Category: Pondering Peace
Give Us a King
Our nation is currently in a state of chaos and change that appears to be moving it away from democracy toward a more authoritarian political system. Former ambassador and scholar Jeff Bleich has analyzed the current situation and shows how steps toward autocracy are being taken through the executive branch consolidating power, exercising “emergency” power, intimidating and suppressing the opposition, undermining the free press, and even forming a private militia through the use of presidential pardons.
Shelley Inglis lists other signs that indicate movement toward autocracy, such as capturing the support of the wealthy elite, appealing to nationalism amidst fears of immigrants, covertly manipulating elections through gerrymandering and changing election laws, and repressing dissent and citizen efforts to hold the government accountable. Realizing what is happening helps us see that the rapid and reckless firing of civil servants, installing loyalist leaders, and weakening of federal agencies is likely not really about increasing efficiency and finding fraud, but rather about extending executive power.
Reading each day’s news, my thoughts keep returning to the biblical story of when ancient Israel wanted a king, as found in 1 Samuel 8. After Moses had led the people out of Egypt and Joshua had brought them into a new land, ancient Israel was a loose federation of tribal groups, from which leadership arose from time to time to handle a crisis or the threat of an enemy. The prophet Samuel had emerged from the people in response to a call from God at a young age and had provided leadership for many years. He had helped the people to deal with enemy threats and administered justice with integrity.
But as the narrative of I Samuel 8 begins, Samuel was now getting old and his two sons had demonstrated untrustworthiness as judges, making profit for themselves, accepting bribes, and perverting justice. In light of uncertainty about the future and with an awareness of enemy threats, a group of elders of Israel approached Samuel saying, “Give us a king to govern us, like other nations” (v. 5-6).
Samuel was not pleased, but turned to God in prayer. The people of Israel were in a covenant relationship with God as their king, who raised up leaders from the people as needed and called. This request appeared to be a rejection of God, in favor of a human king. Samuel could look around at the other nations who had kings and see the abuses that went with granting so much power to one person. Despite the risks, Samuel experienced God telling him to listen to the people, but to warn them of the consequences. Human beings have the freedom to make their choices, even when it results in harm and suffering.
The book of Deuteronomy has a passage that anticipated when Israel might have a king and contains commands that provide limitations to royal authority. A king was not to acquire many horses for himself or silver and gold in great quantity for himself. He was to read this law frequently and fear the Lord, “neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment” (Deut. 17:20). But this was an ideal that Samuel had not observed in how kings ruled their subjects in the nations around them.
Samuel clearly warned the leaders that a king would use his power in a way that serves his own self-interests and those of his loyal supporters. He would conscript their sons and daughters into his service, take the best of their fields, orchards, and flocks, and require a tenth of what they earned for his courtiers. Commentator Bryce C. Birch writes, “Samuel’s speech portrays royal privilege as grasping and debilitating…What is the “justice” of a king? A king will take, take, take, take, take, take! Even more dramatically, Samuel describes the end result of this grasping: “you shall be his slaves” (17b). To serve a king is to return to bondage… For the security of a king, the people would surrender their freedom” (1029).*
That this warning had no impact on these elders has caused some commentators to suggest that those asking for a king were not a representative group from Israel, but rather the more influential and wealthy who would profit from this royal concentration of power. Eventually, the narrative tells us that Samuel complied with God’s affirmation that humans have the freedom of choice, and Saul was chosen and anointed king.
Americans have historically greatly valued their form of representative democracy, in which the three branches of government – executive, judicial, and legislative – provide checks and balances on each other. Its founders rejected rule by an autocratic king. Christians have viewed democracy as more compatible with their belief in the equal worth and equality of all persons, each being made in the image of God and precious in God’s sight. There may be an occasional beneficent monarchy. However, most autocratic regimes, in which power is primarily concentrated in the hands of one person, are far more likely to rule with blatant self-interest and disregard for the rights and needs of those ruled, especially those who oppose them, along with the poor and vulnerable.
It has therefore been confusing and disconcerting to see so many Christians supportive of what appears to be an increasingly autocratic presidency, one that is grasping power away from Congress and attempting to defy and diminish the Judiciary. Leading up to the election, political rhetoric created the specter of an ominous and dangerous national situation from which citizens needed saving. Promises of economic security and prosperity were given. This passage affirms that humans have the free will to make their choices, but also that they will be left with the consequences. Dr. Birch warns us, “Samuel’s catalog of oppressive royal practices ought to give us pause as citizens and people of faith. Like other nations before us, we may be too willing to sacrifice freedom and justice for the sake of security” (1031).*
Always in the Scriptures there is also hope. A theme running through this particular story, and throughout the biblical text, is that God is actively present in the midst of turbulent times. Even while tolerating our freely made choices that may be wrong and harmful, there remains the divine invitation to work in partnership with God toward something better.
There is also a challenge for faith leaders and people of faith. When ancient Israel establish a monarchy, the prophets continued to voice the covenant demands of God on the king and the people. They kept calling the king to accountability. And, as Samuel did with King Saul and Nathan did with King David, they confronted kings with violations of covenantal obedience and justice. This was a big risk, for the king had absolute power, but they spoke with the voice and authority of God.
It is difficult to speak out within a repressive authoritarian regime, where opposition is prosecuted or punished. It gets harder as the regime becomes more repressive. As Americans, many of us still have freedoms that we need to use to resist our country’s slide toward autocratic rule and to shore up the democracy that is so valuable in being able to live freely and serve God. While the pace of national events may feel overwhelming, there remains much we can do. Protect Democracy has many suggestions. We cannot simply acquiesce to what is happening. Instead we need to build supportive community, be strategic in our actions, hold on to our values of compassion, justice, love, and nonviolence, and work together for a better future with courage and hope.
Rev. Ruth Rosell, Ph.D.
Director of the Buttry Center for Peace and Nonviolence
Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology Emerita
Central Seminary, Overland Park, KS
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
*Bruce C. Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Vol. II, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash