{"id":15357,"date":"2011-05-03T17:25:25","date_gmt":"2011-05-03T22:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=15357"},"modified":"2011-05-03T17:25:25","modified_gmt":"2011-05-03T22:25:25","slug":"god-and-baby-face-nelson-thoughts-on-obedience-genocide-and-problematic-narratives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2011\/05\/god-and-baby-face-nelson-thoughts-on-obedience-genocide-and-problematic-narratives\/","title":{"rendered":"God and Baby Face Nelson: Thoughts on Obedience, Genocide, and Problematic Narratives"},"content":{"rendered":"

How should church members today approach morally repugnant scriptural narratives? I wondered about that as I recently read over Elder Hales’ talk about agency and obedience<\/a>. <\/p>\n

There was a lot in the talk which I liked. I do think that order and consistency can absolutely be useful for faith communities (for instance, in helping establish expectations). I think that agency is a useful way to conceptualize human behavior, and that despite its problems it remains one of the best broad answers to problems of theodicy. And I certainly agree with many of the talk’s basic points, such as the tension between freedom and accountability. <\/p>\n

But I had a strongly negative reaction to a central portion of the talk, because it relies heavily on a morally repugnant Old Testament story. I give you Elder Hales<\/a>: <\/p>\n

Contrary to the world\u2019s secular teaching, the scriptures teach us that we do have agency, and our righteous exercise of agency always makes a difference in the opportunities we have and our ability to act upon them and progress eternally.<\/p>\n

For example, through the prophet Samuel, the Lord gave a clear commandment to King Saul: \u201cThe Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord. \u201cGo and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Saul did not follow the Lord\u2019s commandment. He practiced what I call \u201cselective obedience.\u201d Relying on his own wisdom, he spared the life of King Agag and brought back the best of the sheep, oxen, and other animals. The Lord revealed this to the prophet Samuel and sent him to remove Saul from being king. When the prophet arrived, Saul said, \u201cI have performed the commandment of the Lord.\u201d But the prophet knew otherwise, saying, \u201cWhat meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?\u201d <\/p>\n

Saul excused himself by blaming others, saying the people had kept the animals in order to make sacrifices to the Lord. The prophet\u2019s answer was clear: \u201cHath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken [to the commandments of the Lord] than the fat of rams.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, Saul confessed, saying, \u201cI have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.\u201d Because Saul did not hearken with exactness\u2014because he chose to be selectively obedient\u2014he lost the opportunity and the agency to be king. My brothers and sisters, are we hearkening with exactness to the voice of the Lord and His prophets? Or, like Saul, are we practicing selective obedience and fearing the judgments of men?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course there are a number of morally repugnant Old Testament stories <\/a>(and more than a few morally repugnant New Testament stories), but this has to be one of the worst. Saul is ordered to kill the Amalekites, man, woman and child, and down to the livestock: In today’s language, Saul is asked to commit genocide. <\/p>\n

All genocide is problematic, but this genocide is for a particularly bad reason. God explains in verse 2 that Saul is to commit genocide because the Amalekites warred against Joshua 300 years earlier. Not kidding. Read it yourself:<\/p>\n

Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Sam. 15:1-3). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a vile and morally repugnant act. Committing war is problematic, even under the best of circumstances. Committing genocide on a neighboring kingdom — “both man and woman, infant and suckling” — is barbaric and inexcusable. And God’s explicit and stated rationale — that this will avenge a 300-year-old affront — only serves to highlight the absurdity of the order. <\/p>\n

Of course Saul, being an amoral fellow, cheerfully complied with almost all of God’s genocide request, and killed almost all of the Amalekites. However, as Elder Hales points out, Saul ultimately wasn’t genocidal *enough.* He disobeyed a portion of Samuel’s order because he failed to kill the Amalekite king and livestock. And Elder Hales condemns this “selective obedience” in his talk. Apparently when God gives a genocide order, one should not be selectively obedient. Indeed, the Old Testament account ends with Samuel telling Saul that he will be removed as king of Israel for his disobedience. <\/p>\n

I remember hearing this story in seminary and finding it a helpful example of the importance of obedience. Now it seems cringe-worthy. What are we supposed to make of a God who removes a king for unwillingness to genocide the sheep? The whole story is sadly reminiscent of Baby Face Nelson in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, where the character violently attacks a herd of cattle, yelling, “Cows? I hate cows worse than coppers!” <\/p>\n