Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is from Nigeria, not New Orleans. But the reaction to his attempted bombing of up a Northwest Airlines jet can only be understood in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
After Katrina America underwent one of the most significant spiritual crises in our nation’s history. In the face of catastrophe our religious faith was shaken and we wondered where we could put our trust. We cried out to our god, wondering why our people had been forsaken and why more had not been spared. Even the followers of Jehovah, Allah, and Jesus wondered why our national deity—our government—let us down.
The claim that we make an idol of our government is provocative, disconcerting, and impossible to deny. Idolatry occurs when we take anything within God’s creation and elevate it above the boundary separating Creator from the creature, and make it a kind of God. Political philosopher (and Evangel blogger) David Koyzis has explored this concept in detail, examining how ideologies can become idols:
If ideologies deify something within God’s creation, they inevitably view this humanly made god as a source of salvation. Thus each of the ideologies is based on a specific soteriology, that is, on a worked-out theory promising deliverance to human beings from some fundamental evil that is viewed as the source of a broad range of human ills, including tyranny, oppression, anarchy, poverty and so forth.
Our view of governance has not only attained this level of ideological belief, but has become rather commonplace. For instance, one of the most consistent, though often unstated, themes in the discussion about the disaster in New Orleans is that the government could have saved everyone. Some blamed the local government, which had hundreds of unused buses that could have been used for evacuation, while others placed the blame on the federal government, which is believed to have almost unlimited resources at its disposal.
Either one or both of these allegations could very well be true. But undergirding such claims is the foundational assumption that someone somewhere could have done enough to ensure almost universal salvation after the disaster. Nearly everyone could have been spared if only the government had responded in the right way. Because this belief is rooted in a strong faith in the capabilities of the system, no evidence either for or against such claims is needed. Faith is truly considered to be “evidence of things not seen.”
The spectrum of this belief is remarkably broad and applied to almost every policy issue, ranging from health care reform advocates who believe thousands of people will die without government action to the TSA critics who think that error-free screening is attainable if only President Obama would make it a priority. These types of faith-based views of government share a common root form of Gnosticism. As Koyzis explains,
Gnostics are dissatisfied with the world, which they deem “instrinsically poorly organized.” They believe that salvation from the world’s evil is possible within the immanent historical process and that this will require a structural change in the “order of being”; finally, they believe that the means of effecting such change necessitates seeking special knowledge— or gnosis—available only to the Gnostics themselves (p. 29)
These believers in Gnostic governance do not doubt that salvation is attainable; that is an unquestionable tenet of the faith. But there are broad ranges of views on how the Gnostic tendency is manifested. Some conservatives, for example, believe that the problem is that the system is “intrinsically poorly organized” and the governmental structure is simply too inefficient to carry out the task. Others believe that those with the special knowledge refuse to use the gnosis because of malicious motives. When rapper Kanye West made his infamous remark after Katrina that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” he was expressing just such a belief. In West’s deluded mind, Bush is truly able to save all of the people trapped in the city but chooses not to because he has no concern for black people.
As becomes apparent, the Gnostic deification of governance resembles the Roman god Zeus more than it does Jehovah or Allah. The Gnostic government is omnipotent, but not omniscient; transcendent and also immanent; impersonal and yet represented in various human forms (i.e., President Bush, President Obama). The god is also arbitrary and showers blessings on those it loves (the rich, welfare recipients, white men) and ignores those who it despises (the poor, minorities, white men); able to save all and yet arbitrarily chooses limited atonement. It is a fickle god that commands our succor but is unworthy of adoration.
Over the next few days the Abdulmutallab incident will lead numerous people on both the left and right to ask “Which part of the government is to blame?” The discussion will be hashed over by the various Gnostic sects the way Lutherans and Presbyterians argue over baptism. A few heretics (like me) may step forward to claim that maybe—just maybe—these things aren’t completely preventable and the government really can’t save us all. After an audible gasp, we apostates will be shouted down and ushered to the door by a stern deacon. We’ll stand outside the gates of the public square, shrugging and casting bemused looks at one another as we reflect on the nature of government and remember where our true salvation lies.
