Glory to Him, ONLY

 

What do these three biblical characters -- Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, and Herod Agrippa -- have in common? If you guessed that they were engaged in governing the people and had huge egos, you are correct, and if you went one step further and said each found himself punished or humbled, even suffering death (Haman and Herod) for his outsize self-image, then you would be right yet again. The story of Haman (Esther chapters 3 thru 7) is particularly notable, because his effort to secure for himself everyone’s veneration was defied by just one man, and yet that one man’s moral stand was something that Haman could not tolerate, leading to an attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish people in the Achaemenid-Persian kingdom of Xerxes. Mordecai and Esther and all the other Jews survived this power play by Haman, whose evil plot was exposed by Queen Esther (see that moment depicted in this 1888 Painting, Esther Denouncing Haman, by Ernest Normand), leading to his execution on the gallows that, ironically, he had planned for Mordecai. The other two characters, Nebuchadnezzar and Herod Agrippa met their own punishments – Herod would die suddenly of worm infestation (Acts 12:21-23), and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel chapters 3 and 4) would suffer humiliation and witness the power of the true God. Read the biblical accounts and see if you think their wish to replace or grab some of God’s glory was important in what happened to them. It's almost a rhetorical question, isn’t it? Of course, the God of the Jews would not stand by and allow such an abomination. The Ten Commandments, as this blogger has detailed in many previous entries, are full of God’s expectation that His people would honor Him alone. Any worship of an idol or someone other than the true God is out of the question. And so, in the world of politics and ethics in our 21^st Century, what is a reasonable expectation that We the People have for our own elected leaders?

 

Perhaps people in positions of power are more at risk, because power can corrupt the man (or woman) so easily. Humility is therefore a valuable, and necessary character trait. American leaders, as heads-of-state and leaders of the free world, and overseers of the world’s largest economy, have had a heavy responsibility. Not the least of these is somehow to toe the line in respecting the office they hold, and acting within the bounds, legally and ethically, to work for the people’s good, and certainly not for their own aggrandizement. From AI on the computer -- The Emoluments Clause is a U.S. Constitutional provision (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) that bars federal officials, including the President, from accepting gifts, payments, or titles (emoluments) from foreign states or their rulers without congressional approval, preventing foreign influence and corruption; there's also a related Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II) limiting presidential pay from states/federal government, with both clauses serving to ensure officials prioritize national interests over personal financial gain, as highlighted by recent lawsuits against President Trump. The founders were very aware that a president could accrue too much power, and thus elevate himself as a monarch or for personal gain, and the emoluments clause was indicative of that awareness. A president whose ego allowed him to find loopholes in the Constitution, and acquire honors to match his self-image, would be someone that the founders would think is dangerous. Such a man would be prone to self-congratulatory behavior, even self-glorification, and capable of dominating those in his own party so that they would feed his ego and gain his invaluable support in the election cycles. And if you don’t, the reverse can be a death-blow, politically, as one of this president’s formerly staunchest allies has discovered. How dangerous is such a man?

 

Has such a man gone too far, when he decides he can change the name of institutions like the Kennedy Center? Or, what about naming a new class of Navy ships after himself? As others and the record of history shows, a president’s name is normally used after he leaves office, or even posthumously to honor him on buildings, streets, places, or ships; to do so oneself while still in office is indecorous. Such honors are reserved for those who have completed their service and are judged by others to be worthy of remembrance. What if such a leader slings mud on the historical record of previous presidents, including repeating baseless lies, by installing plaques in the White House to besmirch them; does he somehow believe this is credible and appropriate behavior? How does such a leader come to his senses? Nebuchadnezzar had dreams that troubled him, and sought the advice of Daniel. Pilate’s wife also had dreams that led her to warn him that Jesus should be avoided; let him go, she said, in effect. The Omniscient One can act in any way He thinks is necessary to get the attention of someone, including a leader who is behaving with too much ego; is a dream or two in this president’s future? Would he be willing to listen and seek advice if he did have some nighttime visions? Better to have dreams and try to discover the message/s, rather than living out a nightmare and dragging a nation along on the journey. God has reserved honor for Himself, and this nation under God (as it says on our money) has too many people who believe in this principle to ignore the trend we are witnessing.     

 

Renaming of the JFK Center: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79x0x7v70go

 

New Navy-class ships: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/23/politics/trump-battleships-golden-fleet-kennedy-center-analysis

 

New presidential plaques in White House: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8e9jexe5k8o

 

Read here about the consequences of turning on a powerful president: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/07/congress-republicans-tease-trump-marjorie-taylor-greene

 

See information on the image here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Esther_Denouncing_Haman.jpg... The author died in 1923, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1930. Find the image inside this article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman  

Dedication…to What?

 

Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Everyone who’s considered loyal and reliable should also be labeled as dedicated. And yet, there are all sorts of historical figures who were dedicated, but tragically to something or someone unworthy of that person’s dedication. What if the object of someone’s dedication is someone or something that is false, a fraud? And worse yet, what would we all say if the person so dedicated actually met his/her end having ‘hitched their wagon’, so to speak, to something unworthy? Remember the people in the camp below the mountain where Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments, and what they did in worship and dedication to a  golden calf, a false god? Thousands died as a result, for their dedication to something false (Exodus 32:28). (See the picture-graphic here of that worship scene, by the Providence Lithograph Company in 1901.)  Exodus 32 ²⁸ And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell….³⁵ Then the Lord sent a plague on the people, because they made the calf, the one that Aaron made.

 

Perhaps you’ve also watched the popular series called The Chosen, and recall the 4^th season episode (#6) that is called Dedication. It is a gripping depiction of Jesus and 14 of his followers (the 12 Apostles and two women) who are spending eight days celebrating the Jewish holiday known as Hannukah (aka The Feast of Dedication or the Festival of Lights). It commemorates the Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after it had been desecrated by the Syrian king Antiochus IV around 167 BCE (see it described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah). As part of that time shown in the episode, Jesus delivers some stinging words in a sermon at the temple, which stirs up the religious authorities, to put it mildly. It is the scene from John’s gospel, chapter 10, that culminates in these rabid opponents of Jesus throwing stones at the Messiah and his followers – an attempt to kill him for what they think is His blasphemy. Their fury is answered by Jesus in this way, among other statements: ³² “…I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” Jesus was willing to die, and did indeed do so willingly later; his Apostles also were convinced He was the truth, and so were willing to risk their lives to spread the news of this True God. Message?: If you’re going to be at mortal risk, be very certain that what you are doing is based on the truth. That is a dedication that makes someone worthy of the hero label, of someone who becomes a martyr and inspires others. Another fellow on the Sanhedrin, as opposed to many of his fellow authorities, acknowledged this axiom about truth verse falsehood; his name was Gamaliel. His words warned the Sanhedrin not to find themselves in a fight with God (Acts 5:34-39). The truth does not wither, but those who front lies will come to nothing.

 

So, if I’m involved in politics today, what should I do? It’s a risky game, isn’t it, with so much polarization pervading the space and enough people who think the stakes are pretty high; some of them call it warfare, and are apparently willing to use violent, even murderous methods to achieve their objectives – to silence someone they consider to be heretical. Many of these episodes admittedly are effected by people who are not balanced, even maniacal; still, the point is, if you become well-known in the public’s eye today, particularly in the political space, you should be aware that someone – including demented characters – may have painted a target on you. Sound familiar to the biblical story details above? See the link to an article here about these events in the U.S. political landscape:

Timeline: A look at other major political violence attacks in the US   

Are any of these episodes worse than the others? They’re all symptomatic of an awful trend, that democracy’s landscape is straying from decency and evidence-based information. People think their ‘truth’ is better than their opponents’ ‘truth’, and so the heated rhetoric can fire the engines of both sides, including the unbalanced folks on the radical fringes of the spectrum. There is only one truth, though it might be hard to discern through all of the noise. And, if there is some misinformation – proven to be so, beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard that our system of criminal justice uses to assess evidence – then it behooves all of us to call out those falsehoods, and make no bones about it. So, I ask you, tragic as the death of this fellow who formed an organization call Turning Point USA was (see him and this organization described here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk), how do you feel about his stance re: truth? He did many things to stand for conservative Christian values, apparently. But, what about allying himself with a leader who’s been wearing a hat that says ‘XXXXX Was Right About Everything’? Is that fundamentally Christian, for someone to insist that they are right – no mistakes – about everything? We all know how sin-sick people get well, and it’s not by denying the obvious, what is true for every person on the planet. We all make mistakes. Jesus was the only perfect person to walk on the earth. If I go unexpectedly to eternity, as Mr. Kirk did this past week, I would want to make sure I was standing with the truth. Standing with someone so brazenly power-hungry and disconnected from reality is tragic. I hope Kirk made peace with that fact…I would like to believe that he understood that, for we all need to have the humility to admit that truth, that we all make errors, and to seek the mercy and grace of the only One who deserves my unswerving dedication (like Saul/Paul did once – see Acts 9). Dedication is a Christian ethic, when it is tied to Christ only, the God who is jealous for His identity when others try to claim characteristics that are exclusively God’s (see Exodus 20:5).    

 

 

See information on the image here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worshiping_the_golden_calf.jpg... This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1930, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation.  (Find the image inside the article at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Catechism%20of,widespread%20among%20the%20Catholic%20faithful.)