Today I wish to write about a subject that appears in the Bible but that is seldom applied in modern life as it ought to be, but first I would like to give some kudos. Every day I receive an e-mail from Thisistheway.org, with a byline from Mr. Clyde Kilough, President of the United Church of God, and today's e-mail merits praise and attention. The subject of authority and service, and how leaders ought to serve the people they lead, rather than lord it over them, is a frequent (and hopefully not too tiresome), subject of my writings, both public and private. The forms of democracy alone are not sufficient, for a people that does not possess self-control is not fit to rule over a nation (for one must first govern one's self before one can govern others). Nonetheless, the example of Jesus Christ in his service to mankind (through footwashing, instruction, healing, and his offering of himself to remove the penalty of sin from mankind and heal the alienation between mankind and God) and the example of Abraham Lincoln, himself a martyr to the cause of freedom of the oppressed, servant leadership, and democracy were excellent choices to illuminate how leaders should behave.
However, I do not wish this to be the subject of this post, as I write about it frequently enough. Today I would like to write about a different matter entirely, and one that was provoked by my reading of a most excellent book by a fellow named Mr. Ron Dart, called Law And Covenant. In this book (which I would wholeheartedly recommend to any who wish to understand the true covenantal nature of law and its continuing applicability to humankind in a variety of aspects), there is an interesting comparison of the relationship between a man and his concubine and a man and his wife that is a subject of great importance for our times, and one that is often not recognized by preachers and concubines alike.
Concubinage strikes the modern ear as a discordant, and potentially exotic, reminder of past ages. I am reminded myself of references of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, and of the movie "Fareware, My Concubine," about early 20th century China (if I remember correctly). However, concubinage is not only a quaint historical notion of bygone eras where women dwelled with men without any contractural relationship, and without any guarantee of good behavior on the part of their lover beyond his good will. It is, in fact, a very real, and very common phenomenon. We, though, call a concubine by a different name today--a live-in girlfriend.
In societies where concubinage was recognized, concubines were universally considered of a lower status than wives. While a man might be attached to his hausfrau (as the Germans called such a woman), she had no legal rights (unlike a wife). If he died, she was entirely at the mercy of his will (if he provided for her), because she had no rights to his estate. Her children were not considered legitimate heirs, and were not in line for any inheritence a man might leave. Any states or nations that recognized common-law marriages required lengthy times of cohabitation before granting such a status, while a newly married bride carred the status of a wife as a result of the contractual relationship even on her honeymoon. One of the most grevious wrongs of slavery in the American South was the denial of marriage to slaves, who could conduct informal marriages (by jumping over the broom and so forth) but who could not protect their relationships from the threat of having a husband and wife and children sold seperately to different owners in distant places. Furthermore, a slave husband could not even assure the safety of his wife from the affections of the master, should he choose to take a concubine among his slaves.
The insecurity that results from relationships of concubinage is profound, and it seems obvious that someone who could be a wife would never want to be a concubine. Between a wife and a husband there is a mutuality of obligations, a contractual relationship that the ancients considered a "parity covenant" (a relationship among equals). Both the man and wife have legal and moral obligations to their spouses, and to the children of their union, and their joining in marriage brings honor to themselves, each other, and their families. In contrast, the joining in concubinage brings no legal obligations, and the relationship itself is only as stable as the affections of either partner, bringing no honor to either but only the fear that someone's affection might grow cold and leave a partner and a family without their main provider.
Given this rather grim contrast between the honor of being a wife and the fearful and insecure position of being a concubine, one wonders why anyone would choose to be a concubine? This is not to say that the lot of wives is always pleasant (nor that of husbands either), but the contractual protections of marriage mean something, even in these debased times. Why have women, who call themselves enlightened, traded honor and security for insecurity in the name of "freedom?" It would be like a worker trading a contractual job for a job (in a place like Florida) where there was employment at will (which means an employer could fire you for any or no reason without legal recourse), often for a lower salary. Who would make that kind of trade?
Why have live-in relationships, with all of the insecurity that result from not having a covenantal relationship or a secure status, become a status of freedom? Is freedom merely freedom from bonds and connections with other people (bonds which form anyway as a result of intimacy and friendship) or is it freedom from fear and insecurity and the gaining of a lasting and honored place in a family, community, and society? Is it better to have many lovers in a lifetime, having to move because a relationship has gone shower when dwellings were shared, or worse (as happened to a close friend of mine) having to share an apartment with an ex-girlfriend for months because a lease had yet to expire after having started a new relationship with someone else? Wouldn't one rather have someone one knew well, and had committed to spending the rest of one's life with, to dwell with through the ups and downs that life provides? Even as a man (who has no wife or concubine) I would greatly prefer, for her sake as well as my own, to have a wife secure in her position and knowledgeable of the respect I held her in rather than a live-in girlfriend insecure in my affections to her, and afraid that every female friend of mine was a potential love interest and rival for my affections. Hopefully there are some other people around who feel the same way as I do.
The current rise of concubinage (albeit under a new name) presents many grave difficulties for families and society. The decline of the honor of fatherhood has been frequently and ably commented on by others. The lack of loyalty that people show to each other in society results from a lack of understanding of covenantal relationships and the responsibilities all parties have therein. Frequently, in churches, live-in relationships are considered as fornication, and people involved in such relationships are told in more conservative congregations that they are not welcome at church as long as they "live in sin." Truth be told, though, concubinage did not result in any loss of rights to fellowship (one things of the Levite with the concubine in that tragic story in Judges). Concubinage appears to be a legitimate way, if less honorable than marriage, in showing the world of one's relationship. Fornication appears to be related to furtive and private attempts at sexual intimacy, while a live-in relationship is a public show of a relationship, and hence is no longer fornication.
What then, remains to be done about this worrisome societal trend? For one, it appears that the demonization of the practice needs to stop. While concubinage (a live-in relationship) is inferior to marriage, one does not communicate this fact through throwing people who practice it (no matter how much one may disapprove of it) out of church. It is not, for example, to be compared to the famous case in Corinthians where the man had his stepmother, itself a particular relationship forbidden by the law as being incestuous. It does appear, though, that young women and young men need to be educated about this ancient practice, as a reminder that it is not a new and enlightened practice but rather one that has put women and children at risk for many centuries. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Saturday, February 02, 2008
A Kenyan Catastrophe
While I have yet to visit the verdant but highly troubled nation of Kenya, which appears, fitfully, to be trying to drag itself from the precipice of a lengthy and horrific civil war, my mother and stepfather have visited the country and commented on the friendliness of the people and the beauty of the land. No doubt many of the people they met in that land have been dealing with the threat of violence after a notoriously rigged election between one incumbent kleptocrat and a would be kleptocrat (for those who don't know, a kleptocrat is one who uses democratic office to rob the wealth of the people and stash it away, usually in Swiss bank accounts).
It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.
However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.
The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.
In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.
A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.
This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.
In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?
It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.
However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.
The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.
In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.
A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.
This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.
In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
