A letter to the Church on the dangers of power, politics, and becoming like the world by Jason WildeAfter they had crossed the Jordan, God decreed that the leaders over the Nation of Israel were judges, appointed so that just and fair decisions may be made for His children:
For 300 years (give or take), these judges served as a sort of tribunal council; settling disputes, helping the community stay in tune with God’s commands, and providing an authority figure for other nations to work with. Then, there was a misstep. In 1 Samual 8, we read:
Samuel didn’t think this was a very good idea. But, as a good prophet, he talked with God about it, and was probably a little frustrated when the Lord said “Listen to whatever the people say. You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king.” (1 Sam 7). The Lord instructs him to give a firm warning, though, and he does so on several occasions. The elders wouldn’t listen, however, and so the Lord obliged in helping Samuel to choose Saul as the first king of Israel. Even in this decision, the Lord took great risk, for he knew his children were disobeying him and that such an arrangement would lead them astray. In one of Samuel’s last discourses, we hear him address the community, pointing out that “you said to me, ‘No! A king must rule us,’ even though the Lord your God is your king. Now here is the king you chose. See! The Lord has given you a king. If you fear and serve the Lord, if you listen to the voice of the Lord and do not rebel against the Lord’s command, if both you and the king, who rules over you, follow the Lord your God—well and good. But if you do not listen to the voice of the Lord and if you rebel against the Lord’s command, the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.” (1 Sam 12:12-15). Let’s just say that the latter warning came true pretty early on. Saul attacked the Philistines, and when they fought back, he immediately offered sacrifice (to what or whom, it is not said) in fear. His reign doesn’t get much easier, as further missteps and failures to listen to the Lord are commonly associated with Saul’s time. The succeeding kings of Israel were numerous, and while some were described as following the Lord in all that they did (Soloman, as a good example), we read about quite a few abominations to the Lord. After a few centuries of this, the lineage largely fell apart, beginning with a dramatic story of King Jehoiakim, who upon feeling the pressure of multiple invading armies (the Egyptians and the Babylonians, primarily), decided to start playing political favorites with whomever he thought was stronger at the time. But, in 599 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and laid siege to Jerusalem, killing King Jehoiakim. His trust in tributes to foreign nations had betrayed the Lord, and so the nation of Israel would suffer. The late king was not blameless in any way, as he was counseled by the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah, after a humble start, became a very vocal and annoying fellow to the leaders of Israel. He spends 13 chapters ranting about the evils that exist under King Jehoiakim, warning that the temple no longer protects Jerusalem, and that instead the people should reform, dealing “justly with your neighbor...no longer oppress the alien, the orphan and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place or follow after other gods.” (Jer 7:5-6) Jeremiah then declares that the Lord is “making all the inhabitants of this land drunk, the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests and prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Jer 13:13) Obviously, this would not have set well with the king. Later on, Jeremiah continues his rant against King Zedekiah, who was placed on the throne of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. But Jeremiah’s prophecies no longer have the hope of worldly redemption; instead he now proclaims that the Lord desires Judah to serve Nebuchadnezzar faithfully, or face punishment “with sword, famine, and pestilence.” (Jer 27:8) And so, we have a clear decision point for King Zedekiah and for the people of Judah - listen to the voice of the Lord to the point of enslavement, or perish at the hand of the Lord. We are brought full circle, back to the original warning given to the tribes of Israel in 1 Samuel when they asked for a king. Of course, the king does not take this message lightly, deciding instead to listen to his buddy (and false prophet) Hananiah, who proclaims messages of peace and prosperity for the king. Jeremiah gets thrown into a muddy cistern. The capture of Jerusalem ensues, the temple is sacked and burned, and the Babylonian exile begins. The epic story of the kings of Judah as told in this way portrays what happens when we fail to listen to the Lord...and fail to trust ONLY in the Lord, and that even when we make a mistake and trust in some worldly power, money, or object, we can always turn back to the Lord...though there may likely be a consequence for our mistrust. In many ways, it is also a story of caution against the desire ‘to be like everybody else’, or to become so obsessed with something that our consciences become corrupted by it. God wanted His children to treat Him as King and Lord of all, but they saw other nations with worldly kings and wanted likewise. We must also pay attention to the sins of the sons of Samuel, who “looked to their own gain, accepting bribes and perverting justice”. These were the sins of a single generation that created a waterfall of corruption for generations afterwards, History has a funny way of repeating itself, and though we don’t have as much biblical evidence, we know that the Sanhedrin repeated some of the same errors of the last kings of Judah when they were again invaded by Roman soldiers. But, even if the same story is told again, maybe the message is different. The more recent burning of Jerusalem in the first century, A.D. has a different feel to it. Romans were not known for their leniency, or for their passive nature when it came to paying homage and tribute to Caesar. But aside from these two obligations, they would allow almost anything so long as it allowed you to pay homage and tribute. The very fact that the temple of Jerusalem stood as long as it did under Roman rule tells us some very important details of this relationship. It meant that some agreement had been reached between the local governor and the Jewish king that probably included some promise of peace and tribute toward Rome in exchange for an allowance of a religion that supposedly worshipped only the One True God. And this relationship was most likely very fragile and tenuous. We can see this in a few Gospel accounts. For example when some Pharisees used this tenuous relationship to try and trap Jesus, they asked “Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?” (Mat 22:17), knowing that either answer would tell them something about Jesus. Was he an anarchist, wishing to place sovereignty above peace, or was he a friend of Rome, against King Herod and Jerusalem? To the Pharisees, it was an either-or choice; you ally with Caesar, or with Herod. Jesus’ answer wasn’t what they expected, for it affirmed both, while at the same time stripping the Jewish authority of their ordained power - “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mat 22:21) He didn’t tell them to repay ‘to Herod’, or ‘to the temple’, but ‘to God’. The Sanhedrin also used this political relationship to try and convict Jesus under Roman rule, claiming “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.” (Lk 23:2), and later when “Pilate tried to release him;...the Jews cried out, “If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” (Jn 19:12), further placating Rome by asserting “We have no king but Caesar.” (19:15). All of this shows that the Sanhedrin knew how to pull the strings of Roman laws - they knew the ins and outs of Roman politics - and they would use whatever political means was necessary to take advantage of the unique situation in Jerusalem. When it was to their advantage, they would act as allies of Caesar, but in secret, they were always trying to find ways around the accursed occupation. It is well known that Judean rebels became numerous just before the siege and burning of Jerusalem by Roman soldiers in A.D. 70., but they stood no chance against the Goliath of Rome. So what is the message of this second failure? While the kings of Judah taught about failure to trust and listen to God alone and the desires of a worldly king, I think that the lesson from this second fall is the danger of trying to coerce worldly powers and of seeking power for oneself through politics, by subversion, or by force. Or, in the words of my favorite line from Pontius Pilate in the TV series A.D., The Bible Continues - “Don't play politics unless you're good at it.” The next few centuries saw a mostly hidden but growing Christian Church in Rome. For the most part, however, the early Christians avoided the failure of their Jewish brethren - they didn’t try to use the Roman system to gain power, and no account is really known of Christians trying to buy off or show allegiance to the Roman emperor. In fact, historians still cannot explain the mysterious and miraculous conversion of Emperor Constantine which ended the so-called “Great Persecution” that had preceded him. We knew there was no war or fight, and it is unlikely that the early Christians, who were mostly slaves and poor, would have played any kind of political role in the empire. This sudden gain in freedom (and power over the next few reigns) had dramatic impacts over the Christian Church. Over the next few centuries, Christianity became mainstream, even prompting some to become the first ascetics who are said to have left the cities because they felt that the Holy Spirit was being suppressed and that miracles were no longer happening in the same way that they were in the early persecuted church. In an interesting turn of events, we also know that the gladiator games persisted into the rule of Christian Emperor Honorius, when Saint Telemachus entered the stadium denouncing the horrors and was subsequently martyred. Power and authority, then, was actually just as much of a problem for the early Church as it was for Israel. Even the same games of horrific persecution in which the first generations of Christians died were used as a weapon by a Christian emperor against opponents of state and church. But, this kind of makes sense if we read the Gospel teachings. The Christian Gospel is one of sacrifice, of giving up, of the first being last in the Kingdom, and vice versa. As we learned from the Old Testament, gaining power and authority does not help one trust and listen to the Word of God, and in most cases, it actually detracts from this trust, leading instead to a trust in worldly powers, or in self. Most strikingly from the long history that we’ve been through is the lesson that attempting to align the will of God and the wills of an empire, a kingdom, or a state is nearly impossible, and in doing so usually results in the idolatry of the latter and the destruction of the former. Or, as Jesus very eloquently said, “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other” (Mat 6:24). Does this mean that it is a sin to try to influence authorities? Well, most likely, no. Pope Francis said that “A good Catholic meddles in politics, offering the best of himself, so that those who govern