Daniel chapter 3 tells how Jews in exile were required by the Babylonian king to worship a golden statue he set up, under threat, if they refused, of a “furnace of blazing fire” (verse 6). They reply that “our God” could save them “out of your hand”- but even if not, “we will not serve your gods” or “worship the golden statue” (verse 18). The same theme is repeated in the New Testament in the book of Revelation, and letters like Colossians. We are called to accept the “authorities”, and pray for them (Romans 13:1 to 7 and 1 Timothy 2:1) but above all recognise an ‘alternative sovereignty’.
Many in our times have done precisely this: Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Kara-Murza in Putin’s Russia, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Hitler’s Germany (and see the note below). So how should we respond to President-elect Donald Trump, voted for by 54% of men, 55% of whites, 53% of ages 45 to 64, and 54% of those without a college degree, with less than fifty percent of other groups. Some were clearly swayed to vote for him by inflation, immigration, abortion, and his claim that climate change is a “hoax”, but his essential skill was to connect with many who feel “done down”, and offer, not abstract policies, but a simple “I’ll fix it for you”. His control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives means that in the first two years (until the mid-term elections) he has every chance of pushing through whatever his policies turn out to be.
He claims to be able to end the wars in Ukraine “in a day”, and in Israel/ Palestine quickly in the interests of Israel. The Holocaust hangs like a pall over many European nations (including the churches). The sense of having failed then makes them terrified of being called anti-semitic if they criticise Israel, so any challenge to Trump on that will be muted. (Though at the same time many feel that some Nazi thinking did make sense, if not now applied to Jews, then certainly to others who they regard as incompatible with “our” cultural values).
What are the “gods” people like Trump call us to worship (just as Nebuchadnezzar’s statue “stood for” values thought vital for Babylon’s success)? Trump’s promises give many in the US a kind of hope, and hope is vital for any society, indeed for the future of humanity. We cannot yet tell if these hopes will prove an illusion. But in any case it is dangerously easy to “externalise” hope, to pin it onto leaders who are able to convey the “certainty” many crave. What is important, instead, is to discover that “the kingdom of heaven is within you” (Luke 17, verse 21- or “among you”), as testimonies of people who have come through great conflict and trauma can reveal.
If the absolute certainty and lack of self-doubt of authoritarian political leaders needs to be questioned, what of those who put their faith in an “alternative sovereignty” (God)? Religious dogmatism can be equally destructive. But genuine faith encompasses doubt, recognises our limited knowledge, and needs to be constantly tested against experience (though clearly faith in a “future life” cannot be tested in that way and is a matter of trust). And sharing faith involves listening to others’ stories, being prepared to share their concerns, discerning how our understanding of faith may or may not be relevant to them- and being prepared to rethink faith on the basis of those encounters.
Two website worth consulting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics_of_suspicion
Sojourners | Sojourners (the group in the USA associated with Jim Wallis).
Bonhoeffer’s “spoke in the wheel”.
Over the past months we have had some discussion about Bonhoeffer’s “The Church and the Jewish Question” Lecture (and later article). In it he argues that the Church has three responsibilities if it sees the State failing to create justice (in his words “if the Church perceives that the state….. has created either too much or too little law and order”).
These three responsibilities are (1) to remind the State of its responsibilities, (2) to care for the victims of the State’s action, and (3) not merely to bind up the wounds of the victims beneath the wheel, but to “put a spoke in the wheel itself” (“dem Rad selbst in die Speichen zu fallen”). But the translation has often been debated. One suggestion is that the image goes back to the days when cart wheels were solid (ie without spokes), but had holes into which a rod (a “spoke”) could be thrust to hold the cart and prevent it moving. The Collins German Dictionary gives “to try to stop the wheel of fate” (“dem Schicksal in die Speichen greifen/fallen”) as a similar figure of speech.
If that is the best explanation the question remains what is the “spoke” that the Church needs to drive into the wheel (perhaps risking breaking the wheel in the process). It is presumably the kind of thing Jesus did when he overthrew the tables in the Jerusalem Temple. What is the equivalent for us?