Reign
2 Samuel 5:1-5, 9-10
Click here to view the full sermon video, titled "Reign"
The preeminent Reformed theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth,
is famously known to have advised those tasked with preaching
to do so with the Bible in one hand
and the newspaper in the other.
In other words,
the Word of God isn’t something to be sequestered
behind some spiritual firewall that keeps the world out,
but is a Word that speaks to us where we are,
when we are,
in the world that we live in;
a world of events
and news
and history.
One of the gifts of revisiting this cycle of stories about Israel as a rising kingdom
is the way we see the purposes of God playing out
in very real and often flawed human history.
The wall of separation between church and state
is often misunderstood to be a kind of segregation
in which religion should have nothing to do or say about civic life.
When in truth, it was meant to be a way of protecting religious diversity
by preventing the government from playing favorites.
We do not have an established religion in this country,
nor, according to the first amendment to the constitution,
does our government allow for such a thing.
I know I’ve said this before,
but we’re reading a series of stories
in which God is said to be playing a part in the succession of earthly kings. So, I think it bears repeating.
If anything, what’s starting to emerge from these stories
is that the people should have listened to the prophet’s admonition
when they asked for a king in the first place.
There is a tension between our own human aspirations
when it comes to power and leadership,
and the role God plays in shaping
how that power and leadership is exercised.
As will become clear over the next few Sundays,
even the best of humans fall victim
to the ways in which earthly power corrupts,
particularly if that power is unchecked.
As I like to point out to folk as I’m introducing them to Presbyterian polity-
that is, the form of government we use to guide our life as a congregation,
presbytery and denomination-
if the balance of power between Elders and Ministers
and the role of Session as a deliberative body
made up of those called by their community to discern God’s will,
if that sounds familiar,
if it sounds like the balance of powers in the constitution of this country,
that’s not an accident.
At the heart of our civil constitution is a theological principal,
that humans cannot be trusted with unchecked power.
At the heart of our civil constitution
is an implicit understanding of human Sin,
and the need for a structure in which all parties
can be held accountable in one way or another.
Perhaps you won’t be surprised then to learn
the critical role Presbyterians played
in the fight for American independence from the British crown
and the creation of the United States Constitution.
Presbyterians have long occupied the role of dissenters in the quest for religious liberty. Having spent the early part of his life in Scotland before assuming the crown,
England’s King James I witnessed firsthand
the promise and threat of the Scottish church through the phrase,
“no bishop, no king.”
Presbyterian forms of Christianity eschewed the hierarchy of bishops
in favor of a church ruled by the Word of God
as discerned by Elders and Ministers.
The Greek word presbuteros means elder.
What James recognized
was that if the church rejected the rule of bishops,
what was to prevent the people from likewise rejecting
their ruling classes and Monarchs.
Sure enough,
as those Scots Irish immigrants made their way to the American colonies,
they regularly clashed with the loyalist allegiance
of the Church of England and its bishops to the crown.
And as the colonies moved toward revolution,
that movement was often aided and stoked
by patriot ministers in their pulpits who,
with their scholarly dark Geneva robes,
were sometimes referred to as the “Black Regiment.”
While it’s often excluded from lessons on the American Revolution,
the fact is that the patterns of rebellion and loyalty in the colonies
were deeply informed by religious forces.
Britain certainly recognized this.
Ambrose Serle, secretary to British General Howe in New York City,
wrote to the British Secretary of State in 1776 telling him
that the American Revolution was ultimately a religious war.
In his letter he boldly asserted
that the revolution could not be sustained in America
if it were not for the Presbyterian ministers who bred it
and lamented the fact that almost every minister in America doubled as a politician. Historian Kevin Phillips has noted that,
“King George III and other highly placed Britons
called the colonists’ rebellion a ‘Presbyterian War.’”
Just because the church remains separate from the state
does not mean that people of faith have nothing of value
to say or add to the conversation about how we are governed.
But we steadfastly argue for the religious liberty of all faiths, and no faith in public life
because we are leery of whose faith is given preference
when the state gets involved.
Two recent cases in point.
You may have seen the headline out of Louisiana
that the state has passed into law a requirement
to post the Ten Commandments in every K-12 public school
and state-funded university classroom.
What’s unclear is which version of the ten commandments will be posted.
There are two that, while similar,
are not identical.
One appears in Exodus,
the other appears in Deuteronomy.
Then there is the matter of numbering.
Different traditions number them differently.
And finally, there is the issue of translation.
And since every translation of the bible is an act of interpretation,
whose translation/interpretation will be given the endorsement of the state?
Similar questions are raised by the mandate
from Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Education
that the bible be incorporated in the curriculum
of every public school in the state.
Whose bible?
Whose interpretation?
Which texts? It’s a big book.
The reign of God is not dependent
upon the reign or endorsement of the state.
In fact, in the hands of earthly powers,
the veneer of religiosity has often been used
to legitimize some of history’s worst horrors
like the Crusades,
the Inquisition,
Manifest Destiny,
African enslavement
and the German Reich’ so called “Final Solution”
to eliminate Europe’s Jewish population.
