Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Dilemma of a Christian Public Servant
It has been pagan tradition to honor men of power and influence, to the extent of according them divine status. In ancient times, the line that separates political and religious matters does not exist. The Chinese considered their emperors the son of heaven; the Egyptians thought of their Pharaohs as the incarnation of the Egyptian deity, Osiris; while the Greeks exulted their heros as demigods.
Indeed, power attracts honor; to have the ability to compel others to obey, to be given legitimacy by the people to rule, and to bear the enormous responsibility of stirring the ship of state is a feat unrivalled by no other; thus, it deserves to be given due credit, be it honor, praise, or respect.
From the Christian perspective, I believe there are two verses which apply to the issue of whether Christians ought to receive honor, praise, and respect although they acknowledge everyday that "all glory, honor, and praise" are to Him alone. First verse, Romans 13:7, states that honor, praise, and respect should be given to whom honor, praise, and respect is due.
More so, Apostle Paul recognizes that public officials are servants of God who were given the "sword" to implement justice to all. They punish does who create disorder in the community and those who do what is right should have no fear at all. Clearly, the verse in question supports the notion that public officials deserve to be given credit when they deserve it.
The other verse in question (perhaps a better word is "verses") can be found in various translations within the synoptic gospels.
The idea of those verses is to do good things without expecting anything in return: that includes praise, honor, and respect. What makes this verse significant is that Christ exhorted this saying to his servants as a caution against how they interpret greatness, that is, greatness from the perspective of the One above (divine) and from the perspective of this world (worldly).
In heaven's eye, the greatest servant is the servant that truly humbles himself. He does not seek worldly gain, fame or power; always lowering oneself, he faces constant ridicule, and the world does not understand him. The life of a servant in Christ is a life full of sacrifices, and a trial of his Christian belief, as it is being examined from the eyes of world, through its values and norms.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French political philosopher, said Christians are unsuitable for public office because they would be indifferent to worldly matters, focusing their time and energy to things unworldly, that is, anything that does not concern this world, and primarily, the human soul.
Although I do not believe entirely what he says, Rousseau makes a valid point in explaining that it would be hard for Christians to admit that Christ's kingdom "is not of this world."It is for this reason that the principle of separation between church and state has been established by no less than Christ's exhortation of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
In conclusion, I do not see any conflict between the two biblical concepts provided that the church does not meddle in the business of the state and the state does not intrude upon the affairs of the church.I admit, this consistency becomes blurred especially when political and religious offices are combined into one person, just like the pagan rulers of the past, who were high priests and kings in one.
Christian public servants, if they stay way and do not use God to sanctify the workings of government, can serve God without mentioning His name like automaton, and expose oneself to commit the blasphemy of using His name in vain.
Perhaps one needs to be reminded that the Book of Esther is a book in the old testament, which was included in the Christian canon; but it is a book that did not mention the word "God" even once!
In public service, we do not need to expose our Christianity by word and by utterance: that makes us more professing Christians than fruitful Christians.
It is better to project who we are by our actions and deeds, the evidence that our faith is not dead and that believers become "salt" and "light" in this world for Christ Jesus alone. For action speaks for a man's belief than his words.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Christian Leadership: Blood Relationships and Family Ties Have Nothing To Do With It
The Secular Pope: Nepotism and Opposition
Pope Alexander VI (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503), born Roderic Llançol, later Roderic de Borja i Borja (Italian: Rodrigo Borgia) was Pope from 1492 to 1503. He is the most controversial of the secular popes of the Renaissance, and his surname (Italianized as Borgia) became a byword for the debased standards of the papacy of that era. He was famously a syphilitic.
At first, Alexander's reign was marked by a strict administration of justice and an orderly method of government, in contrast to the mismanagement of the previous pontificate, as well as by great outward splendour. But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter: Giovanni, Cesare, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Catalan, Jofré) and Lucrezia. Cesare, while a youth of seventeen and a student at Pisa, was made Archbishop of Valencia (hence the nickname of Valentino), and Giovanni received the dukedom of Gandia, the Borgias' ancestral home in Spain. For the Duke of Gandia and for Giuffrè/Goffredo the Pope proposed to carve fiefs out of the papal states and the Kingdom of Naples. Among the fiefs destined for the duke of Gandia were Cerveteri and Anguillara, lately acquired by Virginio Orsini, head of that powerful house. This policy brought Ferdinand I, King of Naples, into conflict with Alexander, who was also opposed by Cardinal della Rovere, whose candidature for the papacy had been backed by Ferdinand. Della Rovere fortified himself in his bishopric of Ostia at the Tiber's mouth as Alexander formed a league against Naples (25 April 1493) and prepared for war.[citation needed]
Alexander VI arranged great marriages for his children. Lucrezia had been promised to the Venetian Don Gasparo da Procida, but on her father's elevation to the papacy the engagement was cancelled and in 1493 she married Giovanni Sforza, lord of Pesaro, the ceremony being celebrated at the Vatican Palace with unparalleled magnificence.[citation needed]
In spite of the splendours of the Pontifical court, the condition of Rome became every day more deplorable. The city swarmed with Spanish adventurers, assassins, prostitutes and informers; murder and robbery were committed with impunity, and the Pope himself cast aside all show of decorum, living a purely secular life; indulging in the chase, and arranging dancing, and stage plays. The wild orgies that Alexander was reported to have sponsored within the papal palaces are now generally considered by the catholic church to have been exaggerated.[5] One of his close companions was Cem, the brother of the Sultan Bayazid II (1481–1512), detained as a hostage. The general outlook in Italy was of the gloomiest and the country was on the eve of foreign invasion.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
Pope Alexander VI (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503), born Roderic Llançol, later Roderic de Borja i Borja (Italian: Rodrigo Borgia) was Pope from 1492 to 1503. He is the most controversial of the secular popes of the Renaissance, and his surname (Italianized as Borgia) became a byword for the debased standards of the papacy of that era. He was famously a syphilitic.
At first, Alexander's reign was marked by a strict administration of justice and an orderly method of government, in contrast to the mismanagement of the previous pontificate, as well as by great outward splendour. But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter: Giovanni, Cesare, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Catalan, Jofré) and Lucrezia. Cesare, while a youth of seventeen and a student at Pisa, was made Archbishop of Valencia (hence the nickname of Valentino), and Giovanni received the dukedom of Gandia, the Borgias' ancestral home in Spain. For the Duke of Gandia and for Giuffrè/Goffredo the Pope proposed to carve fiefs out of the papal states and the Kingdom of Naples. Among the fiefs destined for the duke of Gandia were Cerveteri and Anguillara, lately acquired by Virginio Orsini, head of that powerful house. This policy brought Ferdinand I, King of Naples, into conflict with Alexander, who was also opposed by Cardinal della Rovere, whose candidature for the papacy had been backed by Ferdinand. Della Rovere fortified himself in his bishopric of Ostia at the Tiber's mouth as Alexander formed a league against Naples (25 April 1493) and prepared for war.[citation needed]
Alexander VI arranged great marriages for his children. Lucrezia had been promised to the Venetian Don Gasparo da Procida, but on her father's elevation to the papacy the engagement was cancelled and in 1493 she married Giovanni Sforza, lord of Pesaro, the ceremony being celebrated at the Vatican Palace with unparalleled magnificence.[citation needed]
In spite of the splendours of the Pontifical court, the condition of Rome became every day more deplorable. The city swarmed with Spanish adventurers, assassins, prostitutes and informers; murder and robbery were committed with impunity, and the Pope himself cast aside all show of decorum, living a purely secular life; indulging in the chase, and arranging dancing, and stage plays. The wild orgies that Alexander was reported to have sponsored within the papal palaces are now generally considered by the catholic church to have been exaggerated.[5] One of his close companions was Cem, the brother of the Sultan Bayazid II (1481–1512), detained as a hostage. The general outlook in Italy was of the gloomiest and the country was on the eve of foreign invasion.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Transgression of Uzziah, King of Judah
Archbishop: Beware of politicians with 'line to God'
by Aries Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak 08/18/2009 10:12 PM MANILA
- Beware of politicians who say they talk to God and receive His endorsement, according to a leader of the Catholic church in the Philippines. Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz said he would not vote for a candidate who claims he or she has an open line to God, saying this is one sure sign of danger.
“Ang sasabihin ko, di ko iboboto na ito ang qualification: ang kinakausap ng Diyos. Mag-ingat kayo sa kandidatong kinakausap ng Diyos. Matuto kayo,” Cruz, a former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said.
Cruz did not name any candidate, but it will be recalled that President Arroyo once claimed that God “put me here” in the presidency. She also claimed in an interview with CNN that the late Pope John Paul II gave her the moral impetus to lead EDSA 2.
"It was after my conversation with the Pope, I finally found the – shall I describe it as courage or conviction – that I should make a break and join the bloodless revolution," Arroyo had said. Catholics consider the Pope as Christ’s representative on earth.
Skills in governance
So far, none of the declared presidential aspirants have said that God talked to them and backed their decision to seek the presidency. But some politicians say the presidency is a matter of fate, which is like saying it is pre-destined by God. For a man of the cloth, Cruz surprisingly downplayed the virtues of piousness and humility in picking a presidential candidate.
