Social Cognitive Theory

Recently, my wife and I went to a Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Camp Meeting service.(1)  The night that we went, the speaker was a 16 year-old young man named, Tyler.  I had heard Tyler was preaching that night, and I had also heard that he was a very good preacher.  Despite this information, however, I was a bit skeptical. 

Well, one thing is true, Tyler was a phenomenal preacher; by “phenomenal” I mean that he exhibited mastery in the art of stereotypical, southern, evangelistic Pentecostal preaching—the kind that intends to arouse all your emotions (except contrition), the kind that somehow subliminally causes one to feel like they are better Christians than others, and the kind that generally leaves you with a few hours (maybe days) of feeling “better.” (I am speaking from my perspective, not my experience.  Also, I am not dogging the people who preach this way, simply this preaching style and content.  In all honesty, I have yet to hear this kind of preaching done where there is real meat in the message, zero insulting of other believers and especially denominations that aren’t Pentecostal or are but don’t speak in tongues enough, and where the Scriptures are expounded on in a legitimate, respectful, and honest manner.) 

As my wife and I contemplated the spectacle we had just observed, we concluded that this kind of preaching and service is purely cultural—which leads us back to the title of this post.

Albert Bandura, a Stanford psychologist, developed a theory on human life-span development called the Social Cognitive Theory.  By this, he simply means that people develop (i.e. learn) by their interactions with other people; more specifically, by observing others.  Bandura emphasized how this entails more than passive learning (e.g. classical and operant conditioning), but called for a deliberate attempt by the person to pay attention and learn from who or what they were observing. 

Although Bandura’s theory doesn’t have claim over all other theories (i.e. a lot of theories contain some element of legitimate explanation of human life-span development), what he describes in his theory, nonetheless, is very descriptive of how people can and do learn. 

Tyler, a 16 year-old young man, seems to have settled on an identity; this identity has, without a doubt, been shaped and confirmed by the denomination that he has been a part of his short life.  I imagine at a young age he observed a Pentecostal evangelist come to his church and preach a revival.  I imagine that Tyler was captivated by this demonstration of preaching and said to himself in some way, “I want to be like that!”  No, he didn’t want to be a “skater,” or an “athlete,”  or a “gangster.”  He wanted to be a “Pentecostal evangelist preacher” (this isn’t to take away from a possible calling of God on his life, rather, perhaps a confirmation). 

He definitely has become like that, and I would be confident to say that this is the case after many, many hours of practice—imitating the kind of person he’s observed.

To be fair, Bandura’s theory can also help explain why it’s the case that my wife and I get hardly any edification from these kinds of services.  We did not grow up in this “culture.”  This kind of preaching does not minister to my spirit because my development thus far has not involved observing and imitating this kind of proclamation.  It does not appeal to me because I’ve hardly been blessed by it.  Conversely, those who do receive some blessing from this kind of service would not appreciate the kind of service I am more apt to appreciate. 

This reality—a phenomenon that will never be changed—is entirely okay.  I do not expect, nor do I necessarily want people to conform to one kind of service or preaching style.  This isn’t necessary.  However, what is absolutely necessary for all believers, especially those who preach and teach, is that truth be told in an honest fashion and lives be eternally changed, exhibited through day-to-day obedience—a Christ-likeness.  What is necessary is for there to be a lifting up of all believers.  It is necessary for there to be some kind of practical guidance provided to the listeners.  It is necessary for there to be a moving on from the “elementary doctrine of Christ,” going on to maturity (Heb. 6:1).  These are just to name of few; there are more I’m sure.

So, since it is the case that we can and do learn through observation, the question then is:

“Who are you imitating?”

(1) Pentecostal Free Will Baptist (PFWB) is the denomination that my wife and I are currently a part of.  I serve as a part-time youth pastor in small PFWB church in Dunn, NC.  This denomination is rooted in the Azuzu Street revival of the early 20th century.   However, it wasn’t until the middle of the century when people from the Original Free Will Baptist denomination left to form the PFWB denomination.

God’s Instructions

In Deuteronomy, YHWH establishes what can be considered boundaries that mark the proper way of living for his redeemed people. These boundaries are set by the commandments, or instructions. Similar to what Walter Brueggemann suggests, this instruction (tôrāh) given to Israel is, in essence, more prescriptive than it is set in stone (pun intended).¹ Also, Packer comments:

What the books of Scripture said to their original recipients they were thought of as continuing to say in application to each successive generation, just as unrepealed secular legislation continues to bind each generation of citizens. As applications of secular law are made by bringing its principles to bear on particular cases under the guidance of its overall purpose and are valid whether or not the terms of the law explicitly envisage the cases in point, so it was held to be with the Bible.²

The instructions YHWH gave Israel were designed with potential and the purpose to be applied differently in various contexts and yet still maintain their integrity. Surely a re-application can cross the line into disobedience. That is why YHWH repeatedly tells his people to learn his ways so as to be equipped to apply them appropriately (e.g. Deut. 6:4-9; 10:15-22; Josh 1:8).³

1 Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 93.

