Jeremiah 3.3 Political Intermission

This is probably something that I should have covered in introduction, but I am bogged down by it now.

Politics.

I'm stumped about how to interpret and apply Jeremiah's politics. Jeremiah's prophecy is full of practical politics. Should today's readers practice such spiritual realpolitik?

The big issue at the time was with whom Judah should ally itself. The dominant powers were Egypt to the south and Assyria/Babylon to the east. At the beginning of Jeremiah's time, Assyria was a waning regional power and was eventually overtaken by Nebuchadnezzar-era Babylon.

Jeremiah pulls no punches. He pointed east. He pleads with Judah's leaders to forget about Egypt and ally with Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as an instrument of God's power and judgement.

Parenthetically: I am aware this political element of Jeremiah's prophecy may be a classic example of playing the results. Later redactors may have used the eventual Babylonian domination as a means of saying "see, you picked the wrong horse." So, what? It is all too meta for our mediations herein. The text does not give the reader the leeway to bring history into play, though it is important to remember the overwhelming influence of history on the bearers (and editors) of the text.

Theologists, preachers, and prophets don't seem to pick sides these days. There is a very wise effort to NOT pick a side - to NOT become a lackey for some political person or position. But, Jeremiah did. It is a significant element of his preaching.

To Jeremiah, God, though transcendent, is also imminently involved in the affairs of the world. HE appoints kings and emperors and he clearly chooses sides in political divides.

Several complications have probably led to my confusion. These complications are rooted in the significant differences between a modern reader like myself, and an ancient hearer like those who first heard and retold the prophecy.

1. LAND - geopolitics involved the land of Promise. LAND = PROMISE The very dirt of the nation was a theological issue. GOd's promise was the land. So, marauding invaders, or a land laid bare and emptied meant something theologically. Either God had broken his promise or the people had. Any divine revelation would have to explain that.

2. SOCIOLOGY - modern (especially Western) readers see firm divisions between the theological, political, and religious. No such divisions existed for the ancients. We may recoil from such mixing of faith and politics, but the ancients knew nothing of it. Side note: I know many Christians who see the grace of God every time they are able to locate a lost set of keys, so maybe the theological/political divide is not so rigid.

3. REALPOLITIK - clearly part of Jeremiah's motivation was the welfare of the people. Part of the judgement stemmed from the fact that the Judean kings failed to care for their subjects amidst all their scheming and plotting. Bruggemann pointed this application out:

if we carry the Jeremiah oracle toward our common civic life, the mandate that may arise from God is an invitation to a deep breath and a fresh generosity, and a move beyond petty and deep resentment toward embrace of the other.

4. EXILE - This, perhaps, is most significant. Jeremiah (and later redactors) is in part concerned with what to do without typical societal institutions. In exile, all that was is no longer. The priest class is barely recognizable, and there is no temple anyway. The monarchy is gone. The faith of the nation looks forward to a new restoration, but what to do in the meantime? The word of God would have to explain what had occurred as well as revealing a path forward that would maintain the Covenant.

Certainly, political preaching is a dangerous path in our day and age. Political preachers tend to be dismissed as partisans and, thus, lose their authoritative voice. If you sound just like the political hacks on TV, why would I care what you have to say about more transcendent matters?

Yet, I also think about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the other great civil rights reformers. Most were people of faith. Most were Christians, but there were Jewish reformers and Muslim as well. For most of the civil rights movement, their faith prompted political action. They clearly chose a side. History has also proven that they chose God's side.

Stepping into the political arena is different now than it was for Jeremiah, but there is still a place for it. For Jeremiah, it was part of the job. For current preachers, it is not like that, and a political stance is likely a difficult stance. A basic rule remains the same, however:

Make damned sure you're right.