are not quite idolatry are super closely connected with it,” but I’m not sure we’re intended to look at it that way. It’s not like God paused after 11a and said “Now, I have some other complaints that are not idolatry but also important, so here goes:…” He just moves seamlessly from swapping of God for god(s) to swapping of things belonging to God for not-God. And probably moves seamless back again at some point.

It all sure looks like essentially one thing to me. But I concede I haven’t proved that.

The problem is that what are “good and necessary conclusions from the text” to one person are not the same as they are for another. For me, immersion as the mode of Baptism is “good and necessary from the text” but not to my Presbyterian brother. Should they view me as a Pharisee? Also, regarding GoT, I agree with Dave and Matt, but what if someone disagrees with us, are we Pharisees? And if we disagree with that church that the pants issue is not a “good and necessary” conclusion from the text, does that make him a pharisee? I wonder if being a pharisee doesn’t require something more than being wrong, but also “having hearts far from me” (Mark 7:6) and teaching things that actually “reject the commandment of God” (Mark 7:9) or “void the word of God by your tradition." (Mark 7:13)

Whole denominations exist because people disagree about what is “good and necessary from the text” and I don’t think that is such a bad thing. In fact, just to throw this out there, I’ve been thinking that this makes passages like Romans 15 much easier to follow from a practical perspective -- meaning that it should be applied primarily in a local church context. If the local church receives someone, that means there is nothing in that person’s life that looks to that church as if they are an unbeliever. They are not rejecting Biblical mode of baptism or they are not watching GoT, as an example. If a church doesn’t preach against something as a “good and necessary conclusions from the text” then don’t be judging them if they are doing those things. If people are doing things that go against “good and necessary conclusions from the text” according to that local church, theoretically that would be cause for church discipline, because they would be acting like an unrepentant unbeliever. I don’t know if I have completely thought that out for every situation, but it’s been something I’ve been contemplating.

Andy, I did mention at the end of my last post that due to difference in clarity of various passages (and, by implication, differences in interpretation of those passages) that I probably wouldn’t be able to be 100% consistent.

Perhaps the best way to describe the way I see it would be as a spectrum, with the items representing the sine qua non of Christianity on one side and things with no discernable link to the text on the other. There is a large middle (that includes things like disagreements on baptism) where I would “agree to disagree” with other brothers (like Presbyterians on paedobaptism) without calling that difference Phariseeism. That middle would extend both directions, of course. It would also include things that I would be hesitant to label obvious disobedience to the commandments of God, but would describe as extremely unwise or indicative of an extremely immature believer (and would counsel against when asked), and on the other end, things I wouldn’t personally agree with, like use of certain types of music as part of worship, that I would put down to overall interpretational differences, but would be willing to state my disagreement with if asked about it.

Even on a spectrum though, there would come a point where I’d be willing to label something as “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Perhaps it’s similar to the well-known statement from the supreme court when discussing a standard for obscenity — “I know it when I see it.”

Along those lines, I like what you wrote about certain things being able to be applied in the context of a particular local church. That’s not all that far from what I previously mentioned as things that a group of believers might decide to add to their covenant, not necessarily because the Bible commands or forbids those things, but because those people agree that that’s a good application of what they see in scripture. Personally, I would think that such additional things should only be implemented with a clause that automatically sunsets them or requires re-evaluation say every 5 years or so, to prevent the “tradition” from getting more authority than it warrants. If I were part of such a congregation, I would want to see a “good and necessary” clear link to scripture to be able to join in on such, otherwise, I would have to separate at that point.

I will freely admit that perhaps I have a somewhat distorted view of this, having seen it from the inside, where certain things were asserted without clear enough scriptural warrant, and at the time, not having a well-enough developed view of scriptural principle and application to avoid it at the outset. Still Mark 7, and its parallel passage, as well as scriptures that talk about adding to God’s word (even mentioning it before “taking away from”) cause me to want to tread very carefully here.

