It's not often that idolatry becomes a national news outlet topic, but last weekend it did. Though it seems that it's a story that's been rumbling on in more local reporting for a couple of months or more. St Austell has got itself a massive sculpture to commemorate its clay mining heritage. It has attracted comment about both its form and now its name: "Earth Goddess"
Media story templates
Now, I'm a bit cautious about what has gone on in actuality. My experience with newspaper reporters, editors and the BBC leads me to think that they tend to work with story templates in their minds and that they feel they work more efficiently if they can shoehorn events into those templates. In turn this can mean that reports miss or skew things in ways that frustrate those who are insiders to the communities and events being reported on. Religious stories are often victims of this.
For example, it takes a bit of reading between the lines of several of the reports to notice that some of the earliest criticisms of the sculpture seem to be aesthetic rather than religious. This prompts me to wonder whether the religious dimension is the latest iteration of discontent by some local people ... and indeed, whether some local Christians are being triggered deliberately to keep the issue simmering. Unfortunately some rose to the bait.
So I'll try to comment on this with a degree of generality, recognising that the matter seems to go back a while and that there may be details that are missing from what we outsiders can glimpse in the reporting.
Words in a plural society
It looks like there are different dimensions to this. One is to ask from the way the reports read, is whether there is room for a reasonably amicable settlement? At first sight, given some statements reported on both sides, it looks like relabelling the statue "Mother Earth" could help. The artist herself suggested that this is what the statue represented. However, that might not mollify those who find it aesthetically displeasing, but it might take the religious objection out of the picture.
It would be worth noting that there is some frisson of dislike possible from a number of religious communities, not just Christian. So maybe considering backing off from unnecessary controversy and offence by a judicious relabelling would be a good thing. Personally, I don't like words relating to deity to be used in ways that muddy or cheapen the public discourse, but we live in a belief-plural society and have to recognise that other people don't hear such words the freight of meaning that we do. As Christians we have to learn to work with what is in others' minds and to present our thoughts and reactions in ways that recognise that others have different takes on things. I worry that trying to foment outrage -if that's what is happening- ill serves the good news that we want to bring not least because it makes peacemaking (remember that? -from the Beatitudes?) so much harder. As Christians we should be better than 'that guy' who is easily triggered by biscuit-cutter issues, but often we are, as groups of people, not as intelligent collectively as we are as individuals, somehow*. As churches, we should perhaps get used to recognising that society is not "Christian" in terms of values or default background spiritual outlook. In turn this means that using the Christendom methodologies of social control and influence are likely to backfire -badly.
Theology?
Another dimension is to consider the theology. It does seem to me that the implicit theology of idolatry that comes across from the church leaders in the report might want questioning. I'd suggest that idolatry is more in the mind of the idolater not inherent in an object: it's about perception and use rather than 'mere' existence. And, personally, I'd want to suggest that maybe we as churches have been giving a free pass to, for example, the idolatry of Acquisition for far too long, and that perhaps we address that and its consequences in the climate emergency as much greater a matter of priority.
If I'd advised those who wrote the letter, I'd perhaps have suggested they start by affirming and appreciating concern for keeping a habitable planet and to mitigate climate crises. Start by recognising the good-faith intents of artist and council. These might well be to encourage people more generally to recognise the beauty of the planet we believe God has set us on and to encourage us in our duty of care for it ("her"). These good faith intentions might also be to build on the positive heritage of the town and to foster employment.
Then it would be good to proceed with the concern about the use of the term 'Goddess'. That concern could be framed in terms saying that people of many faiths would find the statue's name uncomfortable and asking whether it could be re-labelled as 'Mother Earth" or some-such. Maybe they did do this and it's been misrepresented. Has the reporting been so selective so as to hype up dissent?
There's also a bit of concern in the appeal to God's will in what is reported. It's presented as if everyone ought to not only recognise the Christian perspective on idolatry but that they should perform it too. This smacks of expecting others to live by our standards without them sharing in our understandings and commitments.
Christian fragility
Here I remind readers that I write in a personal capacity and in a blog post like this I'm not representing anyone but myself; thinking 'out loud', so to speak.
