Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part II]

Okay, kiddos, lets get ready to time travel.  Please make sure your seat belts are fastened and keep your arms, legs, heads, and left rib inside the blog at all times.  If you forgot to sign the waiver... too late now.

So, historic examples of the Kingdom of the Left and the Kingdom of the Right.
  • The Kingdom of Israel.
  • The Roman Empire.
  • The political mess we call the Middle Ages.
  • (Bonus!) The, at times, ridiculous experiment in contradictions we call the United States.
First stop: Israel, whose kingdom lasted, in various forms, from 1100 BC through 586 BC.

Alright, so here's the "quick and dirty" version.  God established a covenant with Israel at Sinai.  After entering the Promised Land the nation of Israel spent quite a while conquering and reconquering the territory.  During this time they were led by judges and the priests, who spoke God's commands to them.

Finally, they requested a king, and reluctantly God gave them one, Saul.  After him came David, whose line continued to rule until Jerusalem's fall in 586.  Well, except for the northern 10 tribes, who rebelled and formed their own nation in 910.  (They'd be gone by 722.)

Israel was, initially, a kind of theocracy.  God was their king, with day-to-day political duties being handled by the Law, and by people like Moses or Joshua.  The Law, the big version that takes up most of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a combination of civic, ceremonial, and moral.  The first two were specific for the Israelites within their covenant.  The moral, the 10 Commandments, were preexisting, and are still in play.  (Not that the rest of it is/was bad, but that's a different post.)

The Two Kingdoms were (or were supposed to be) intertwined in ancient Israel.  To use the monarchial metaphor, it was a real union, as opposed to a personal union.  And so long as Israel followed God as both Lord and King, things went well, including when the kings were good (ya know, guys like David, Asa, Hezekiah).  Israel is the poster child for this concept, not so much in its actual form but in the intention.  Hence why this symbol/prototype is used in the New Testament by the likes of Paul, Peter, the write of Hebrews, and Jesus.

Next up: Rome!  The empire started in 27 BC, and ended in 395 AD (with the split), 480 AD (with the ending of the Western empire), and 1453 AD (when the Easter/Byzantine empire fell).  And, yes, the Byzantine overlaps with the Middle Ages, but that's not relevant right now.  The only Roman empire I'm concerned with at this moment is the versions from its founding to the fall of the city of Rome in 476.  And there are technically (for my purpose) two: the version founded by Julius Caesar, and the one reformed by Constantine.

In the "classic" Roman empire, the church/state dichotomy was complicated.  And I'm ignoring the pagan worship for this.  Not because it isn't significant in the empire's formation.  But because it adds complexity that isn't needed for this topic.  At least right now.  But the nice thing is the situation is easy to sum up:

"Then He [Jesus] said to them, 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.""  (Matthew 22:21.)

This point is brought up in detail by St. Paul in Romans chapter 13.  But we will dig deeper there later.  For now, the gist is that in early Rome, when the empire was still hostile toward Christians, the Church had to live both within the Kingdoms of the Left and the Right.

In many ways things got better when Constantine what at the helm, but only because the killing of Christians wasn't government sanctioned anymore.  The church had other issues on its hands, like major heresies.  You know, the ones self-proclaimed "experts" seem to think was "original Christianity" before the councils forced the church to adopt certain ideas about Jesus being God, and other controversial things that are now considered baseline.

(I shouldn't need to take the time to call these guys out, I'll save that for another day.  But if the guy you're using as a source thinks a gnostic gospel is 300+ years older than the synoptics, then he should be forced to listen to the first half of the baby back ribs song.  Check Scrubs if you don't know that one.)

And now, ladies and gentlemen, for the Medieval period!  Sometimes it is (incorrectly) called the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, this slice of time went from the 5th century (400s) through the 15th century (1400s).  Basically from the fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.

(By the way, it was Renaissance thinkers who called it the "dark" ages, to imply that they were backward in thought somehow.  Arrogant of them, but, that's for a different post.)

The Medieval period covers a lot of things.  The kingdom of Charlemagne.  The Crusades.  The forming of the Holy Roman Empire.  The Vikings.  The "classic" era of English history (here be knights in shining armor and rogues wearing tights).  The voyage of Marco Polo.  If you want a feel for the era, check out A Knight's Tale.  Anachronistic, sure, but is pretty honest with tournaments.  Otherwise, just look up Mike Loades on YouTube.  If watching a man in his 60s get knocked off a horse while sword-fighting and giggling in the dirt is your thing, you'll like his work.

The Middle Ages (and its extensions the Renaissance and the Reformation) have common "flavors."  One thing that we will focus on is the overlap of Church and State.

The Holy Roman Empire was reestablished in 962 under Otto I.  The pope crowned him, and declared him emperor of the Romans.  Why?  In part as a gambit to combat the Muslims.  Remember, at this time, the Muslim world is expanding through North Africa, and is nearing places like Spain and Greece.  That understandably scared people in Europe, the Islamic religion being irrelevant initially.  Didn't remain irrelevant, but the Crusades are not where I'll dig too much today.  Mostly because we don't have time, and I dare not dedicate that many pixels to the topic.

Crusades were called, sometimes sanctioned by the church in Rome.  Primarily for the politics first, and the faith-based reason second.  People would do good to remember that.  But, in that day and age, state and religion were not separable.

Your lord (king, duke, count, prince, etc) determined which religion you (the serf) practiced.  And in that day there was only one: Catholicism.  Well, at least until the Great Schism in 1054, which made the choice Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  But, regardless, the lord was to be a defender of the faith.  Church and State were side-by-side.  It gets muddy, though, when you head to Italy to visit the bishop of Rome.

Now, this will upset some, but if you've been reading anything here, it shouldn't surprise.  The Papacy of the Middle Ages was operating heretically.  One because it claimed to have authority to hold authority in both civic and ecumenical aspects (they've dialed this back), and have authority equal to Scripture (they still believe this).  The Pope controlled a large portion of Italy, had an army, and could decide who was to be crowned king or emperor.

Regardless of what you think of that medieval mess, the church and state were so intertwined that it never occurred to anyone to think of themselves as anyone but a Christian, which was both their faith and national identity.  In fact, national identity didn't really exist until the late 15th century.  Guys like Dr Luther had a lot of influence on the concept of national identity (both good and bad).

And now, the bonus: our modern mess, the American States that are United.

In reality, all I need to address is the whole "separation of church and state" line of the Constitution.  Only, its not in the Constitution.  Rather, the phrase is in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining the amendment granting people free practice of religion.  The founder said there is a wall separating the church and state.

You see, the letter was a response to a religious group who were worried the government would go to them and say "you need to conform to the national religion or pay a fine."  (This sort of think happened in England.  Part of why the Pilgrims left.)  They wrote to Jefferson hoping for support.  He responded with an explanation that the Constitution does not allow the State to have say in the affairs of the Church.

You hear that politicians?  "Separation of Church and State" defends the church from the state.  And before you be all like "oh, history shows us religion takes over governments" (which has happened), may I remind you what happened in Nazi Germany?  Hitler forcibly took over the churches.  That's why Christians get so upset and worried about politicians supporting things like Planned "Parenthood," insurance rules that required purchasing contraceptives, and calls for us to "tolerate" something we believe is wrong.

That's why this discussion is needed.  There is a middle ground, but getting there isn't easy.  But it requires knowing how the State and the Church have authority, and what tools are at their disposal.

Tune in tomorrow...

No comments: