“As he approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses became enraged and threw the tablets out of his hands, smashing them at the base of the mountain. He took the calf they had made, burned it up, and ground it to powder. He scattered the powder over the surface of the water and forced the Israelites to drink the water.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
What makes you angry? Are they mostly righteous things or selfish ones? We all have our list. The items on that list are the result of all kinds of different experiences. Ultimately, the things that make us angry say a lot about us. If we get angry about the wrong things, that’s a sign that we believe the wrong things. If we get angry about the right things, we are much more likely to be on the right track…even angry. When Moses discovered what the Israelites were doing, he got angry. Let’s talk about what happened here and what should make us angry.
When I was in seminary, we went with two other couples from our Sunday school class up to the mountains for a night away together. It was a ton of fun. None of us had any money, but one of them had access to a cabin for almost nothing. We combined our meager pot, bought some groceries, and enjoyed a night away from home. We played games and talked and laughed and built relationships that were only interrupted by everyone’s moving away after a few years.
For dinner that night, we brought a party size Stouffer’s lasagna because that was easy. I think the lasagna itself was our contribution, and so it fell to us to get it cooked. Everything was going beautifully until I tried to get it out of the oven when it was finished. I didn’t grab it right, and the next thing I knew, I had dumped the whole thing over in the oven. I was so angry that I threw the pot holder I was using across the room which immediately took a moment that could have been laughed off, and made it really uncomfortable for everyone. In truth, I was embarrassed more so than angry, but I threw the pot holder all the same.
Have you ever gotten angry enough to break something? Did you have the self-control not to do it? If you did, was it at least something replaceable?
When Moses came down the mountain and found the people had totally given themselves over to the worship of this calf idol in gross violation of the first two commands God had given them as a part of the covenant they had agreed to enter into with HIm, He was ferociously angry. He was passionate about following God and passionate about the people. The double passion violation proved to be an emotional overload and he started smashing things. Essentially, he hulked out on them.
He took the calf idol itself, melted it down and ground it into a powder. That would not have been a quick process. It would have taken a sufficiently long amount of time that it may not have happened immediately in that moment the way the text makes it sound. He would have had to melt the golden calf into really thin sheets, mix those sheets with another substance of some kind, let that dry, and then crumble the mixture into powder.
We’re not totally sure why he then made the people drink the powder. There’s a ritual described in Numbers that talks about how to determine if a woman who has been accused of infidelity is really guilty or not. It involves taking some dust from the floor of the tabernacle, mixing that with some holy water, and making her drink the concoction. It sounds incredibly bizarre to us, but it could be that Moses’ making the people drink a mixture of water and this gold dust was connected to the same kind of thinking that produced the jealousy ritual. Either way, that’s not the most shocking part of what happens here.
Moses came down the mountain with the two tablets on which were inscribed the words of the covenant. Remember those? They have been mentioned twice so far. Not only that, but their inscription and its origin has been mentioned both times with emphasis. These tablets were to be considered so sacred by the people that it was as if God Himself had carved the words into them with His own finger. These were perhaps the most holy and sacred artifacts in the world as far as Israel was concerned. And when Moses saw the people so thoroughly given over to sin, he took these two tablets and smashed them into pieces. It was a symbolic gesture of just how thoroughly the people had broken their covenant with the Lord.
In the moment the people probably didn’t even notice this. From the standpoint of our reading about what happened later, Moses goes out of His way to confess to smashing these tablets that whose holiness he had just emphasized so strongly to help us the readers understand just how angry he was, and just how awful what the people were doing was. To put it briefly: Moses was enraged, just like he wrote.
It was the sin of Israel, their enthusiastic violation of their covenant with God, that made Moses angry. What is it that makes you angry? Are you like I was on our mountain retreat with friends? Do you get angry about mostly selfish things like personal embarrassment? Is it inconvenience that sets you off? Dishonesty? Betrayal? Sin generally? If that last one, what about sin in particular makes you so angry? The consequences of it? The collateral impact it has on the people around you? The fact that it dishonors God and defames His character?
If your anger triggers are mostly selfish things, the reason for that is most likely that you are a selfish person. Or it could be that an issue of insecurity is what makes your temper flare. When something happens that threatens to reveal that you really aren’t as good as everybody thinks you are – or, to put that another way, that you really are as bad as you think you are – your anger becomes the last line of defense you use to keep people from getting a good look behind the curtain of your self doubt. Really, though, this is just another form of selfishness-driven anger.
Maybe your anger is caused by pain from your past. You were wounded by someone in your past. Grievously. And you haven’t really fully healed from that wound. Instead, it is more like a scab. When the right set of circumstances causes that scab to be pulled back a bit, the blood starts to flow again. All the emotions that had been held back by that poorly constructed dam coming rushing back out in a flood that feels very much like anger to the people around you. Except, it isn’t really anger. It’s hurt.
There are all kinds of things that make us angry. The list of things that actually should make us angry is smaller. As followers of Jesus, the things that should make us the most angry are the things that tended to make Him the most angry. We should be enraged at self-righteousness. When people think they can make themselves good enough for God and in their pursuit of making themselves better trample on the people around them, that should up our temperature. When sin has been unleashed in someone’s life because of the choices they have made or even because of the choices that someone else has made, our fury should rise to the surface. Religious hypocrisy should always fire us up. When the disadvantaged are taken advantage of by those with all the advantages, rage is an appropriate response. Injustice and unrighteousness should always serve to set us off.
To put a finer point on all of this, violations of God’s character should make us angry. Sin should make us angry. These should make us angry enough that we do something. They should drive us to acts of great righteousness and sacrifice for the sake of opposing injustice and unrighteousness. They should push us to acts of great compassion and mercy for those who are hurting and broken because of it. They should motivate us to radical love that pushes the people around us in the direction of Jesus and the righteousness of God.
Getting all bent out of shape for reasons that aren’t ultimately righteous not only reveals a root of unrighteousness in us, the things we do and say in those moments won’t honor God or encourage people in His direction at all. They’ll just be adding to the sinful noise of the world around us in ways that will do no one any good. When our anger is righteous just like the anger of our God, we’re far more likely to be on the right track.
Take some time today to reflect on what makes you angry and why. The effort may be really uncomfortable. It may reveal some things in you that you didn’t want to know. But it will help you see where your heart falls in line with the heart of your Savior…and where it doesn’t. When you know that, you can work with Him to reflect His character even more. Those efforts will always be worth your time.
The Nexus 
Left a comment for you on Playing Favorites about Worldviews.
Might be something to think about…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and I forgot to mention I watched the video you suggested.
Was there something particular you wanted un the form of a response?
My review is this
In a nutshell.
Indoctrinated as a child ( mother evangelical fundy), thought about being a pastor, studied, realized it was nonsense, then later all the tragedy:lost his wife, went back to the church, studied Kant and realized there was a god after all.
More or less covers it, I reckon?Twenty five minutes of my life I will never get back, but more reinforcement that it all boils down to indoctrination/culture and not evidence.
LikeLike
Well, I’m glad at least that you took the time. It is both comical and sad to me that you are so caught in the vice grip of your philosophical commitments (that I’m honestly not sure you fully understand or realize what they are) that literally the only explanation you have for why anyone would choose faith is a combination of indoctrination or trauma. The arrogance of insisting that you know better than the people telling the stories themselves is breathtaking and tragic. Oh well. You get credit for at least listening to him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I was waiting and waiting for some major revelation but it never arrived. His supposed deconversion/ reconversion is so clichéd to be almost laughable.
I am not arrogant in this regard but the trauma he experienced would be enough to drive most people to the brink.
The point is, he ran toward the only refuge he knew… his faith. And the Christian woman.
If he had truly embraced atheism he would have realized that Yahweh offers nothing other than a false sense of comfort.
If that is what helps, good for him, but don’t try to pass this drivel off as evidence that your god is real.
LikeLike
Your assessment here is about like my saying that someone who professed faith but left it behind to “truly embrace atheism” never really truly embraced Christianity to begin with. I don’t suppose you would accept that from me in terms of my assessment of them. Why should that be any different here?
I’m curious, though, what comfort could atheism have offered in his traumatic situation? Could it be that he realized that atheism didn’t have any good answers to the hard questions he was asking and so he returned to the worldview he knew did? And in the podcast quartet I listened it, he didn’t cite his personal experience as evidence. He was entirely more scientific and philosophically rigorous on that question.
LikeLike
Oh, I am sure he embraced Christianity. After all, he was indoctrinated and had designs on ministry.
But he did not fully embrace atheism otherwise he would not have gone back.
I’m fascinated. What hard questions do you consider your religion has answers for?
