Tribal Listening Leads to Destruction

 By Daniel Cain (David's brother)

Chapter 19 of the book of Judges is the story of a gang rape of a woman—surely one of the most offensive and worst times in the history of Israel. (See the black-and-white 1880 artwork here by Gustave Dore, showing the woman being discovered on her master’s doorstep in the aftermath of the crime committed on her person.) But the subsequent group behavior in chapter 20 also defies any definition of reasonableness, since the Israelite tribe that was home for those committing the rape decided to defend those men and engage in a civil war instead. Just as the activity of listening involved real risk in chapter 9 [see the posting from 9/10/24], the situation in chapter 20 reveals that listening is again the source of a real problem:

 

The Israelites sent messengers to the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What a terrible thing has been done among you! Give up those evil men [those who had committed the rape], those troublemakers from Gibeah, so we can execute them and purge Israel of this evil.”  But the people of Benjamin would not listen.

 

Choosing not to listen in this situation cost the whole tribe of Benjamin very dearly. They were virtually wiped out, with the exception of six hundred who were able to escape during a final battle. In retrospect, of course anyone can see how much better a decision the Benjaminites should have made. But they should have been able to make that kind of decision much sooner and save the lives of many people on both sides of the civil war that resulted, simply by recognizing and standing up to bad behavior in the beginning before the situation turned out the way it did. That is what reasonable people would and should have done.

 

In both chapter 9 and again in chapter 20, the listening that people engaged in had much too narrow a range. Listening to one man (Abimelech) or listening only to those within one’s own tribe (the Benjaminites) shut off any chance those people would make more reasonable decisions. In our modern day culture, the latter kind of listening has been defined as ‘tribalism.’

 

Just as I argued in the earlier posting, it’s not clear that listening in itself is wrong, and God will allow you as much freedom as you desire in who and what you listen to. But, the end result of tribalism can be incredibly destructive—even to those not guilty of doing it. Tribalists not only fool themselves into believing only what they want to believe, they cause conflict with others that ends up engulfing everyone, as the effort to affirm what’s really true and factual takes place. The book of James makes the case for the tongue being small but capable of much destruction. I guess I’m making the case that ears can be just as destructive, especially if we limit the range of who and what we’re listening to.

 

See information on the artwork here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1-concubine-dore.jpg …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. {{PD-1996}} – public domain in its source country on January 1, 1996 and in the United States.

Listening is Not Risk-free

By Daniel Cain (David's brother)

Read the episode in the Bible from Judges, chapter 9, and see if you aren’t shocked as I was. I was expecting to read about another person in the line of the judges, who according to a children’s song was known for “helping Israel fight her battles, and led them back to God from sin.” But the judge named Abimelech was not a great person—not in any sense, and much less anyone who should have been in a leadership position. So how does a person like Abimelech get into that position in the first place? He persuaded people to listen to him, and appealed in such a way that they failed to notice the bad acts he committed, or maybe they just figured that any bad act was just to be expected given the stakes that were involved. After all, no one gets to be a leader without running over top of someone along the way, or doing something that would be questionable behavior otherwise, right? That’s another technique used, I think, in persuading people to ignore bad actions. In today’s vernacular, it’s the language of trying to normalize behavior that should clearly be out-of-bounds, and unacceptable—to anyone.

 

The problem in this situation was not just Abimelech. He was a terrible person. The Bible makes that clear. But somebody also enabled that person by the simplest action possible. They listened to him, and then reacted with wholehearted and implicit trust – ‘He is our brother’ (Judges 9:3b, 18b). If you think just listening is risk-free, consider this earlier episode in history:

 

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” [Genesis 3:1; NIV] (See here the 15^th/16^th Century masterpiece artwork [part of the Sistine Chapel ceiling] by Michelangelo showing this episode.

 

The key to the above verse is how “crafty” the serpent was. Another translation states the matter more directly, at least in terms of the listener, saying the serpent was “more able to fool others” [New Century Version] than anyone else God had created. I’m not sure listening can be called a sin, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need to be careful when we do it.

 

The episode from Judges 9 about Abimelech is not just a story. It’s history, and it’s uncomfortable history because it has Abimelech as one of the judges, who are supposed to be the good guys. Our American history is no less uncomfortable when we look at some who have been elected as president of the United States. While we can’t escape what’s happened, take a lesson from Judges 9. Be careful what you listen to, and who you’re listening to. If we choose to listen to someone who is like Abimelech, at some point we’ll have to face the truth, that it’s not just Abimelech that’s a problem. It’s us.

