2024.06.09 | How to Avert a Leadership Crisis
“Averting a Leadership Crisis”
The Rev. Dr. Arlene K. Nehring, Senior Minister & Executive Director
Eden United Church of Christ, Hayward, California
Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
Sunday, June 9, 2024
1 Sam. 8:4-11, (12-15), 16-20, (11:14-15) | Español
The news out of New York City (10 days ago) was epic. Never in the history of the United States government has a former President been convicted of 34 felonies. In baseball speak, Donald Trump is batting 100%
Telenovela got nothing over on the Trump trials. And we’ve only just begun. According to an article in the May 31, 2024 issue of The Atlantic titled The Case Against Trump, Donald Trump is still facing an additional total of 59 felony charges in the State of Georgia and two other federal courts.
That’s impressive. In a bad way. Donald J. Trump has become the first President in the 246 year history of the United States to be convicted of even a single felony.
More troubling is the fact that (according to The Atlantic) despite all of these convictions and the likelihood that he will be convicted on most--if not all--of the others, the former President’s name will appear on every state ballot in the the land this fall.
Furthermore, according to a recent Tweet released by Congressman Swallwel’s office that same evening, these rulings are unlikely to be influential in how most voters will vote when they/we go to the polls this fall.
This situation begs the question: how is this possible in a moral nation?
How—with this much evidence of moral turpitude—can any US Presidential candidate's name go on any state ballot—with this many felony convictions?
It seems to me that 1) we have a lot of voters who don’t let the facts confuse us, 2) we are primarily an immoral nation, or 3) both.
If one or both are true--we have a lot of soul searching and confessing to do--and a deep need to get right with God and realign our values and voting with the vision of God, the guidance of the prophets, and the example and teachings of Christ.
II
Times are tough. We haven’t recognized earlier, we surely have a leadership crisis on our hands. But truth be told, as Queheleth espoused, “There is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Remember last Sunday’s scripture about the call of Samuel, “The word of God was rare in those days; visions were not widespread.” (I Sam. 3:1) Even Eli, the high priest, knew it. And it was painful for him. He had two sons—Hophni and Phinehas—and they were a trainwreck. He knew it. And he didn’t have anyone but himself to blame. That is, if parents are to blame (or esteemed) for who their children turn out to be.
Personally, I think who is responsible for who we turnout to be, and become is a mixed bag. But that’s another sermon, or a sidebar conversation. Come see me if you’d like to discuss that topic. For now, let’s just acknowledge that Eli took on a lot of the blame and shame for who his boys were turning out to be, so his eyes were opening to new possibilities. Not that it was all his decision. It wasn’t. But when God called the little guy who had just been dropped in his lap, and that little guy kept running to him for clarity in the discernment of his call, in the middle of the night, Eli finally realized that God was doing a new thing by calling a righteous prophet rather than the heir apparent in a patrilineal priestly chain of command.
III
Now back to today’s passage about Saul and David. Who were they? Who were Saul and David?
Saul was an 11th century BC king in Ancient Israel, and the first to rule over the United Kingdom. David was the third. Saul and David were revivals as you may have gathered from reading I Samuel 8.
You may recall that during the days of the Judges, the prophets called to lead Israel between their migration from Egypt to the land of Cana where they believed that God had intended for them to live. We might think of the Judges as “God’s political transition team,” sort of like the people who are appointed by outgoing and incoming Presidents to pass the “baton” between administrations in order to avoid mistakes that both leaders would regret.
According to the ancient biblical and monarchical historians, God was good with the transition team known as the Judges, and wasn’t interested in any form of leadership for Ancient Israel. But the people were a mess. They kept begging for a monarch. Can’t you just hear them?
“God, we want a monarch! All of the other nations have a monarch. We want a monarch. We want a King, and we want him right now!”
You parents and school teachers understand. Kids can really get on your nerves. You listen. You explain. You reason. They remain unreasonable. So either out of frustration or reverse logic, you do an about face on parent/pedagogical logic and you say, “OK, have it your way. I’ll give you a king. But be careful what you pray for. Kings might not be as great as what you think they are.”
Of course God was right and Israel was wrong. I and II Samuel (and I and II Kings) make it clear. Kings are only as good (or bad) as the people who wear the crown. Consider Saul and David. Saul was a great military general. He had the prowess and skill to circle the wagons, unify the nation, and ward off external threats—most especially the Philistines— but he was a moral mess. He didn’t say his prayers. He allowed sacrifices to foreign gods, and he was not contrite.
David, by contrast, is far from flawless. By modern Western standards, David was a womanizer and adulterer. He took Bathsheba into his boudoir and had his way with her. But that wasn’t a new thing to do. The histories of biblical and modern leaders are resplendent with histories of appointed and elected officials having extra-marital affairs, so David’s affair with Bathsheba wasn’t new or surprising.
What was novel about David’s affair was that he actually recognized and confessed the errors of his ways--both his infidelity with Bathsheba and his decision to send Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, into harm's way in a military battle.
IV
The options for what we might draw from this comparison between political structures in Ancient Israel and Modern Western republics, and the comparison between Saul and David are numerous. Today, because we are at a significant place and time in the history of Eden Church and perhaps covenantal styles of polity and their viability in the foreseeable future, I’m going to simply do two things:
Remind us that political structures are not in and of themselves inherently good or evil, right or wrong. People are.
A monarchy and a republic are only as good or evil, right or wrong as the people who wear the crown, or control the voting system and vote.
If we don’t like what we see in the headlines about our US President, the President of modern Israel, or the leader of Hamas, then we and our friends and allies have quite a bit of work ahead in the next few months to right the ship, and keep it right. If we don’t, we as a nation and a world get what we pray for—or what we were unwilling to work for—or both. The choice is ours. Pogo and the prophets were right. We have met the enemy (or the ally) as the case may be. Which one are we? Amen.