Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
The soft corruption of the church

The soft corruption of the church

Last updated on: October 10, 2017 at 8:00 am by Coyle Neal

The soft corruption of the church 2017-10-09T09:49:06-06:00 Coyle Neal

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’ve been teaching a short course on Cicero’s writings–a kind of class that used to be common but which has almost disappeared from modern education. During one class discussion, we joined with Cicero in asking: how do we tell a leader who cares about the state from a leader who only cares about himself? What’s the difference between the virtuous man who leads the state wisely and the pandering demagogue who pursues his own glory by appealing to the lowest common denominator? That is one subject (among many) under consideration in Cicero’s speech “In Defense of Sestius.”*

In Cicero’s context, the Roman people had divided into two factions: the “Optimates”, who favored rule by the elites working through the Senate; and the “Populares”, who favored rule by the people working through the Popular Assemblies.** We might think of them as the 1% and the 99%, or the virtuous professionals and the unwashed mob (depending on your particular bias).

Rather than speaking directly about current events, however, Cicero takes the opportunity to reflect not so much on the reality of events in Rome, but on how things ought to be. Rather than talking about the “optimates” and the “populares” as they actually existed in Rome, instead he creates idealized versions of them and sets them in contrast with each other. In his view, the true “optimates”/”best men” are

“… our senior statesmen and those who follow their lead. They are those who are of the highest rank to whom the doors of the Curia are open. They are the citizens of Roman municipalities and peasants. They are businessmen. There are even freedmen [freed slaves] who are the finest citizens. As I said, their number includes men of different types who are spread far and wide. But in case there is any possible misconception, here is a quick definition and description of them as a class: a fine citizen is anyone who is not a criminal, perverted in nature, insane or hobbled by personal financial difficulties… The men who steer our Republic in conformity with this group’s wishes, interests and expectations are those we count as their protectors–and are themselves the most important of the finest citizens and greatly distinguished men, leaders of our community.
What port should those who steer the Republic keep their eyes upon and direct their course towards? The one which those who are sane, decent and prosperous consider the best, more desirable by far than any other: peace with honor.” (97)

By “peace with honor”, Cicero does of course mean to include international relations–but peace abroad is not his primary focus. He is mostly referring to a peace between the factions at home that pursues the common good of all. So he writes:

“…these [are] the elements of peace with honor…: our rites, the auspices, the powers of the magistrates, the authority of the Senate, the laws, our traditions, the courts and their verdicts, our integrity, provinces, allies, respect for our empire, the military, and the treasury.” (98)

In other words, the true “optimates” of the state are not those who side with the Optimates political faction; the real best men are the ones who set aside their selfish desires and pursue the common good. These may be found on each side of the partisan political divide. They work for religion, order, justice, legitimate political processes, virtue, and the honor and integrity of the state in the eyes of the watching world. They either are the great statesmen who lead or the mass of people who follow all in the name of service to something higher.

On the other hand, the true “populares,” today we would say the “demagogues,” are the ones who:

“.. look for revolution and political upheaval, either because they fear punishment or feel guilt because of their sins, or who feed off subversion and civil conflict because of some congenital insanity, or who, because of their financial difficulties, prefer to burn with everything else rather than alone.” (99)

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Cicero argues such men come to power either by what we might call “direct corruption” or by “soft corruption.” Direct corruption involves things like bribing government officials and openly committing crimes in order to get power. Soft corruption is simply pandering to the whims of the mob in order to win elections regardless of whether the mob’s whim is good for the state. Their method is to tell the people what they want to hear in exchange for the kind of popularity that leads to political power. I suppose it’s encouraging that Cicero believed he was dealing with the former, while we have not yet come to that.

And yet, Cicero’s analysis is still relevant today both in American politics and in the life of the modern Evangelical church. We talked in class about the state of modern American politics and struggled to identify any true “optimates” who could be said to be working for the good of the whole. Demagogues, of course, abound.

The situation may not be quite so bad in the church as it is in government, but that’s not to say that the situation is necessarily good either. Corruption is of course as rampant now in the ministry as it has always been (how many religious leaders have fallen through moral scandals?).

But in some ways the soft corruption of the church is even worse. I don’t even mean the open heretics who preach prosperity and health because that’s what we want to hear. Such are outside the boundaries of the word ‘Christian’ in the first place. The real damage done in this context is done by those who are otherwise orthodox in their beliefs. Soft corruption from these types is the kind that modifies the tone and means of delivery of the message of the Gospel to make it more appealing to the mob. What we need are preachers who stand on the truth of Scripture and lead the City of God through a Godly life as outlined in the Word. What we too often get are preachers who are so concerned with sounding cool that they fail to get around to telling us the truth from the pulpit–though they believe it themselves. We get preachers who are wearing whatever kinds of clothes kids these days are wearing; using the latest trendy catch phrases in sermons; trying to hook the attention of a distracted congregation by spur-of-the-moment improvisation; and using a thousand other gimmicks from the pulpit aimed at assuring us that the preacher is really “just like us” and “on our side.” These gimmicks pile up until the good news of the cross is lost under a heap of relevance. This is one kind of soft corruption faced by the church today.

The good news is that this is nothing new. Every generation of Christians has been tempted to modify the message of the Gospel down to the lowest common denominator. And in every generation God has faithfully raised up preachers who refuse to make such compromises, who tell us the truth even when we don’t want to hear it, and who steadfastly lead us towards the common good of the City of God. May we be the sorts of “best men” who identify and follow these leaders, rather than the demagogues who sound more attractive but who have let slip the heart of the Gospel.

*You can find a free version of the text in translation here, but I’m referencing/quoting the excerpts in the Penguin edition. References are to the paragraph number, so you should be able to find it wherever you look.

**It would be anachronistic to call these factions ‘political parties;’ they really weren’t all that organized and were in many ways more ‘dispositions’ than ‘coherent ideologies.’ Still, there was some unity and coordination among the members of the two groups.

Dr. Coyle Neal is co-host of the City of Man Podcast and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, MO, where he regularly tells his students what they don’t want to hear.

Previous Post

October 6, 2017

"Duties of Parents": A Dutch Classic on Raising Children

Next Post

October 13, 2017 Wonder Woman and the Problem of Human Nature

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Action AFI Top 100 Animation Best Picture Winner BFI Top 250 Biography Biopic Books Childrens Christian Classics Classics Comedy Crime Documentary Drama Editor's Choice Family Fantasy Fantasy Films Foreign Historical Historical Fiction History Horror Horror IMDB Top 250 Indie Memoir Modern Novel Musical Mystery Non-Fiction Oscars Philosophy Poetry Popular Literature Reading and Writing Reality Romance Science Fiction Science Fiction Silent Sports Thriller TV Show Uncategorized Western Westerns Young Adult

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 June 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many days was Jesus tempted in the wilderness?

Select your answer to see how you score.

40 days 50 days 30 days 60 days