SD-38: So, if the Empire and the Church were so closely tied together 'once upon a time,' is that still the case?
Imagine a Church able to go throughout an Empire and do as it pleased. Imagine a Church whose leaders were often more powerful than rulers. Imagine how a person not in the Church would have no say and unable to have any authority or power in the Empire. In Italy, there was a constant reminder that the 'Church' ruled once it became the sister of the Empire. Maybe 'mother' church means - don't mess with mom.
Let me bring this home. Since arriving back in the U.S. there have been a number of articles about the role of religion in the election process. This means - almost exclusively Christian - one must be able to show solid grounding as a 'Christian' before one can be accepted as one capable or worthy of being President. I would use 'Christian' here as a derogatory word over against a description like 'follower of Jesus.' Just look at the Romney and Perry rumble over who is a 'Christian' and who is a part of a cult and who receives support from some of the weirdest edges of 'Christianity.' In the Holy Roman Empire, you could rise to a position of power by your wealth - therefore, Popes tended to be members of - let's say - the Medici family. I don't know of anyone who became Pope from humble background back then and I don't think that any family with a Pope in your family heritage suffered much within the Empire. In the U.S., it still takes money to rise to the political top but if you cannot claim some connection to 'Christianity,' your chances of being President are not worth betting on. Being 'Christian' simply means noting it on paper. That's good enough - even if it means nothing or little in your life.
I would submit that it would be good for the 'followers of Jesus' to come out of the closet and be upfront and say that a candidate for office need not (should not) list a religious affiliation as part of a campaign. Let their lives and their words and the harmony of those two aspects of their lives be a better credential for an office. In that way, 'Christians' will not be able to be stuck under one roof of people who differ as greatly as any other people. Also, there will be no pre-screening that happens simply when a word is placed alongside the name. Imagine if 'agnostic' or 'atheist' was next to a politician name - s/he would most likely not be a candidate. So - remove the name - the bias - the abuse - the insignificance of such a description for office. We don't need a 'Christian' as political leader - or a "Muslim' or a 'Hindu.'
Connection: There are many ways to come out of the closet. One way is to always and at every chance speak up and say 'this doesn't matter.' Another might be to call the 'stamp' into question. What do you/they mean by that? What does Christian stand for? Let's see what comes out of their mouths. More important to all of us is to know what we mean when we say we are 'followers of Jesus.' For then, we will be able to draw their responses into more and more question and really reveal that it means not much more than most other people - a worldly way to gain some power and prestige and honor. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
Blessed are you, Maker of all that is and all that will be. Continue to make us bold and hold onto you call to seek out the welfare of all without distinction. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment