Temple Reflection – Christianity and Social Order – chp 3.
“Has the Church Claimed to Intervene Before?”
The answer to the chapter title question is a resounding “Yes!” according to Temple. Almost fourteen of the fifteen pages Temple devotes to this chapter are sequential accounts of Christians of history intervening in the social order. He gives summaries for each major time period of Church history to prove his point.
Temple begins recounting the communal property of the disciples. He believes that this is an ideal situation for a small minority group, communal in focus and intimate, but frequently acknowledges the breakdown of community at the increase of population. He also points out, almost as often that the breakdown is due to the sinful nature of mankind. This most obvious observation can barely be refuted. Even in the most basic monastic communities, no doubt some issues of pride comes in.
Along with this idea, it is important to turn towards the modern New Monastic communities, the Simple Way being the primary media representative (though I would suggest looking at The Camden House and Rutba House as well-Google them). Even in these communities, private property is minuscule, but existing. Members buy or make clothes, tailoring their styles to match their personalities or personal convictions. Though, these clothes are viewed lowly, and would be given freely without much huff, ownership by possession still occurs.
After describing the Early Church's use of private property, Temple moves into later thinkers, Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther. All these figures are the primary thinkers, but the discussion surrounds the Church. The specific mention of these leaders is not to single them out specifically, but to place a name to the thought of the age. The most notable thing Temple mentions in this description is the successive decrease of community and its effect on private property.
Temple's take on each theological era is interesting. It serves to show the regular interference of the Church, in so doing, he enlightens his reader with his economic biases. Early on in the chapter he states, “To renounce property is a conspicuously vivid act of personal freedom; to have no property or to be forcibly deprived of it is a serious infringement of personal freedom,” (33). Even here, Temple relegates economics to the individual, placing responsibility upon the individual, despite his later criticisms of such individuality, it is obvious that he cannot divorce himself from it.
Before delving deeply into the Church history, Temple sums up his entire view of private property, saying, “The fundamental Biblical principal is that the earth-land-belongs to God; men enjoy the use of it, and this use may be so regulated as to ensure to particular families both security in that enjoyment and exclusive right to it. But this was to be so done as to ensure also that all members of the community shared in the enjoyment of some portion,” (34). Members then should not be in exclusion-while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Throughout the chapter Temple writes positively on the thinkers who seem to follow this line of thinking and sobers his tone for thinkers who allow for massing large amounts of wealth. This is especially noticeable when he discusses the Puritans.
The presentation he gives on the Puritans is rather negative. What is most prolific from this portion of the discourse however is his complete degeneration of the law of supply and demand. This is what attracts me to Temple. His flirtation with the capitalist antithesis is astounding. It instructs all on the individual and corporate level that to ask a price that is more than reasonable, even if the buyer demands it at a higher price with a willingness to pay, is an embrace of avarice, of usury, of sin.
The position that Temple illuminates is that privation of goods need not be an issue of morality, though its cause may be due to immorality. Ultimately, the Church or parishioner lives a good life, a Godly life as a private owner, but at the point in which usury sets in, live becomes degenerative. Temple smoothes the high and low, making mountains into nubbins on the economic plane. People are close to equal, and must be given equality after certain periods, if inequality arises. He entreats the laws of Jubilee from the Old Testament to buttress his claim.
The Church must then have a theology and practice of interference. It must continue with its tradition of interference so long as people are unequal; so long as those gaining are oppressing, either directly or indirectly, those who have no opportunity to even possess.
Reflecting on Temple, imparting his wisdom for today, we must first root out the usurious attitudes that our individual, self-dignified, pompousness fuels. We must not fear privation of goods, and accumulating them in an acceptable manner, but we must be willing to renounce them for the sake of others. To allow people on the streets, to allow the African to starve, while watering our golf courses or funding high price sporting events is avarice. Both liberal and conservative do this and frequently and those who come from rags to riches often do not think to go back. Going back is necessary. We must reconnect with our roots, go back to the poorest of the poor. The Church community must go back and remember its lowly history and from there begin to pour blessing out of renunciation of wealth-not property necessarily, but wealth-and tumble mountains into mole hills economically.
Permalink
