Split of Israel and Judah

I’ve been reading about the split of Israel and Judah in 1 Kings 12 recently and it brought to mind some of the politics that’s gone on with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).

Having spent many years in the ICOC when Kip Mckean was at the helm I was left with the deep impression of what might be called ‘The Israel syndrome’ -which in my mind is kind of dangerous. In the heyday leaders often alluded to our ‘Kingdom of God’ -the ICOC congregations, as kind of the ‘modern day Israel’ -God’s exclusive people. And the danger of that of course is that it leads to ‘exclusive-ism’, elitism and arrogance -especially for leaders who might think they’re on a higher rung closer to God simpler because they’re a leader of a certain group of churches.

Looking at the split of Israel from Judah, I could allude to the ICOC breaking away from the Churches of Christ (and thus many ICOC preachers calling them the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ) as Israel breaking from Judah, or perhaps vice-versa. Then again I called make the same allusion to Kip Mckean’s ‘Souled Out’ movement and the ICOC cooperative.

My point is that I don’t think it’s wise to make direct allusions of one’s church franchise to the biblical accounts of Israel, but instead just learn the lessons and seek insights from the accounts.

The interesting thing about the split of Israel from Judah is there’s no obvious ‘good guy’ versus ‘bad guy’. Neither does one side have the exclusive support of God while the other is completely abandoned by God. Because of Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11:33) God gave 10 tribes of Israel to Jeroboam, one of Solomon’s officials. In verse 38 God promises Jeroboam to be with him if he is faithful to Him. Unfortunately, down the line Jeroboam gives in to fear, abandons the faith and sets up a phoney religion in the form of golden calves.

2 Chronicles11 fills in some gaps for Rehoboam, King of Judah, who seemed to provide the better alternative for those Israelites seeking the Lord, allowing them to come to Jerusalem to worship instead of getting involved in golden calf idols. However, by 2 Chronicles12 it was apparent that Judah had also been unfaithful to God and that God was about to abandon them to the Egyptian army. The king humbled up just in time so destruction was avoided and instead Judah became subject to Egypt.

It seems that both sides had their tumultuous relationship with God. The problem was never which ‘side’ one was on, but their direct loyalty and faithfulness to God.

Another interesting note is that trouble often happens when the kings get fortified and established: Jeroboam in 1Kings12:45 which leads to him setting up the golden calves to dissuade people going to Jerusalem, and Rehoboam in 2 Chronicles12:1as it sums it all up in one sentence:

After Rehoboam’s position as King was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel (a- That is, Judah) with him abandoned the law of the Lord. (NIV)

Perhaps for modern day churches the real tests and challenges come after they become established and strong.

Another little side-note: the scriptures include the role of advice in kings’ decisions, and it doesn’t always lead to good ones. Rehoboam chooses to listen to the young upstarts instead of the wise elders in dealing with the issue of the Israelites’ conscripted labour. (However, it seems this was part of God’s plan as in 1Kings12:15.) Also in 1Kings12:28 Jeroboam sought advice that led to him setting up the golden calves.

The issue of ‘advice’ has been touchy in the ICOC and there are some things to learn for us who may have been led to overly rely on advice. We still need to consider who we get advice from, we still need to do our own homework and seek God in the decision and understand that the responsibility for the decision rests on us, not the advisors.

Religious authority…

Religious authority is sometimes a tricky one… Some churces may claim to be the ‘right’ church, or imply their the ‘only’ church, and with that assume their authority is  basically the authority under the Word of God, and they’ll use scriptures to imply this authority. It’s up to us research the Word of God and decide how authority can be used, to what extent, and also be able to detect when it is being abused.

 

Provocations

Have you ever been in a relationship or social setting where someone seems to be out to provoke you? It can be old friends, family members, partners, acquaintances, church members and coworkers. Often it’s the older relationships that can be the most bitter, and there’s so much baggage.

 If you feel provoked by someone, manipulated or controlled, and feel that below superficial niceties they’re a very nasty person, ask yourself why they’re nasty. The biggest temptation is to be nasty back in kind. To play the same game. Perhaps it becomes intensely competitive with a ‘tit for tat’ kind of situation.

 If you think about it, someone who is provocative and nasty is bound to be a deeply unhappy person. Whether you know it or not, you’re a threat to them. It could be ‘impersonal’ in that you represent a threat because of your talents, knowledge, position or clout, or it could be personal -they don’t like your personality, something you’ve said etc…

 On the other hand, a self-assured person is content, so therefore, why be competitive? If you can be self-assured in yourself, you have no compulsion to be one-up on your fellow man. Someone who is content and self assured, no matter religion or philosophy, has no interest in dominating, controlling or exploiting their fellow man.

 The biggest challenge for us is how do we react to someone who provokes us? The natural reaction is to do the same back, but the problem with that is you’re stooping down to their level. You become like them, and are liable to get caught in a downward spiral of biting back… The bible warns congregations not to get caught up in this, because in the end you destroy each other (‘envying and devouring’ each other).

 But the alternative is much harder -to do nothing. And it’s a risk. By doing nothing, you may be successful in preventing a war, and things may settle down. On the other hand, the antagonist might be looking for a fight, in which case he or she will persist until they either get their desired affect or eventually give up.

 There are some things to keep in mind about provoking people (rather than use the term ‘being provocative’, which can be seen as a noble artistic endeavor). There are advantages for people who provoke: they can gain the ‘moral’ upper hand by silently provoking their target until the target finally lashes back in front of witnesses -typical classroom trick with students, the teacher always catches the one who is being provoked while the instigator feigns innocence.

 The other advantage in being the one who provokes is related -they have the advantage of planning ahead. They often have the element of surprise. Really clever provoking is when the instigator can provoke their target without their target realizing they’re deliberately being provoked at the time. The target is then prone to a knee-jerk reaction that can get him or her into trouble.

 This can be relevant between classmates, family members, church members, employees, politicians and governments. It can exist on several levels: emotional and psychological, in conversation, in the media and any communications, in financial and business warfare and in military (tit-for-tat between borders for example). It can be on a conscious level and even subconscious – people may provoke you though they’re not consciously aware of it, they just feel you’re a threat for some reason.

 As a Christian I feel answers to these dilemmas are not easy but wisdom can be found in the scriptures, through prayer and wise communication and negotiation. It also involves building up emotional self-control and checking one’s knee-jerk reactions, because when you lose it in anger that’s when you make mistakes and lose respect of those around you. Of course, we all have a limits and fall on many occasions, but we can learn from out mistakes.