Rapid economic change in 10th Century Western Europe led to instability, which created fertile ground for those with power to press their claims for more power at the expense of the common people. If I replace 10th Century with 20th-21st and Western Europe with the whole world, the gap between our own predicament and the medieval world narrows considerably. In their case, the economic change was newfound prosperity after the doldrums of the Dark Ages following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. In our case, the economic change has been far less favorable to most people, but rapid change opens the door to power moves whether that change be for the better or for the worse.
The patchwork of nobles that controlled Western Europe took advantage of the changing landscape to press their own dynastic claims at the expense of their family rivals leading to endemic small scale warfare. As Diarmaid MacCulloch tells it in Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years,
"One symptom of the reorganization of society's wealth was a great deal of local warfare as rival magnates competed to establish their positions and property rights, or used violence against humble people in order to squeeze revenue and labor obligations from them; this was the era in which a rash of castles began to appear across the continent, centers of military operations and refuges for noblemen." (p. 370)
What was the Church's response to this violence and oppression of the 'least of these' by those who claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ, but acted in self-interested, and often violent, greed instead?
The Church threw its moral authority against the violence and greed, threatening to excommunicate those who failed to keep the peace.
Beginning with the Bishop of Le Puy in 975, local Church leaders organized processions with holy relics and used their moral authority to cajole the feuding nobles into swearing solemn oaths to keep the peace. Those that hesitated were persuaded by the threat of excommunication to accept the Church's restrictions on which days of the year they could fight without incurring the Church's wrath. In addition, the Church set itself up as an arbiter where disputes could be resolved without bloodshed. This movement had the backing of one of the most influential spiritual leaders of the day, Odilo, the abbot of the Cluny monastery, and eventually popes became involved in regulating the peace agreements. In the end, the Church was not able to eliminate the greed and violent tendencies of the nobles, but they were able to significantly curtail it and limit its impact on the common people.
What then are the lessons for the Church in our own era of economic upheaval and political instability?
1. The Church needs to stand with the common people, not seek the favor of the powerful.
This should hardly need to be said, given the clear teaching of Jesus Christ on the matter, but sadly we need to be reminded that role and function of pastors/elders/bishops is not to curry the favor of powerful business leaders or politicians, but shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ. Deference to the powerful is a betrayal of every minister's ordination vows, a sign of unhealthy priorities, and an invitation to moral compromise.
2. The Church needs to withdraw its recognition/support of 'Christian' leaders/politicians whose behavior besmirches the name of Jesus Christ.
The threat of excommunication doesn't hold much water anymore, and a Church fractured into many pieces has difficulty speaking with one voice, but those in power have little incentive to change their ways when large and powerful churches gladly support their ambitions despite repeated evidences that those they support care little for Christian morality. Such a reckoning is unlikely to come until churches eliminate their own tolerance for immorality among their own leadership {the plank in our own eye first}, something that sadly is all too common, but it is certainly necessary that they do so as the bond between a Church dedicated to imitating Christ-likeness and powerful people who ignore Christ's teachings, but still claim to be Christians, can only be a marriage that will stain the reputation of the Church. While there will always be a charlatan like Paula White-Cain willing to embrace/endorse the rich and powerful for mutual gain, respectable Church leaders must walk away from these toxic relationships that benefit those who behave in ways that make a mockery of our faith by given them a veneer of legitimacy that their actions don't deserve.
In the end, Christians simply need to insist upon better leaders by choosing to not support those who demonstrate moral unfitness, whether that be in their own local church, their denominational leadership, or within the political party they support.
3. The Church needs to heal its own divisions and rivalries to allow it to speak with more moral authority.
This is, of course, the hardest of the three. There are significant portions of the Church today who identify with liberal politicians/causes, and significant portions of the Church today who identify with conservative politicians/causes, MORE STRONGLY than they do with Christians who disagree with them on those issues. In other words, for far too many Christians, politics comes first. It is difficult for many liberal Christians to see conservative Christians as genuine believers, and vice versa. The question: "Do you profess the risen Lord as Savior?" has been replaced as a test of faith with, "What is your position on Immigration?" {for example} That this is unhealthy for the Church should be evident to both sides, but the solution to it is not going to be easy. Here it is: We need to care more about unity in Christ than we do about winning elections. We need to share the Gospel of Jesus to the Lost more passionately than we argue about the latest political scandal on social media.
What is the solution to America's growing descent into partisanship and political violence? A Church that utilizes it own moral authority on behalf of the 'least of these', refuses to excuse immoral behavior on the part of leaders for the sake of power, and is willing to restore the Gospel as the test of faith and fellowship regardless of the political philosophies of those who proclaim Jesus as Lord.
Why are our elected leaders continuing down this path of bitter partisan divides? Because the Church has been cheering them on from the sidelines. It has to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment