2 Samuel 1-5: God Does Not Appoint Leaders, Send Hurricanes, or Determine the Outcomes of Wars

Back in chapter 16 of the First Book of Samuel, the biblical narrative suggests that God chose David to be the next king of Israel.  He had chosen Saul before, but he wound up regretting that decision, so apparently he was hoping for better luck with David.  When one reads the first five chapters of the Second Book of Samuel, it's apparent that not everyone agreed with God's decision.  David and his supporters apparently had to fight for acknowledgement from the rest of the Israelite people, at least in the account in Samuel.  The book of Chronicles doesn't mention all of the infighting among the Israelites, since this would presumably be poor form.  After the fact, it's easy to read some kind of intelligent plan at work, but the truth of the matter is that it was the actions of people that determined leadership, just as it is today.

In this election season, as with some previous elections, certain Christian leaders are suggesting that the outcome of the presidential elections will reflect either God's blessing on America or God's judgment.  To listen to some people speak, it is as if the elections have nothing to do with voters or the electoral college and everything to do with divine intervention.  While there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong about seeking comfort from a belief in a divine plan, the ramifications of that belief are potentially dangerous, especially when people stop thinking for themselves and allow other extremist views to abuse their belief in divine providence for personal gain.

It's healthily optimistic to say that good can come from any circumstance, or that there is something to be learned from every situation.  This kind of thinking prompts people to take some measure of responsibility for outcomes in their lives, and it encourages awareness of opportunities rather than restrictions.  When this thinking shifts to some external entity, however, it becomes more dangerous.  It blurs the clear lines between the things over which people have authentic power in their lives and the things that are beyond their control.  On the one hand, if it becomes God's responsibility to work everything out for good, then personal power is minimized.  People develop a perception of themselves as weak and incapable.  On the other hand, if people believe that God is going to work things out for their benefit (often at a cost to someone else) this can lead to a sense of superiority that is unwarranted and harmful.

To address the first scenario, people are simply not weak and incapable.  There are systems in place in various parts of the world that are oppressive, and there are natural limits to what an individual can control. In terms of how one is going to live in the midst of one's circumstances, however, people have power over their own choices and decisions.  Even in America, where most twenty-first century citizens know nothing of real oppression, if circumstances don't line up to our desires, we cry out as though our value as human beings was at stake.  Some people believe that they are oppressed when someone merely voices an opinion different from theirs.  Of course, some of this is for show.  Melodramatic righteous indignation can be convincing.  People are not really so weak that another person's opinion can harm them.  And yet, we often play the victim rather than create the lives we truly want.

There are places in the world in which dictators and tyrants take action against defenseless innocent people.  Some people would suggest that the United States military takes action against defenseless innocent people.  This certainly reflects an authentic powerlessness to control the behavior of those who are willing to abuse their authority at the expense of others.  Our power as human beings does not extend to the actions of others, but everyone everywhere has the personal capability to manage their own thoughts and behaviors if they choose to do so.  Sometimes this is admittedly a challenge.

Belief that God is in full control of all the world's activities often gives people a skewed sense of reality, though.  If God exerts such active control that he chooses leaders, then God is also responsible for all of the tyrants and malevolent dictators in various parts of the world.  If God sends hurricanes to punish a group of people, he is also responsible for every natural disaster that has made life more challenging for deeply religious people.  He is responsible for every earthquake, tsunami, and mudslide that profoundly impacted the very impoverished people the Bible says are worthy of compassion.  If God chooses sides in war and justifies the military actions of believers, then he is accountable for all of the "collateral damage" in terms of innocent lives and economic and political turmoil that results from those military actions.  Is he also responsible for traffic collisions?  Plant explosions?  Gang violence?  The housing bubble?  Where does his control over people's actions stop and personal responsibility begin?  

The ancient Israelites looked at their history and saw successes and failures, heroes and tyrants, and they determined that their god was responsible for their circumstances.  Other peoples in the ancient world had similar perspectives.  Various Roman emperors, ruling a thousand years after David, even believed that declines in Roman culture could be remedied by returning to more fervent worship of the Roman gods.  Due to the tenacity of their beliefs, the Israelites would eventually claim that their god was responsible for placing foreign oppressors in power, for allowing the Israelites to be taken into exile, for orchestrating the outcomes of wars of all the nations around them.  It is a perspective that ignores the capability and responsibility of individuals and communities and places control squarely in the hands of an imaginary figure that cannot be controlled.

Except that God can be controlled, in the minds of the ancient Israelites and in the minds of twenty-first century Christians.  For the ancient Israelites, God was susceptible to their behavior.  If they were faithful to the requirements of their cultural religion, then God would show them favor.  If they misbehaved, then God would exercise judgment and wrath.  The actions of the people controlled the actions of God.  Today, some people believe that they can pray circumstances into being, that fervent prayer will convince God to sway the election in their favor, will help the poor and oppressed in other parts of the world, will change laws about abortion and marriage rights.  Prayer is thought to keep people safe on the roads, when actual skill and awareness as a driver probably has more of an impact in that arena.  In the minds of some people, if enough people pray with enough faith, no other action is required.  As if God will take care of the details and work everything out to benefit us, often  at the expense of the less faithful -- or at least at the expense of the people who do not agree with us.  The twisted ramifications of this kind of belief are staggering.