 

See information on the artwork here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo_S%C3%BCndenfall.jpg … 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. {{PD-1996}} – public domain in its source country on January 1, 1996 and in the United States.

Honor and Depolarization

 

Though God’s 5^th Commandment does not, at first glance, seem relevant in the 21^st Century American political landscape, one word stands out when thinking broadly of human-to-human relationships. Honor. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you,” Moses repeated (first in Exodus 20:12; and then again in Deuteronomy 5:16) for the wandering mass of Israelites as the sojourned in Egypt. It’s the first word of a positive directive, and maybe that’s God’s point here, as opposed to the following five commandments that all begin with in the negative ‘you shall not’. (More on the 6^th through 10^th Commandments will be in upcoming posts.) At least some of the people got it, apparently, including one foreigner named Ruth, a Moabitess who begged to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi…ultimately this story of love and respect for her mother-in-law was a key episode that, generations later, culminated in the birth of Jesus the Messiah. (See masterpiece artwork Ruth Swearing Her Allegiance [Giving Honor] to Naomi by 17^th Century artist Jan Victors.) It’s like God might have been saying – He does in fact directly say so – that if humans want to prosper, they can begin by doing this one thing right -- treating people with respect.

 

Rubel Shelly (in Written in Stone – Ethics for the Heart) points out that there is one public policy issue that could directly affect how, or whether, the 5^th Commandment is fulfilled in America. Shelly indicates that honoring parents and other older folks today in politics means we must improve the way that Social Security is funded, or by year 2040 (according to some social scientists) something like 40% of the federal budget might be eaten up by funding this program, causing a lot of potential hostility toward the elderly, rather than honor, as younger working citizens are taxed more and more to pay for it. Could our culture spiral downward if some people are thus treated like they are a burden, or worse yet, refuse? This government program is just one of many policy areas that are, to put it mildly, contentious. The words ‘divisive’ or ‘hyper-polarized’ might more adequately describe the environment between Capitol Hill and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. And, that culture then moves out onto the campaign trails, and then into state capitals undoubtedly. With lots of issues to be addressed, and with so little apparent good will among those elected to manage these matters, what will ultimately happen? Is it too much of a grim forecast to suggest a train wreck is in the future? How can we get our house in order? God has already told people centuries ago how to order their homes, so how do we do that on a national scale?

 

Shelly further suggests that an ‘ethic of minimal civility’ establishes some core values that all humans should share, and these include a ‘principle of mutual respect’. Applying the ‘Golden Rule’ -- spelled out by Jesus (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31; Luke 10:25-28) and referred to by Paul (Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:8-9) –  means doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Basic respect and honor mean practically applying some common, everyday courtesies, perhaps like, but not limited to the following: (These might sound a little like playground rules for children, but really, if these folks cannot act better, perhaps they ought to be spanked and treated with the same immaturity with which they behave all too often. Wouldn’t it be great if political candidates modeled the items below all of the time, and how about if they didn’t and could somehow be penalized and thrown out of the race for repeated violations [as in basketball, six fouls and you’re out]?)

 

·         No comments that reflect prejudice nor demagoguery based on race/sex/religion

·         Pronounce each other’s names correctly, and no name calling

·         No demonization of each other, sticking to facts and issues

·         Candidates refrain from interrupting each other in public debates, i.e. no mud-wrestling episodes

·         No physical intimidation/suggestion of violence or revenge-mongering to stir up crowds (note one pretty notable episode with a link to a video below).

·         Respecting the choice/vote of all people who are citizens, while not trying to undermine this activity that We the People can use to take part in our government – so no gerrymandering nor other shenanigans at the polls to disadvantage some people or groups and so disenfranchise them

·         Everyone adheres to the same legal standards, i.e. no one is above the law

 

See a good example of someone honoring his political opponent here: John McCain in 2008, as he confronted supporters who tried to say something false about Barack Obama during a campaign appearance…Bing Videos)

 

See information on the picture here: File:Victors Ruth swearing her allegiance to Naomi.jpg - Wikimedia Commons… 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. {{PD-1996}} – public domain in its source country on January 1, 1996 and in the United States.