Can a corrupt throne be allied with you— a throne that brings on misery by its decrees? – Psalm 94:20

Today’s Scripture Reading (July 14, 2013): Psalm 94

A few years ago I had the privilege of being in court when a gentleman decided that he was going to fight a speeding ticket. The man started out by questioning whether or not the camera was in good working order. And then he moved on to questioning the law itself. Finally, after everything else had failed he maintained that he had to speed for health reasons (as weird as this might sound he argued that he had left his diabetic medication at home and was driving quickly so that he could get to the medication before he fell into a diabetic shock.) The judge calmly informed him that there was no good outcome (and I am not sure that driving fast to keep ahead of diabetic shock was really a good outcome) that could justify the breaking of the speed limit. The court was not interested in why he broke the law – only in the fact that he did.

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532. The book was a group of maxims on the rule of the political leader, but rather than focusing on hereditary king, the book places its concentration on what a new king would need to do in order to retain power. Machiavelli maintained that the book dealt with a fictitious kingdom and was not a commentary on any ruling party. But in spite of Machiavelli’s defense, “The Prince” was banned by the Roman Catholic Church and was looked on with disdain by the humanists of the day.

One of the maxim’s that Machiavelli wrote about was the idea that “the ends justifies the means” (basically that speeding to avoid diabetic shock is truly a good thing.) In philosophy this belief is known as Consequentialism. Consequentialism simply states that the basis for any judgment about the rightness of an action is dependent on the end result of that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is an action that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. So Machiavelli supported the ruling party’s right to wage war if the desired outcome was peace and security – even though the act of war was a disruption to both of the desired outcomes. For a new king, all that was important was the outcome of the action.

The Psalmist looks back over the history of Israel and Judah and asks a question – can what is corrupt end up producing good – or can evil be allied with God. We do not really know specifically what reign the psalmist was thinking about, but the context of the Psalm leads us to believe that he had in his mind the long and wicked fifty-five year reign of Manasseh of Judah. But the Psalmist also seems to understand that no king takes the scepter of the kingship intending to be evil. Manasseh did not rise to power desiring to be remembered as the most evil king to ever rule Judah. He wanted to do good; but he seemed to believe that good could result from evil actions. His hope was that because he sacrificed the innocents on the altars of the local gods, that somehow God would honor his rule. Of course, that never happened. And the Psalmist asks a question already recognizing the answer. Consequentialism does not work - evil inputs will never result in good outcomes.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Psalm 95 & 96

Note: The VantagePoint Community Church (Edmonton) Sermon "Contents of a Dead Man's Pockets" is available on the VantagePoint Website. You Can find it here.