We are responsible for our lives and our actions.  As individuals, we are responsible for our personal choices and decision, and as a collective we are responsible for the outcomes of our collective decisions.  God did not put David on the throne of Israel; a bunch of people with swords and the will to use them put David on the throne.  God does not send hurricanes to punish sinners; hurricanes and other disasters are just a natural part of the world we inhabit.  God does not determine the outcomes of wars, and belief in God does not justify any measure of violence against other human beings.  Violence in the world is fully the responsibility of the people who carry out the violence, whether they be gang members or decorated soldiers.  God is not a valid scapegoat for human atrocities. 

And God is not responsible for elections.  Whoever wins or loses, God is not trying to send any sort of message of approval or disappointment.  Elections are determined by people.  Perhaps there are problems worth addressing in the system by which leaders are elected, but those problems are within the sole purview of human beings, not an external divine agent.  If we want our lives to be better, it is our responsibility to make them so.  If we want other people's lives to be better, then we must do more than toss pennies into a wishing well.  If something within us is calling us to take action to connect with other people, then we are responsible for taking that action.  If we want our country to be a better place, then it is up to us to connect with other people in this enormous community -- to connect with them and listen to them, without being so self-assured of our superiority that we will accept no view but our own.

God did not appoint David to leadership, and God is not pulling strings today.  But the divine nature within us is constantly at work, calling us to act in ways that are congruent with our deepest selves, seeking connection with other people, challenging us to set aside fear and take responsibility for our impact in the world, for our impact on other people.  When belief in God becomes an excuse for people to set aside personal responsibility, it is time to examine that belief very critically.  When belief in God becomes an excuse for feeling superior, it is time to examine oneself very critically.  When belief in God becomes an excuse for hatred and violence, it is time to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I stand for?" 

When Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God, he used one word to summarize that ideal: love.  The ancient Israelites didn't get it.  Their histories are full of the evidence that they floundered to make sense of their cultural religion.  Their beliefs led them in many directions as a result.  If our belief leads us in any other direction than love, then our belief serves neither us nor the world.  Whether you believe in God, in the divine within each person, or in something else entirely, the only valid application of that belief is ultimately love.  How is that love being expressed in your life and speech and actions today?

The Problem with Theocracy (and why a born again evangelical president is a scary

Amid my re-contextualization of the Bible, this seems like an appropriate time to address The Response (a prayer rally organized by Texas Governor Rick Perry), given its implications for religion and politics…

I don’t know Rick Perry’s heart.  My conclusions are therefore more about generalities than about anything specific regarding a single individual.  My take on things may be seen by some as cynical. I see some people’s take as naïve.  That’s fine.  We all have our opinions.  But some “believers” I’ve heard over the past couple of days are confused about why anyone would have a problem with a devoted Christian president.  They think that fear of authentic Christian leadership is totally irrational, and they may be right. There are a few issues worth keeping in mind, however.

First, I have a very difficult time believing that there is nothing political about a politician organizing a massive prayer meeting with people who are celebrities in the eyes of typical Christian Conservatives. Anything a politician does in public is political. If it isn’t, then we’re talking about a very uninformed or thoughtless politician. Anything and everything a politician does can make or break an entire political career, so everything a wise politician does has to be calculated. Timing the event one week before he officially announces his intention to run for president of the country suggests a very calculated political decision.

"But over the course of the seven-hour event, nothing was mentioned about anything political. It was just prayer and worship."  Someone doesn’t have to come out and say something political in order for their actions to be politically motivated.  In fact, not saying anything about national politics was a very smart political move that potentially won over the hearts and minds of thousands of Christian voters.  If it wasn’t intentional, then the man isn’t half as smart as I give him credit for being.

"But he prayed for President Obama and his family."  Again, doing so was very politically and strategically astute.  In a time when a large number of people are very frustrated by news about ineffectual partisan bickering in Washington, the only appropriate response by a presidential candidate is to illustrate how well he can get along with the other side.  He didn’t just make a campaign promise, he prayed for his potential opponent in front of tens of thousands of people.  I simply cannot believe that this was not a politically-motivated decision.

There is nothing wrong with a politician being political.  That’s what politicians are supposed to do.  Politicians are also supposed to be elected based on their ability to make appropriate decisions and lead effectively, not because of their fervent and passionate faith.  Preachers, on the other hand, are supposed to preach.  Christians look to pastors for faith matters, because the role of a religious leader is to guide people in matters of spirituality.  To elect a president based primarily on his statement of faith is tantamount to saying that our country’s problems can only be solved by God.  It’s like saying that we need a leader who will not rely on his own wisdom, but will be subservient to God’s will.  I understand that some people do indeed hold this belief, which is why I believe it’s important to point out a couple of problems.

