THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING

1 Samuel 8:1-9:27; John 6:22-42; Psalm 106:32-48; Proverbs 14:34-35

“When that day comes, you will beg for relief from this king you are demanding, but then the Lord will not help you.”

“Jesus told them, ‘This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.’ They answered, ‘Show us a miraculous sign if you want us to believe in you. What can you do? ….Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

“Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

1 Samuel is excruciating to read. The Creator is rejected. A lesser king is demanded by the people. The Lord gives the people what they want, with a warning that what they want is not what they need. The people find out God is right: their king soon quits acting in their best interests, and they become disgruntled. The spurned king becomes over-protective and paranoid. A country is nearly lost. It all sounds just a bit too contemporary for comfort. There is a lesson here.

Humanity needs to be very cautious of its leaders. This is not a political, or American, statement, but a practical, global one. If history makes anything clear, that principle is universally crystalline. We continue to be dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned when our select few turn out to have the same feet of clay as the rest of us. Nevertheless, we keep supporting the agendas of the would-be influential ones who pledge themselves most committed to our particular perspectives and special interests without much analysis or even knowledge of their underlying character. The majority of homo sapiens apparently believe it is more important that chosen leaders look good and promise to do good (as we selfishly define it) than whether they are good.  Given this set up for failure, we should at least have the dignity not to whine and moan when leadership and oversight fail. Garbage in, garbage out. We get exactly what we tolerate.

God truly wanted the Hebrews to avoid this problem. He was to be their King, but they refused. The conflict did not center on lack of leadership; the Lord always provides enough inspiration and guidance to get His people through any crisis. (Seriously, if manna, a pillar of fire, plagues, parting of various bodies of water and other assorted miracles do not point us in His direction, it’s unlikely we will ever go there voluntarily as long as there are other options.) The hang-up was the type of leadership Jehovah provided.  Rejection of the Spirit’s leadership usually derives from the fact that it cannot be manipulated. The Spirit doesn’t cut deals. It never trades empty promises for support or so-called friendship. It doesn’t compromise. Nor does Christ engage in rhetoric: He says what He means and means what He says. Such uncompromising bluntness makes most of us very uncomfortable with godly leadership.

Then, of course, we fundamentally distrust anyone who dares to claim divine favor or inspiration as a leader. Too much damage has been done by humans in the name of Jesus and other religions. Seldom is anyone who claims a divine calling to leadership even taken seriously today.

So, we get Sauls, frequently going so far as to demand them. Be it in school, athletics, the office, social settings or elsewhere, we persist in raising up unqualified or corruptible leaders, mainly to avoid taking responsibility for our own decisions. We want to be led, as long as it’s in the direction we want to go. When it isn’t, we quickly change loyalties. Perhaps it would help if we began with the right loyalty. When we don’t we finish where we began: beware the man who would be king.