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.

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?”

Following Suit

I am a big fan of logic.  It is always good to have a valid argument; it’s even better if it’s sound.

Speaking of a valid argument, Iowa recently made gay marriage legal [click here for the actual court document].  This particular article quotes the court saying,

On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution … A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.  

This succinct description of why this law was put into affect is logical. 

A state’s marriage statute violates its equal protection clause.  The state’s equal protection clause is for the good of all peoples.  Therefore, the state’s marriage statute must be changed to cohere with the state’s equal protection clause [i.e. same-sex marriage].

This is a valid argument.

If any system of law [or beliefs] lacks coherence [i.e. is not valid], then it’s not logical.   

Many conservative Christians have strongly opposed legalizing same-sex marriages, and, despite it being acknowledged or not, can present an equally valid argument to do so. 

So, who wins?  We’ll in Iowa, the state won.  In following suit with a handful of other states that have gone before it, the justices in Iowa seemed to have caught on to the logic [and other things, as well] behind making this law.  What we see before our eyes is, on one hand, a coherent system being [re]established [or maybe re-created], and on the other hand, another instance where rulers are “framing injustice by statute” [cf. Ps. 94:20].

It’s one thing to have a valid argument; it’s another to have true premises in order to make it sound.  

So, rather than act like homosexuality is the only sin Jesus died for, perhaps we should entertain the question that Pilate asked:

“What is truth?”

[This post (and the next few to follow) is for a class assignment.]

Tradition Does Not Equal Law

In faith communities, traditions have the capability of healing deep recesses of brokenness, but they can also blind the eyes of its residents. The gamut of other pros and cons can stretch across a rather wide spectrum.

Tradition is good, and, in fact necessary; all people consciously, or subconsciously, adapt to one or more at different stages in life. But when does tradition become bad? How can one know when a tradition she is a part of begins to hinder her from seeing the truth more clearly?

Joshua Berman wrote in the introduction to Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch that “A tradition imbues its sons with a conceptual framework and interpretive horizons. A tradition provides its adherents with the questions to be asked of a text, which in turn allows the text to answer those questions within the framework of the tradition.”

Traditions are formed from what is believed to be true, whether by the individual or corporately. What we believe is a result of what we understand. What we understand develops from who teaches us. At first, we do not get to choose our teachers – parents, school teachers, etc. – but at some point it does become our choice. This experience is what shapes our “conceptual framework and interpretive horizon.”

The longer the lifespan of a particular tradition, the more years we abide within a tradition, and the amount of personal satisfaction acquired therein, the harder it is for us to develop beyond the boundaries that our tradition[s] create. This is logical, and entirely expected. What is not logical is to presume that our traditions possess all the devices needed to pursue, obtain, and experience the endless call to mature in our faith.

As a case in point, consider the Judean religious leaders [as opposed to the Galilean religious leaders] that are spoken of in the Gospels. These “old wine skins” could not accept the “new wine,” or teaching, that Jesus brought because they said, “The old is good enough.” They thought their ways were the best and the only tradition needed for correct holy living. Jesus’ teachings put inside the configuration of these types of beliefs systems would cause a melt-down. Jesus, therefore, called upon “new wine skins” – the disciples.

What the Scriptures call “the tradition of the elders” were extra-Torah instructions created by man to assist a person in keeping the written Torah. “What can I do on the Sabbath?” “When is it legal to divorce my spouse?” “Can a Jew and Gentile be friends?” These are the types of questions these traditions were created to answer.

In every account in the Gospels where Jesus is accused of breaking a “law,” he is actually failing to follow certain traditions of the elders. For instance, Jesus and his disciples didn’t always wash their hands when they ate. They also rubbed the heads of grain in order to eat on the Sabbath.  Moreover, could a sinless Savior ever break an actual commandment?

The point when we begin to treat our traditions as a type of law is when tradition becomes bad and begins to hinder our ability to see the truth more clearly. We error when we forget that all truth is God’s truth and no one tradition can possess all that is needed for the Christian life.