....when I read dcbii's comment about traditionalism being what happens to application long after those who made it are gone, I had to think of Tevye's song "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof. Probably apropos in a way here.

One good example is the old prohibition, mostly stopped, regarding playing cards. Back in the day, it did tend to be mostly about gambling, but now, we've got all kinds of innocent games--Uno, solitaire, etc..

But for other prohibitions, like modern music, dancing, and even alcohol, I'm not sure that the Tevye hypothesis works, as the uses "back in the day" were nowhere near monolithically bad. For alcohol, for example, you've got the reality that the prohibitionist movement really started by objecting to distilled spirits--e.g. Hogarth's Beer Street and Gin Lane. So what happened there is people were objecting to a category of distilled spirits, and the heirs to the original "appliers" decided to extend that to beer and wine, too.

And as we've discussed at (nauseating?) length here, a lot of the prohibitions against modern music were basically racial issues--my take is that it was never a Biblical application in any reasonable form at all.

As you know, the charge against Israel by Jeremiah centers on its idolatry. This follows the pre-exilic arguments of the prophets including Isaiah and Ezekiel. The text you cited actually names one of the false gods being worshipped בַּ֔עַל (Baal) in v. 8. I doubt there's any way to argue successfully that the idolatry of ancient Israel was anything other than a violation of the covenant and its supporting laws, particularly when it pertains to idol-worship. The word idol or idolatry is not in the Hebrew text, but the NIV adds it for us to help us understand Jeremiah's point. The ESV just translates hebel as worthless.

I think my most significant complaint is the correlation drawn between Traditionalism and Pharisaism. I think it doesn't really grasp a true understanding of the Pharisees and how they thought and behaved. For what it's worth, the point that is a good takeaway is that traditionalism, for the sake of tradition alone, is kind of hebel (to use Aaron's Jeremiah text).

As for Bert's application of this to modern music, I pretty strongly disagree with him, but I'll refrain from calling him a libertine if he agrees not to call me a Pharisee (as neither label would apply). :)

Matt, if your argument for traditional music doesn't involve calling those who advocate the use of modern music forms "libertines", then you are likely avoiding the arguments I'd characterize as racist. Too often, what I've seen is a mish-mash of guilt by association fallacies that claim that guilty African/African-American associations are to be proscribed, but similar European associations are A-OK, with the end result that "the white man's music prior to Elvis Presley is OK, everybody else's not so much."

That said, as I noted above, I tend not to use the phrase "pharisaical" for a simple reason; it's an automatic fight, and it's harder to make the connection than to say (to use the music example) "you've basically said the white man's music prior to Elvis is OK, but the black man's is not...do you think our black brothers fail to pick up on this?".

It is amazing how quickly a cultural issue can sway the thoughts of Christian people. The example of playing cards was brought up, but we have a much more recent issue to consider now in hindsight. About 5 years ago we were debating in this site about if it was unChristian to not get the new Covid vaccine. The discussion even went so far as to suggest that if a Christian did not pressure other Christians to get the vaccine then they were not loving. Was that acting like a pharisee or was that in some other category? Whether the issue is cards or vaccines, I think human nature has a tendency to act out of fear and protectionism. I think as well that often times the Pharisees were doing just that. With that in mind we can show grace toward those who cross the line in a similar way that the Pharisees did, while not endorsing their error.

Aaron, how quickly will we go down the rabbit-hole of trying to uncover the root cause of sin? I remember in college being told that cheating was actually both lying and stealing. It's easy to shift from one category to the next, especially if they are relatively the same. In actuality, every sin may have some connection to a lack of love for God.

But that's not really what we were doing in this discussion, I don't think. The question before us is: "what is idolatry?" Or more to the point, can idolatry be something other than what it is (which is the worship of something other than God as if it was a god)?