2 J. I. Packer, “Upholding the Unity of Scripture Today,” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 25 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1982; 2002), 409-410.

3 Also, as is true with any body of law, observance to a particular stipulation is always contextual. Ergo, if I’m driving on the highway, the law that says “stop at red lights” is not applicable to me. This does not mean, however, that this piece of law is not still in force and expected to be kept when I’m driving in the city. Similarly, the laws related to feminine activities never apply to males and the commands for the priests never apply to the descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Naphtali, etc.

Concealing the Obvious

When my wife and I moved into our new place last July, one of the only things that came up “missing” was a blanket that my wife had received as a gift.  It was special to her. 

I recall on several occasions over the past year contemplating where on earth that blanket could have ended up.  My wife asked her parents on a couple of occasions if they have found it laying somewhere in their house (we stored some of our belongings for a few weeks in their garage before we moved).  Nope.  It was nowhere to be found.

Today, my wife was looking for a place to relocate some of her work shirts, and as she was doing that I recommended to her that she store them somewhere that is accessible so that she can easily get one when she needs it (i.e. not on the top shelf of her closet).  As she considered where to store them, she happened to look in one of the baskets that slides into the base of our bed.  This particular basket is on my side of the bed, but one that I don’t use, nor have I ever considered what was in it.  Lo and behold!  As my wife pulled the basket out, there was the blanket!  And not only that, but she also found two pairs of shoes that she had also been looking for.  Eureka! Oh, she also found another blanket that she had been missing as well (my wife loves blankets, especially really soft ones). 

We’ve lived in our place for almost one year now, and this whole time I’ve been sleeping right on top of the blanket and never knew it! 

The revealing of the ‘mystery of the gospel’ (Eph. 3:6) worked in a similar way.  It had been written all over the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, but no one “saw” it.  Paul testifies that it had been “kept secret,” but it had now been made known to God’s apostles and prophets (cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:1-6).

If this “mystery” (i.e. that Gentiles are now made a part of the commonwealth of Israel through Messiah) is not based upon the word of God, then it would indeed be of no concern to us.  But this is not the case.  God testified to this “mystery” when he made covenant with Abram: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8).  God declared this “mystery” in Is. 56:6-8:

And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant – these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.  The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.

For God says in another place, “For the LORD God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).  All along this plan of God was revealed to Israel, yet, at the same time it was also concealed.  It was under their nose and they didn’t even know it!

God conceals and God reveals.  Considering that God desires to reveal himself (through creation, his presence in the Tabernacle, Temple, the Incarnation, Pentecost, New Jerusalem) the question then must be, “Are we seeking?”

Wallpaper Images

Click on the image, then right click on the image again to click “save image.”  Save it, then set it as your wallpaper.  (The image above says, “Jesus (is) the King.”)

Haggadah Cover

The Epistle to the Believers in Rome

 

"The single most important theme of Romans is equality of Jew and Gentile."

         

 

 

 

E.P. Sanders, Paul: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 78.

[image from here.]

Vying for Authority

[Scripture 2 Corinthians 11:1-23]

Who has authority over you? To whom do you submit yourself to? Whether this question conjures up a quick response or not, it remains true that all people have an authority over them; whether it is a conscious decision or not; whether the answer is another person[s], or even yourself. 

The Scripture’s testimony is quite clear about the need and significance for authority. It is equally important to observe that there exists no differentiation between the facets of one’s life – physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual. Therefore, the Scripture’s ideal – God’s design – is that authority minister to all human needs. Moreover, all in authority will be judged according to his or her stewardship of the role they play.

What do we do, however, if there arises conflicting authority, both claiming an upper hand over the other? Who then does one follow? Around the turn of the 15th century this question was very pertinent to the people who made up the Western Church.

It was the spring of AD 1378. Pope Gregory XI [AD 1370—1378] died shortly after he relocated the papacy back to Rome; it having spent the last seventy years in Avignon, in what is today southern France.¹ While in Avignon, the position of pope was occupied consecutively by a native Frenchman. However, when the authority of the Church moved back to Rome and Gregory XI died, the locals demanded a non-Frenchman, preferably an Italian, to be elected pope. Amidst the onslaught of rioting, the cardinals elected an Italian archbishop who took the name Urban VI [AD 1378—1389].² A new pope had been crowned.

Shortly after his elevation, as his new-found power enlarged his head, Urban VI began to make reforms.³ One such reform was to take some of the luxurious accommodations away from the cardinals; the same cardinals who had elected him pope. Needless to say, these cardinals did not like this. Therefore, the majority of them abandoned their support of Urban VI, fled Rome, and elected another pope who called himself Clement VII [AD 1378—1394]. Now there were two popes over the Church.

Here began was is known as the Great Schism of the West [AD 1378—1417].

After some time, talk of ending the schism took place between both camps. There were oaths taken to ensure that the schism would be reconciled at the death of one of the popes. But, when death arrived, the oaths were not fulfilled. Due to frustration and in attempt to solve this problem, some of the cardinals from both parties met in Pisa and actually elected a third pope – Alexander V [AD 1409—1410]. There were now three different popes simultaneously in power over the Church.

Over the next decade, this schism did come to an end. When it was all said and done, the line of popes from Urban VI won the day, and the other two lines fell off the map.

The Apostle Paul labored endlessly to serve and build up the believers in Corinth. In his absence, however, other men came and deceitfully led the believers away from Paul’s instructions. These men came as “authorities,” boasting in their works. Paul reminded the Corinthians who he was and essentially told them to observe the fruit that is produced by those they follow.

Caution is always a good measure to take when determining who we submit to. At the same time, may we not neglect our need for authority, recognizing that when it’s godly, much fruit will be produced in our lives and throughout the kingdom of God.

1Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300—1870 (New York: Oxford, 2003), 32.

2J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (New York: Oxford, 1986), 227.

3J. C. Robertson, The Great Schism: AD 1378-1410. Article located at http://www.christianity.com/christian%20foundations/the%20essentials/11540153. Accessed on April 16, 2009.

[image from about.com and is the pope’s palace in Avignon.]

What Was Jesus?

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” – John 1:14

How much time and effort have you put into trying to understand the nature of Jesus? In the West, the predominant belief for centuries has been that Jesus was part human and part divine – the Word become flesh. But what exactly does this mean? Did Jesus access his divinity when he healed people? Did he use his divine, omnipotent nature to read peoples’ minds? Was it his humanity that was crucified or his divinity or both? What exactly was Jesus?

This question has been a popular topic for debates since Jesus’ time, and has also been a source for much division amidst the church at large. This controversial subject must not be confused with the doctrine of the Trinity. The inquiry here is not “Was Jesus God?” – rather, “How was divinity and humanity joined in Jesus?”¹ Gonzales said that this is “the fundamental Christological question.”²

During the late 4th century and early 5th century AD, two schools of thought regarding this matter developed into a fierce rivalry. The school from Antioch of Syria, led initially by Theodore of Mopsuestia and then further supported by Theodoret of Cyrus, essentially claimed that Jesus had two natures in one person.³ Theodore suggested that Jesus’ emotions were rooted in his human nature. When he performed miracles and forgave sins, his divine nature was then manifested.⁴

The other school, which hailed from Alexandria in Egypt, was led by a man named Apollinaris. Originally, this camp held that Jesus was the Logos of God encased in a human body; this emphasized his deity at the expense of his humanity. This meant that Jesus did not have a “human mind” because the Logos took its place.

Controversy broke out, people took sides, and debates ensued. Apollinaris redefined his position after Theodore and Gregory of Nazianzus suggested Jesus’ lack of a “human mind” meant that he could not fully redeem mankind. The result was that Apollinaris adjusted his stance to say Jesus had the “lower part” of the human mind where emotions reside, but not the “higher part” where reason dwells.⁵ Nestorius, who took Theodore’s position a step further and said in Jesus there were “two natures and two persons,”⁶ was attacked by Cyril of Alexandria. The implications of Nestorius’ position meant that when Jesus died, only the “human nature” of Jesus could be credited. To say then that mankind was saved by a “man” meant God is not Savior.

As was custom in those days, councils were called to settle the arguments. In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon ruled in favor of the Antiochene view. This council wrote a “Definition of faith,” which posited that in Jesus there were “two natures in one person.”⁷

What is at stake in this theological inquiry? Practically speaking, what do we miss when we over emphasize either Jesus’ divinity or his humanity? How can we relate to a being who is God incarnate? How much of humanity did Jesus really experience?

These questions would be good for us to entertain (though with much caution and patience). For, to understand what Jesus was could turn into a deeper knowledge of who he is. Further clarity on Jesus’ nature should, in the end, help us and cause us to be more like the Master, walking in his Spirit to the glory of God the Father.

1Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1984), 252.

2Ibid.

3Paul B.Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus: Antiochene Christology from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451) (New York: Oxford, 2007), 2.

4William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology; An Introduction (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983), 81.

5Ibid.

6Gonzales, 254.

7Ibid, 257.

Marcionite Tendencies

Somewhere along the way you may have heard that “A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.” How many of us, however, have actually entertained whether or not we, even unknowingly, have mishandled parts of Scripture because we’ve taken them out of context?

Back in the mid-second century there were a handful of voices that are well known for their influential teachings and writings concerning the Christian faith. One of these powerful voices was from a man named Marcion.

Marcion was familiar with Christianity from an early age. But, somewhere along the way he developed anti-semitic views and came to hold a dualistic perspective of life.¹

During the latter part of the emperor Hadrian’s reign [c. AD 137-138], Marcion relocated to Rome to be involved with the Christian community there. However, by the year AD 144 Marcion was officially expelled from the community, and ever since has carried the label “heretic” by mainstream Christians. Despite being excommunicated, Marcion remained in Rome where he established an “enduring ecclesiastical organization,” which persisted until the 5th century.²

There are two main reasons why Marcion was, and is, considered a heretic. (1) Because Marcion believed the material world was evil, he then drew the conclusion that the God who created it must be evil as well. Therefore, Elohim, must be a different God than the loving and merciful God Jesus represents. He considered Elohim a demiurge, inferior to the “Supreme Father” that Jesus speaks of.³

(2) Based on this presupposition, Marcion constructed the first canon, or a list of “scriptural” books. “He held that the OT [sic] had been superseded so thoroughly by the NT [sic] that it was now obsolete.”⁴ Therefore, his entire list of Scriptures consisted only of parts of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles. Moreover, “Marcion argued that the canon should be expunged of everything ‘Jewish’.”⁵

Most Christians today would agree that these teachings are heretical – and rightly so. While we largely disagree with Marcion theoretically, many of us unknowingly maintain a “Marcionite tendency” in our orthopraxy; namely, we’ve taken Jesus, and even the Apostles out of their 1st century, second Temple period, Hebraic context.

Consider the account of the woman with the issue of blood [Luke 8:43-48]. When she touched Jesus’ garment, she deliberately grabbed a certain part of it – his tzitzit [tassel]. She demonstrated her belief in a Messianic prophecy that the Messiah would have healing in his “wings” [Malachi 4:2]. The Hebrew word kanaph is translated “wings” in Malachi 4:2 and “corner” in Numbers 15:38, which describes where the four separate tzitzit should hang.

How much more depth do these details add to this account? How would one gather these insights except by keeping our Rabbi Jesus and this Jewish woman in their Hebraic context?

One of the ways Marcion took the Scriptures out of their context was by “expunging everything Jewish” from them. It was inevitable that heretical teaching would subsequently develop.

We would do well to correct our tendency toward the same so we can rightly handle the word of truth. After all, if we believe that God our Savior is intentional in what he does, then it is no minor detail that he sent his Son into the Hebraic milieu of first century Palestine and Second Temple Galilee and Judea.

1 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1984), 61. Dualism, simply put, taught that the material world was “evil” and the spiritual world was “good.”

2Harold W. Attridge, “Christianity from the Destruction of the Temple to Constantine’s Adoption of the New Religion: 70-312 C.E.” In Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development. Hershel Shanks, ed. (Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 173.

3Gonzales, 61. A "demiurge" is an emanation from the Supreme Being considered to be the originator of the Sinaitic Law and the antithesis of Jesus in Marcionite and Manichean thinking.

4 David Ewert, A General Introduction to the Bible: From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 24.

5James H. Charlesworth, “Christians and Jews in the First Six Centuries.” In Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development. Hershel Shanks, ed. (Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 316-317.

Polluting the Air Might Fight Global Warming

Ummm…

[Click here for the AP article.]

The idea to “shoot” pollution particles into the upper atmosphere in attempt to block the sun’s rays makes me laugh.  Fortunately, however, this idea was expressed as being a “last resort.” 

The need for us as humans to take better care of the earth is completely necessary and a fabulous idea.  Also fortunate is that since the “scare tactic” the media used to pushed the “crisis” of “global warming” into the homes of every American, there has been very significant development within corporations to become “green.”  This is good. 

Admittedly, we humans, when we need to correct something, often swing to the opposite extreme before we find the balance.  Surely it is an extreme to even consider the idea that we can control the atmosphere.  Try stopping Katrina, a tsunami, a tornado, a measly rain shower.  Moreover, it is entirely humbling to the “crisis” pushers that they had to cover all the extreme cold weather this past winter season that spread across the country [even late into the season]. 

But I digress…

We can indeed do better at being better stewards of the earth’s resources.  At the same time, however, let us not forget who really has the power to control the winds and the seas.