Tradition’s breath must not be stifled, nor its innate evolving tendencies. Held in open hands, tradition is kept from forming any hindering limitations. Held in a closed fist, however, tradition inevitably causes one to forget who controls who.

The Influence of Presumption – part 2

“…all understanding, whether of history, art, or the Bible, is attainable only within a tradition.  A tradition imbues its sons [sic] with a conceptual framework and interpretive horizons.  A tradition provides its adherents with the questions to be asked of a text, which in turn allows the text to answer those questions within the framework of the tradition.” [1] [italics mine]

This brief statement provides a very practical way for one to start becoming familiar with his or her personal presuppositions.  Although the focus here will be faith related, this statement can be applied to any type of belief. 

To put Berman’s words in my own words:  When you begin to entertain this endeavor of trying to discover the presuppositions that cause you to believe what you believe, the range and type of questions and searching will likely be limited to the parameters that your tradition[s] has subliminally kept you in.  We are conditioned by our tradition[s].  For example, a Catholic priest will not ask, “Can I get married?”  According to the tradition that he has chosen to abide within, this question, in this context, is ridiculous.  Also, imagine a Oneness Pentecostal individual being asked, “So, do you think that Jesus accessed his ‘divine’ side to read people’s minds?” [2]  Surely your question would either be ignored, or he could respond with a sarcastic “Are you serious?”  Based on what we can gather from the Scriptures’ testimony, it is okay for a priest to be married and Jesus is divine [though I personally don’t think he accessed his divine side to read people’s minds]. [3]  Yes, I recognize and admit that what I just said stems from my own presuppositions. 

What we, as individuals and corporately, believe results from what we understand.  What we understand results from who is teaching us.  Who is teaching us is initially not a choice [i.e. our parents, churches they take us to, etc.], but at some point it does become a choice.  This experience is what shapes our “conceptual framework and interpretative horizon.”  This experience explains why we can agree with some and disagree with others.  It’s not that complicating. 

So a good question to ask yourself is, “Who is teaching me?”

This experience is what lies behind Jesus’ parable about the “new wine skins” [cf. Luke 5:36-39].  Those particular Pharisees could not accept Jesus’ teaching [“new wine”] because their conceptual framework would not welcome Jesus’ words.  Their “tradition” rejected the truth that Jesus taught [cf. Matt. 15]. 

How much do the  traditions we cling to and learn from reject the truth of God? 

This question may at first insult you as if this is a ludicrous accusation.  If this kind of reaction does occur, it is likely that there are parts of your tradition that do keep God’s truth from being accepted, whether consciously, or unconsciously [let’s hope it’s the latter].  This, after all, was how some of the Pharisees responded to what Jesus taught.  Why?  Because the truth that Jesus proclaimed threatened the beliefs that the others had, which had been the “bedrock” of their theology.  Rather than humble themselves and receive correction, they instead sinned in their anger and falsely accused the innocent.    

Consider how much empathy, compassion, and exponential edification would exist within the body of Messiah if we could all at least just understand this reality and the implications thereof.  To embrace this task takes great humility, and I’m sure the fruit would be world-changing [cf. John 13:35]. 

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.  He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.  And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. [Acts 18:24-28]

Apollos was willing to let his “tradition” be altered in order to better envelop the truth that he had yet to learn.

Tradition is good and necessary.  What we must be conscious of is which one[s] are we being influenced by and – especially and – not close ourselves off to the truth that can be found in other traditions that our tradition[s] quite possibly rejects [for whatever reason].  

[1] Joshua A. Berman in the introduction of Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006), xx.

[2] Oneness Pentecostals do not believe Jesus exists as a part of the triune Godhead. 

[3] If a priest, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t want to get married that is his or her prerogative and that should be respected.  But to say that a priest “cannot” marry is a completely different thing.    

