|
|
|
|
July 17, 2000
2 Samuel 6:l-23 Modern Protestant Christianity is that many Protestant preachers and their congregations ignore the Old Testament. My guess is that this Sunday as most the evangelical and independent congregations of Hong Kong will have read only one scripture, and that from the New Testament. The liturgical churches like the Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans use a leccionary which provides four lessons per Sunday, one from the Psalms and another from the Old Testament along with an epistle and a Gospel text. Though we are not a liturgical church we follow that model. The tendency to avoid the Old Testament is understandable in that evangelical Christianity aims to convert folks to Christ and the fullest revelation about the Christ is in the New Testament. But this overlooking the Old Testament doesn't make sense. The only holy scriptures which Jesus knew and ever quoted are from the Old Testament. He began his ministry quoting from a prophet, Isaiah, and ended his work on earth with quotes from the Psalms. It's a strange notion that we can understand who is Jesus when we ignore the very scriptures which formed his spiritual sensibilities. And certainly our theology as Christians is shortchanged if we overlook not only the prophetic literature and the Psalms but the historical documents like our reading from Second Samuel of today, the wisdom literature, and the pre-historic mythic theology and moral codes of the Pentateuch. So this morning I'll make modest personal amends by focusing on the Old Testament reading from Second Samuel. This narrative explains how the ark of God got moved all over Israel to arrive finally at the temple in Jerusalem. Underlying its interesting historical details, is a profound theological insight about the necessity and the dangers of change. What was the Ark of Israel? It is described in Exodus 25:l0-22 and 37:l-9 as being a four-feet-long, two-and-a-half-feet-high, and two-and-half-feet wide box, made of acacia wood. There is a n Numbers l0:35-36 which provides a glimpse into the earliest function of the Ark; it was a cult object used out in the wilderness, long before the founding of Jerusalem, in executing a holy war. The Ark was carried before the Hebrew soldiers as a visual reminder that Yahweh was with them in the battle. "Arise, O lord, let your enemies be scattered, And your foes flee before you. Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of Israel." The Ark is again used in holy war against the Philistines in I Samuel 4:lb-7-l but there the Israelites lose the battle and lose the ark to their enemy. In primitive Judaism the ark was the main symbol of the authority of the divine God over Israel. Part of the historical importance of these chapters from Second Samuel is that they explain how the early symbol of the Ark comes to be wedded to a later symbol of God's status as the defender of Israel in the newly built temple. The entire book of Samuel has been moving Hebrew history into the era of the monarchs, first in Saul, and now David, as David as the moral king is assuming some of God's protective function over the Israelites. The story of David bringing the ark to finally rest in Jerusalem, which will become David's royal city, is filled with tension because it explores the surprising transformations and the accompanying dangers to the community of faith when a tradition moves through time and thus changes. The bringing together of the Ark and Temple through David is no casual story. It reveals the will and ways of God. The reading is loosely organized around the geographic movements of the Ark (and, as an aside, Sue, I admire your courage in undertaking the pronunciation of these difficult Israelite place names): it first rests in the house of Abinadad in Baalejudah; then is moved to the threshing floor of Nacom, now named Peruzzuzzh because of the David's response to the events that take place there; then to the house of Obededom the Gittite in Jerusalem; and finally to Jerusalem. The opening and closing sections emphasize joy and exultation and the positive dimension of change; the middle sections emphasize the dangers of change. The writer of the two books of Samuel has been preparing the Jewish hearers for drastic social and religious change since I Samuel 8 when Israel requested a king. The rise and fall of Saul and subsequent rise of David have moved the story along to the point where Israel is no longer the loose tribal confederacy that was soundly defeated twice by the Philistines, culminating in the loss of the Ark (I Samuel 4:2-7:l). Instead they are now becoming an organized nation who now through David's leadership go out to recover the ark from its temporary storage and bring it to Jerusalem. This is a profound new beginning; of course there will be dancing. But there will also be difficulty as with any major change. Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:l-5: David gain fathred all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. David and all the people with him set out and went from Ba'ale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who is enthroned on the cherumbim. They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahi-o, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart with the ark of God; and Ahi-o went in front of the ark. David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the Lord with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. After this happy beginning, and change often starts on a positive note though not always, the story changes abruptly. When the ark reaches the threshing floor at Nacun a perfectly well motivated Israelite, Uzzah, who has been carrying the object, reaches out to steady the ark because it looks like it's about to tip over. For his trouble God strikes Uzzah dead. This dire development, which a naturalist could attribute to a sudden heart attack brought on by too much exertion in the summer's heat, is attributed by David, and the writer of 2 Samuel, to God. And David is angry with God; and then he is afraid of God. David no longer wants the responsibility of ark carrier and dumps it at the house of Obededom, a Gittite. Sue reads 2w Samuel 6:7-11: When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. David was angry because the Lord had burst forth with an outburst upon Uzzah, so that the place is called Pe rez-uzah, to this day. David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, "how can the ark of the Lord come into my care?" So David was unwilling to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David; instead David took it to the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite. The ark of the Lord remained in the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed O'bed-e'dom and all his household. Why did God strike Uzzah dead. This is difficult for our theology. Was his attempt to help steady the Ark viewed by God as too casual a response to the divine mission? Does this tragedy cloak some ambiguity about who God wanted to be in charge of the ark, and the temple, and the kingdom? We know it was to be David, but David seems not to be confident about his role, and maybe others witnessing this change were of mixed minds and loyalties. It's been said there are three kinds of persons who deal with the process of change: those who make things happen; those who watch things happen and those who say "What happened?" Up to this point David has represented the first kind of agent for change: he has made things happen. But now David becomes that third kind of person who steps back and reflects upon "What happened!" Perhaps this is wisdom on his part because up to this point David has been the wholly victorious warrior for Israel and Yahweh. Perhaps his motives in moving the ark have become diluted by his personal ambition. Now he begins to develop a more proper fear of the Lord. After three months, when it's evident that far from being struck dead, O'bed-edom has been blessed, David is encouraged to return and claim the ark and continue to be that kind of person who makes things happen. But David's confidence is not at full zenith because after reclaiming the ark he doesn't go more than six paces before he offers sacrifice to God. Again in Jerusalem sacrifice is offered. There is joyful dancing but it is far more focused and in the context of total reverence for the Ark as the icon of the divine than at the initial rejoicing around the ark. Sue reads: 2 Samuel 6:l2-l5: It was told King David, "The Lord has blessed the household of O'bed-e'dom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of O'bed-e'dom to the city of David with rejoicing, and when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. The leccionary usually drops the next verse because it introduces the awkward person of Michal, the daughter of the dead Saul and David's wife, and a complaining, unhappy wife she is: Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:16: As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal, the daughter of Saul, looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, and she despised him in her heart. We shall return to unhappy Michal in a moment. Now the ark arrives at the city, rests a while at David's tent where he again sacrifices, and then is brought to the temple where David, finally assuming the mantle of total leadership, distributes thanksgiving food to the people. Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:l7-19: They brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord. When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts, and distributed food among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their homes. David returns to his house and is confronted by the anger of his wife who believes David has conducted himself scandalously dancing in public and practically naked, having worn only an ephod which is a loin cloth. In refuting his wife's criticism, David indicates he is finally able and willing to assume the mantle of supreme leadership of the nation, the goal of change toward which the story has been moving. And poor Michal goes childless. Sue reads 2 Samuel 5:20-23: David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!" David said to Michal, "It was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. What are the theological lessons about change from this text. It seems to affirm that change is inevitable and that change which ultimately takes place is at least roughly within the overall will of God, and that there are costs, contradictions, and casualties in the process of change. The long running controversy over the building of Beijing's National Theatre just off Tianamen Square illustrates the profound tensions inherent within any process of significant change. The party leaders, the city planners, the ordinary citizens are all enmeshed in debate over this project designed by French architect Paul Andreu. Defenders assert that Beijing needs this bold, modern architectural statement. Traditionalists argue that this giant glass bubble will damage all that is to be honored in the capital. And despite the many years of planning, the commitment of huge public monies, and the official endorsement, it remains unclear what will finally arise in the heart of Beijing. Change is not easy. And change for Israel was not easy. This theology of change flies in the face of our contemporary secular faith that change is not only inevitable, but always good, and always easy. I receive quarterly and annual reports from companies whose stock I own and one can't help but take note of the relentless optimism of our capitalistic managers. The report for one of these corporations, I think it was ORACLE but it could have been any of a thousand other euphoric corporations, who see only a golden future before them: "No limits to the future There are no limits to the human imagination. There are no limits to our capacity for change. There are no limits to our capability to improve. There are no limits to our willingness to achieve. There are no limits to our dedication to serve. There are no limits except those we set ourselves. There are no limits." That's an easy sale from Silicon Valley and wannabe millionaires everywhere, but try to sell it to the grieving relatives of the l50 Manila slum victims whose future of "no limits" came crashing down when their neigborhood, called the "Promised Land", was swept away by a mountain of garbage from which they tilled their meager living. ….tell the hostages who are stranded by kidnapping by the Muslim insurgents in the Philippines that there are no limits except those they set. ….tell the two millions Palestinians displaced for 50 years from their homes and villages that change is inevitable, always good, and easy. …tell the millions suffering from AIDS that they have no limits to their lives except those they willy nilly set! The human potential movement makes sense to me only if it is placed within the theological framework that acknowledges that God is the only source of lasting change, that much change is compromised by our human sinfulness, and that change is often costly. The most radical change in all history, that change which redeemed the human race from being lost in Adam to being found in Christ, illustrates our Christian understanding, derived from the Old Testament, that change is costly and supremely so to God. Our text lays out some questions about the dangers and possibilities of change. A central element in the story is that change is inevitable. The writer of 2 Samuel does not return, as in a circle to where he began his story. He advances the story of the founding of the Davidic kingdom and lineage, an advance crucial to messianic expectation. The temple was built, the ark was moved and in its very movement the theology of Israel changed from a parochial claim upon Yahweh whose function was to defend Israel to an awareness that the universal holiness of God required clean hearts and sacred attitudes and caution lest the servants of the Lord, like David and all Israel, manipulate God in the name of their desires. Human motivation can not be the sole criterion for evaluating change in religious tradition. Uzzah may have been more purely motivated than David who usually comes across as a man of highly complex and often devious motivations. But God kills Uzzah and stops David in his tracks with fear when the change appears to spring too much from self-perceived human purity rather than righteous humility before the almighty. Although change in how we worship God and think about God is inevitable it must be undertaken in proper fear of the divine. David is highly motivated throughout his early career but he only reaches a point of fear at the end of today's story when he sees that the power of God embedded in the Ark is far more than his motivation for doing good. Once this is understood, once David acquires a proper fear of God, he can then embody change by becoming a new channel for the divine blessing. The danger of the evangelical overlooking of the Old Testament is that believers will be led to arrive at a facile receiving of the grace of God without regard to the holiness of God and the appropriate human response of fear, humility and sacrifice as one is called to help God with his plan for the people, the nation, destiny. We are faced with assessing the needs and costs of change as individuals and as a church. This story of David passes along some guidance to us in those circumstances calling for change: ….change will happen to us, individually and as a church, whether we like it or not and whether we even recognize that change is happening. So why not plan for the change rather than be surprised and caught short. …since change is inevitable we wisely should plan out routes for the change as David had to move the Ark from here to there in a complex dance of maneuvering. A business plan is a good idea for an individual and for a church, though a key factor in any good business plan is the provision for the unanticipated change as well as calculation for change. …we should be certain our maneuvering and our motivation for helping God with change is not self-deception and nor our need for desperate self-authenticating. As David offered sacrifices to God, we ought always to submit in humility and obedience to the Almighty before launching forth into change. …if the call for change is given and authenticated through prayer and patience and collective reflection as the will of God then we should be about it with confidence and ardor. There is a time to dance for joy with God's plan and providence over us. To sum up: We must be careful with God's Ark especially careful when we claim for ourselves God's holy changes in our lives; but we need not, finally, be fearful before the awesome power of God. We can trust that God will see us through.
Pastor Gene Preston
|
|
|
|
The Rev. Gene R.Preston14th Floor, Blk 36, Lower Baguio Villa Tel : 25516161 Fax: 25512114E-mail : gpreston@netvigator.com |
This page has been visited
times.
This page hosted by
Get your own Free
Homepage