"Kung sasabihin ninyo ang kandidato ay kailangan banal, kailangan mapagdasal, kailangan ay mapagkumbaba, pwede ba? Kumuha kayo ng madre,” Cruz said. Cruz said governance is a science and an art, and the foremost quality in a politician is someone who really knows how to govern.
“It is not just the virtues of piety but also virtues of science, knowledge of governance,” he added.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/18/09/bishop-beware-politicians-line-god
Commentary
It's fascinating how a Protestant like me would overwhelmingly agree with a Catholic Archbishop.
Moral leadership is one of the many contributing factors of good governance. But, once again, I must emphasize that it is not the only answer to good governance. More so, excessive reliance on moral leadership in the realm of public governance has the tendency of favoring conditions unconducive to democracy as a form of government; it is detrimental to democratic processes and principles, and particularly damaging to participatory democracy i.e., direct participation of citizens in determining the official actions of the polity.
Dependence on moral leadership discourages the people to hold accountable those whom they have chosen to rule over them. Indeed, why would the people need to hold their rulers accountable if the rulers are already considered to be "morally" superior i.e., do no immoral acts and thus, immune to criticism?
The perpetuation of virtuous rule not only concentrates power to a few, but also causes the persistent disease of democracy: people's non-participation in the public realm and apathy to public policy. Who and why does one needs to mind the affairs of the state if we already have the best and moral individuals minding our political affairs? Now comes the rule of the best in terms of those who claim moral virtue, not popular legitimacy.
That's why we have leaders of the church, priests and pastors, and even founders of religious organizations committing the grave mistake and folly of Uzziah, a king of Judah.
Who was Uzziah?
I will spare everyone the biblical story of Uzziah given that we ourselves choose to neglect the daily study of the Book of Books.
But the lesson of this topic is contained in this verse: They confronted him and said, "It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the LORD God.
" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2026:18;&version=31
The context of the verse revolves around Uzziah's efforts to assume priestly duties even though only the descendants of Aaron were allowed to do so under penalty of levitical law.
As punishment, Uzziah was stricken with leprosy: a debilitating skin disease. There are two points I wish to emphasize regarding Uzziah's violation of divine command: (1) infringement of the Levite and Aaronic inheritance, the specific of which pertains to the exclusive nature of temple duties assigned to Levi and his descendants and in particular, the priestly duties reserved alone to Aaron and his descendants, as stipulated in God's instruction to Joshua during the tribal partition of Israel; (2) as ultra vires acts of kingly prerogative driven by pride and lust for power.
This particular story in the bible was of unprecedented importance to the concept of church and state separation as it confirmed and defined, for the first time, the boundaries of political power exercised by the kings of Judah vis-a-vis the religious duties of priests, who were the descendants of Aaron.
If the Archbishop is right in saying that the art of governance is the main qualification of a politician, then we must believe in the opposite: that is, we must always think of politicians as individuals inevitably predisposed and primarily interested in the furtherance of their self-interest (including their families); that, no doubt, the only way to counter such rational instinct is to create a system of accountability which pits politicians against each other.
Emphasis on moral leadership naturally confirms the deep-rooted notion of man as unconditionally susceptible to immoral, and unrighteous but rational behavior of putting himself and his interest above others, as the fall in the garden of Eden suggests. Relentless calls for moral leadership implies the absence of moral leadership, or perhaps the very rarity of its existence.
No wonder, Aristotle advocated the rule of the few over the vulgar many.
But I believe democracy need not be discommended just because the many are unaware of the dangers of non-participation in the public realm. The imperfect mode of representative democracy must be strengthened not by moral leadership as embodied by the likes of Solon and Publicola; but rather, by encouraging citizens to participate and to have deeper involvement in the political life of the nation-state.
We all aspire to do good things. It is just that in pursuit to do good things, we become blind to our own falterings, which are always ever present. When, not if, that happens, someone must hold us accountable, just as the priests held Uzziah accountable for his usurpation and indiscretion of mixing secular and divine duties.
Posted by Pontius Pilate at 5:49 PM 0 comments Monday, April 20, 2009
by Aries Rufo, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak 08/18/2009 10:12 PM MANILA
- Beware of politicians who say they talk to God and receive His endorsement, according to a leader of the Catholic church in the Philippines. Lingayen Archbishop Oscar Cruz said he would not vote for a candidate who claims he or she has an open line to God, saying this is one sure sign of danger.
“Ang sasabihin ko, di ko iboboto na ito ang qualification: ang kinakausap ng Diyos. Mag-ingat kayo sa kandidatong kinakausap ng Diyos. Matuto kayo,” Cruz, a former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said.
Cruz did not name any candidate, but it will be recalled that President Arroyo once claimed that God “put me here” in the presidency. She also claimed in an interview with CNN that the late Pope John Paul II gave her the moral impetus to lead EDSA 2.
"It was after my conversation with the Pope, I finally found the – shall I describe it as courage or conviction – that I should make a break and join the bloodless revolution," Arroyo had said. Catholics consider the Pope as Christ’s representative on earth.
Skills in governance
So far, none of the declared presidential aspirants have said that God talked to them and backed their decision to seek the presidency. But some politicians say the presidency is a matter of fate, which is like saying it is pre-destined by God. For a man of the cloth, Cruz surprisingly downplayed the virtues of piousness and humility in picking a presidential candidate.
"Kung sasabihin ninyo ang kandidato ay kailangan banal, kailangan mapagdasal, kailangan ay mapagkumbaba, pwede ba? Kumuha kayo ng madre,” Cruz said. Cruz said governance is a science and an art, and the foremost quality in a politician is someone who really knows how to govern.
“It is not just the virtues of piety but also virtues of science, knowledge of governance,” he added.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/18/09/bishop-beware-politicians-line-god
Commentary
It's fascinating how a Protestant like me would overwhelmingly agree with a Catholic Archbishop.
Moral leadership is one of the many contributing factors of good governance. But, once again, I must emphasize that it is not the only answer to good governance. More so, excessive reliance on moral leadership in the realm of public governance has the tendency of favoring conditions unconducive to democracy as a form of government; it is detrimental to democratic processes and principles, and particularly damaging to participatory democracy i.e., direct participation of citizens in determining the official actions of the polity.
Dependence on moral leadership discourages the people to hold accountable those whom they have chosen to rule over them. Indeed, why would the people need to hold their rulers accountable if the rulers are already considered to be "morally" superior i.e., do no immoral acts and thus, immune to criticism?
The perpetuation of virtuous rule not only concentrates power to a few, but also causes the persistent disease of democracy: people's non-participation in the public realm and apathy to public policy. Who and why does one needs to mind the affairs of the state if we already have the best and moral individuals minding our political affairs? Now comes the rule of the best in terms of those who claim moral virtue, not popular legitimacy.
That's why we have leaders of the church, priests and pastors, and even founders of religious organizations committing the grave mistake and folly of Uzziah, a king of Judah.
Who was Uzziah?
I will spare everyone the biblical story of Uzziah given that we ourselves choose to neglect the daily study of the Book of Books.
But the lesson of this topic is contained in this verse: They confronted him and said, "It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the LORD God.
" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2026:18;&version=31
The context of the verse revolves around Uzziah's efforts to assume priestly duties even though only the descendants of Aaron were allowed to do so under penalty of levitical law.
As punishment, Uzziah was stricken with leprosy: a debilitating skin disease. There are two points I wish to emphasize regarding Uzziah's violation of divine command: (1) infringement of the Levite and Aaronic inheritance, the specific of which pertains to the exclusive nature of temple duties assigned to Levi and his descendants and in particular, the priestly duties reserved alone to Aaron and his descendants, as stipulated in God's instruction to Joshua during the tribal partition of Israel; (2) as ultra vires acts of kingly prerogative driven by pride and lust for power.
This particular story in the bible was of unprecedented importance to the concept of church and state separation as it confirmed and defined, for the first time, the boundaries of political power exercised by the kings of Judah vis-a-vis the religious duties of priests, who were the descendants of Aaron.
If the Archbishop is right in saying that the art of governance is the main qualification of a politician, then we must believe in the opposite: that is, we must always think of politicians as individuals inevitably predisposed and primarily interested in the furtherance of their self-interest (including their families); that, no doubt, the only way to counter such rational instinct is to create a system of accountability which pits politicians against each other.
Emphasis on moral leadership naturally confirms the deep-rooted notion of man as unconditionally susceptible to immoral, and unrighteous but rational behavior of putting himself and his interest above others, as the fall in the garden of Eden suggests. Relentless calls for moral leadership implies the absence of moral leadership, or perhaps the very rarity of its existence.
No wonder, Aristotle advocated the rule of the few over the vulgar many.
But I believe democracy need not be discommended just because the many are unaware of the dangers of non-participation in the public realm. The imperfect mode of representative democracy must be strengthened not by moral leadership as embodied by the likes of Solon and Publicola; but rather, by encouraging citizens to participate and to have deeper involvement in the political life of the nation-state.
We all aspire to do good things. It is just that in pursuit to do good things, we become blind to our own falterings, which are always ever present. When, not if, that happens, someone must hold us accountable, just as the priests held Uzziah accountable for his usurpation and indiscretion of mixing secular and divine duties.
Posted by Pontius Pilate at 5:49 PM 0 comments Monday, April 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)