Spokespeople for the Christian Right have claimed that secular thinkers are arrogant for believing that they know better than the word of God.  It’s true that some secular views differ from the views of some Christians, and they often differ from a Fundamental biblical perspective.  Christians don’t all agree on what God wants, though.  Some Christians think that homosexual couples should be allowed the freedom to marry, and some Christians are on record as believing that all homosexuals deserve to burn in hell.  Some Christians believe that God wants his people to be prosperous and some believe that the model of the early
church in the Bible demonstrates that socialism is the appropriate model for a godly society.  Christians interpret the words of the Bible with incredible variety and nuance, and no person can know with certainty that one interpretation is better than another, because God has never clarified it distinctly enough for all Christians to come to the same conclusion.  So, while secular thinkers may seem arrogant for coming up with an idea that isn’t overtly Christian, every Christian who boldly claims to know what God wants is being equally arrogant.

Trusting one’s own ability to draw a reasonable conclusion is a good thing.  It’s a trait that leaders need, even when they are willing to hear a multitude of different views on a subject.  Effective leaders make difficult decisions and take responsibility for what they decide.  This goes for leaders who embrace secular ideas as well as leaders who base their conclusions on spiritual conviction.  Secular leaders don’t have any real excuse when an idea doesn’t play out as planned.  They can blame their advisers, but ultimately a leader with integrity bears the responsibility for his decisions.  Few leaders have unrestrained ability to act on their ideas, so it’s often easy to spread the blame around.

People who base their decisions on spiritual conviction are not really all that different.  While some people may seem to be spiritually attuned and utterly convinced of the rightness (and righteousness) of certain ideas, their position is no less subjective than a secular view point.  Since all Christians do not agree on what God wants, every believer has an individual responsibility to determine what makes the most sense.  Certainly there are broad schools of thought, but the same is true of secular thinking.  The conviction that an idea is better because it is based on some scriptural passage is just as arrogant as any other conviction that an idea conceived by a human mind has merit.

Here’s the hitch: There is no way to debate Conservative Christian absolutism.  It doesn’t matter what the conclusion is -- if it originated from something in the Bible, it is unassailable.  Secular ideas can theoretically rise and fall based on their own merit.  If something doesn’t work, it can be dismissed in favor of a better alternative.  When an idea is thought to come from God, it cannot be legitimately questioned, it is "beyond human understanding", it is allowed to fly in the face of human wisdom, and to ignore or dismiss it is a rejection of the Almighty.  Secular leaders may be able to get away with blaming their advisors from time to time, but how does one respond when a spiritually-motivated leader “blames” God?

Sure, it creates the ultimate illusion of humility for a leader to claim, “I am not the important one here. I am but a vessel for the work of Almighty God.”  It also creates the ultimate deflection of responsibility.  Whatever happens is what God wanted to happen, and no one can truly measure a person’s obedience to God’s will without making assumptions about what God wants.  When anyone uses the argument that God spoke to them, the conversation is over.  There is no real way to refute an argument that needs no logical explanation and must be accepted on blind faith.

This is why theocracies are essentially no different from dictatorships.  An unscrupulous person can declare whatever he wants and frame it as a command from God.  People may think that they would be able to see through such chicanery, but some of those same people likely believe that there was absolutely nothing political about Governor Perry’s prayer meeting.  A smart person can easily take advantage of the absolute authority some Christians bestow upon a mouthpiece of God.  If a majority of voters decide to elect the person who seems to walk closest with their God, it is really no different than electing a high priest.

All of the usual checks and balances will still be in place, of course, and a leader with wild ideas is likely to meet opposition in Congress no matter where he claims the ideas came from.  And Governor Perry’s idea of what God wants may not be all that bad.  Maybe he knows that God wants us to stop killing people on foreign soil in the name of freedom.  Maybe he knows that God wants women to have the freedom to make up their own minds about whether they are willing to be good mothers.  Maybe he knows a truly Christian government would set an example of humble servanthood, would turn the other cheek, would pool everyone’s resources and ensure that no one went without.  Some Christians think those things.

I don’t know Rick Perry’s heart.  But along with at least 15% of the American population, I find it difficult to trust the intentions of a person who claims to take his marching orders from on high.  My sense is that anyone elected to the American presidency with the political support of the Christian Conservative bloc will mirror their values.  If they represent the majority view of the American public, then it’s understandable that someone who reflects their values would be placed in charge of the country.  If such a person is elected based on personal capability and strong leadership skills, every citizen can reasonably expect an appropriate measure of responsibility and accountability.  However, if a person is elected based on perceived godliness, it sets a dangerous precedent that could be easy to manipulate and difficult to challenge.