It’s amazing which lessons we learn from our parents and which ones we don’t, isn’t it? Considering that I quit making my bed every day the minute I moved out, my mother would be amazed to realize how many lessons I do remember. One of my favorites is from a time when I think I was about 7 years old... My dad had finally gotten his doctorate and was an assistant professor at Harper College in Binghamton, NY, and my mother finally got the chance to be a stay-at-home Mom. She LOVED it. Anyway, she had decided to buy a new vacuum cleaner. She knew exactly what she wanted, an Electrolux, and so when the door-to-door salesman showed up she was already prepared to say yes. Mom let him go through his paces, though - never pass up a chance to let someone else clean your living room - and she listened carefully to his sales pitch, because you can always learn something. Mistaking her caution for resistance, the salesman started pushing just a little too hard. He had already found out where my Dad worked, and he told my mother that the wife of the college president and of several of the big-name professors had already bought one, and she surely would want one, too.
Well, my mother had him out of there so fast he probably left skid marks. And the next day she went down to the Electrolux offices and told them what had happened, and that she would NEVER, EVER, buy something because someone else had one. She went on to say that the only reason she was going ahead with her decision to buy the vacuum cleaner was because she would also NEVER, EVER NOT buy something because someone else had one. But she made them promise not to give the credit to their salesman.
Ever since then I’ve had my antennae up when the argument “everyone else is doing it” comes up... if everyone else is doing it, my first instinct is NOT to do it. I rarely read best-sellers except for Tom Clancy and I didn’t watch the last episode of Seinfeld. But some things that “everyone does” I do need to know about... It’s just as stupid to reject something because everyone else is doing it as it is to embrace it. So I’m forced to think for myself, which is not all that bad a habit to get into.
Have you ever noticed how often politicians start an argument in favor of some program or other by saying, “every other industrialized nation in the world has, or does ... ” whatever the pet project is? My hackles go up immediately. If that’s the best argument they can come up with, I’m not interested. And even if they’ve got other arguments that are better, I still resent being manipulated by an appeal to the herd instinct.
Maybe what I’ve got is BETTER.
Sometimes the green grass in the neighbor’s yard is Astroturf.
Look at the trouble that mentality got Israel into, back in Samuel’s time.
"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, 'You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.'" [1 Sam 8:1-5]
Why did they want a king in the first place? What did they think it would do for them? Well, the reason they come up with is that Samuel is getting old, and that his sons Joel and Abijah weren’t following in their father’s footsteps. They “took bribes and perverted justice.” And the only solution the elders of Israel could think of was to follow the lead of the people around them, the same people they had been fighting with for the last three or four hundred years.
Think of this as one of those puzzles in the Sunday papers: how many things can you find wrong with this picture?
First, the people of Israel had been ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to take their cues from the nations around them. “When the LORD your God has cut off before you the nations whom you are about to enter to dispossess them, when you have dispossessed them and live in their land, take care that you are not snared into imitating them...” [Dt 12:29-30] To follow after the other nations’ political practices was EXACTLY THE SAME as following after their gods; there was no separation of church and state.
Second, the judgeship that Samuel held wasn’t hereditary. The priesthood was, but judges weren’t. From the time of Moses, disputes were handled by the elders of the tribes. Remember when Moses’ father-in-law Jethro helped him set up the system because Moses was working himself to death?
"Moses’ father-in-law said to him, 'What you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out... For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me.... You should represent the people before God, and you should bring their cases before God; teach them the statutes and instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the things they are to do. You should also look for able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain; set such men over them as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you but decide every minor case themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you.'” [Ex 18:17-22]
Daily government was NEVER part of the hereditary office of the priesthood. Remember, Moses wasn’t a priest. The tribes were supposed to be mostly self-governing, and the elders asked God who the top leader was to be. “...After the death of Joshua... the children of Israel asked YHWH, saying, ‘Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?’ And YHWH said, 'Judah shall go up.'” [Jud 1:1-2]
The tribal elders had not been doing their job. Samuel should not have appointed his sons judges after him, and the elders should not have let him get away with it. They took followed the easy path rather than consult the true king.
The third thing wrong with this picture is that, once the Israelites had settled in Canaan, the only reason the tribes ever needed a central government - that is, a single leader whom all the tribes would follow - was when they were fighting against hostile takeovers from beyond their borders. And the Bible makes it very clear that they were only attacked when they stopped worshiping YHWH. Over and over again during the book of Judges we see the same thing happening.
"Then the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of YHWH and worshiped the Baals... So the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers who plundered them, and he sold them into the power of their enemies all around... Then YHWH raised up judges, who delivered them out of the power of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen even to their judges; for... whenever the judge died, they would relapse and behave worse than their ancestors, following other gods, worshiping them and bowing down to them. They would not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways." [Jud 2:11-19]
By the time Samuel came along, the Israelites were so corrupt in their worship that they took the ark of the covenant - with the permission of the local priests - out into battle as a sort of good-luck charm. They hadn’t obeyed the word of the covenant which the chest contained, but they thought they could use it to guarantee victory. God was not pleased; the ark was captured, and the priests responsible for the sacrilege died.
And the fourth thing wrong with the picture is that the very reason the elders gave for wanting a king - that Samuel’s sons were not living up to their father’s example - would become an even bigger problem with a hereditary monarchy. At least with the judgeship the elders still had the legal right, if not the intestinal fortitude, to take the power back from the corrupt judges. But with a king there would be no way out.
But, of course, by the time the elders asked Samuel to give them a king, they had already been disobeying God for so long that they were no longer capable of self-government, even if they had had any idea that that was what they were supposed to be doing. They had no idea that their strength was in their special relationship with God; what they wanted was VISIBLE power, like their neighbors.
The Philistines were probably the “other nations” in the back of the elders’ minds. They lived on the Mediterranean coast to the West and were Israel's biggest enemy at the time, and THEY had a King. The Philistines were urban, rich, sophisticated: successful traders who controlled the highway between Egypt and Damascus; they had access to the sea and a highly organized standing army with iron weapons and chariots. In contrast, Israel was poor and politically pretty disorganized. They were a loose confederation of tribes still stuck in the Bronze Age. They had a few iron agricultural tools, but no iron weapons. That’s because they got their tools from the Philistines, and no Philistine blacksmith was going to sell an iron sword to an Israelite! So, there is Israel, poor, rural, and technologically weak, and looking for a quick way up the ladder to success. What better way to stop getting kicked around by the local bully than to imitate him? “Appoint for us...a king to govern us, like other nations.”
Samuel was NOT pleased. You might expect that he would be personally insulted, because after all it wasn’t only his leadership that was being called into question, but his sons’ fitness for the office. But his credit, Samuel’s first response isn’t to lash out. Instead, he turns to God.
YHWH’s response is amazingly low-key. “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you.” And of course God had already foreseen this day, back in Deuteronomy 17. But then God says something surprising: “listen to their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”[1 Sam 8:7-8]
Isn’t that interesting? YHWH is going to give the people what they ask for - but he makes sure that they can’t say later that he never told them what it would be like.
Warning the people is one of the prophet’s main jobs. One writer says that prophets are like coal miners’ canaries. Do you know what those are? One of the reasons coal mining is so dangerous is that poisonous gases form underground that can kill before you have any idea there is a problem. Even today, in Russia and the Ukraine, coal miners are dying at some of the worst rates in history because of the lack of even the most rudimentary safety equipment. Anyway, miners in Britain and America used take a canary down with them, because canaries are much more sensitive to air quality than humans are... If it dropped dead, the miners knew that they had to get to the FAST. Prophets are like canaries in that they have a heightened sensitivity to our moral atmosphere, as well as an ear open to God. If there is poison in the air, the prophet knows it. No one else may have seen anything wrong, but the prophet can, so he or she has a duty to sound the warning.
So Samuel does. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR - YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT! “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you.” You want a warrior king, one to lead you in battle? OK. Guess who will be driving the king’s chariots and riding the king’s horses into the fray. YOUR SONS! Guess who gets to be the king’s infantry. That's right, YOUR SONS again. And, of course, the king will need some subordinates generals, colonels, captains, lieutenants. Who are they? That’s right, YOUR SONS.
That is not all, of course. The king doesn’t dirty his hands. He’ll need tenant farmers to plow his fields and reap his harvest. He’ll need workers to manufacture his weapons and rolling stock. He’ll need laborers to repair the roads. Who will they be? Who do you think?
Oh, and don't forget, a king lives like...well, a KING! How does he manage? “He will take your daughters to be perfumers” - incidentally, perfumers may be a euphemism for concubines - “and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.” [1 Sam 8:13-17] Still want a king?
We know what the people answered. “We are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations...” [1 Sam 8:19-20] Too bad.
That was Israel's big mistake: “...so that we also may be like other nations...” To this point, Israel had been special, unique. And this had been God's intention. Israel was NOT to be like the rest of the nations; they were to be a light to them, an example for them. Israel’s security did not reside in political stratagem or military might, but in YHWH God, who embarrassed the powerful Egyptians at the Red Sea, who provided and guided in the wilderness, who brought them victorious into the Promised Land. They and they alone could have shown the nations of the world that power comes from God and God alone. But no. “Appoint for us a king.” God’s way was too hard for them; they wanted a sure thing, a short cut... a different sort of power. They wanted security so badly they didn’t care what it cost.
Do you know, there are two kinds of security. One kind you can buy. That’s the kind that comes with gated communities, with guards and alarms and security systems. You’re safe, but you can’t get out. You’re a prisoner, a slave to your security system. The other kind you build. It’s a lot harder to come by, it takes work and commitment to build a community of shalom, filled with peace and justice. But that’s the only kind of security that brings freedom.
Well, what’s the lesson for us?
We’re right in the middle of a political season that promises to be exceptionally contentious, and there are four important principles in this passage on how we as Christians are to relate to the state.
They’re the flip side of the four mistakes the Israelites made some 3000 years ago. Surprise...
The first principle is, just because you’ve identified a problem doesn’t mean you know what the solution is. The quick fix is usually wrong. Will what you’re suggesting actually solve the problem? Why do you think so?
The second one to remember - related to the first - is that once you give away a job or a role or a function or a duty, it’s very hard indeed to get it back again. The law of unintended consequences has a very long arm. When you get rid of a responsibility, you also lose a right.
The third thing is, NEVER to take our cues from what other countries do. It may well be that other countries have universal health coverage or no death penalty or mandatory paternity leave, and it may well be that those are good things. But the fact that other countries do it IS NO REASON FOR US TO IMITATE THEM. In our own history and principles lie the course we should take. Don’t copy from your neighbor’s test paper; they might be wrong. Astroturf may look good, but nothing grows there.
And fourth and last: no government can make up for the people’s failure to obey and honor God.
