Okay, so it's an election year in the United States. And yet again it's time to say something.
Michelle Obama has said quite a bit already, and I can't add anything more to her words.
But there's something that needs to be said around recent developments involving Donald Trump.
The word "flawed" has been bandied about this political season in the US, most notably as a few Christians of significant influence cobble together bizarre arguments for how Americans might in good moral conscience support Donald Trump. Most prominently, Jerry Falwell drew a comparison between Trump and Israel's King David, and more recently, radio host Sean Hannity added to that comparison. Their arguments suggest that both Trump and David are "flawed" leaders who either rule over, or might rule over, a great nation. King David was God's "flawed" man, and on analogy, Trump might be as well. While Trump is no saint, to expect a saint is unreasonable and even contrary to the pattern we see in Scripture.
The gains with a leader like Trump are inestimable, we're told. Though lacking a moral compass himself, he'll at least outsource morality to justices who will ensure that morality prevails. The fight isn't about who to elect. The fight is about ensuring the judiciary will be in the favor of those who want Trump to win, precisely because Trump promises to make the judiciary in their image. (He really won't -- we know that already -- but that's the rhetoric so many are buying.)
Let's set aside for a moment the obviously "stacked deck" nature of this appeal to David, as opposed to, say, King Manasseh, or King Ahab, Samson, Pharaoh, or King Herod (for my money, given Trump's history, it's really more accurate to compare him to Herod, but that's for another day). Let's assume for the sake of argument that Trump is a kind of David redivivus -- a man after God's own heart, flawed indeed, but chosen to lead the nation during a time of serious threats on the outside (Philistines/ISIL) and from within (disunity/moral chaos). And let's look, as Ben Carson recently encouraged us to do, at the "bigger picture".
First, there's the issue of David's sin and repentance.
Most appeals to David's "flawed" character have in mind his sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), where David saw her bathing from his rooftop and took her for himself. At this point David faced his first obstacle ... her husband Uriah the Hittite. That first "obstacle" to the object of David's longing was a foreigner, and an expendable one at that. To finalize the deal, he had Uriah murdered.
But let's not stop there. Let's concede something outrageous, that Trump's apology was sincere and heartfelt, analogous to David's repentance. Does the King David analogy then allow us to imagine the possibility of a brighter, greater, and more godly future? To answer this, we need to focus on the aftermath of David's sin and repentance, and not solely at the simple fact that God uses a flawed leader.
What was that aftermath?
Here I have just a few observations:
Here's the thing: Inadvertently, both Falwell and Hannity have done what good prophets do. They've made an accurate comparison, the likes of which have had thoroughly unanticipated results. Probably because they don't know the narratives of David that they've wanted to rip from their canonical contexts in order to accomplish something sentimentally "Christian" in the name of American politics.
Sorta like what Solomon did.
And, oh, by the way, the Davidic Kingdom crumbled on Solomon's watch. Split in two over things like taxes and violence and religion.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Michelle Obama has said quite a bit already, and I can't add anything more to her words.
But there's something that needs to be said around recent developments involving Donald Trump.
The word "flawed" has been bandied about this political season in the US, most notably as a few Christians of significant influence cobble together bizarre arguments for how Americans might in good moral conscience support Donald Trump. Most prominently, Jerry Falwell drew a comparison between Trump and Israel's King David, and more recently, radio host Sean Hannity added to that comparison. Their arguments suggest that both Trump and David are "flawed" leaders who either rule over, or might rule over, a great nation. King David was God's "flawed" man, and on analogy, Trump might be as well. While Trump is no saint, to expect a saint is unreasonable and even contrary to the pattern we see in Scripture.
The gains with a leader like Trump are inestimable, we're told. Though lacking a moral compass himself, he'll at least outsource morality to justices who will ensure that morality prevails. The fight isn't about who to elect. The fight is about ensuring the judiciary will be in the favor of those who want Trump to win, precisely because Trump promises to make the judiciary in their image. (He really won't -- we know that already -- but that's the rhetoric so many are buying.)
Let's set aside for a moment the obviously "stacked deck" nature of this appeal to David, as opposed to, say, King Manasseh, or King Ahab, Samson, Pharaoh, or King Herod (for my money, given Trump's history, it's really more accurate to compare him to Herod, but that's for another day). Let's assume for the sake of argument that Trump is a kind of David redivivus -- a man after God's own heart, flawed indeed, but chosen to lead the nation during a time of serious threats on the outside (Philistines/ISIL) and from within (disunity/moral chaos). And let's look, as Ben Carson recently encouraged us to do, at the "bigger picture".
First, there's the issue of David's sin and repentance.
Most appeals to David's "flawed" character have in mind his sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), where David saw her bathing from his rooftop and took her for himself. At this point David faced his first obstacle ... her husband Uriah the Hittite. That first "obstacle" to the object of David's longing was a foreigner, and an expendable one at that. To finalize the deal, he had Uriah murdered.
But let's not stop there. Let's concede something outrageous, that Trump's apology was sincere and heartfelt, analogous to David's repentance. Does the King David analogy then allow us to imagine the possibility of a brighter, greater, and more godly future? To answer this, we need to focus on the aftermath of David's sin and repentance, and not solely at the simple fact that God uses a flawed leader.
What was that aftermath?
Here I have just a few observations:
- Nathan the prophet tells David that because of what he does, "the sword will never depart from your house" (2 Samuel 12.10). The statement is not so much a punishment as a statement of fact. Violence -- whether by word or by hand -- breeds violence. Jesus knew it. So why would we expect any different?
- In particular, that violence takes the specific form of sexual violence against women, thus combining and amplifying the two "flaws" of David in one. The very next chapter of Samuel reports that David's son Ammon raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13), thereby consigning her to a life of ruin. In response, David was angry, but did nothing. It's clear that David's inaction stems from the knowledge of his own weakness and culpability, silencing him in the face of sexual violence against women. This proves to be a key turning point in the unraveling of his family and kingdom. You really ought not ever forget that David, though flawed, was guilty of lots of sins, not just sexual ones. And that those sins had consequences that reverberated like ripples across a pond.
- Out of anger for David's passivity, Absalom had Ammon killed to avenge his sister (2 Samuel 13). The story is told in a way that recalls the story of David having his men kill Uriah, showing the imprint of David's life in his son and would-be successor.
- The fallout continued. David refused to reconcile with his son after Absalom avenges Tamar. David grew ever inactive, to the point where Absalom lead a military revolt because David failed to enact justice.
- Ahithophel, Bathsheba's grandfather, aided Absalom in a revolt against David. Clearly, this is retaliation for what David did to Bathsheba and Uriah. And again, sexual violence played a prominent role. Ahithophel encouraged Absalom to rape all the king's concubines (2 Samuel 16.21-22) on the rooftop of David's palace, thereby 10-fold revenge. David later degraded and ruined the lives of these concubines since they were "spoiled". He had them "shut up until the day of their death, living as widows" (2 Samuel 20.3).
- David ended his life avenging the lives of those he promised not to kill (1 Kings 2). For instance, he says to Solomon:
Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei ... who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment ... I solemnly promised him by the LORD, "I will not strike you down with the sword". [wink, wink, but that doesn't mean you can't!] (1 Kings 2.8).David then uttered his very last words: "Bring down his grey head with blood to Sheol" (1 Kings 2.9).
- Is it any wonder that David's son Solomon acquired countless wives, eventually leading to the division of the kingdom? The elderly Solomon loved women, power, and money more than God, and because of the way he treated people (cf. 1 Kings 12.10), tore the nation apart.
Here's the thing: Inadvertently, both Falwell and Hannity have done what good prophets do. They've made an accurate comparison, the likes of which have had thoroughly unanticipated results. Probably because they don't know the narratives of David that they've wanted to rip from their canonical contexts in order to accomplish something sentimentally "Christian" in the name of American politics.
Sorta like what Solomon did.
And, oh, by the way, the Davidic Kingdom crumbled on Solomon's watch. Split in two over things like taxes and violence and religion.
Let that sink in for a minute.