“Our kings and emperors, vicars of the Supreme Ruler in this our pilgrimage, are alone Responsible for the appointment of bishops, and this is right, for it would be incongruous. If the pastors, who rule in the likeness of Christ, were set under the authority of any. Except those who are set above other men by the glory of benediction and coronation” (Chronicon, Thietmar of Merseburg 32). Thietmar (975-1018) was the German Bishop of Merseburg. This statement is a representation of the actual situation as it was during the ancient times. It demonstrates how integrated the church and the society or leadership at that time were. I partially agree with the validity of this statement and disagree to some other extent.
On the contrary, I disagree with the notion or perception that bishops and political leaders would be involved in the appointment of the either. I believe that the state and church should be separated and distinguished from the onset. This is so because the rulers; kings and emperors serve a different purpose and should, therefore, be separated either in terms of appointments or functions. As much as leaders are set aside by God to serve, human leaders, who are the rulers, kings and emperors serve the human sphere with humanly purpose. However, the church leadership such as the bishops serve Godly purposes and should be set on the things of above. I hold the opinion that Bishops and the church leadership by extension should be appointed by proper and distinct procedures laid down by the church itself or be called by God himself. If any of these parties were allowed to appoint the other, it would be difficult for the appointed party to perform his or her duties without fear and/or favour.
It is also improper for the political leadership such as the kings, emperors, supreme leaders to appoint God’s servant. This reduces the seriousness and gravity of the function of the church leadership to serve the call that God has given them. I do not dispute the idea that the political leadership is set apart by God to serve, however, the call of God is superior and should not be subjected to the vetting and the approvals of human kings, rulers and emperors.
Consequently, I assume that if the bishops are appointed by the king, emperor or the supreme leader, the bishops and the church leadership would not be free to perform their duties as it is supposed. The bishops would be arm-twisted occasionally to offer advice and counsel that favour the rulers. It would be a situation where the appointed leader would feel indebted to the political authorities and thus behave as if he or she would be liable and obey the rules and demands of the kings, rulers and supreme leaders. This is contrary to the popular belief and duty that should be performed by the bishops. I believe that the bishops and church leadership should be performing neutral and oversight role of the society according to the Godly standards. But if they are appointed by the leaders of the world, they would be reduced to performing the duties of the world and not the Godly function that Christ and the church ought to perform.
Conclusion
In the above essay, I have discussed my reasons for the arguments in favour and against the topical statement. The bottom line is that rulers, kings and emperors of the world are set apart by God to serve his people and children here on earth. However, the functions of the church cannot be compromised by the political rulership of the day. Therefore, there ought to be a comprehensive separation of powers between the state and the church. This separation would make sure that each segment of the society or state would perform their functions as supposed to without fear or favour.
Works Cited
Walzer, Michael. "Liberalism and the Art of Separation." Political theory (1984): 315-330.