The Influence of Presumption

“Habakkuk’s opening complaint to the Lord laments not only human failure, but the failure of the Law to bring about righteousness: Torah itself has become ineffective; righteous judgment does not endure [Hab. 1:4].  The lament no doubt has in view human failure to administer justice.  But this human failure is unmistakably cast in terms of the failure of the Law.  There is an anticipation of Paul: the Law was, so to speak, ‘weak on account of the flesh’ [cf. Rom. 8:3].  The vision of salvation through judgment which the prophet is instructed to ‘write on tablets’ [Hab. 2:2], points to the saving judgment of God which inaugurates a new reality beyond Torah, which was given on tablets [cf. Exod. 24:12; Deut. 4:13].  There is here a suggestion of a new covenant, which replaces the former one given at Sinai [cf. Jer. 31.31-34].” [1]

If you look closely, you will notice that this author presents a valid argument, but, it is not sound.  Only based on the assumption of the last sentence [which is false] can the author have the ground to make the points prior to this point [which are false].  In other words, because this author assumes that the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah “replaces” the covenant established at Sinai he can then make the suggestion that the Law “failed” and had become “ineffective.” [2] 

He makes these judgments as if the Law is, or can be, personified and has the innate capability of obeying itself.  In both the passage in Habakkuk and Paul’s remark in Romans 8:3, it is only the humans that are at fault – the Law remains “holy and just and good” despite human response to it [Rom. 7:12].  In fact that is exactly what Paul has in mind when he says, “What if some [of the Jews] were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” [Romans 3:2].  Paul responds, “By no means!”  God’s word, which includes his torah/instruction, never fails; it never returns void.  Last I checked, the heavens and the earth still exist [cf. Ps. 119:89-91; Is. 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 1 Pet. 1:25].

It is true that we all assume certain things, which lead us to conclude other certain things, whether true or false.  Our presuppositions heavily influence us.  Given this, we would do well to be conscious of the things we presuppose and also get to a place where we can be comfortable to question those very beliefs.

[1] Mark A. Seifrid. “Paul’s Use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17: Reflections on Israel’s Exile in Romans.” In History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, edited by Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, 133-49. (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), footnote 14 on page 138.

[2] The reason this is the case is because the statements made prior to this point do not accurately describe what is going on in Habakkuk, nor Paul’s words.  Neither Habakkuk, nor Paul would have suggested that the Torah “failed” in any way, shape, or form.  Therefore, the only way you could put those words in both of their mouths would be to assume a certain “false” belief; namely the one I suggested. 

Appropriation

 

“Existential anxiety is transformed to the extent that we are able to live in eternity in the midst of our transitory lives.”

Howard Clinebell. Basic Types of Pastoral Care and Counseling: Resources for the Ministry of Healing and Growth. (Nashville; Abigdon, 1984), pg. 109.

Habakkuk 2:4 – part 2

In part 1 of my observations of this passage in Habakkuk, I suggested that the common interpretation drawn from this text and the places where Paul quotes it does not bring to light what the passage is trying to communicate.  I mentioned how typical, protestant, evangelical explanations of this text have something to do with salvation, in that this passage in Habakkuk tells us “how” someone gets “saved.”  I highlighted how this passage in Habakkuk sets at odds an already righteous person – who lives by “their faith” – with the wicked person – who lives by “their net.”  As was stated previously as well, to inject the common interpretation into this passage would cause the passage to be redundant and not make any sense.  It could read, “The righteous person, who is saved by their faith, is saved by their faith.” 

The first place that we go wrong, if we interpret this passage in the typical fashion, is by erroneously pre-supposing that the verb “live”  [יִחְיֶה; yich'eyee] in this passage is referring to acquiring “salvation,” in the traditional understanding of how one initially comes to receive salvation.  To clarify, salvation from God is an act of the LORD’s grace through one’s faith/trust in him.  I am not arguing about the “means” to salvation.  What I am arguing for here is that this passage has more to do with the “means” to living the abundant life, which comes after the moment of salvation [John 10.10].  Hence, the person in this passage is already considered “righteous.”    

After someone puts their trust in the LORD and is deemed “righteous,” they will then continue living and only truly “live” by walking in [their] faith[fulness] to YHWH.  Paul says, “…for we walk by faith, not by sight” [2 Cor. 5:7].  In this context Paul is making known “the means” by which he is able to carry on and live – his faith.  He does not walk by his sight; for if he did, then he would not be able “to live” the kind of life that God called him [and us] to live. 

To make this more clear and practical for the believer, consider this example.

John is 25 and an unbeliever.  He is introduced to the Gospel of God and receives the Lord Jesus.  John is baptized shortly after that and begins attending a local church.  His life bears fruit and everyone who knew him can readily see a change in him.  No doubt, John is a Christian.  Despite all the positive, immediate changes that have occurred in John’s life there still remains remnants of the “old” John.  He still looses his temper at his wife every now and then, and some foul language slips out, too.  The temptation and habit of browsing porn on the internet did not go away.  John does not regularly feed himself God’s word, nor regularly spend time in prayer.  John finds himself spending time with his old buddies, doing the same old things.  Now, the minute John received Christ he was given two options on how to continue living – [1] according to the faith that he put in Jesus, [2] or the same way he had been living before.  If John would have let his faith dwindle by not cultivated it by doing the things necessary in order to mature in his faith, he would have not been “living” by his faith.  In other words, he would not have been experiencing the “abundant life” that Christ came to give.  If John were to continue to seek God passionately, conform his life to the instructions found in God’s word, and surround himself with fellow believers who keep him accountable and whom John can confess sin to, then he would be truly “living” by “his faith.”  John ["the righteous"] would then be experiencing the “abundant life” that one can have only by living according to their faithfulness to YHWH.  

This is the essence of the Gospel of Christ – it is the call to embrace the “life” that God intended for his creation, which was made available by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.  This “life” is what Jesus called “abundant”; this “life” can only be experienced by our “faith[fulness]” to our Creator. 

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. [Deuteronomy 30:19-20; italics mine]

For more on “righteousness” you might want to read this and this. 

Nothing New [under the sun]

The current political, economic, and religious context that the people of God [the church] abide amidst, especially in America, is nothing new.  Based on my observations, we [the church] are a spitting image of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the years that led up to their exile to Assyria. 

There are several parallels that could be mentioned, but here I will only comment on two. 

[1.] The foundational and most significant similarity, from which all other symptoms inevitably develop from, is the absence of deliberate contextual observance of God’s Torah [instructions].  When Jeroboam became king over the northern kingdom he immediately introduced and implemented religious practices that were contrary to what God had commanded his people.  Jeroboam erected false altars, he started new “holidays,” and even presented a revisionist history that began to move the people out of their YHWH-given heritage [cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33].  Every king that succeeded Jeroboam was considered evil, specifically because they did not depart from the “sin” that Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit [cf. 1 Kings 15:34; 16:26].  Moreover, 2 Kings 17 explicitly describes why God sent Israel into exile:

And this occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel, and in the customs that the kings of Israel had practiced…

and,

And Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin. The people of Israel walked in all the sins that Jeroboam did. They did not depart from them…

Consider then some practical developments of how the religious experience of the northern kingdom grew away from what God had intended for them as his chosen people.  To begin, one must understand why Jeroboam introduced the new religious practices. 

And Jeroboam said in his heart…If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the temple of the LORD at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah.  [1 Kings 12:25-17]

Clearly Jeroboam’s lust for power was a major factor.  In light of his fear mentioned above, he, as king, made things easier and more convenient for his people.  “Instead of traveling all the way to Jerusalem to worship,” he said, “you can just go down the street to Bethel, or even to Dan if you live up in the north” [1 Kings 12:28].  Not only was it the case that Israel’s leader led them astray, but Israel [both in Judah and in the northern kingdom] also lived with “pagan” neighbors, literally.  They did not wipe out all the Canaanites when they entered the land [cf. Josh. 23:13; Judges 2:3].  Therefore, there were leaders [kings, priests, prophets] who led Israel astray in order to keep power and there was also a “secular” world that influenced the Israelites.[1] 

These things [already] existed in the first generation that made up the northern kingdom.  Imagine now, based on the biblical account, what must have been the case roughly two hundred years after that.  Each generation got further and further away from where God wanted them to be.  Each generation grew up in an ever-changing-away-from-YHWH culture.  The important thing to note, that is especially relevant here, is that these generations had no idea of this occurrence and the significance of it.  Those who had gone before them I’m sure extended some good things found in Torah, and even some accurate depictions of YHWH.  Nonetheless, generally speaking, they were very distant from where they should have been and did not contemplate the kinds of implications that we can contemplate now in hindsight.  In fact, that is why God sent prophets to them.  “TURN BACK TO YHWH AND HIS TORAH!”   

So, the disregard of God’s torah and the added influence [and attraction] of secular ways, on top of an ignorance accumulated over decades left the northern kingdom looking very much like the “world.”  This was not God’s will for his people.

[2.] Because of the former, Israel [God's people] had failed to keep a “pure and undefiled religion” [James 1.27].  The wealthy lived in luxury while the poor kept getting poorer.  Righteousness and justice did not flow down like a river [Amos 5.24].  Their economy was weak because of greed.  They were at war with other nations, and even fought against their “brother” [Judah].  They each were looking out for themselves.  Their love had grown cold due to torahlessness [Matt. 24.12]. 

These similarities between the northern kingdom Israel and the current state of God’s people [the church] are striking.  At large, God’s torah has been disregarded for centuries among God’s people.  As a result, there have been countless un-righteous deeds done by the Church [both to unbelievers and believers], division continues to run rampant, a “prosperity gospel” is preached and believed, and a syncretism has developed causing significant conformity to “secular” ways that has diminished our distinctiveness.  Our love is growing cold.     

To acknowledge these things is not merely to conclude, “Wow, I’ve never thought about that.”  Nor is it enough to say, “Well, what should we do?”  We must address these questions and most importantly recognize and understand that these things are not coincidence.  This “story” was recorded for our purpose [1 Cor. 10:11].  Considering the implications of this prophetic reality and connection can only lead us one way; the same way the prophets called Israel to repent back to and follow.  

[1] By “secular” I mean a culture that doesn’t acknowledge YHWH as the one and only God.  During the time period of which this post describes Israel’s religion [the northern kingdom especially] had become very syncretistic, meaning they included Ba’al worship and Asherah worship [idolatry] with their “faith” in YHWH. 

בעל [Ba'al/lord = false god]

And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. They forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. [Judges 3.7; note the several other passages that say this same thing about Israel throughout the book of Judges.]

In light of this pattern Israel experienced during this time period and highlighting the fact that this sin Israel committed was directly against the first commandment of God which expressed complete loyalty to YHWH, Walter Brueggemann says this:

This religious enactment, however, is to be understood not simply as cultic deviation, because “Canaanite gods” most assuredly served to legitimate “Canaanite” socioeconomic practices that are characteristically antineighborly.  Thus the indictment undoubtedly refers to the entire social system in which life is organized, epitomized by the naming of the gods. [Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. pg. 126; emphasis mine]

I can’t speak for Brueggemann, but I would gather that we Believers today are experiencing something very close to this idea.  It is true that we can probably say that we don’t literally bow down to statues that resemble a god that is in fact not the One God, or that we do not hail Caesar and call him lord.  However, is it also true that the kind of life-style that these pervious types of false gods promote has not become us?  There are many Christians in our world who have no problem with abortion.  Sounds a bit like the ancient way of pagan worship of putting your child in the fire.  Consider the exorbitant amount of money that is spent on ‘things’ [most of which are really needed] during the holiday seasons.  Where does this idea come from?

If we survey our [and by "our" I mean Western Christianity] culture, our life-styles, and weigh the results up against what God has designed and ordained for his people and what the anti-God world [all false gods] has promoted, what does our life more fall in line with?