I think it's the same exercise. The greatest commandment in the law is to love God and certainly worshipping a false god is the antithesis of godly love. But that doesn't prove that the definition of idolatry should be expanded to mean something that it does not mean. :)

I have a bunch of other arguments on this question of idolatry, but to me the one that is convincing is that Gal 5 puts idolatry as a work of the flesh. Idolatry is a subunit of one's sinful nature, not the pinnacle of his sinful expression.

Anyway, if you want to respond to this, I'll be glad to let you have the last word.

MW

Hello Bert, there are probably people who are racist and against modern music, or who use racism as a reason to avoid modern music. I've never agreed with the African influence on modern music argument as substantive or close to being conclusive. I think that modern music's roots likely go back to Arnold Shoenberg and some of his revolutionary theories about music composition. Some trace its development to others before Shoenberg, but his music was a break from his contemporaries and he has influenced generations of musicians. Either way, this belief doesn't make me antisemitic. :)

The point of the argument is that holding a view of culture that is not universally agreed upon by other Christians does not make one a Pharisee. That this view of culture can be labeled "traditional" does not make the case any stronger.

12 tone is definitely what led to Metallica, Air Supply, and of course "Breathe". And Bach. Your call on whether it's JS or PDQ.

Seriously, I would agree that differing with others does not make one a Pharisee. The tendency that is actually (should actually be?) in play is the tendency of buffering God's moral law so that one does not come close to certain violations, and then is compounded/worsened as people see those as acts by which one gains salvation. As I noted above, the former is common, the latter....at least is not fessed up to.

>>The point of the argument is that holding a view of culture that is not universally agreed upon by other Christians does not make one a Pharisee. That this view of culture can be labeled “traditional” does not make the case any stronger.<<

Matt, as I tried to make clear above, but obviously failed, I actually agree with this. I just happen to think that keeping traditions over a very long period can eventually become “teaching for doctrines…”, particularly if those traditions are not regularly evaluated in light of what scripture actually says. Perhaps calling that error Phariseeism is too strong a term, since the Pharisees certainly had other issues as well. Nonetheless, that error was problem enough that Jesus dealt with it specifically.

I have never thought that traditional views (i.e. based on scripture but not actually found there) were an issue in themselves. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the rightness of teaching that violation of our traditional views can be called sin with scriptural authority, at least in non-trivial/obvious cases.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm still thinking about this. I have a lot of questions such as:

• Autonomy of the local church as it relates to superfluous standards that are not necessarily biblical--does that make the church Pharisaical?
• Is arguing for heart idolatry actually a violation of its own argument because you make something that is not explicitly stated into the intent of the text?

There are other thoughts too, but I they come and go through the day. :)

Matt Walker said,

There are probably people who are racist and against modern music, or who use racism as a reason to avoid modern music. I've never agreed with the African influence on modern music argument as substantive or close to being conclusive.

What exactly does "modern music" comprise? Why do you believe that the influence of the particular people that you mention in your second statement that I have quoted is not relevant(?) to whatever "modern music" is?

Hello Rajesh,

I don't think this is a very good forum to discuss this issue. Specifically, the questions that arise from the thread are about traditionalism and whether or not it is tantamount to idolatry.

As it pertains to music, I was simply replying to Bert. I don't think it will be very useful to go into great detail on music unless it's a brand new thread on that subject.

I'd be glad to talk with you personally if you'd like.

MW

Matt,

No problem. I understand.

Thanks.

Rajesh

Matt Walker said:

I don't think it will be very useful to go into great detail on music unless it's a brand new thread on that subject.

I just started a new thread to discuss the subject of music: "Toque de Santo" and the Worship Music Debates | SHARPER IRON

As God directs you, I would like to hear more about your views about music through any comments that you might make in that thread.

I don’t think “idolatry” is the problem in this passage. Matt is correct that the Pharisees are not deliberately worshipping a false god. Their problem isn’t exactly legalism. Their problem seems to be that they believe the foundation of relationship with God was that they do what the law and tradition said. Their center was not right knowledge or right heart, it was right actions (as they wrongly understood it). Salvation = resume-ism = “look what I did!”

Is this idolatry? Not really.