Also, how could he be scientific when there is no evidence of your god, Yahweh?
LikeLike
Well, that last statement is entirely dependent on your worldview commitment, so there’s really not an answer for it that is going to be acceptable to you.
You don’t appear to have understood what I meant. For you to argue that Dr. Wise never fully embraced atheism is the same thing – but from the opposite direction – as my arguing that someone like, say, Bart Ehrman never really fully embraced Christianity. Or you pick one of the many other bloggers or commentators you have cited to me who were once just like me in being so committed to their faith, but then came to see the light and embraced atheism. Would you accept from me the retort that they were never really believers in the first place? After all, my conclusion on the matter is a contradiction of their testimony. They say they were fully committed believers before, is it right or okay for me to insist otherwise for the sake of not making my own position look quite so bad? That’s exactly what you are doing here with Dr. Wise. He insists that he was a fully convinced atheist for many years. Yet you, with absolutely no evidence, counter-insist that he could not possibly have been a fully convinced atheist or else he wouldn’t have changed his position again later on. What’s the difference between what you are doing here and what I would argue with someone like Dr. Ehrman or one of your secular digital colleagues? Or, are you willing to accept that all the people who claimed to have been a Christian before becoming an unbeliever weren’t actually really believers as they insist?
As for the hard questions, how about how did all life on earth form and come to be like it is today? How did the universe come into existence in the first place? How can we find hope in this life? What is our purpose? Why do bad things happen? Where do I turn when my life is falling apart? Is the world ever going to be right again? Christianity can answer all of those and more. Atheism…may have some answers, but they aren’t as good or compelling.
LikeLike
Re: Wise.
I say he did not fully accept atheism simply because the moment the shit hit the fan he ran for his security blanket – Christianity. His indoctrination was enough that sadly he could not deal with reality without his former religious crutch.
Therefore his original motivation for supposedly leaving his faith behind has to be questioned.
Ehrman did embrace Christianity, as he was once indoctrinated as are you. However, once he began to properly study it he realized the evidence did not match the claims, and the more he tried to justify his faith he realised he was simply a hypocrite.
He recognized and accepted there was no evidence and walked away.
You really should listen to Dan Barjet’s deconversion testimony.
As for the Not-Really-Christian trope, this is funny as it is usually the charge levelled at them by you god-botherers! 😊
Re: Hard questions.
1. Evolution.Unless you are referring to the origin of life, then the answer is we don’t know.
2. Re:The universe. So far we have the poorly named Big Bang. Before that we have zilch. So again the current answer is: We don’t know.
3.Re:Hope. Hope for what exactly? Liverpool winning the Premier League this season?
4. Purpose. We make our own purpose.
5. Bad things? Dunno. Maybe your god Yahweh knows? Me, I think this is part of life. Some things you can sort out some things you can’t.
6. Life falling apart? Family, friends, your therapist?
7. Right again? When was it “right”? In fact when was it wrong?
Christianity is a bs answer that insists you were created sick and it is the cure and if you refuse to worship /believe a first century itinnerent Rabbi, called Jesus of Nazareth, crucified for sedition, is your ticket to eternal life in a place called heaven then you can jolly well spend eternity being tortured in hell.
Iesous H Chrestus your worldview is frakking nuts. No wonder you are such a miserable sod at times!
LikeLike
So, someone isn’t really an atheist if he turns back to theism, but was really a Christian if he becomes an atheist? Man, if you didn’t have double standards, would you have any at all? What you really seem to be saying is that you are so convinced your position is correct that you can’t imagine someone abandoning it for another. I understand. I feel the same way.
As for your answers to the hard questions…did you mean those to sound like a joke? Laughably weak answers like those from atheism to big and hard questions people ask about life is what keeps pushing people back in the direction of theism.
To your last barb, that’s an interesting one. At least in an American context, committedly religious people report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction with life than secular people do. It seems perhaps that “you” are the more miserable lot.
LikeLike
Correct. They have not fully embraced atheism even though they may claim they are. In fact he was quite strident to assure his host he most definitely was!
Indoctrination is the blind acceptance of a idea or ideology without seriously questioning it.
Apologetics were designed to allay certain fears ( more irony when one considers the basis of your religion is all about fear) and quell doubt.
Much like the way you currently are.
The ability to push through this usually results in deconstruction/ deconversion.
However, the trauma he experienced – rough marriage, wife getting dementia, dying etc etc.. demonstrated he had not fully crossed that particular line.
