American Discontent, Part I

“And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, but they said, ‘We will not come up! Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you should keep acting like a prince over us? Moreover you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up!’” – Numbers 16:12-14

RECORDED in this entire chapter is the most serious challenge to Moses’s authority that he would ever experience in the wilderness. While the children of Israel often murmured, complained, and second-guessed Moses, the tone in this chapter is sharper and more indicative of the spirit of open rebellion. In fact, if it had not been for the direct intervention of Jehovah in verses 31-35, as well as a second wave of action taken the following day in verses 46-50, Moses and Aaron might well have not survived the coup led by Korah and his band. Rather than looking at the details that gave rise to the rebellion, we would like to note its similarities to the present American discontent.

Notice the similar nature between the false accusations made by Korah and his rebels against Moses and the ones we now hear from Barack Obama and his allies.

From the text cited at the top, the charges made by the rival company of Korah against Moses and Aaron breaks down most easily:

1. Their rebellion asserted and repeated, verse 12 and verse 14d: ”We will not come up!”
2. Their first false accusation: Israel’s troubles are due to the poor leadership of Moses, verse 13.
3. Their second false accusation: Moses exploits the people for his own self-aggrandizement, verse 12c.
4. Their third accusation: Moses is a cruel leader, verse 14c.

I.) The reason the campaign of Barack Obama frequently mimics the rebellious tone of Dathan and Abiram in this text is largely because it has gone to great lengths to focus the bulk of its criticisms upon the Bush administration rather than upon John McCain, its real opponent. Mr. Obama is not running against President Bush. Like Moses, the dictates of divine providence have ordered that George W. Bush is the legitimate, appointed leader of the United States. By virtue of that fact, the president ought to command more respect than a candidate like Mr. McCain that is simply vying for that office. Yet the Obama campaign has sought to reserve the bulk of its contempt for President Bush and only attack Mr. McCain by extension. This strategy has been in place by Obama and his allies from the beginning, and it has intensified in recent weeks.

This distinction between how one should regard the legitimate ruler of his people versus a candidate simply vying for that status is clearly stated in Scripture: “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people,” (Acts 23:5b). Yet Obama and his allies have made it the centerpiece of their campaign for the presidency to disregard this biblical distinction. In his references to President Bush, Mr. Obama intentionally incites riotous applause and cheers when he states his intention to reverse and halt the policies of the sitting president of our country. While we recognize this has become common from both parties in American politics, it has rarely been practiced to this degree in the past. The Obama campaign violates the will of Christ and at times even mounts an affront to the wisdom of God when it attacks the current leaders of our country instead of John McCain.  

II.) The first false accusation made against Moses was that Israel had been unable to go into and take possession of the Promised Land because of the poor leadership of Moses. In a very real sense, the rebellion we see here taking place in our text comes on the heels of the failure of Israel to take Canaan in Numbers 14. But rather than accept responsibility for the people’s refusal to enter the land and God’s subsequent punitive action against them, Korah and his rebels offer a narrative more acceptable to the people. “The spin” of the rebel leadership is that Moses miscalculated the difficulties that would attend the taking of Canaan. In other words, all agree that the situation for Israel is bad, but there is strong disagreement about where the blame lies.

From a purely political standpoint, Moses and Aaron are in an impossible situation. Their position is that of God’s, which is that the people are to blame for the mess. Understandably, that doesn’t make them very popular. Korah and his company, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to the people’s failures and seem to suggest that a change of leadership would have produced a different result. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are saying that change is what is needed although they don’t specify what they would have done differently.

The similarities to the present American discontent are obvious. The United States is struggling economically largely because of the greed of homeowners that have taken on mortgages they have had no ability to repay. Everyday Americans have borrowed money and then been unable to pay it back — pure and simple. The government has facilitated the problem with the creation of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perhaps Americans have further execerbated their situation by turning their backs on God and His Word. But either way, the people are to blame for the current economic crisis more than any leadership.  

But rather than acknowledge the real causes for the economic struggles in America, the Obama campaign finds the message of Korah and his company most effective. The economy would be fine if the leadership were changed. The unrestrained spending and taking on of personal debt by Americans throughout the 90s and the last eight years are deemed irrelevant by the Obama campaign. In fact, Mr. Obama himself played a small role in helping Americans amass huge sums of irresponsible debt with his involvement in the Acorn association. Yet these realities are regarded to be unattractive to the vast majority of people. They do not want to be reminded of them. In this way, they are complicit with the rebellious tenor of the Obama campaign.

Rather than proceeding to the other points, it may be best to stop and consider some possible objections.

1. Some might object that since we live in a democracy, it cannot be wrong to speak evil against the rulers of our people, even the president. We admit this is done all the time in America. Republicans frequently made ill-advised statements against the Clinton administration during the 90s and the Carter administration before that. But the Old Testament text the Apostle Paul is quoting in Acts 23:5 goes beyond simply making policy criticisms. It speaks to the tone one would use in making a curse. Thus while it might be appropriate to express public disapproval of Bill Clinton’s affair in the White House, it is quite another thing to call him an idiot because he has a different view of federal spending from you. Much of what passes for political free speech in our nation today is simply inappropriate in light of this higher standard to which the Bible calls us. Romans 13:2 makes clear that those resisting authority – whether with his word or with his tongue – are really mounting resistance against “the ordinance of God”. This respect demanded by the Bible to rulers therefore is not so much to flow from a personal affinity for the man or his political party as it is with God Who has deemed it wise to place him in authority. It is on that basis that it becomes clear that the tone of the Obama campaign towards the Bush administration is totally out of bounds.
2. Another objection might be that George W. Bush should not be placed on the same plane with Moses. We would counter that objection by simply saying that such a statement seeks to evade the issue. The Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13 when the Roman Caesars were in power. Regardless of how much you might dislike George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, they simply are no more petulant or corrupt as the Roman emperors that Paul had in mind when he penned those words. As we will see next time, Korah and his band actually had a very warped view of the person of Moses that was not in accordance with reality. It was their disaffection with him that drove their spiteful rebellion.
3. Finally it could be said that we are not attributing enough blame to congressional leaders or Wall Street bankers that might be culpable for the economic problems. Good people can disagree here. But we would respond by saying that while we expect dishonesty and greed to be uncovered among high officials, this mentality is still largely attempting to shift the blame from the many to just a few. We still maintain that what is most lacking today is plain talk about the foolishness of debt and the excessive materialism of everyday Americans that neither political party is willing to discuss.