The time when kings go out to battle: Lectionary reflections for Proper 12, Year B

This week’s readings.

A prompt from this week’s working preacher podcast has me thinking about II Samuel 11:1 “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle…” It was true for centuries, for millennia, that military campaigns were begun in the spring when the weather improved. A time when we think of new life, the earth’s bounty and beauty manifesting itself, the glory of God’s creation evident in colorful flowers and blossoming trees, when gardeners plant seeds in anticipation of a wonderful harvest, was also a time of destruction and death. It was the time when kings went out to battle.

But David did not go out to battle; he did not do what kings did. He stayed at home and sent his generals to wage war. And while they waged their war, he did something else kings and other powerful men often do, he committed an act of sexual violence on a woman. She was powerless and defenseless, a victim of a king’s power and his lust.

In an earlier piece, I pointed out the text’s ambivalence toward monarchy. There’s no ambivalence here. The story is told rather matter-of-factly. We see him arranging his rape of Bathsheba and attempting to arrange a cover-up by bringing Uriah back home to sleep with his wife. We also see David arranging Uriah’s battlefield death although we don’t see the death itself, nor the prophet Nathan’s condemnation of David’s actions (all that comes in next week’s reading).

In a way, the presence of this story reminds us again of David’s humanity and venality. In spite of being chosen by God, he was a deeply flawed man in an institution that was also deeply flawed.

In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle… One of the critiques of monarchy in the biblical tradition is its exploitation of the people and land that it rules. The land’s wealth was dedicated to the lavish lifestyle of the court. Its people were conscripted into the army or into the service of the crown.

We live in a very different world but some things remain remarkably consistent. The US spends an exorbitant amount on its military and a pittance on programs that alleviate poverty. All the talk about cutting government spending focuses on those tiny programs rather than on the defense budget. Wealth is amassed in the hands of a few. It’s said that a few members of the Walton family possess more wealth than 40% of the American populace combined. Justice is rarely meted out equally to rich and poor.

The prophetic word that came to David, the prophetic words spoken in later generations by Amos and Isaiah demanding monarchs and the aristocracy to heed the needs of the poor, the widow and orphan, still fall on deaf ears. The president doesn’t go out in the spring to fight battles (he wages electoral campaigns) but he does command drone attacks on populations thousands of miles away.

A defense of Enlightenment Religion–and a plea for its recovery in the present

The Enlightenment comes in for a good bit of criticism these days from religious circles, both left and right, from fundamentalists and postmodernists. Susan Nieman mounts a robust defense of Enlightenment religion:

The Enlightenment denied piety to make room for reverence. If piety is a matter of fear and trembling, reverence is a matter of awe and wonder. There is very little written on the concept of reverence, and no wonder: reverence itself is virtually ineffable. It’s what gives rise to the feeling expressed by Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Reverence is what you feel when you feel overpowered, struck dumb by the realization that some things are beyond human grasp. Why should human language be able to contain it?

And:

I’ve been arguing for a worldview in which reason and reverence are not at odds but in tandem. They work together like Kant’s moral law and starry heavens – in order to be decent, we must keep one eye on each. In order to be decent: not because religion is the foundation of morality, though it can be a way of expressing it, but because reverence involves gratitude for Creation and awareness of our dependence on it.

There are obvious reasons why we need reverence for Creation. One of the few hopeful things coming out of red state – that is, Republican-leaning – America is a movement of alliances between environmentalist groups and those Christian churches that regard human beings as nature’s stewards. I could list some other things that reverence would be good for, but the very making of such a list would be paradoxical and self-defeating. Reverence cannot be defended on instrumental grounds. Even though it’s good for us, that can’t be the reason to feel it.

It’s long, but deserves a careful read.