It Is Enough for the Day

June 13, 2004

1 Kings 21:1-21

If you take a look at the ìtopical indexî in the back of the Presbyterian Hymnal youíll find two entries under the heading ìjoy.î Youíll find more under ìredemptionî or ìrepentanceî or ìsupplicationî than you will under ìjoy.î I think that says something. Itís not for nothing that weíre known as ìGodís frozen peopleî or ìthe frozen chosenî as some like to say.

No, if you look in that index, youíll find lots of songs listed under Godís sovereignty ñ which is good and right and appropriate as one of the essential tenets of the Reformed theological tradition is, as our Book of Order puts it, a ìcentral affirmation of Godís sovereigntyî (G-2.0500). Likewise, you will find a long list of hymns to God the creator that affirm ìthe majesty, holiness and providence of God who creates, sustains, rules, and redeems the world in the freedom of sovereign righteousness and love,î as the soaring phrases of our churchís constitution put it.

But only two hymns listed under joy?

By the way, weíve sung ëem both already this morning! So this must be as close to overflowing joy as itís possible to get in a Presbyterian church! Can I get an amen?!

I could not help thinking about this apparent lack of joy among us mainline Protestants of the Reformed stripe as I was reading this passage from 1 Kings last week. I was struck by the image of King Ahab, ìresentful and sullen.î Was Ahab a closet Presbyterian?

Well, no. Ahab was clearly a rapacious and unjust ruler who took advantage of the poor and powerless. His sins were many and manifold as the arc of the Ahab story underscores. I donít think that even the leaders of the Presbyterian Lay Committee would be involved in such a plot as this even though their manifestly questionable theology does leave a great deal of destruction in its wake.

As King of Samaria, Ahab no doubt had access to and control over a good deal of land ñmore than enough for a vegetable garden and more than more than enough to meet the needs of his royal household. But he wants still more. Wanting more, he casts a greedy eye on the garden of Naboth, and, in the most telling phrase of the entire story, he pouts ñ resentful and sullen ñ when he does not get his way.

ìHe lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat,î the story tells us (and right there we know heís certainly not a Presbyterian!)

Jezebel recognized immediately that Ahab was, well, a little depressed. Leaving aside any psychotherapy concerns ñ and sympathies for those who suffer real depression ñ Iíve got to ask: why are you depressed Ahab? Youíre the king. Youíve got control over all of Israel. Do you really need one more garden? Donít you already have enough? Why would you ask Naboth to transgress the communityís traditions and sell off his inheritance? Donít you already have enough for the day, and more?

Ahab seems to want more for the sake of having more. He seems unable to find any security in what he has, even though he has the kingís share already.

His problem lies not, I think, in the love of more, so much as it lies in the inability to feel secure with enough. Ahab raises security ñ in the form of more land to control ñ to such importance that he is more than willing to murder Naboth to get the land.

As Martin Luther observed, security is the ultimate idol, and idolatry, as scripture shows over and over, leads to destruction and death.

Insecurity arises for many of us when we cannot find comfort and satisfaction in enough. And, too often, insecurity creeps in when we cannot find joy in living with enough.

U.S. real estate statistics show us that the average new home built today is more than twice as large as the average new home built in 1960. Demographic statistics tell us that the average American family is half the size of the average American family in 1960. Hm, twice the space, half the people: weíve got more than enough! On top of that, real per capita income has roughly tripled in that same period.

We are demonstratively better off in the ways that Ahab seemed to want to be better off ñ that is to say, most of us have demonstrably more ñ more space, more stuff, more money, but we are no less likely to turn our backs on the world in resentful sullenness than was Ahab.

Indeed, divorce rates and teen suicide rates have more than doubled and rates of depression have increased dramatically over the past 40 years, and the percentage of Americans who say they are happy has actually declined in the midst of this material boom.[1]

Itís no wonder we only have two songs about joy in the hymnal!

We have made of ourselves a great, unhappy success. We produce more, we buy more, we have more, we achieve more. We have met the aims that the culture sets before us as normative values: high personal incomes; occupational success; social and professional prestige, and yet.

It is as if, like Ahab, we have so much to be thankful for yet cannot find gratitude in our vocabulary.

And if we cannot find gratitude in our vocabulary, we cannot pray, for, as Anne Lamott[2] observes, the two basic forms of prayer are: ìthank you, thank you, thank youî and ìhelp me, help me, help me.î You cannot get to that second prayer if you have not found the grace to say ìthank you.î

Saying ìthank youî is, perhaps, the most reasonable response to the ìmajesty, holiness and providence of God,î to go back to where we began. Expressing gratitude, as Henri Nouwen once observed, is the fundamental attitude common to all religious expression. Gratitude in response to grace is expressed as joy.

For saying ìthank youî acknowledges Godís gracious action in our lives and in the life of the world. Saying ìthank youî acknowledges that we are not alone. We are not isolated individuals left completely to our own devices. Saying ìthank youî acknowledges the other, and implicitly, all the others. Saying ìthank youî means youíre not a solo act, but youíre part of a relationship, indeed, part of a community.

Saying ìthank youî acknowledges the gracious actions of the other ñ whether it is the Holy Other or a sister or brother ñ and such acknowledgment forms the ground for relationships of mutual interdependence. In other words, it lets us ask for help and it lets us respond to otherís requests for help.

A progressive theology understands that the simple act of gratitude ultimately situates us in an inescapable web of mutuality, bound together and finely woven into a single garment of destiny in which whatever affects one directly affects the rest of us indirectly.[3]

In this week of overflowing tribute to the late President Reagan, itís worth noting that this is the primary ground of radical distinction between the right wing philosophy that Reagan embraced and the progressive understanding of the world.