What worries me about these sort of reactions -as reported- is Christians seemingly looking out for occasions to be offended and then thinking that somehow a public display of affront is a (good) witness to Christ. I know well the mindset because it was big in a number of churches I've been in and associated with in the past.
I think it comes from a place of finding that things we Christians think are valuable, lovely and important are largely ignored or seen as irrelevant in wider society. They are eschewed, but not enough for us to be persecuted; it's the indifference that so easily irks. Worse: in a post-Christendom context people in wider society think they know what Christianity is even if they don't really know. These things, taken together, leave some Christians wishing they had a better profile and then latching onto scraps of unsuitable things to make a bit of a noise "for the gospel". The problem is that all to often the desire to act and be seen to act too easily becomes unlovely, hectoring, abusive ... not looking very much like good news at all. Posturing rather than persuading. Unfortunately we seem so easily to forget that if people don't really know what they don't know, and we present to them an angry, pernicketty and unreasoning face, people are going to find it easy to dismiss us -and there's plenty in the media to reinforce that.
I can't help feeling that deeply dwelling with the text and spirit of 1 Corinthians 13 should be the daily exercise of any Christians seeking to speak in public (myself included).
Idolatry and the gospel
I'd ask us to reflect on Paul's response to idolatry at the Areopagus. There's no doubt from his writings, that Paul is not a fan of idolatry and in fact abhors it, like most Jewish people then and now. Yet at the Areopagus (note that this is an idolatrous name -Ares is referenced) he is shown carefully and quietly looking around and taking time to see what's really going on to find a way in that doesn't begin with confrontation and rerunning the, no doubt, tired old expected denunciations of idolatry by Jewish teachers (remember Christians were a Jewish sect at this point). If a contemporary news reporter was there, that's the story template they'd have in mind: "Jewish preacher denounces idols, local anger stoked". I enjoy the way that Paul takes time not to fulfil that story-line.
I think that the analysis of the situation which seems implicit in the response of those churches could do with being questioned and updated. I'm aware that in English idioms, we often find phrases like 'domestic goddess' which has no real implication of idolatry. Breakfast television exercise leader Diana Moran back in the 1980s was nicknamed "the Green Goddess" but I don't think anyone took that to mean it was a call to worship her. Military fire engines were once also nicknamed 'green goddesses' and similarly, no-one though this meant they should receive votive offerings. So we have plenty of example of a use of 'goddess' in a non-religious way. Perhaps it would be wise to note that this is likely to be the same sort of usage.
The response to idolatry is, surely, to offer something better; re-purpose its drivers; to celebrate true, good and beautiful things or offer something liberating and joyful to displace it; invite people to Life in all its fullness. In the response to the St Austell statue, I wonder whether good news would be to celebrate the good intents for the common good the statue seems intended to represent and inspire and to seek for the hidden pointers to God in Christ: to enlist the "goddess" as a witness to the true God as Paul enlisted the Unknown God in the Areopagus.
But there's also the more 'technical' considerations of idolatry in relation to what is culturally going on. Idolatry is to worship something other than the true God or to give to something other that God what rightly belongs to God. We should recall that 'worship' isn't merely a circumscribed religious activity. If we take Romans 12:1-2 as any indicator, then worship is actually a life of service to God. Idolatry, then, is a life of service to other than God. It's not merely a performance of largely irrelevant honour to a picture or statue.
If people are investing themselves in love, and in the pursuit of Truth and Beauty, then a long line of theological thinking would say that they are, in effect, "not far from the Kingdom of God". Our mission is to draw alongside such people, listen well and begin to help them to narrow the gap so that 'not far from the Kingdom' morphs into 'seeking first the Kingdom...'
Mission for Green Christians
For Green Christians, I think that this looks like being full and valuable members of environmentally concerned groups, investing our time and efforts in understanding the love, truth and beauty they are seeking, and finding ways to speak about how those things connect us to God in our own lives. We don't need to be pushy or denunciatory: the aroma of Christ will be unstoppered as we serve, and the Spirit is at work drawing people to God.
In this way we tie together at least 3 of the 5 marks of mission -creation care, serving others, and proclaiming Christ.
A bit more detail about the story here: BBC News article. Also at the Guardian.
*The book 'The Wisdom of Crowds' explores how this happens and how to help it not to happen.
