Saturday Night Theologian
10 June 2012

1 Samuel 8:4-11, (12-15), 16-20, (11:14-15)

Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." No government is perfect, so to some extent Reagan's words are generally applicable to governments worldwide. On the other hand, the fact that no society in history of any substantial size has functioned in the total absence of government suggests that Reagan's denial of the efficacy of government is both wrong and wrongheaded. For all his bluster against government, Reagan was not an advocate of anarchy, the logical opposite of government, for even he understood the absolute necessity of a functioning government. The period of the judges in ancient Israel was characterized by the lack of a centralized government. One of the redactors of the book of Judges points out that "there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Jdg 17:6; 21:25). For that redactor, the absence of a centralized government contributed to both the political and the moral problems of the people of Israel. In today's reading from 1 Samuel, the people ask for a king to lead them in battle (i.e., to solve their political problems), and Samuel responds by telling them of the dangers of a centralized government--taxes, conscripted labor, the military draft--yet the people persist in demanding a king. They point out that Samuel's sons, who filled leadership roles among the people, were corrupt, so the current system wasn't working. Their enemies the Philistines were encroaching upon their territory and were forcing some of them to pay tribute. They saw a king as the only solution to their problems, despite the dangers that Samuel pointed out. The Deuteronomistic History, which includes the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, is ambivalent about kingship in Israel. At times the institution is portrayed in a positive light, particularly when associated with kings like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah. At other times the history recounts tales of corrupt and abusive kings, like Ahab, Jeroboam II, and Manasseh. A closer reading of the text shows that even kings who are generally presented in a positive light, like Solomon, had policies that were burdens on the masses. So is government the solution or the problem? The answer is that it's not as simple as a cute phrase that fits on a bumper sticker or a billboard. People throughout history have chosen to have centralized governments because they are able to accomplish certain tasks more efficiently and effectively than loosely organized collections of people. Building cities and roads, raising an army or navy, regulating weights and measures used in trade--these are just a few of the tasks that centralized governments throughout history have undertaken with success. Today's arguments center around government control of the economy, monetary and fiscal policy, and regulations covering such matters as the environment, safety, and worker's rights. There is certainly room to debate what constitutes a fair tax rate for people in different income brackets, but if the biblical text is to provide any set of guidelines, the warnings of Samuel in today's reading should be heeded. Moral governments will have fair tax rates, not burdening the poor more than the rich. If they conscript their citizens to work or fight, they will do so in an equitable manner, not in a way that draws mostly from the ranks of those who lack social standing and can't buy their way out of service. Although no government is perfect, in a democracy built on a solid foundation of a commitment to human rights and equity, government, contra Reagan (pun intended), can be a solution to our problems.

Psalm 138 (first published 7 February 2010)

The nation got a little bit of good economic news this week: the unemployment rate for January dipped from 10% to 9.7%. However, the news is not as good as it sounds. The dip in unemployment is only the so-called U3 rate, which counts people who are actively looking for jobs. A different calculation, called the U6 rate, includes all the people looking for jobs, those who would like to work but have become discouraged from looking, and those who are working part-time but would like to work full-time. The U6 rate for January was 16.5%, a decrease from the previous month, but still a large number, and it doesn't include people who have taken jobs for which they're not really suited or are overqualified, just because they needed a job, any job. There are many discouraged people in our workforce today, even among those who are employed. What hope is there for those who have worked hard all their lives to achieve their dreams, yet find themselves on the outside looking in? Where is God in all this? Does my life really have any meaning? The psalmist provides us with an answer. "Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve me against the wrath of my enemies; you stretch out your hand, and your right hand delivers me. The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O LORD, endures forever." In tough times, it's easy to concentrate on the here and now, which is bad. When we take a longer look, things are generally much better. We remember other difficult times in our life, and we think of how God brought us through them. God's faithfulness in the past can give us courage to live in the present. But can we know for sure that everything will work out? Unfortunately, the answer is no. We can't know that life will go the way we want it to. However, as this psalm suggests, we can have confidence that God is faithful to us and is in control of the situation. Maybe our life won't turn out as we'd like it to, but it we don't lose heart, it can still turn out the way God wants it to in the mystery of God's wisdom. The psalm ends on a note of hope. "Do not forsake the work of your hands," the psalmist asks. When we find ourselves in tough situations, that's all we can ask of God. The good thing is, we can be confident that God will not forsake us. Just consider what God has done in the past, for us and for others.

