Today’s
Scripture Reading (February 8, 2019): Judges 10
In
Canada, Quebec separatism, or the idea that Quebec could actually leave the nation, periodically seems
to be a very real and present problem. But Quebec is not the only separatist
movement in the nation. The other separatist movement involves the Western
Provinces leaving the federation. Western Separatism has never been taken as seriously as the separatist
movement that emerges out of Quebec. And there are some significant differences
between the two. Quebec Separatism is based
on cultural differences. Quebec feels that English Canada does not understand
and will not protect their culture, which is very different from the English
culture of the rest of the nation. Western Separatism is often based more on
economic concerns, and the feeling that it is Ontario, which exists at the
populous center of the nation, that makes all of the significant decisions that
affect the rest of the nation. Alberta, often seen along with British Columbia
as the power in the West, feels that their needs are not being addressed and that forming a new nation
is the only way to escape the oppression visited upon them by the geographical
center of the nation. But another part of the problem with Western Separatism
is the that the culture of the Western provinces, and especially the culture
that is found in Alberta and British
Columbia, often referred to culturally as the Left Coast, is widely divergent.
There is no single cultural or economic outlook in the nation that prides
itself on being a mosaic rather than being a melting pot. But one truth remains,
shared by both the West and Quebec. The political reality of the nation is
often something that is placed on them
rather than being something that they actively choose.
That
was not true in Israel. Israel was designed to be a theocracy or a nation where God was king. As long as the people
followed God, the understanding was that God would care for them, or would
bring up leaders who would defend the nation and supply for the people’s need. This was particularly true during the time of
the Judges, an era when there was no king over the nation. The Judges were episodic and often regional. There were times
when there was no Judge in Israel, and if there was a Judge, he might not have
ruled over the whole nation but rather
was raised to take care of a problem in one region of the nation. And often the
intended theocracy of the nation was not based on the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. The theocracy was often subject to the whims of the nation.
Sometimes, it was the God of Israel that was
worshipped. But just as often, and maybe more often, it was the local
Canaanite deities that were worshipped.
Then, as trouble came upon the nation, they would turn once again to the God of
Israel.
Here,
God’s response is not what the people want to hear. God tells them that they
should cry out to their “god’s of convenience” rather than to him. They
actively chose to serve other gods; the decision was not thrust upon them by
some distant majority. God speaks to the nation and argues that they made a choice, so they need to live, at least
for a while, with that choice.
I
am not convinced that this is not what God is also saying to our culture. We
too have served our “gods of convenience.” And in times of crisis, we leave
them and cry out to God. It is not that God does not hear our cries, but I do
believe that he is willing to leave us, for a time, to suffer under the choices
that we have made.
But
he will come and save. However, his salvation will be on his timing, and not
ours.
Tomorrow’s
Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 1
No comments:
Post a Comment