December 28th, 2009 | 12:24 am
Joe,
This is brilliant. And it actually fits well with the situation of the earliest Christians vis-a-vis the empire, in which the emperors as “saviors” who exhibited fides and iustitia were worshiped as figureheads for the real god: the empire that could always be relied upon to bring salvation and righteous rule. Few took emperor worship seriously on its own terms, but it represented a very real dependence on and reverence toward the empire itself.
I would add that many post-9-11 reactions also back up your thesis (“Your Government Failed You”). It was, for some, as if any death anywhere was a result of government incompetence when, really, we just live on an extraordinarily peaceful and isolated continent.
December 28th, 2009 | 1:22 am
To make an idol of government — valid insight, discernment. Alas God is dead, and the government cannot bring in the kingdom — tell that to Nancy & Harry! But we do know who can and that/who is where our true salvation lies. Meanwhile the wisdom and the posture for us is Phil. 4:11.
December 28th, 2009 | 4:15 am
“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”
Chesterton
December 28th, 2009 | 9:14 am
My faith in God wasn’t shaken by Katrina. Neither was my faith in the Federal Government. My disgust was directed at the local and state government and the instant and nation-wide Democratic party which went wall to wall to put all blame on Bush rather than on their own people who were the “first responders” but dropped the ball.
The hurricane actually revealed that America as a nation could rise to the occasion with incredible speed. Before any government official gave the word over a thousand boats were in the water and rescuing people. Before a single bureaucrat pushed a pencil, American individuals, families, churches, non-profits and small town civic groups mobilized the biggest rescue operation in US History.
We saw the Coast Guard and military swing into action brilliantly. The ones who failed were all Democrats. FEMA was never designed to be the first responder or “only” responder. It was never designed or funded or staffed to be an armed agency that could perform miracles without any local, state or military support.
So why blame them? Unless…Unless it’s 2005 and the Democrats urgently needed an excuse to blame it all on Bush. Meanwhile, who ran the city and was responsible for the levies and emergency planning? Who controlled the State and State guard? Who controlled 300 school and 300 city buses and knew the drivers, etc.? Who controlled down to the street level the voters who chose to stay behind and have Hurricane parties?
So who failed who? Not God. Not Bush. Not FEMA. Not the Federal Government. Not America.
December 28th, 2009 | 9:43 am
Point well taken, Joe, although we should also note that government certainly doesn’t fall all over itself trying to disaffect us of our misbegotten notions either. In the case of Abdulmutallab, the government inflicts upon travelers in general a broad range of admittedly inconvenient insults to our privacy in order to convince us that they are on top of the issue rather than focusing its efforts on high probability targets. Who needs liberté when it’s so much easier to convince us that we have égalité and fraternité?
Nothing is stopping the government from spending copious amounts of money on clearly ineffective strategies for addressing this problem. Does not recognition of the idolatry bring with it the need to tear it down, figuratively speaking in this case?
December 28th, 2009 | 12:25 pm
Excellent post Joe. Very good reminder. It may also rip the scab off of some underlying fear that we try to calm with looking at the natural instead of having faith in God’s sovereignty and providence.
December 28th, 2009 | 5:16 pm
Thanks for a fresh look at something that has crept up on us over the years. Seeing leaders of organized religious groups promoting their pet “justice” issues via lobbying government officials is causing me to re-examine the priorities of my own denomination.
December 28th, 2009 | 9:10 pm
This thesis is only useful to the extent that it is applied to one’s own ideological blindness. Apply first to self, not others.
December 29th, 2009 | 1:42 am
Your knowledge of Gnosticism is very lacking. Here are just a few points about Gnosticism:
–We have never been political, unlike the sterling behavior of Christianity and the other oppressive faiths in the arena of government.
–We know this is a corrupt universe ruled by a deficient God we sometimes call Jehovah; but we know we cannot change it, only help others awaken.
–We know we are not God (that is would be lowering our standards). We know there is a small spark within us, deep in our souls, that belongs to the Unknown Father and Mother that reside above your Heaven. The rest is corruption and temporal.
–We know gnosis does saves but it is not only for Gnostics. Pneumatics can also be saved.
–We have changed history very often, but it is through other methods that you would not understand.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. We do not spread untruths about other religions, please offer us the same courtesy.
