Mankind, particularly the “civilised” part of our race, is proud to claim that his conduct is ruled by principles of morality. Yet it is so painfully evident that when expediency dictates a different course of action from that which normal teaching would prescribe, expediency usually wins. This is especially true in matters of government. The world is in its sorry state today because the rulers adopt policies which would not bear the cold light of moral reason to expose the motives behind them. Often, too, the attempt to justify political decisions as acts of high virtue expose the hypocrisy of the politician. This gives a basic reason why we, who claim that the moral principles of Christ direct our conduct, should avoid any involvement in the political struggles that surround us.
These thoughts have been prompted by our readings for the month. In 2 Chronicles 11 we read of the political decisions of the son of Solomon, Rehoboam. Our view of this is coloured, of course, by our knowledge of the ultimate effect of his decisions.
We wonder what result Rehoboam expected from the very “dusty answer” that he gave to the people’s legitimate complaints. Yet Rehoboam’s answer has been repeated time and again through the ages when the “lower classes” have sought some relief from their burdens. That
which today is called the “noble art of compromise”, seems to have been unknown until quite modern times. Certainly, Rehoboam did not believe in it! The older and more experienced of his advisers were strong in their recommendation that he should regard the people’s pleas. The young men of Rehoboam’s retinue had different ideas. Their self-importance dictated that they should “let the people know who was boss”. Rehoboam at this time also exhibited another typical human trait. He accepted the advice that undoubtedly accorded with his own opinion. It is worthy of note that Rehoboam was 41 years of age when crowned (2 Chron. 12. 13), so he did not even have the excuse of the impetuosity of youth, nor had found the mellowness of years. So his 17 years’ reign saw the division of Israel into two nations.
After the death of Rehoboam, his son, Abijah sat on the throne. This king is noteworthy for the extraordinary speech that he addressed to the ten tribes which had revolted: “Jereboam, the son of Nebat, is risen up, and path rebelled against his lord. And there are gathered unto him vain men, the children of BeIial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them” (2 Chron. 13. 6-7). It is hard to imagine that Abijah was speaking of a man of 41. Rehoboam was certainly not young, and could scarcely be called “tenderhearted”.
But, of course, Jereboam also set an example of political expediency dictating a course of action that moral truth would have scorned, when he “made Israel to sin”. He feared that his subjects, if they went regularly to Jerusalem to worship, would gradually revert to being subjects of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 12. 28). One little bright spot in this picture of faithlessness and falsehood was the victory of Judah in these wars of brother versus brother, for the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied on the Lord God of their fathers (2 Chron. 13. 18).
When later we read that Asa, when attacked by Israel, enlisted the help of Syria, and when he sought to physicians, instead of God; or when we see that the good king Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahab, again we find that man allows his decisions to be moulded by that which appears to him to be expedient, rather than turning to God for moral guidance.
In our middle readings (Ezekiel 3), God speaks to the prophet in these words, “The house of Israel will not listen unto thee; for they will not listen to me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted”. At present Israel is building a nation again. To what extent they see the hand of God in their affairs I do not know. The policy of Israel, like that of the Arab nations around them, is certainly dictated more by their interpretations of circumstances and trust in an arm of flesh. One wonders how far we, who profess faith, also allow material expediency to guide our way.
Our third reading, from the gospel of John, brings us face to face with Him who, trusting in His father, did not do that which—humanly speaking—was expedient to do, but allowed the law of God to lead Him on. Love for God and fellow-man alone decided what this Man, unique of mankind, should do. The tempter did not suggest to Jesus that He should do something obviously sinful, but he did suggest acts which seemed expedient.
Of course, this does not mean that acting on expediency is wrong; it is often inevitable. But it does mean that moral principles should not be sidestepped when they conflict with actions which appear to be immediately desirable. Peter thought it was desirable that Jesus should not go to Jerusalem (Matt. 16. 23), but to Jesus obedience to God overrode all other considerations.
Caiaphas, the high priest, illustrates the converse to the mind of Jesus, when he said (John 11. 50), “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not”. Caiaphas feared that the Romans would destroy the nation if the people defected to Jesus. Political expediency dominated his thinking. Down through the ages rulers have been rare who did not think this way. So we conclude this month’s discussion as we began it. The Truth and politics do not mix; the believer cannot be active in both spheres.
The Solution