Sorry, been extremely busy and traveling this past week. Many visits to my doctors and updates on starting my chemo and radiation tonight and tomorrow. Hoping for some extensions from benefits. The reason I am adding this was an hour with my Pastor. I'll write more about that meeting. However, we spoke about 1 Samuel 8, politics (and my specific reason for leaving masses due to political statements often misguided due to not speaking about 1 Samuel 8, and he admitted he was behind on it) and the fact I've written versions of this 3 times. Once in college for a class that earned me zero grades. Once in grad school which led to a shift in a former leftist set of professors who often misstated Biblical versions of political views. And the third was in 2011 here on Maggie's. Enjoy and feel free to comment. It will be my 5th writing (since I sent this and some updates) to all my friends recently).
The first political systems, from an institutional standpoint, were monarchies. Monarchs either considered themselves gods, chosen by 'the gods', or "Chosen by God". In almost every sense, the political system was tied somehow to the spiritual beliefs of the nation.
During a college course on Democracy, my professor spent the better part of an hour and a half discussing the implications of this concept. He pointed out that God Himself chose Israel's first king, and approved of their choosing a king. I immediately raised my hand and asked "But God didn't want Israel to have a king, did He? He considered Himself their king and allowed them to have Judges which acted as their spiritual and moral guides on earth."
The professor disagreed, saying God had set up the rules for the choosing of the Israelite king, thereby approving of the system and setting the standard for all kings that followed to be "Chosen by God". Again, I responded that God did this grudgingly, and only because of the obstinate nature of the Israelites. The professor, sensing I was unwilling to give this up, suggested I write a single page paper about the topic. It would have no bearing on my grade. But I felt it was worth the effort.
Twelve years of Catholic schooling meant I still had a Bible among the possessions I carried with me to college. Finding the passages in question was simple. I knew the Book of Samuel was the place to start looking, and sure enough it wasn't long before I found 1 Samuel 8:1-22. This described the worries faced by Israel as Samuel aged and his sons proved they were corrupt.
However, to fully understand the mindset of the Israelites, I had to read beyond the opening. Clearly, Israel was concerned about more than just an aging Samuel and his sons. What else was going on? It seems Israel faced many threats, too. Samuel was not just a wise judge. He was an active leader, as well. He was instrumental in battle, as well as in maintaining social order. He was communicating directly with God.
Losing Samuel didn't just mean a corrupt social contract, it meant potential devastation at the hands of enemies.
The Israelites worried they would lose everything and, being human, they made demands on God. They wanted a king, they wanted to be like other nations.
Samuel spoke with God. God opposed this, pointing out that by wanting a king, Israel was rejecting Him.
God did not stop there. God was very clear about exactly what having a king would mean. As much as it seemed a good idea to the people of Israel, God painted a picture that mirrors many common protests we hear today. The basic premise was this: A king will make his nation slaves to his will.
God went further and warned them when the day came that they realized the king had made them slaves, He would not hear their cries.
The people, fearing the internal problems they foresaw and the external threats they feared, did not care to listen. They wanted to be like other nations no matter what God said.
So God gave in, and let them have their king. And at this point it was assumed, by virtually every king which followed, that he was "Chosen by God".
One could say God supported anarchy, and I more or less made this final point, since the opening classes on Democracy considered alternative forms of political systems. Our opening classes required reading Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism. However, I was also clear to point out God was not fully sold on anarchy. After all, Samuel was a leader of sorts. God felt that having just mediators, rather than coercive ruling influences, could provide the support and management a nation needed.
It was the people themselves who couldn't see the wisdom of God's desires. Humans have always spent time trying to seek God's will in guiding our leaders. God was reluctant to allow a leader other than Himself, though. Our nature is to mix the flesh with the spiritual. God wished to avoid this in the management of society, recognizing the corrupt force of politics, and His stance played out even as Jesus made his way through Israel.
Today, Democracy may be the worst form of government except for all the others. But we seek to find some form of balance to avoid the pitfalls which God made clear would happen with an absolute ruler. We still have some of these problems, even with a 'good' system of governance. Which probably says more about God's wisdom than ours.