Miguel (Abraxas)
December 29th, 2009 | 3:12 pm
Koyzis does misrepresent Gnostics,(unintentionally, I would assume). As Miguel has pointed out, Gnostics are apolitical, and do NOT speak of a “salvation within the immanent historical process… that would require a structural change in the order of being”.
That sounds nonsensical to the Gnostic ear. That sounds like striving for structural change to the created universe. For Gnostics, the material world in inherently flawed, and is never going to be otherwise.
Moreover, (and as Miguel has also pointed out) Gnostics do NOT hold that gnosis is available only to the Gnostics themselves.
December 29th, 2009 | 7:26 pm
Zeus was a Greek god; the Roman equivalent was Jupiter.
January 1st, 2010 | 11:53 pm
[...] I came across an excellent treatment by Joe Carter of the exaggerated reactions that some seem to have had to the amount of success that [...]
January 4th, 2010 | 12:47 am
“As becomes apparent, the Gnostic deification of governance resembles the Roman god Zeus more than it does Jehovah or Allah. The Gnostic government is omnipotent, but not omniscient; transcendent and also immanent; impersonal and yet represented in various human forms (i.e., President Bush, President Obama).”
What a load of nonsense! Joe, how did you come up with this bizarre description of Gnostic theology and piety? What are your sources?
Show me an historic example of Gnostics deifying the government, or claiming that the government should be deified.
I can show you better examples from pagan tradition; and even in Christian tradition (e.g. Romans 13).
I also ask of your source Mr. Koyzis: Where does he get this idea that “Gnostics” believe that “salvation from the world’s evil is possible within the immanent historical process and that this will require a structural change in the “order of being”…”?
Historically, Gnostics were distinguished from both Christians and pagans in that they rejected the material world as evil and cannot be saved. The neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus even wrote a treatise condemning the Gnostics for their rejection of the material world (Ennead, 2:9).
The Gnostic soteriology was focused on the soul freeing itself from the reincarnation cycle and reaching the abode of the true God in the afterlife. All metaphysical elements can be saved, but material elements cannot be saved. The world is doomed.
These concepts are also explained (and condemned) by the Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book I) and can be corroborated in the Nag Hammadi Library.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that your error may be rooted in equating Marxist alienation with Gnostic alienation–when these are in fact two completely different types of alienation. Perhaps this is the point where thinkers like you and Mr. Koyzis establish this link between Gnosticism and creeping liberal totalitarianism.
January 4th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
Just to clarify, the phrase, “salvation from the world’s evil is possible within the immanent historical process and that this will require a structural change in the ‘order of being’,” represents my attempt to describe Eric Voegelin’s account of gnosticism. I am not altogether persuaded of the veracity and helpfulness of Voegelin’s approach, but I think he is correct to connect gnosticism and ideologies. My own understanding of gnosticism is dependent on Albert M. Wolters’ Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.
January 6th, 2010 | 1:25 am
Mr. Koyzis,
Thank you for responding to my post. I want you to know that I agree with much of what Joe Carter has to say about the attitudes of liberals and the ever-expanding scope and power of government. I’m just not clear on the connection with Gnosticism.
I think that the occult tradition you and Joe are referring to is the Theosophical Society and the Fabian Socialist movement that emerged from early Theosophical circles. Later Naziism was inspired to some extent by Theosophy, and early Theosophists regarded themselves as “Aryans” and regarded the swastica as a symbol of their philosophy. (This was before the 20th century.)
But I don’t think Theosophy can be properly called Gnosticism, anymore than Brahmins can be called “Nazis” because they believe in some pre-historic “Aryan” race.
I know of some researchers out there who prefer to lump Theosophy and Gnosticism together. But to do so is to misunderstand both. They are in fact completely different animals.
Regards,
JW
January 8th, 2010 | 6:54 am
JW, I do not address theosophy in my book and I know little about it, so I cannot comment intelligently on it. I don’t recall Joe mentioning this in his post above.
January 11th, 2010 | 9:43 am
My First Thought is this:
I’m going to ask my Nigerian co-worker how rampant gnostics are in Nigeria. I bet he says, “Whats a gnostic?”
“Rubbish”, I say.
January 18th, 2010 | 7:35 am
Koyzis: “represents my attempt to describe Eric Voegelin’s account of gnosticism.”
Mr. Koyzis, I would submit that holding Vogelin’s account of gnosticism to be credible would be the mis-step.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact