You raise the point about people "worshipping at the temple of sport" and I think this is one the huge challenges of something like sport.
It does bring great joy to play sport to be part of a team. I love watching sport. Their is the enormous joy and excitement from events such as the Olympics which has been extraordinary, but it is interesting to see how commitment to sport can come at a huge spiritual cost.
For example, parents who take their children out of church or youth group or kids club for all of the league or soccer or netball or cricket or dance or little athletics season because the kids must attend training or play with the team. Individuals who commit their life to training and the discipline of making it at their chosen sport.
It is great to be able to achieve and participate in sport but so often I have seen it come at the cost of Christian commitment, even worse, walking away from Jesus.
Like with anything which is good, sport can so easily become a god which many people readily worship and wholeheartedly commit their lives to.
Thanks John. Very true. I think my point is to push it a little further -- that 'Sport' is a kind of 'god'; a lord or power in our world that exerts influence, that captures people etc. It's not just that we end up giving 'Sport' that place in our lives; it's that Sport is an active power that takes people captive. We need to be aware of it, fight it, resist it, etc.
But all the while not rejecting the good gift that God has given us in sporting enjoyment.
Totally agree! Have loved thinking about and wrestling with this.
Sport definitely is a 'kind of god' an 'active power' with extraordinary 'influence' that does 'capture' and take 'people captive'.
It kind of fascinating to watch this play out and to see the reaction when we push back against its influence to 'fight' and 'resist' it.
And how hard is it to get what I might call 'the balance' right as for example we experience the sheer joy and emotion of this good gift that so many events in the Olympics brought into our loungerooms or even just watching the mighty Panthers work their way towards, hopefully, another Premiership! :)
Keep up the good work - always look forward to your writing .
That's a very helpful discussion, thanks Tony. I've been reflecting recently on the elusive concept of 'idolatry' and how this is often shorthand for what our hearts prize - but this always seems to affirm our agency rather than our slavery. Which makes some sense when speaking with Christians who have been freed (rom 6), but for the rest of humanity this has to be wrong, they are passive prisoners as much as complicit sinners.
I wonder too if we could add 'expressive individualism' to the list of 'lordless powers.' I've been reflecting recently on 'authenticity' culture which claims to offer freedom to be yourself, despite everyone turning out looking the same or adopting an alternative identity - sure, it may be a unique identity but it's all part of the same category. Who is more free? The person who 'expresses their true self' in line with cultural norms or the person who feels no compulsion to even enter that discussion, or indeed the person who in the face of pressure actually maintains an unpopular line.
That first paragraph doesn't quite land where I meant it to: your discussion helps to move beyond idolatry as something that will trap me in my own desire - in a David Foster Wallace sort of way - to idolatries as real 'powers' that enslave. So it's not just that I love the wrong thing, but that the thing I love is my captor.
Thanks Callan — yes, you’ve put your finger on one of the reasons that this way of thinking of ‘powers’ is attractive to me, and reflects something that I keep seeing in the NT. We’ve tended to turn ‘idolatry’ into a psychological phenomenon, as being about what we desire or love most, but the spiritual dangers we face are more serious than that. As post-enlightenment people we find it hard to believe that our independence and agency is not supreme, but we are less in control than we think.
The post-enlightenment thing is very interesting. I find that even the most hardened materialists and secularists would (or should) see ideologies and memes (in the original sense proffered by Dawkins) as exercising a kind of power over people, if only in a purely material sense. Hence, Daniel Dennett entitled his key book on religion, "breaking the spell". Though come to think of it, that shouldn't be a surprise, and I can hear Tom Holland saying, 'Of Course! That's just the 'powers and principalities' from their deeply Christian worldview being appropriated in material terms.'
So I wonder whether it's not just the post-enlightment evacuation of the supernatural from our worldview but the elevation of human potential and agency, and the narrowing of the self to the impenetrable psyche in Humanism which disallows for any exterior danger having an effect on me. Though, of course I only lost my temper at the shops because I was tired and they were being annoying, but that's not really me...
Hi Tony
You raise the point about people "worshipping at the temple of sport" and I think this is one the huge challenges of something like sport.
It does bring great joy to play sport to be part of a team. I love watching sport. Their is the enormous joy and excitement from events such as the Olympics which has been extraordinary, but it is interesting to see how commitment to sport can come at a huge spiritual cost.
For example, parents who take their children out of church or youth group or kids club for all of the league or soccer or netball or cricket or dance or little athletics season because the kids must attend training or play with the team. Individuals who commit their life to training and the discipline of making it at their chosen sport.
It is great to be able to achieve and participate in sport but so often I have seen it come at the cost of Christian commitment, even worse, walking away from Jesus.
Like with anything which is good, sport can so easily become a god which many people readily worship and wholeheartedly commit their lives to.
Thanks John. Very true. I think my point is to push it a little further -- that 'Sport' is a kind of 'god'; a lord or power in our world that exerts influence, that captures people etc. It's not just that we end up giving 'Sport' that place in our lives; it's that Sport is an active power that takes people captive. We need to be aware of it, fight it, resist it, etc.
But all the while not rejecting the good gift that God has given us in sporting enjoyment.
Totally agree! Have loved thinking about and wrestling with this.
Sport definitely is a 'kind of god' an 'active power' with extraordinary 'influence' that does 'capture' and take 'people captive'.
It kind of fascinating to watch this play out and to see the reaction when we push back against its influence to 'fight' and 'resist' it.
And how hard is it to get what I might call 'the balance' right as for example we experience the sheer joy and emotion of this good gift that so many events in the Olympics brought into our loungerooms or even just watching the mighty Panthers work their way towards, hopefully, another Premiership! :)
Keep up the good work - always look forward to your writing .
That's a very helpful discussion, thanks Tony. I've been reflecting recently on the elusive concept of 'idolatry' and how this is often shorthand for what our hearts prize - but this always seems to affirm our agency rather than our slavery. Which makes some sense when speaking with Christians who have been freed (rom 6), but for the rest of humanity this has to be wrong, they are passive prisoners as much as complicit sinners.
I wonder too if we could add 'expressive individualism' to the list of 'lordless powers.' I've been reflecting recently on 'authenticity' culture which claims to offer freedom to be yourself, despite everyone turning out looking the same or adopting an alternative identity - sure, it may be a unique identity but it's all part of the same category. Who is more free? The person who 'expresses their true self' in line with cultural norms or the person who feels no compulsion to even enter that discussion, or indeed the person who in the face of pressure actually maintains an unpopular line.
That first paragraph doesn't quite land where I meant it to: your discussion helps to move beyond idolatry as something that will trap me in my own desire - in a David Foster Wallace sort of way - to idolatries as real 'powers' that enslave. So it's not just that I love the wrong thing, but that the thing I love is my captor.
Thanks Callan — yes, you’ve put your finger on one of the reasons that this way of thinking of ‘powers’ is attractive to me, and reflects something that I keep seeing in the NT. We’ve tended to turn ‘idolatry’ into a psychological phenomenon, as being about what we desire or love most, but the spiritual dangers we face are more serious than that. As post-enlightenment people we find it hard to believe that our independence and agency is not supreme, but we are less in control than we think.
The post-enlightenment thing is very interesting. I find that even the most hardened materialists and secularists would (or should) see ideologies and memes (in the original sense proffered by Dawkins) as exercising a kind of power over people, if only in a purely material sense. Hence, Daniel Dennett entitled his key book on religion, "breaking the spell". Though come to think of it, that shouldn't be a surprise, and I can hear Tom Holland saying, 'Of Course! That's just the 'powers and principalities' from their deeply Christian worldview being appropriated in material terms.'
So I wonder whether it's not just the post-enlightment evacuation of the supernatural from our worldview but the elevation of human potential and agency, and the narrowing of the self to the impenetrable psyche in Humanism which disallows for any exterior danger having an effect on me. Though, of course I only lost my temper at the shops because I was tired and they were being annoying, but that's not really me...
As Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart once said of a poor performance from his players, "It wasn't us out there".