Just to name a few.
When our faith relies on the state for its validation,
we diminish our trust in God
because we’ve substituted it for our trust in earthly power.
Likewise, when the state relies on the symbols and rhetoric of faith for validation,
the church becomes a servant to a power other than God’s.
And as Jesus once observed, “no one can serve two masters.”
When Samuel anointed David as a boy at God’s command,
it was a sign of God’s favor,
that God was with this yet-to-be leader of God’s people.
When the people anointed David as King at Hebron,
it was in some ways the beginning of the end,
because while David may have been successful
in uniting all Israel and Judah,
he will ultimately fail in uniting his anointing by God
with his anointing by the people.
God will not abandon David,
but as we will see,
David will certainly abandon God
to satisfy his own ambition and appetites
in ways that only kings can.
That is the danger posed to the human heart by earthly power.
When we confuse the earthly accolades and endorsements
that lend us power over others
with some kind of divine mandate,
we never more at risk of losing sight of who we truly are
as God’s own people.
What if David is no more God’s favorite than anyone else?
What if what made David special was the understanding of someone
destined to be an afterthought in a family of seven older brothers
that his worth and value never was a function
of what those around him decided it was.
It’s the difference between trusting that God is with us
and believing that God is only with us,
to the exclusion of others.
That God has somehow singled us out as special,
or exceptional,
above everyone else.
Once we begin to believe that,
we depart from the One who so loves this whole world
and all that is in it.
Once we rely on someone,
or something other than God for our core identity,
we enslave ourselves to that which is not God
for blessings that may promise us power and prestige,
but which ultimately fall short of offering us either love or life.
For what does it profit anyone
to have, or become a king,
only to lose their lives,
their real, true and eternal life
that is found in God alone.
The preeminent Reformed theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth,
is famously known to have advised those tasked with preaching
to do so with the Bible in one hand
and the newspaper in the other.
In other words,
the Word of God isn’t something to be sequestered
behind some spiritual firewall that keeps the world out,
but is a Word that speaks to us where we are,
when we are,
in the world that we live in;
a world of events
and news
and history.
One of the gifts of revisiting this cycle of stories about Israel as a rising kingdom
is the way we see the purposes of God playing out
in very real and often flawed human history.
The wall of separation between church and state
is often misunderstood to be a kind of segregation
in which religion should have nothing to do or say about civic life.
When in truth, it was meant to be a way of protecting religious diversity
by preventing the government from playing favorites.
We do not have an established religion in this country,
nor, according to the first amendment to the constitution,
does our government allow for such a thing.
I know I’ve said this before,
but we’re reading a series of stories
in which God is said to be playing a part in the succession of earthly kings. So, I think it bears repeating.
If anything, what’s starting to emerge from these stories
is that the people should have listened to the prophet’s admonition
when they asked for a king in the first place.
There is a tension between our own human aspirations
when it comes to power and leadership,
and the role God plays in shaping
how that power and leadership is exercised.
As will become clear over the next few Sundays,
even the best of humans fall victim
to the ways in which earthly power corrupts,
particularly if that power is unchecked.
As I like to point out to folk as I’m introducing them to Presbyterian polity-
that is, the form of government we use to guide our life as a congregation,
presbytery and denomination-
if the balance of power between Elders and Ministers
and the role of Session as a deliberative body
made up of those called by their community to discern God’s will,
if that sounds familiar,
if it sounds like the balance of powers in the constitution of this country,
that’s not an accident.
At the heart of our civil constitution is a theological principal,
that humans cannot be trusted with unchecked power.
At the heart of our civil constitution
is an implicit understanding of human Sin,
and the need for a structure in which all parties
can be held accountable in one way or another.
Perhaps you won’t be surprised then to learn
the critical role Presbyterians played
in the fight for American independence from the British crown
and the creation of the United States Constitution.
Presbyterians have long occupied the role of dissenters in the quest for religious liberty. Having spent the early part of his life in Scotland before assuming the crown,
England’s King James I witnessed firsthand
the promise and threat of the Scottish church through the phrase,
“no bishop, no king.”
Presbyterian forms of Christianity eschewed the hierarchy of bishops
in favor of a church ruled by the Word of God
as discerned by Elders and Ministers.
The Greek word presbuteros means elder.
What James recognized
was that if the church rejected the rule of bishops,
what was to prevent the people from likewise rejecting
their ruling classes and Monarchs.
Sure enough,
as those Scots Irish immigrants made their way to the American colonies,
they regularly clashed with the loyalist allegiance
of the Church of England and its bishops to the crown.
And as the colonies moved toward revolution,
that movement was often aided and stoked
by patriot ministers in their pulpits who,
with their scholarly dark Geneva robes,
were sometimes referred to as the “Black Regiment.”
While it’s often excluded from lessons on the American Revolution,
the fact is that the patterns of rebellion and loyalty in the colonies
were deeply informed by religious forces.
Britain certainly recognized this.
Ambrose Serle, secretary to British General Howe in New York City,
wrote to the British Secretary of State in 1776 telling him
&nb