"Give It to' em" given June 10

It's hard to find a headline during this run up to the midterm elections. in which candidates, politicians, and special interest groups are not demanding "radical" change in the way things are done in America.

Things have got to change, they say--left and right both. What they don't agree upon is what needs change, how to change it, or even who should effect the change.

In the passage from 1 Samuel 8, we hear echoes of a similarly divisive political climate in ancient Israel. Things have got to change, the system is broken, we hear the people telling Samuel, their aging statesman. What's hard for us to imagine, though, living in a 21st century democracy, is the kind of change that elders of Israel were urging. "Give us a king to govern us!" they demand.

. Up until this point, the most significant transition between leaders in the biblical text occurs when Moses dies and Joshua, Moses's assistant, takes over.

After that, Scripture describes a fairly haphazard state of affairs in which charismatic leaders (Judges) rose up from time to time to lead groups of Israelites, generally into battle, culminating in last week's narrative of the calling of the boy Samuel as prophet and Judge of Israel. As the author of Judges records, "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes" (17:6). Tribalism? Libertarianism? Small gov'munt? Anarchy?

Monarchy was certainly not a new institution in the Ancient Near East. As these descendants from slavery under the hand of Pharoah, and their peoples' migration from Egypt. would have recalled In fact, of all the nations in their part of the world, Israel was perhaps the most unusual in not having instituted a monarchy.

But the monarchy—in the person of King Saul-- rose to power in a period characterized by unprecedented upheaval among Israel's neighbors. Throughout most of its recorded history, their little strip of territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea had been dominated by its larger, more powerful neighbors..Egypt to the south, Babylon and Assyria to the east, Syria to the north, and still farther north, the Hittites. During the reigns of Saul and David, however, most of these nations were distracted by their own internal issues. It's possible that this reprieve gave the tribes of Israel a unique opportunity-- not only to cast off foreign domination but to form a mini-empire of their own.

In addition to the opportunities created by this temporary power vacuum, ancient Israel was experiencing internal turmoil due to competing constituencies within the tribal society—not to mention their on-going conflict with the pagan Canaanites. Scripture hints at this possibility at the beginning of 1 Samuel 8 when it sets the scene by pointing out that Samuel had grown old and that he had appointed his sons as Judges, "yet his sons did not following in his ways, but turned aside for gain; they took bribes and perverted justice" we read in verses 1-3).

This same information is immediately repeated in verses 4-5, when these words are put in the mouths of the so-called elders of Israel who come to Samuel who rudely tell him, "You’re old... appoint for us a king to govern us, like other nations."

We don't exactly know why. For some of those complaining, a monarchy might have meant a more stable system of government that might allow for more equitable rule than seemed probable under the leadership of Samuel's wayward sons. Others of these so called “elders” might have represented an elite segment of society who imagined they would stand to benefit under a monarchy-- “the 1%” if you will. For them, having a king would create the possibility for significant personal gain, a society in which both power and resources were consolidated in the hands of a few.

The story doesn't provide any further clues as to who more precisely was interested in a king or even why, suggesting vagtuely that "the elders of the people of Israel" (8:4), "the people who were asking for a king" (8:10), "the people of Israel" (8:22), or simply "the people" (8:19, 21). In the church we refer to these anonymous gripers as “A lot of them’ or “the congregation” or just “people”, For the record, in 44 years of pastoral ministry, I’ve never identified “a lot of ‘em”. Have you?

The only stated rationale for such dramatic social/political change was that “they” wanted someone to govern them. They wanted to be like the other nations. And they wanted a king to go out before them to fight their battles.

It's quite possible that not everyone was on board with the idea of monarchy. This becomes apparent in the sharp contrast between the seemingly unified position of the people and both Samuel's and God's distinctly negative responses. Upon hearing the people's request, the text reports that "the thing displeased Samuel" and that "Samuel prayed to the Lord," presumably about his concerns.

God comforts Samuel, saying, in effect, 'Don't worry, this is not about you. Look what I've done for them in the past, and look how they've rejected me.' God continues speaking, "Now then, listen to their voice; only -- you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the way of the king..." (8:9). Samuel does--going on at great length, to explain that a king is not necessarily the solution to all their problems. In fact, a king is just the beginning of a completely new set of problems.

It's easy to side with Samuel and God in this passage, from the hindsight of history-- as well as from our vantage point in a democracy. But we may not be giving the people the credit they deserve. If part of the reason the Israelites want a king has to do with justice and good governance, then Samuel misses this altogether. In his response, he doesn't recognize their concern, neither defending his corrupt sons, nor explaining past injustices.

You almost get the feeling that thin-skinned Samuel is deflecting the legitimate concerns of the people by making it about him! Does he feel guilt about not being as attentive to these kinds of problems as he should have been? Or is he so wrapped up in the perceived slight that he ignores the people's legitimate complaints? Does he recall how he himself was chosen by God because of the corruption of the sons of Eli, his mentor and predecessor?

God's response seems a bit strange as well. Like Samuel, God seems at first to regard the request as a slight, yet then turns around and flatly tells Samuel to let them have a king if they want.. All the years of calling, forming, liberating, wandering, feeding, encouraging and giving to these ungrateful, whining and self-loathing people – done! It would appear that God is finished with the whole matter.

“Give 'em what they want” God sighs in weary resignation.

Does God authorize this change in order to punish the people? Or does God sees new potential, some fresh air, in a different form of governance? Maybe God is just as ready for a change as the people, but just wasn't willing to initiate it. Did God need a nudge? Is God giving up? Or subtly nudging Israel to moe on?

The largest part of the story is God’s warning to Israel through Samuel. Over eight times Samuel warns Israel what a king will do. the “He will take”. Hierarchies and systems will be put into place through which people will be bound as slaves to their king. No longer will there be freedom and no longer will they know peace. The kingdom which will be built will not be a reflection of God, but of humanity. And the sacrifices made will not be unto the Lord but unto self-preservation.

Here's the really hard question in the story—if not in light of the human condition. It’s one of the very hardest questions we face in believing. Knowing all this will happen, knowing our human frailties, knowing our need for things like national security or individual shelter from the storms of life, why doesn't God protect Israel from, itself?? And by the way, why doesn't God protect us? In this morning's reading. why does God give up on Israel so quickly?

In a broader sense, we can find ourselves today asking why didn’t God do something to prevent the Holocaust? Why doesn't God protect the people of Hawaii or Maryland today from natural disaster? Why doesn't God protect our country from political turmoil or gun violence, or the world from terror? Why doesn't God protect you and me from personal tragedy? As so many have asked over the centuries, in bewilderment--”How could a good God let such bad things happen?”

According to the Weather Service, hurricane season began this past week. And everybody’s (except FEMA apparently) afraid poor old Puerto Rico’ gonna get it in the neck again. There truly are natural disasters-- due to the unfinished, broken nature of the planet. But the fact is that many, many political and social bad things—not all, but many-- in this world happen as a result of the broken, unfinished nature of humanity. Sin, greed, and ignorance ruling instead of reason and faith. Like the people who wanted a king, somebody, literally ignores the warnings of God—or actually asks for it.

And God sighs and reluctantly agrees, “Give it to’em” And the rest of us find ourselves caught up as innocent bystanders in the backblast of that those somebody else’s sins.

This story is a great example of God’s double edged gift of freewill and the risky consequences that might result through offering such freedom. The risk is even more terrible when innocents suffer because of the sins of others. God told the tribes of Israel if you want to play in the sandbox of the world, go ahead, the problem is everyone else is going to want your toys. The result will be slavery. Why would anyone ever want to bow down (again) to slavery? Is God not good enough? Or, are God’s anointed not good enough?

God doesn’t stand in their way. God gives them what they want. God’s not giving up on them, rather just not robbing them of their freedom to make decisions. It's God’s double edged gift of free will. We have the ability to choose. Heaven or hell? We can choose what is life affirming and “Godly” and choose “heaven”, or we can choose what is life denying and destructive and choose “hell”. Here in 1 Samuel, Israel chose hell.

It's a law of life. Actions—choices, have natural consequences. The natural consequence for choosing a king, in whom all power would be stored, is that the king would use the power against the very people who empowered them. Sometimes you get a benevolent David- and sometimes you get a bipolar Saul or a corrupted Solomon.

Even when Scripture talks about God’s wrath, it is nothing more than the natural consequences of the actions of the people. God is simply stepping aside, choosing not to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

This risky gift of free will exemplifies God’s desire for authentic relationship and also highlights the great risk God is willing to take in order for freedom to exist. That risk is seen clearly in this story. Israel chooses slavery over freedom. It's the risk, the law of consequences.

God did not create humanity to be spiritual and ethical robots who would love and obey their Maker by their very natures . God created angels for that. No., as God freely chose to make us as we are, out of love-- we are free to risk—free to choose to love God—out of wisdom and faithfulness, or not-- out of human selfishness and ignorance.

But where's the justice in this story—in this two-sided gift? What about those innocent Hebrews who knew oppression and persecution for centuries as a direct result of the institution of the monarchy in Israel? What about those of us who know pain and loss and grief as a result of the sinful, ignorant, and downright evil choices of other people in our world today? Why would God give such a risky, dangerous gift as free-will in such a dangerous, risky ,broken world?

I recall once guest preaching on the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding at Cana. As we chatted after the service, a member of that congregation praised Jesus not only for making the wine, but for making it non-alcholic, because obviously Jesus would never give us anything that might harm us.

Sadly, I have to respectfully disagree. The Genesis account of creation makes it clear that all things come from God. Wine is a good gift from God. And God calls all that has been created “good”. Good—but not necessarily finished—not necessarily without risk. And when God banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden-- not necessarily easy—not necessarily finished. And as we ready in the story of Cain and Abel—not necessarily or whole— but broken. Not necessarily without risk, or pain or tears.

Why God, why? To grow us up. To transform humanity into a community—a family of socially and spiritually mature, responsible cooperating—collaborating with one another and their Maker in healing broken humanity. and for this broken planet as well.

“The whole of Creation is standing on tiptoe, to see the wondrous sight of the children of God coming into their own” wrote Paul in Romans 5.

Or as Jesus Himself put it in this morning’s Gospel

. “Those who obey God’s Will are my mother and sisters and brothers.”

But in the meantime, I still find myself asking where’s the recompense—where’s the justice for all the countless innocents who suffer? Honestly, I don’t have an easy or short answer. But I believe—I have to believe that some day, some how, on some unimaginable, indescribable, unknown somewhere there will be Divine Justice. In the meantime, you and I and all who have suffered without deserving it can only affirm with Job-- in the midst of ultimate, earthly loss and suffering “I know that my Redeemer lives—he must live—he has to live!”