The Duty of a King in His Royal Office

The theme of this reading is absolutism and revolves around the king having absolute power. The reading suggests that a king is a god, a father, and the head. The reading suggest that kings are referred to as gods by God and have God-like attributes. Kings can create or destroy, give life or send death, judge all yet not be judged, to raise things high or make them low, and to require love of the soul and the work of the body. The reading claims the king is a father as the king can give his inheritance out if he wishes, or disinherit the ones expected to receive the inheritance and prefer another. A father can make his children rich or make them beggars. A father can be near to his children or far from them. A father can forgive or cast away. Finally the reading suggest the king is like the head of a physical body in that the head directs all the members of the body and uses judgement.

Kings never had complete power because the laws did not permit the kings to have such absolute power. Even during the seventeenth century when the monarch power was "absolute" it was still limited because other politicians and high class men were still involved in political matters. Kings could not afford to lose the support of these men. What is really meant by absolute power is that the king has the highest legislative power in the kingdom. Kings were viewed as above the law, but they were still expected to observe peoples' rights and the moral law of God in their actions.

The very first sentence stands out to me: "The state of the manarchie is the supremest thing upon the earth; for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods." I would like to see what scripture they were referring to here. The second commandment is to have no other gods before me. God did not want Israel to have a king; God wanted to be their only king. However, the people demanded to have a king so He gave them Saul, but God warned them all the king would do that would be oppressive. God always says to respect authorities and recognize that God is in control of those in power, but it doesn't sound like God to refer to any man as a "god".

This reading caused me to think of the quote, "With much power comes great responsibility". If God is allowing men to be kings on the earth, then God is trusting them to rule as He would. I would think that these rulers are especially accountable to God for their actions, because their actions affect so many. Just as the Bible says that teachers are especially accountable for the things they teach and for their pupils. The kings and the people believed that the power was given by God, so hopefully that gave them a sense of humility because God could easily take that power away. The Bible does not emphasize being first or being the most powerful as what is important. Jesus led by example and showed that being a humble servant is what we are to aim for. Humility is always key.

A modern parallel I see are monopolies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the most popular store to buy everyday items at a cheap price. Most of Wal-Mart's products are made in China in sweatshops by people who are not being paid well. Wal-Mart has probably caused countless "mom and pop" stores to go out of business because they cannot compete with Wal-Mart's prices. Wal-Mart seems to have "absolute power" in the realm of consumerism, and it's power is not considerate of many of its employees and of course none of its competitors.

Sources:
Text Book
http://history-world.org/absolutism.htm

12 Articles

The theme of the reading is reform. The peasants are demanding reform. Their reform consists of twelve articles. The articles address the ability to choose a pastor, paying just amount of tithe and not extra, and that extra money should be given to the poor or saved. The peasants declare that they should not have to be serfs and be held as property since Christ has delivered all. They also say they should be allowed to kill animals that interfere with their crops since God gave man dominion over all the animals, and they say that firewood should be free to all, instead of charging a poor man a fee for wood. The peasants say that they should not have excessive and ever increasing services to the lords and that all service to the lords should be just and fair. Fair rent prices are requested, and the peasants ask to be judged according to the old written law instead of all the new laws. The peasants ask that the meadows and fields be owned communally instead of individually. They say they will not endure the heriot due any longer, which is a feudal service due to the lord on the death of a tenant. Finally they declare that all articles should be according the word of God.

Luther and other authorities were against the peasants’ revolts. The peasants thought they were doing what Luther had suggested in his reforms, but Luther had never intended the reforms that the peasants proposed. Luther referred to spiritual freedom, not necessarily social freedom. Luther supported the feudal lords in opposing the peasant armies that were rising. Luther suggested the peasants be hunted down and killed, and 70,000-100,000 peasants were killed.

A phrase that stood out to me was, “the gospel is not the cause of revolt and disorder, since it is the message of Christ”. They continue to suggest that Christ taught only love, peace, patience, and concord. While this is partially true, Christ didn’t exactly fit in peacefully with everyone. Christ openly opposed the Pharisees and Sadducees, and even turned over tables and made a whip to get the moneychangers out of the temple. Yes, Jesus teaches love, peace, and patience, but He also was not afraid to go against the crowd and be radical. Of course the gospel itself is not the cause of violent revolt and disorder, but the gospel is not always comfortable in its message either.

The first article about being able to choose a pastor caused me to think about the way some denominations choose pastors. My church was founded over thirty years ago, and today the son of the founder of the church is the pastor. The church has had one pastor for nearly thirty years and then the church was passed down to his son and he has been pastor around five years now. Our church does not vote for a pastor. I have heard of other churches and denominations that change pastors frequently and vote them out for various reasons. I am happy to be in a church where I know the pastor is going to be around for a long time.

I think there is a modern parallel with the way people can get carried away with different church doctrines and carry them to extremes that were perhaps never intended. I have heard much talk and debate about “word of faith” and “prosperity gospel” teachings lately. Some preachers under these categories seem to take things to the extreme by suggesting a person can never be sick, or never be poor, otherwise they are outside the will of God. However, some of the “faith” teaching can be quite good, when not taken to the extreme. I admire how “faith” teachers take the Bible at its word and believe it wholeheartedly and there is much good that can come from that. I think that “word of faith” teaching can be really beneficial if not taken too far and too out of balance, just as Luther’s reforms were not meant to imply radical social reform and be taken to the extreme.

Sources:

Text Book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Articles

Charter of Homage and Fealty of Bernard Atton, A.D. 1110

The theme of this reading is the nature of feudalism in regards to lords, vassals, and fiefs. It seems that Lord Bernard Atton is a great lord over many things, but he is expressing that lord Leo is lord over him. Lord Leo will be lord over all Bernard Atton has, and Bernard Atton will be loyal and faithful to lord Leo in all things. This was written in a company of witnesses by a monk named John. St. Mary of Grasse is the monastery that Leo is abbot of, and so he expresses that St. Mary is in a way lord as well.

This is how feudalism worked. Lords owned property and had vassals under them. Lords gave vassals fiefs, or land, and expected loyalty and service in return. This structure was supposed to form a hierarchy of power starting with the king and going down, but it became a very complex system of power. Many lords had just as much land if not more than the king, so this did not work out for the king to have the absolute power. Some were lords over some, but were vassals to others. A person might be a vassal to more than one person, which made loyalty a sticky situation. In this reading, Bernard Atton is a lord over much, but he is recognizing Leo as lord over him. Bernard Atton is a vassal to Leo, but a lord over others.

The small fourth paragraph stood out to me. "And if I or my sons or their successors do not observe to thee or to thy successors each and all the things declared above, and should come against these things, we wish that all the aforesaid fiefs should be that very fact be handled over to thee and to the said monastery of St. Mary of Grasse and to thy successors." This is the penalty for breaking the agreement. If Bernard Atton and his successors do not provide proper honor and loyalty, then the monastery gets to keep everything mentioned above, which is a lot. They must have been serious about their loyalty and honor, because this was no light agreement.

This made me think about what would happen if things went wrong. What if some other lord came and overtook all that Bernard Atton had? What if he was left with nothing? He would not be able to hold up his end of the agreement, and the monastery would not be able to claim his land and property because it would have already been taken over by another lord. He would have nothing to offer lord Leo or the monastery. It seems like lots of agreements like this were probably made, but I wonder if changing economy, changing weather patterns, or unexpected disaster or raids ever brought an unforeseen tragedy where these agreements could not be carried out.

This network of loyalties from the past reminds me of current networks of friends. I was in a situation recently where there was a conflict between a friend of mine and two other friends of mine. I was caught in the middle, not wanting to be disloyal to either party. I had to be honest with both parties involved and thankfully it all worked out. But in these situations in 1110 AD, it was likely matters of war. It is unlikely a vassal could be a mediator between two fighting lords. The vassal would have to choose which lord to be loyal to, and hope that lord won. Otherwise who knows what the other lord would do to the treacherous vassal. It also reminds of current legal systems. This seems to be comparable to a legal document of a will and agreement. It is somewhat complex in its language, just as current legal documents are.

Source: Text Book

Islamic Conquest of Spain

This is an account of how Islam gained control of Spain. It is admitted that both fact and myth are mixed together in this account which was written about 150 years after it happened. There are no accounts of the Islamic conquest of Spain that are known to be totally accurate. This legend states that Tarik was in command of an army. Tarik be-friended Ilyan, Lord of Septa. Ilyan was a subject of Roderic, king of Spain. Ilyan sent one of his daughters to Roderic to be educated but she became pregnant by him. Ilyan wanted revenge on Roderik and helped Tarik invade Spain. On the island of Umm-Hakim the Moslems took the vinedressers captive and butchered one of them and boiled his flesh. They also boiled meat. They threw away the flesh of the man when no one was looking and ate the meat, but the other prisoners thought that the Moslems ate human flesh. Roderoc was defeated and Spain was conquered.

Many people wonder if the reason for the conquest was really Ilyan wanting revenge against Roderic. Many suspect that the Muslim people wanted to enlarge their territory. Perhaps Ilyan wanted the throne as well. As the Muslims conquered many countries, they were much more generous to the people they conquered than other rulers in the past.

The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the portion about the Moslems making it look like they feasted on human flesh to intimidate the other prisoners. While some sources say the Moslems were more generous to captive people than others in the past, this suggestion of having the reputation of eating human flesh seems less than gentle (whether they did it or not). The part of the Jihad to wage war on unbelievers with the sword is a less than gentle approach.

At the very beginning of the reading it says that they were waging holy war. I wanted to find out more about this, and I looked into what this really refers to. Non-Muslims often translate the term jihad as holy war, but Islamic people want people to know these terms are not the same. The Quran never uses the term jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah. Jihad is a term meaning a struggle of any kind, whether it be internal, religious, violent, etc. There are many misunderstandings about jihad and "holy war". Many Muslims claim that the greatest jihad is an internal struggle to live the Muslim life and that violence and terrorism are not their goals. However, there are others who say that to wage war on unbelievers is the highest form of jihad and should be pursued.

In current times Islamic people have come to be viewed as a dangerous militant minority that could disrupt society through terrorism. Some articles say that Muslims will fight for world domination, and that they expect to be dominant in Europe within thirty years and become the largest religion in the world during that time. Mosques are being erected all over the United States more and more as well. If non-Muslims will be viewed as infidels, then this potential spread could be very dangerous. Just as Islam was conquering in the past, they are still trying to conquer today.

Sources:

Text book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_popup9.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html
http://blogs.christianpost.com/christianity/2010/07/countering-the-spread-of-islam-08/

Early History of the Hellenes

     This reading describes the development and progression of the Hellenes. Hellas was not a settled country in ancient times. Rather, the people migrated, and were continuously vulnerable to attack and overthrow from other people groups. There was no accumulation of wealth or commerce. When people were successful because of good land, people fought over the power that could be acquired. If the land was poor, then the people did not fight, because there was nothing to fight over. Hellen and his sons became powerful in Phthiotis, and eventually the people called themselves after this name. Other parts of the development were as follows: Minos established the first navy. Piracy was a constant threat, and people carried weapons at all times because of the danger. The Athenians were the first to put down their weapons and adopt an easier and more luxurious way of life. The shores began to consist of walled towns to be protected from pirates, and these coast populations began to acquire wealth and become more settled. The climax is the Peloponnesian War in which Athens is overthrown by Sparta.

     Thucydides, the author of this reading, is an Ancient Greek historian of the fifth century B.C. He suggests that a change in hierarchy of weaker states does not really affect the stability of the overall system. However, when stronger states are fighting for power, then instability and disaster can occur. This is what happened with the great power of Athens rising and intimidating Sparta. People continue to look back on the Peloponnesian War and learn from its principles of power and hierarchy.

     An interesting part of this account is that the Hellenes and other coastal barbarians were tempted to become pirates. They were becoming more accustomed to the ways of the sea, and becoming pirates and plundering vulnerable cities and villages would be a good way to provide for their own needs, and help support the needy. The unusual aspect is that apparently in these times being a pirate, and doing these things, was an honorable occupation, and not a disgraceful one. I cannot imagine plundering cities and villages being an honorable thing. Perhaps whoever could acquire the resources they needed were respected and honored. Perhaps the honor was given based on a "survival of the fittest" attitude. If you needed to take someone else's resources to survive, then so be it.
     The development and settling of a people group causes me to think about what we are learning and discussing in my anthropology class. The Hellenes migrated a great deal, and carried weapons to protect themselves in their vulnerability. They eventually became familiar with the ways of the sea, and acquired more wealth. They eventually became a settled people, but it took awhile. All people groups have to endure that process in some way or another to survive. Whether it is tribal people in the Amazon Rainforest, settlers traveling to a new land, or the Hellenes, each people group must be in a location where there is enough food, where they can have some form of protection, shelter, and other resources. Without these basic needs a people group cannot survive. The determining factor of who is the most powerful is who is the most successful at this quest. The people group that is doing the best job at producing abundant food, having shelter for all its people, protecting its people, and effectively using resources will be the most powerful. I never really thought about the acquiring of power in this way before.

     The struggle that ultimately occurred between Athens and Sparta reminds me of the struggle between the Soviet Union and America. The Peloponnesian War seems to parallel the Cold War very much. In the very beginning of the Hellenes, if people started becoming successful they fought over the power. This principle holds true at every level. When powers rise, conflicts often emerge. When certain nations rise in power, it makes other nations nervous. Iran’s nuclear powers, and China’s potential to be a global power, are things that make America nervous. Mankind will always struggle over power. Adam and Eve wanted to be “like God”, so they disobeyed God and sinned. Man wanted a higher position of power. It is how man began, and man will always struggle with this temptation.

Sources:

Text Book

http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html

When on High

     This is a very interesting Babylonian creation story. Unlike the Christian story of creation, there are many gods involved. The creation of the world starts off where there is no material form to anything in the universe, and a male and a female god came about in this formless state. Apsu is the male god, and Tiamat is the female god. Mummu seems to also be apart right from the beginning as well. Apsu means sweet primeval waters, and Tiamat means salt primeval waters. Sweet and salt water come together at the merging of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which is where the origin of Mesopotamian civilization occurs. (This is interesting because we are starting off studying the early Mesopotamia civilization.) Mummu means maker. Next Lahmu and Lahamu come about, and their names mean slime, mud, and silt. From these two gods come Anshar, which means whole sky, and Kishar, which means whole earth. Anshar and Kishar come together to make Anu, the sky god. He produces Ea, which means image fashioner.

     Ea begins to stir up trouble, and Apsu becomes angry, but Tiamat does not seem to mind. However, after awhile, Apsu and Mummu go before Tiamat and suggest that they destroy Ea. Tiamat is troubled by this and does not agree. Apsu and Mummu plan to destroy the younger gods anyway. However, Ea overhears the plots to destroy him, and puts a spell on Apsu and Mummu, causing Apsu to fall asleep and Mummu to be unable to move. Ea killed Apsu and captured Mummu. Then Marduk is born to Ea and his wife, Daminka. Marduk means son-of-the-sun. Marduk is more powerful than his father and impressive in appearance.

   The other gods go to Tiamat complaining about Marduk, and saying she did not stand to defend her husband Apsu or Mummu. Tiamat goes to battle against Marduk, but Marduk prevails and Tiamat is destroyed. Marduk decides to create a savage man, who will be "charged with the service of the gods". Ea suggests that the god who caused Tiamat to rebel should be killed in order to make the savage man. Kingu is the one who caused the uprising, so they killed him and made mankind out of him. He was used to "let free the gods".

     I thought it was very interesting that Apsu and Mummu wanted to destroy the other gods, which were his sons, but Tiamat did not. Tiamat said, "What? Should we destroy what we have built? Their ways are indeed troublesome, but let us attend kindly!" Tiamat wanted to be gracious and merciful, and not destroy her own children. These two gods were the original gods according to this story. One wanted to destroy what he had created, the other did not. This concept caused me to think about God, the Christian, biblical God. When God decided to destroy mankind except for Noah and his family, or when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or even when He allowed His one and only son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the world's sin, I am sure that God did not want to destroy his creation, or allow His son to be crucified, but because of His justice and wrath against sin, He knew it was the right thing to do.

     This creation story seems to have modern parallels with monarchies. In the creation story, certain gods are more powerful than others, and that power seems to stay in the same "family" of gods. Ea is the most powerful god and defeats Apsu and Mummu. He then gives birth to Marduk who is even more powerful. He then defeats Tiamat and continues to reign. This family of gods is clearly in charge and in power. Throughout history and even currently, some nations are ruled by monarchies. All the power remains and in the same family, and rulers often rule for a lifetime.

Source: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Enuma_Elish.html