In fact, one of the comments on part 1 of the 2 part video hosted by Justin Brierely I watched said it most eloquently.
Met a woman, went back to the church then spent the rest of the video rationalizing his decision.
There was no joking I assure you, even if the replies were light hearted.
Then I suggest you reply to my answers point by point and show where Christianity DOES provide answers.
Now this will be VERY interesting..
And don’t hand wave it away either if you please…
The US has always been an outlier. I have pointed this out to you on several occasions.
Normal countries, for example, don’t make religion a serious part of their culture.
Not if the data about Western European countries is anything to go by.
LikeLike
Yeah, not a word of that takes away from the fact that you have an egregious double standard in place. That has all the markings of someone who is so indoctrinated into their position that they can’t see the bad arguments they are making because of it. Why, you’re really not so different at all from the particular type of Christian you so enjoy dogging on. Your devotion is just pointed in a different direction. Maybe that’s why that kind of a believer is so noxious to you. They force you to look into a kind of mirror and you don’t like what you see.
LikeLike
Not at all. He just never was able to fully jetison the yoke of indoctrination.
If he had truly accepted atheism then how could he possibly have gone back to a faith based worldview that has no evidence whatsoever to support its claims?
The trauma / reality was simply too much for him.
As the commenter wrote. Met a women Went back to the church and spent the rest of the video rationalizing it.
You do it All the time.
LikeLike
Your continuing to merely repeat your double standard here doesn’t make it any less of a double standard. It’s starting to look like your blind spot for atheism is a lot bigger than I thought it was.
LikeLike
Nope. Again, he may have claimed he was atheist and this I don’t doubt fir one second But he never fully rejected the bullshit of his Christian indoctrination, thus when he experienced the severe marital problems and struggled desperately to cope, there was his Christian friend who became his lover and eventually his wife.
It was easy to throw in thevtowel and run back to his security blanket.
LikeLike
And all those people who “deconverted” may have claimed to be Christians, but they never bought into for real. It just gave them a convenient excuse and a villain to blame when things in their lives didn’t go the way they wanted. No one ever really leaves the faith. They just don’t embrace for real in the beginning. See how it works? If one of these is true, so is the other. Otherwise, you have a double standard. Really, you sound like a religious fundamentalist in making your case here. You’re just a secular fundamentalist instead of a religious one. Better yet, you are a fundamentalist for your religion, your religion just happens to be secularism.
LikeLike
Indoctrination is often difficult to come to terms with.
You are a perfect example of the damage it does.
What you are failing to grasp here is the reason WHY you believe at all?
It most certainly is not evidence so what possible reason is there?
Indoctrination is the only likely alternative.
So we come to what Denett said.
I don’t know what stage you are at but your refusal to deal with evidence head on speaks volumes in itself.
LikeLike
Spoken like a committed fundamentalist for your cause.
LikeLike
Your emotional response is noted.
However, it doesn’t address the question in my comment.
Exactly why do you believe?
LikeLike
The Oxford dictionary definition of indoctrination is to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. If an atheist, then, teaches his children only atheism, no mention of any theology, isn’t that child also being indoctrinated? Or does Christianity have the ownership of that? Are you suggesting indoctrination is okay, as long as you agree with views of the indoctrinator? On the flip side, maybe you believe the best method is to not teach your children anything, let them rise or fall with their own methods of right or wrong. No indoctrination there I guess. Although I would hate to think of my child as trying to decipher right or wrong at the age of 16. Lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Thomas.
As atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods how does one teach lack of belief?
I am all for teaching comparative religion in schools.
I would also encourage children to read the accompanying texts relevent to the religions they learn about.
I presume whoever conducted the comparative religions class would also encourage students to do this.
I have heard it said from people such as Asimov and others the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.
Christianity is, first and foremost, based on faith, not evidence. In fact the Bible is simply geopolitical foundation myth and historical fiction.
Children raised in any particular religion are generally not mature enough to ask serious critical questions, and as a child of a YEC parent will accept that dinosaurs lived alongside humans there you have the perfect example of the effectiveness of religious indoctrination, and the damage it does to kids: effectively this is child abuse.
I was not raised Christian other than in the cultural sense and apart from the morality which evolution bestowed I learned, like most of us did, by example.
If your child is unable to decipher right from wrong at 16 I suggest you look at the example you may be setting.
LikeLike