King Ahab clearly had no vision of the common wealth, and I think itís fair to charge that most of the social policies of the Reagan era were tilted in favor of the uncommonly wealthy. In the midst of his abundance, Ahab perceived scarcity and thus sought greater security in the annexation of one more garden.

As the Ahab story so clearly illustrates, the inability to perceive Godís gracious abundance and express gratitude for it leads to the idolatrous worship of the god of security. Rather than a joyous, gracious ìthank youî for having more than enough for the day, Ahab chooses to respond first with ìsullenness,î and then with violence.

Surprisingly enough, itís in choosing our response to our time and context that we in the progressive church might actually learn something from non other than Ronald Reagan.

Surely Reaganís time in power was marked by policies that neglected the poor, the outcast and the marginalized, the thousands who died of AIDS as the band played on, the millions who lost jobs and benefits, and all of us who are even now victims in the culture wars that began under his leadership.

And yet, it is precisely as I list but a portion of the catalog of the specific places where progressive disagreed with and disdained President Reagan that I could almost hear him saying, ìwell, there you go again.î

And it is precisely there, as we imagine Reagan smiling at an opponent and disarming him with a quip, that we find the message of Ronald Reagan for the progressive church today as it faces the Ahabs of our own time.

You see, as so many eulogizers of Reagan reminded us last week, the man was an incurable optimist. Now we may scoff and say he was not wise enough to know the difference, but he had great hope for the future, and he was able to articulate that hope in ways that captured both the brilliance of the founding ideas of this nation as well as the energy and imagination of her people. As he said in his first inaugural address, ìwe have every right to dream heroic dreams.î Reagan may not have understood justice very well, but he did perceive abundance and the opportunities inherent in an economy of abundance.

As Reagan, himself, put it in his farewell address to the Republican National Convention in 1992, ìI hope [history] will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts.î

That should logically be the turf of progressives; after all, essential to the notion of progressive thought is a vision for the future that is grounded in hope. Such hope, when it is the hope of people of faith, is grounded itself in a profound trust that a gracious God has provided enough for this day, and will provide in the future enough for the days to come.

That trust never blinds us to the reality of suffering ñ and here I would contrast it with the often pie-in-the-sky hopes of those who foist off on the nation such notions as trickle-down economics in place of policies of genuine hopefulness grounded in justice. No, trust in a gracious God does not blind us to the reality of suffering at the hands of contemporary Ahabs.

Nevertheless, such trust does lead us, even in the midst of suffering, to find seeds of hope to plant today for a flowering of justice come harvest time. For we know now that we do live with enough to say ìthank you,î and, in saying ìthank youî we know that we are connected to all those others ñ including the ones who struggle on the precipice of sufficiency.

Trusting Godís gracious abundance, in thanks for enough, we can find solidarity with the poor, the outcast and the marginalized and go work among them, sharing from our abundance that all may have enough.

And, you know what? There is great joy in this calling: way more than two songs worth!

In God of the Oppressed, James Cone writes about finding strength for the work, for the struggle, precisely in joyous songs that could create an alternative view of reality to the one that Ahab would impose upon us. Cone writes of his mother singing in church, and says, ìIt was her attempt to make a statement about her life and to say to the world that she is who she is because and only because of the presence of God in her world.î[4]

It is that alternative vision of reality that is the great gift the progressive church has to share with the world. Surely, such a vision does not include rapacious Ahabs, but, and hereís the wisdom we can borrow from Ronald Reagan, we must move beyond articulating merely that which we oppose. You know, the chanting, ìhey, hey, ho, ho, King Ahab has got to go!î Or, in terms closer to our reality, ìhey, hey, ho, ho, G-6.0106b has got to go!î That doesnít even have rhythm!

Rather, the gift of the progressive church comes in lifting up to the world a vision of a community of belovedness in which the structures of genuine community make space for all of Godís children to share in the abundance of Godís gifts, to know the simple joy of enough for the day, to share in the common wealth and participate freely in its governance, to stand in the mighty stream of righteousness and watch as it waters that garden of justice and of joy. There is enough for the day because, though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet!

I had the good fortune last week, in the midst of all the Reagan recognitions, to listen to another Reagon ñ Bernice Johnson Reagon and her daughter, Toshi ñ in a noontime concert at the Library of Congress. Now Bernice Reagon was a victim of the injustice and violence inflicted on the powerless by the Ahabs of the American South of the 1950s and 60s. She was a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Freedom Singers and the founder of Sweet Honey in the Rock.

She spoke with incredible power of singing in Parchman Penitentiary when she was jailed with the Freedom Riders. She said, ìwe sang so we would know that we were not alone,î and that, in singing, they knew who they were ñ that they were not criminals or even prisoners, but a joyous, faithful people working to overturn a system of Ahabs, and to offer in its place a vision for a community of belovedness.

She sang it like this:

ìThere must be more love somewhere. There must be more love somewhere. Iím going to keep on, till I find it. There must be more love somewhere.î

Rev. Dr. David E. Ensign



[1] Statistics from David G. Myers, The Pursuit of Happiness (Avon Books) as digested by David G. Myers, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, 2004, at http://www.davidmyers.org/happiness/Excerpt.html.

[2] Anne Lamott, Traveling Mercies (New York: Pantheon Books, 1999).

[3] Martin Luther King used this image of the web often, including when he said, ìWe are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.î ìA Christmas Sermon on Peace,î in A Testament of Hope, (San Francisco: Harper, 1986) 254. The phrase ìbound together and finely wovenî comes from a song by Ken Medema.

[4] James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, revised edition, 1997 ) 12.