Today's Scripture Reading (May 16, 2024): Acts 25
The orderly
transfer of power in the West is a remarkable thing. And while it is the norm
among the leading democratic nations, it is by no means guaranteed. Disappointment
in an election is often evident. We may believe that the opposing party isn't
as good as the one we support, yet we allow the leadership change to happen
anyway.
The
democracies that I am most familiar with are in North America, but I suspect
what I am about to say is true for most Western Democracies. There is a
significant and predictable divide regarding who votes for which party. In the
United States, there are Red states that reliably vote Republican and Blue
states that vote for the Democratic Party. More importantly, currently, the
tendency is for large population centers to vote Democratic and rural residents
to vote Republican.
In Canada,
the difference tends to be more regional. Central Canada tends to choose the country's
Prime Minister, and in recent years, they have voted for the Liberal Party.
Quebec tends to vote for a regional French party, the Bloc Quebecois. Western
Canada often votes Conservative, but for the most part, it is really a reaction
vote against the Central Canada Liberal vote. And off they go again. Most of us
demonize the party for which we don't vote. There is a truck that lives in my
area that flies a flag off the back bumper using vulgar language to describe
the nation's ruling party. And the party that takes possession of leadership
following another political party often sets out to change some of the things
that we didn't like about the reign of the other. But if we are willing to look
at leadership objectively, sometimes even those of opposing parties might
become great leaders. In the United States, I would never have voted for Jimmy
Carter or Barack Obama, yet both surprised me and gave the nation good examples
of leadership. I also would have never voted for Bill Clinton, and my opinion of
him never did change. Maybe you feel differently, but that is part of my point;
despite our feelings, there has traditionally been an orderly transfer of
power.
History
leaves little doubt that Antonius Felix was a corrupt and lousy procurator. He
left the province of Judea under a cloud of accusations and criminal charges
that he would answer for in Rome. So, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus. I must
admit that whenever I hear the name Festus, my imagination runs to a character
from the television show Gunsmoke. However, the historical Festus seemed to be
a capable replacement for Felix and a relatively good procurator, especially compared
to his predecessor. But Festus started his reign in a dangerous time. Not only
was he standing in the aftermath of the corruption that Felix had started, but
he also entered the province at a time when there was a significant dispute
between the priests and Herod Agrippa II. Both of these problems played a role
in arousing the anger of the people and sowing the seeds for the Jewish War of
66 C.E.
By this time,
Paul had been imprisoned by Felix for a couple of years, hoping that some time
in prison would soften the Apostle's refusal to pay a bribe to the procurator
for his release. When Felix was recalled to Rome, he left Paul in prison as a
parting gift to the Jewish leaders. But Luke tells us that Festus, according to
his actions, wanted to deal with Paul's situation. Felix's replacement arrives
in Judea and goes immediately to the Capital city, Caesarea. But he doesn't
stay there very long; after just three days, he makes his way to Jerusalem, the
province's largest and most important city. There, he meets with the religious
elite who had laid their charges against Paul at the new procurator's feet.
Tomorrow's
Scripture Reading: Acts 26
No comments:
Post a Comment