I notice a repeated pattern in much Christian theology that seems to me to parallel Zizek’s explanation of Lacan’s “masculine” logic, the logic of the “master signifier” or “constitutive exception.” One of the clearest contemporary examples can be found in Zizioulas’s Being as Communion. He’s trying to demonstrate that the modern notion of a “person,” thought as a monadic individual, must be supplemented by Trinitarian doctrine, wherein personhood is irreducibly relational and wherein a person (God the Father), not a substance, is the origin of all things. Yet in the course of his argument, it becomes clear that for him, God the Father effectively is the modern monadic individual he’s trying to critique — he founds the order of personhood, yet he’s an exception to the intrinstic relationality of all other persons (including the trinitarian persons).
More broadly, many theologians emphasize that we shouldn’t be grasping and possessive of created things and even make the regime of property the very essence of sin. Yet their reason is not simply that the notion of ownership is bad, but rather that God is actually the one who owns everything. Other theologians castigate human pride and self-seeking, but in the service of making sure that God‘s power and glory are unchallenged.
In short, there are many strains of Christian theology that essentially make God out to be the very exemplar of sin, and it seems to me that that can’t possibly be right.