Money and the Church
When I was reading the first chapter, I came across this passage, where the dream asks what should be done with money, and the Church responds by explaining that God once said, "Reddite Sesari, that Sesare byfallyth," which in layman's terms means that they should spend money on God through the church (54). What I found interesting was that they mention Caesar. I am familiar with the fact that God is often refereed to as King, but to compare him to this Roman leader was perplexing. After all, Caesar was a dictator, and was considered during the ladder half of his ten-year reign to be a threat to the Republic. For the church to imply that God is a dictator suggests some sort of corruption within the nature of God. Perhaps this is foreshadowing some sort of downfall of the church which explains who the dreamer is and why he is on the hill in full.
In chapters two through four, the corruption seems to stem from Mede, which is basically the representation of money. I found it odd that the essence of Theology said that God had promised her to truth, as considering that she is pretty manipulative in later chapters, it makes me wonder why the author would connect God and bribery. Even though Conscience rejects Mede, I noticed that when she was making her argument that she argued that priests need money for their job, which relates back to prologue where priests left their villages to find cushy jobs next to the King. The author seems to be suggesting that money is definitely a source of evil with the church, but due to its noble background, could be used for good in the right hand.
In chapters two through four, the corruption seems to stem from Mede, which is basically the representation of money. I found it odd that the essence of Theology said that God had promised her to truth, as considering that she is pretty manipulative in later chapters, it makes me wonder why the author would connect God and bribery. Even though Conscience rejects Mede, I noticed that when she was making her argument that she argued that priests need money for their job, which relates back to prologue where priests left their villages to find cushy jobs next to the King. The author seems to be suggesting that money is definitely a source of evil with the church, but due to its noble background, could be used for good in the right hand.
I think by God promising Mede to Truth, the author is trying to say that God designed for meed (payments/rewards) to be given to those who are good and true to God. However, Mede's marriage to False represents payments made for evil/ immoral behaviors, in other words, bribery. This is obviously not God's intentions, hence why Theology interrupts the wedding between Mede and False. This is also Conscience's argument in Passus three, when he tells the king that there are different types of medes.
ReplyDeleteJust within context of the New Testament story, Jesus is being questioned by either spies or Jewish leaders and he is asked if they should pay the Roman taxes. This was supposed to be a settup because they expected Jesus to say no, which would make him a criminal and he would've been arrested. Jesus asked the people questioning him to show him a coin, which had a picture of Caesar on it. Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. For me, this was always interpreted as Jesus saying to uphold your countriy's duties and to keep it separate from your religious duties. Now this can just be what I was taught and I'm sure others will have other interpreations of the passage, but I don't necessarily think it was used to compare God and Caesar.
ReplyDelete