In the beginning, God created mankind, and then He gave mankind a job to do. Adam was placed in the garden, not just to enjoy it, but "to cultivate it and keep it" (Genesis 2:15c, NASB). The very next thing we have Adam doing is, at God's request, naming the animals, an act which showcases his authority over them--an authority that God had by virtue of creating them, but handed off to Adam. When Adam is punished for his fall in the next chapter, the world itself is cursed. This connection between the people and the land continues all through scripture.

Mankind is given a sabbath rest, and commanded to give the land one as well (Leviticus 25:4). One aspect of the exile of the nations of Israel and Judah was to give the land the sabbath it had not received (2 Chronicles 36:21). The world, subjected to futility, longs for redemption alongside mankind, as described in Romans above. Finally, in Revelation, God remakes creation in a perfect state after condemning "those who destroy the Earth" (Revelation 11:18d, NASB).

Why does the land itself suffer so much hassle? Why does God make such a concern about how we treat the world? There are a few interrelated aspects of this to explore. One is that, as image-bearers and wielders of some measure of God's authority over creation, mankind was designed to serve as a race of priests. As such, we are to be as God to the created order, and as creation before God. Another is that the punishments handed out to Adam, Eve, and the serpent directly relate to the core of who they were all created to be. Adam and Eve have been commanded to work the land and multiply, and their curses reflect their imperfect ability to meet God's commands. But today's reading highlighted another.

In 1 Samuel 12, Samuel is following up on the coronation of Saul. Saul has already been anointed by Samuel, named king by the people, led a successful military campaign to save Israel from the Ammonites, and made peace with the select few people who didn't expect him to be suitable as king. Things are going well. But Samuel takes a moment to ask the people why they have chosen to have a king instead of God, and reminds them that this decision was a sinful one. But he also ties the fate of the people and the king together.

The books of Kings and Chronicles show that this impact goes both ways. When the people begin to falter, the king fails to bring them back. When the king falters, the people follow. The governor is never removed from the governed, that which holds authority is influenced through the same avenues by which it influences.

God has put creation, to some significant degree, under the authority of mankind. When mankind falls, creation falls; when creation suffers, mankind suffers. We are in a connected system. Are we taking our responsibility over the land seriously? How do we interact with the Earth? Are we honoring God in our practice of authority over creation?

I'm not a very good American, if I'm being honest with you.

I hold to a view called Christian Nonviolence, which in essence teaches that the church has not been granted the right or power to take human lives or endorse the taking of human lives. It is distinct from pacifism, in that I don't necessarily believe all violence is wrong, or that there can be no right application of war and the death penalty, simply that I, as a follower of Christ, cannot participate or favor such avenues. This is not the post in which to detail why I believe that, but I mention it because it leads people to discuss my larger point. See, when I'm asked about the citizen's obligation to defend this nation, I answer that if this nation can only be saved by my disobeying what I believe is the command of God, then I'm comfortable letting the nation fall. And that answer is never received well. Nor is the fact that I have not stood for the national anthem in a number of years, simply because I viewed the entire affair as an unsuitable act of flag worship.

You see, I am not a very good American (nor, in the mind of some, a very good Baptist) because I happen to believe that the expected behavior of Americans is a form of idolatry that places the nation above, or at least co-equal to, our God. We have, for some time, allowed ourselves to view politics as a religious activity, to define Christianity as including certain political views as doctrine, to put our trust in our nation to supply all the promises of God, and as the perceived deliverers of some of those promises our troops and police are treated almost as a class of priests. And I find this to be simply unacceptable. Let's do a brief history of what I mean.

When the nation of Israel was founded, it was founded on God. It wasn't a theocracy, as we now understand the term, where the government was operated by the religion, but rather God ruled the people directly and would, as needed, raise up a judge to act on His behalf. This judge was generally outside the religious authority, and operated simply by doing what God had commanded them and frequently calling the people to participate. But that was it, there was no long-term human governing structure in place, there was no standing army, there was no capital. God delivered them from their enemies and provided their needs. But during Samuel's term as judge, the people of Israel sought to have a king like all the nations around them. God did not respond well to this; He gave them a king, Saul, but He condemned the request. Their hearts were described in 1 Samuel above where God called them out for trusting in human authority rather than His provision.

Now, because Saul was followed by David, I think there's a tendency to view the rule of kings as a generally good, or at least morally neutral, thing. In light of this, the promise that a descendant of David would sit on the throne forever was taken as a promise that there would be a restoration of the human government that would never fall again. The church, in light of Constantine, looked to the kings of Israel as an example of how religion should be bound to political authority. But remember, God condemned the very concept of a king over His people. We cannot read the rule of kings as anything other than a human plan inferior to God's design.

If Christ is the fulfillment of the promised descendant of David, then it makes more sense to read this promise as one in which God Himself will again rule over His people. And if that looks anything like judges-era Israel, then that means that we put our trust in God to provide our needs and stand as our defense. And such is promised throughout the New Testament. Christ reminds people that God is a good Father who knows what we need before we ask and will surely provide for us much more than He provides for the grasses of the field and the birds of the air. Paul reminds churches that God is faithful to provide. We have promises that the wrongs committed against us will be avenged by God's hand and not our own, that He will be with us through trials and tribulations, that God will be our shield and He ultimately wields judgment.

Now I know that some of this has yet to be fulfilled. I do not believe that Christ has instituted the fullness of an earthly kingdom, or that we have nothing to do with the nation in which we live. But when I hear Christians talking about how they need their guns because they have to protect their families, because they have to be ready to oppose the government with force if it tries to stifle our faith, the simple answer is that no, you don't. You are not the source of your family's security, and no amount of guns will make you the source of your security. We have ultimate freedom because Christ died to free us from sin, and no number of troops have ever or will ever die to secure us a freedom on par with that. Similarly, no law providing food or healthcare will ever match the provision that God promises to His people. Listen, the government and its programs are not necessarily bad things, but we cannot make them ultimate things. We have Christ as our ultimate ruler, and our desire to put our faith in earthly governments and armies and weapons and programs instead of His provision puts us in the same place as Israel when Samuel declared that they had rejected their God by putting their hope in an earthly king. It may be that God will choose to provide protection by means of a military, to provide food by means of a government program. He has that right and power. But when He does, we cannot lose sight of the fact that He is still the one providing it. We make our nation an idol when we hear the promises of God and put our faith in human rulers to deliver on those promises. We make our nation an idol when we treat the honoring of that nation's flag as important as the honoring of our Lord. We make our nation an idol when we declare assistance programs to be the only way to bring life to people that Christ died for. We make our nation an idol when we play at sharing even an ounce of His glory and reverence with the human agents He has chosen to use. But, "my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14, NASB).

Today's reading, across the multiple sources I use, included Psalm 126, Luke 6:20-26, 1 Corinthians 7:25-31, 1 Samuel 2:1-11, and Romans 15:1-13. But I accidentally read the wrong page at one point and, instead of reading the last two, actually read 1 Samuel 2:12-21 and Philippians 4:10-23. But this accident on my end worked out pretty well.

Psalm 126 is about God pouring out His blessings on His people again. It talks about God restoring the fortunes to Zion (in the ESV, some other translations use language about returning from captivity), but it is surprisingly vague about what kinds of blessings God offers. Many of the psalms have a direct object in mind: destroying Israel's enemies, pulling the author through a dark period, something fairly specific. But not this one. And the wording of the ESV may encourage a view that the fortunes God provides are, well, either fortune (in cash) or fortune (in success).

It is true that God sometimes blesses people with these things, but the rest of my reading was very keen on removing that as a first, or even as any form of, expectation.

Both Psalm 126 and the passage from Luke (which came from different parts of my reading plan unrelated to each other), as shown above, end on the promise that those who sow in reaping shall harvest in joy. But while the psalm begins with citing God's favor, Jesus in Luke has just called the poor, the hungry, those who weep, and the despised "blessed." While the specific verses in 1 Corinthians were mostly Paul's advice about whether or not to change one's marital status after becoming a Christian, the chapter has a general thrust about glorifying God with the circumstances one has in light of the form of this world passing away, instead of concerning oneself with radically change them. The portion of Philippians was concerned with how Paul has learned to be content with all circumstances and is now urging his readers to mirror that. And 1 Samuel was a cautionary section, about God opposing priests who put their own appetites and desires above their service to God and His commands.

While yesterday's reading was all about leaning on God for rest, today was all about leaning on God for so much more. His greatest blessing, in the end, is Himself. God is with us; when we mourn we can cry to Him, He provides when we are poor and hungry, He is making all things new and working in our circumstances to bring restoration to all things, He is our source of contentment.