1 Corinthians 4:13-5:1

"Why don't things ever seem to go right for me?" "It seems like no matter how hard I work, I just can't get anywhere." "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all!" These sentiments, and others like them, are common in the world today, especially in these times of continuing economic woes, both in the U.S. and abroad. In times like these, many people turn to religion for comfort. Is it legitimate to do so? Does religion have some of the answers to the problems we have? Karl Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, lulling the impoverished and struggling into a false complacency based on their expectations of reward in the afterlife, while the rich and powerful dance all the way to the grave. Marx's critique of religion is often fairly accurate, particularly when the faithful focus exclusively on the afterlife and ignore the problems and possibilities of the world we live in. Some might read Paul's statements in 2 Corinthians in this vein. "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," he says. The contrast between the transitory earthly tent of our physical bodies and the eternal edifices built by God call to mind the afterlife, and that is certainly a legitimate way to read this passage. However, the building from God, eternal in the heavens, may also be viewed as God's work on earth, which reflects heavenly realities (cf. the Lord's Prayer: "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"). The strongest buildings are built on solid foundations, but most foundations are hidden from sight. That means that the work we do for God's reign may go unnoticed for a time, or even for our entire lives, but it can still be vital to God's ongoing building projects. Even when our efforts seem to go unrecognized, the difference we make in the lives of children, coworkers, neighbors, or even strangers may be immeasurable. Contrary to the promises of financial wealth in this life that are sometimes made by (mostly rich) proponents of the false prosperity "gospel," God nowhere promises riches in this life. What God does promise is presence on our journeys, spiritual affirmation, and that faithful efforts on behalf of God and others will bear fruit, seen or unseen by us, in the present world.

Mark 3:20-35

As Mark tells the story, Jesus' family was concerned about him, because he was working so hard, and he was associating with all kinds of undesirables: the poor, the handicapped, the mentally ill. "He's lost his mind!" people said, so his family came to take him back home. Meanwhile, Jesus' detractors--members of the religious establishment--found it impossible to criticize his results, so they said that his strength came from demonic sources. This is the age-old "witchcraft accusation," a way of discrediting an individual by associating him with evil spirits and thus delegitimizing him the eyes of many. Jesus answered that his good works spoke for themselves, and he rejected the characterization of the source of his power as demonic. This story reminds me of the conflict going on today between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, on the one hand, and Dr. Margaret A. Farley, whose book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics the congregation condemned, on the other. In both cases the powerful, all-male representatives of the Roman Catholic Church's religious establishment are condemning the work of nuns whose lives are devoted to day to day ministry to those who suffer in various ways. The congregation uses the word "heresy," the modern-day equivalent of a witchcraft accusation in the context of Roman Catholic communal life, to discredit the work of these women. The problem is not that the men disagree with the women--disagreements can be healthy expressions of differences of opinion that can lead to fruitful dialog. On the contrary, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern descendant of the Inquisition, is attempting to take over and restructure the LCWR on the one hand and attempting to silence Sister Farley on the other. In regard to the latter efforts, their condemnation of the book has led to a boom in sales, as the book jumped to number 14 for awhile on Amazon's bestseller list (as I write this it's at number 41, having occupied a place in the top 100 for six days). Why do people and groups who represent the religious establishment take such drastic actions against those with whom they disagree? First it should be noted that they normally prefer to ignore those with different opinions, hoping that their "heresies" will fall by the wayside unnoticed by the masses. However, when a group of nuns like the LCWR starts to gain attention for the good works they're doing, at the same time advocating ideas that challenge the authority of the religious establishment (e.g., advocating the ordination of women or condemning the insufficient response to the clerical sexual abuse scandal), the establishment tends to strike out in a radical, forceful manner, because their authority and privileges are being challenged. Jesus refused to allow the religious establishment of his day put him in the box of demonic influence, just as the sisters of today are refusing to accept the heresy label. The work of the nuns, like the work Jesus did, speaks for itself, and their positive impact on the lives of others is a testimony to the ultimate origin of their ministries. Will they prevail against the tyranny of the religious authorities, or, like Jesus, will they suffer reprisals and persecution? Only time will tell.