I just finished reading Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follet. I think it was an Oprah book awhile back, but it was just recently passed to me by my mother.The story is set around a small Priory (church) in 12th century England...it's a fascinating story of love, religion and the feudal system in medieval times. This was a time of violence, insolence, and unjust governing...where the one with the power has the power, regardless of how he came upon said power.
All throughout the book, there was something nagging at the back of my mind. Each time I picked it up, I would do so with the intent to search for what it was that was bothering me, but the story is so gripping I would soon forget my mission. I would lie awake at night and wonder why some small aspect of this story seemed so important to me.
As I finished the book today, I realized what it was.
This time depicted was vicious; an extraordinarily challenging time to live in. People died young, from famine, disease, war, or simply senseless violence. Problems were solved with swords, wealth was measured by horses and land, and whoever was in charge govenered exactly as he saw fit.
But this was also a time of God. There was an established religious system, and the monks of this Priory answered to Bishops and the Pope. It was a time when even the most vile and violent had fear of God, fear of the horrors of hell and the punishment meted out there.
It was "policy", so to speak, that monasteries were places of refuge and peace, and this priory was no exception. It was a place where a person who was being pursued or persecuted could flee to and be safe from harm. It was also "policy" that no one could ever harm a monk or any other representative of God, for to do so would result in eternal damnation and torture. A monk could stand in the face of the fiercest knight and cause the knight to stand down.
Granted these "policies" I have shared certainly had exceptions in reality. However, it was one aspect of living in this time. Why?
In such a time as this, when violence ruled, there had to be some available means of refuge. The church used the fear of hell, which precipitated a fear of clergy and church grounds, to keep some sense of civility in a wild world. This was a necessary means of peacekeeping, in a time when there was virtually no safety anywhere, no rule of law that was reliable, for rulers often changed frequently.
Touch not the Lord's anointed was a necessary means of protection for the people of this time. It was believed and practiced in the literal sense...that touching, with the intent of physical harm, of a representative of God was strictly forbidden or be cursed to hell.
I wonder if we really ought to still be using such a "policy" in today's times of relative peace and safety? This of course is not to say that there is peace and safety everywhere, however, here in the U.S. and most of the western world, there is generally no longer a need to have houses of refuge from barbarians and violent men. The necessity of using the fear of hell and the "touch not" rule seems to have dissipated.
I'm no scholar, but to the best of my understanding, the Hebrew word "touch" (naga) in 1st Chron. 16:22 and Psalms 105:15 is translated as such: to touch or to strike. These indicate physical touch or harm.
Yes, we should have healthy respect for clergy and houses of worship, but must this respect be abused in the way it sometimes is by today's representative's of God? I don't necessarily believe the original intent was meant to be used to manipulate and control people from an authoritarian standpoint. I don't believe it means "Do not challenge your Pastor's teachings." I don't think it means one who criticizes manipulative or controlling behavior by members of the Clergy is doomed to hell.
I do believe there are certainly places in this world where such a teaching, to do no physical harm to a representative of God, would still be incredibly valuable to people who live in that area.
Otherwise, for most of us, I believe it was simply a practical teaching, with application in a far more primitive and barbaric time than ours.
Just wondering.
25 comments: