Days 32, 33, Sat 17 & Sun 18 March: Psalm 51
A few weeks ago a senior Australian politician was outed for his affair with a staffer. A firestorm of debate engulfed him, her and the whole suite of issues they had raised. I got involved in it myself with a much responded to post on Facebook. One respondent maintained shocked surprise that there should be any fuss at all. The people involved were adults, fully capable of making their own decisions, this person maintained. To think otherwise would be simply naive. Worse, to disapprove of what they had done borders on that most heinous of all post-modern sins, judgementalism. I'm probably pre-post-modern, but I can't get beyond the sense of betrayal...If a whole generation has grown up thinking that the winner does indeed take it all I think ABBA, though wonderfully musical, have done us a disservice. And although the person who argued on my Facebook thread that affairs, changing partners, etc. are simply unremarkable parts of life, there is too much pain around adultery for that to be true.
It's not surprising that Psalm 51 is as famous as it is. It is the mea culpa, the prayer of confession of the great, charismatic king David. And he's done it a whole lot better than the Hollywood producer, or the Australian politician, or almost all the other men whose various conquests, or sexual partners, or however the particular relationship may be described, have spoken publicly about what they were not supposed to.
From the point of view of the seventh commandment and the sexual ethic that underlies it, it seems simple: 'King David, "you shall not commit adultery!" You KNOW that!'
When the mists cleared, this passionate lover of God, who, traditionally, at any rate, was thought to have given us much of the bible's Psalter, did know it was simple.
“I have sinned against the Lord,” he told the prophet Nathan who had outed him, speaking truth to power.
Yet at the time it didn't seem simple. First of all David failed to lead his army to war.
"In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war...But David remained in Jerusalem." (2 Samuel 11.1)
For us to day one might think that it was a good thing for the king not to go to war, but evidently David failed to do what kings were supposed to do and that apparently made him liable to do what unemployed kings otherwise did: take his pick of women. There's a ferocious argument, crossing many societies, that is being prosecuted right now. The feminist movement of the 20th century has, rightly, taken ground from the traditional male view that women are subservient to men. But over the past few years the pushback has at times been vicious.
Some of this response has had a whining, passive aggressive, "blame anyone else but me", quality to it. What was Bathsheba, the object of king David's desire, doing taking a bath on her roof? Did she not know that she could be seen, perhaps even by the king? Was she ambitiously using her feminine beauty to marry herself up, from being the wife of Uriah the foreigner Hittite to queen of the Israelite empire? Or is there some cultural factor that we don't know about? Whether there is or isn't, in our day the argument on behalf of males that "She knew exactly what she was doing, she wanted it, what's a man supposed to do?" is common.
Whether that argument is true or false in any particular case, the answer, from the point of view of the covenant with God by which Israel was to live is a blunt "Keep it in your pants!" David knew that very well. When the prophet Nathan called him out and the feverish mist cleared for him David's response was "I have sinned against the Lord." (2 Samuel 12. 13) After reflection his response was the same: "Have mercy on me, O God...Against you, you alone, have I sinned". (Psalm 51.1, 4)
In a man's world, where men hold most of the keys to power, starting with the threat and actuality of physical violence, is it surprising that some women sometimes seek to use such power as their sexuality gives them? But more basically, in this man's world the covenant under which Israel lived was clear that wrong-doing was first and foremost against God. In response to the argument that this sounds like men are yet again cutting women out of the discussion (male god talking with male humans) I suggest that the loving Creator, who is neither male nor female, but in whose image both sexes are made, has proposed covenants (both the old ones and the new one) based upon God's intimate knowledge of us, and which are for our good. To live consciously under the New Covenant, which God invites us to do in Jesus, removes the eternal "he says she says" bickering. the shape of the cross is a good image. Ironically, counter-intuitively perhaps, as we first address the vertical, our relationship with God, the horizontal, our relationship with the creation is set in its right place.
And that, despite being a post on two texts at once, is quite enough for now.
It's not surprising that Psalm 51 is as famous as it is. It is the mea culpa, the prayer of confession of the great, charismatic king David. And he's done it a whole lot better than the Hollywood producer, or the Australian politician, or almost all the other men whose various conquests, or sexual partners, or however the particular relationship may be described, have spoken publicly about what they were not supposed to.
From the point of view of the seventh commandment and the sexual ethic that underlies it, it seems simple: 'King David, "you shall not commit adultery!" You KNOW that!'
When the mists cleared, this passionate lover of God, who, traditionally, at any rate, was thought to have given us much of the bible's Psalter, did know it was simple.
“I have sinned against the Lord,” he told the prophet Nathan who had outed him, speaking truth to power.
Yet at the time it didn't seem simple. First of all David failed to lead his army to war.
"In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war...But David remained in Jerusalem." (2 Samuel 11.1)
For us to day one might think that it was a good thing for the king not to go to war, but evidently David failed to do what kings were supposed to do and that apparently made him liable to do what unemployed kings otherwise did: take his pick of women. There's a ferocious argument, crossing many societies, that is being prosecuted right now. The feminist movement of the 20th century has, rightly, taken ground from the traditional male view that women are subservient to men. But over the past few years the pushback has at times been vicious.
Some of this response has had a whining, passive aggressive, "blame anyone else but me", quality to it. What was Bathsheba, the object of king David's desire, doing taking a bath on her roof? Did she not know that she could be seen, perhaps even by the king? Was she ambitiously using her feminine beauty to marry herself up, from being the wife of Uriah the foreigner Hittite to queen of the Israelite empire? Or is there some cultural factor that we don't know about? Whether there is or isn't, in our day the argument on behalf of males that "She knew exactly what she was doing, she wanted it, what's a man supposed to do?" is common.
Whether that argument is true or false in any particular case, the answer, from the point of view of the covenant with God by which Israel was to live is a blunt "Keep it in your pants!" David knew that very well. When the prophet Nathan called him out and the feverish mist cleared for him David's response was "I have sinned against the Lord." (2 Samuel 12. 13) After reflection his response was the same: "Have mercy on me, O God...Against you, you alone, have I sinned". (Psalm 51.1, 4)
In a man's world, where men hold most of the keys to power, starting with the threat and actuality of physical violence, is it surprising that some women sometimes seek to use such power as their sexuality gives them? But more basically, in this man's world the covenant under which Israel lived was clear that wrong-doing was first and foremost against God. In response to the argument that this sounds like men are yet again cutting women out of the discussion (male god talking with male humans) I suggest that the loving Creator, who is neither male nor female, but in whose image both sexes are made, has proposed covenants (both the old ones and the new one) based upon God's intimate knowledge of us, and which are for our good. To live consciously under the New Covenant, which God invites us to do in Jesus, removes the eternal "he says she says" bickering. the shape of the cross is a good image. Ironically, counter-intuitively perhaps, as we first address the vertical, our relationship with God, the horizontal, our relationship with the creation is set in its right place.
And that, despite being a post on two texts at once, is quite enough for now.
Comments
Post a Comment