can govern.” (Homily, Sep 16, 2013) Politics is actually a part of the Church’s social justice teachings. In tandem with the corporal acts of mercy, which are physical and personal acts of encounter, politics is seen as the ‘top-down’ change necessary to counter social sins which are usually much larger than (and contribute to) individual acts of sin. The danger exists, however, of going beyond ‘meddling’ into paying tribute and idolizing, or even seeking power for the Church, all of which have terrible effects on our community of believers and breaks any trust that may be formed with non-believers. This would not be offering ‘the best of’ ourselves. This brings me to the reason why I wrote this letter to my Christian brothers and sisters. I feel that for the past decade, the Church in our country has been dangerously flirting with this line between ‘meddling’ and paying tribute. Maybe it started in the middle of the past century, as some would claim, when the Catholic Christian population changed from being primarily poor immigrants to having some respectable status and wealth. Or, maybe it was the abortion polarization that occurred between the major political parties in the early 1980s. But, it seems that in recent years, the line of politicking has become very grey. Four years ago, it was generally frowned upon for a priest to advise his congregation on which party is ‘better’, and it was specifically prohibited for one to endorse a candidate, for example. Now, we see these kinds of actions become normal, as not only priests, but also bishops have begun campaigning for or against either candidate, not just advising, but telling their flock that they would be sinning if they didn’t vote in a particular way. This year, the campaigning of clergy has quickly degraded into disparaging of other Christians and clergy, in much the same way as politicians will mudsling without regard for Christian ideals and teachings. There is a repeating of the desire to act like the world, to have a king that represents our beliefs. This witness by pastors has now waterfalled and become mainstream among the lay flock, dividing our Church along worldly political lines - I fear, causing irreparable harm within the Body of Christ.
There is also a notable corruption in the heart of the Church; a corruption that has largely aligned the Church with a single-issue anti-abortion movement that, when it is convenient, claims to be in defense of all life, but whenever any other life or moral issue contends with the public spotlight, decries abortion as the 'pre-eminent' issue. This word, having a valid meaning in the moral teachings of our Church, has been construed and explained in a way that now allows other grave social and moral sins to be permissible - defended, in many cases - in political discussions. I fear that just as the Sanhedrin attempted to use Roman politics to crucify Jesus for their own advantage, many in our own Church authority are using the short-sided advancement of a single issue to excuse or define morality on a whole host of other issues, even to the point of permitting and defending injustices that are clearly against social teaching. Like the sons of Samuel who perverted justice in their position as judges, this error could have eternal consequences as the consciences of many faithful are being formed not by the Church and God, but by the political parties that they have aligned themselves with. Or, as St. Paul warns, "that there are rivalries among you...each of you is saying, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or 'I belong to Christ.'" (1 Cor 1:12). In contrast, a well formed conscience should be aware that “no one can serve two masters”, that the desire for political power can itself become an idol, and that all humans are fallible. The Church is “called to form consciences, not to replace them” (Amoris Laetitia), and any such endorsing or campaigning for an imperfect political entity has nothing but dangerous outcomes. Most importantly, we must be aware of sin in all its forms and the interconnectedness of injustices that manifest in ways that we do not understand. I would like to say that our political awareness should be very much issue-focused, and not party-focused. This allows for the moral freedom to truly fight sin as it exists all around us without having to explain why some sin is ‘pre-eminent’ and others can be ignored. As Christians, we should have the courage to stand up and say that abortion is wrong, and that the death penalty is unjust, and that we must take action to safeguard our Common Home all with the same amplitude. Finally, I would like to renew a call for charity and kindness in all political discourse. We must set a new example for our Church - one of discussion and not of argument, one of understanding and not of mistrust, one of encounter and not of defense, and most of all, one of humility and not to seek power. Let us not follow the ways of the world - this will only lead to destruction. Instead, the Light of Christ emanates love and goodness in a time and place where darkness, hatred, and anger are so prevalent. True conversion and evangelization comes from this Light and nowhere else, and so we must place our words and actions in the trust of a loving and Holy God who peers into the soul of every being, now and beyond the current age.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
On a MissionTwo passionate parents and their four children are excited to bring His Word to everyone in need while living a life of Gospel poverty as missionaries. They invite you to join them on a journey to encounter our global neighbors that Jesus commands us to love through works of charity and service. Archives
April 2021
Categories
All
|