church history – Calvary Chapel

Sir Titus Salt, Stewardship, and Christmas

James Travis — Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:00:54 +0000

Sir Titus Salt

Sir Titus Salt was born in Morley (near Leeds, Bradford, and Wakefield in the U.K.) in 1803 and died in 1876. Educated at local grammar school, he took up work in the wool and mill industry in 1820. His father, Daniel, was a wool dealer, and Titus learned the industry over a number of years and in a number of jobs. In the early 1830’s, he struck out on his own and began to experiment with a number of different materials, namely donskoi and alpaca wools. Taking leftovers from another manufacturing process, Salt realised the potential of these new endeavours and the rest, as they say, is history.

His fortune secured, in around 1851 he began to build a large mill next to the River Aire and Leeds-Liverpool Canal in West Yorkshire and a model village for his workers to live in (named Saltaire, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site) that contained every possible amenity they could need: houses, almshouses, shops, schools, an infirmary, a club and institute, baths and washhouses, a park, and a church.

In his most thorough biography, it is written of Salt that …

“One of the most celebrated traits of Sir Titus Salt was his philanthropy.”

(Barlo and Shaw)

Giving away around £139,000 in gifts, donations, and through other philanthropic projects — equivalent to over £12,000,000 today — Salt was also known for sparing no expense to ensure his workers’ safety and general quality of life. His mill was built to minimise potential accidents (dangerous parts being routed through the floor, for example) and designed to ensure that workers’ health would not suffer untowardly whilst at work (heating and ventilation installed to keep the ambient temperature comfortable). Above and beyond the place of work, it is recorded that Salt paid personally for his model village to have gas lighting and heating. He saw his great wealth as a great responsibility to help a great number of people. He brought, as one author writes, a social conscience to industrial business practices at a time when many did not, and when many factory and mill workers lived in abject poverty.

Why did Salt behave this way?

Was he just a thoroughly nice person?

Did he not have any particular passions of his own on which to spend his fortune?

Stewardship

Much writing about his life suggests it was down to his Christian faith. Dr. Simon Ross Valentine records that Salt’s personal motto was “Quid non Deo juvante” (What can a man not do with God’s help?) and that religion was, without doubt, a driving and motivating force in his life. His view of stewardship is particularly relevant to his generous and consistent giving. The privilege of resource was seen as a tremendous responsibility by Salt and some of his contemporaries, and his vast resources, coupled with his Christian principles and views on stewardship, resulted in a genuine desire and decision to help others.

Stewardship is actually rooted in creation itself (Genesis 1.26-28) and as humans, we have a profoundly privileged position in which we use what God has made and entrusted to us (Psalm 24.1). This applies, as above, to the big picture things that we all contribute to the stewardship of, but also to what God has given each of us (Matthew 25.14-30). Sir Titus Salt saw his great wealth and abilities as things not to be hoarded and kept for his own enjoyment and pleasure, but resources and tools to be used to improve the lives of many.

At its core, Christian stewardship declares that we do not truly own anything and God owns everything. We are temporary stewards of that which God has created and graciously given us. Long before Salt’s time, as R.C. Sproul wrote,

“A steward in the ancient world was a person who was given the responsibility and authority to rule over the affairs of the household. For example, the patriarch Joseph became a steward over Potiphar’s household: he managed everything in the household and was given the authority to rule over the house (Gen. 39:1–6). In that role, he was responsible to manage the household well; he was not to waste the resources of the family but to make wise decisions.”

Christmas

As we approach Christmas, the time when we pause and ponder the first advent of our Lord Jesus, we can draw a parallel between the resources, riches, abilities, and attributes He had and did not consider keeping to Himself (cf. Philippians 2) and the example of Sir Titus Salt. We can also take a supremely practical and personally applicable point from the life and stewardship of Sir Titus Salt: improving the lives of those around us can take many forms.

Perhaps it is in the time honoured way of giving a gift to show you know and love someone. Giving them what they want the most communicates very clearly that you know them and love them in a way that wants to bring joy into their life.

Perhaps, like Sir Titus, it is using your resources to tangibly improve someone’s situation. Giving them what they need the most communicates very clearly that you see them for who and where they are and care enough to meet their needs, and, possibly, remove them.

Or, maybe, this year for you it is following in the example of Jesus and, counting others as more important than yourself, cashing in some of your status and privilege to make someone else’s life better. This can take so many forms. Being present, affirming, loving, supporting, going, coming back, doing, forgiving, showing, saying …

However we choose to navigate the upcoming season in relation to those around us, it is certainly a time of year when our stewardship is, perhaps, most publicly seen. Where we choose to invest our time, talents, and treasure at Christmas is, I think, a wonderful statement of how we see the season and its reason. Is it about getting or giving, hoarding or helping?

As we move into the festive period this year, then, consider the words of the master to the servant who displayed some strong stewardship in the parable of the talents:

“Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.”

(Matthew 25.23)

A Thousand Year Tug of War: The Marriage of Church and State

Jasmine Alnutt — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:00:00 +0000

In many ways, the reign of Constantine over the Roman Empire was one of the most far reaching and influential in western history. One of the most significant aspects of his influence was his perspective of Church and State. When Constantine brought the Church and State together in society, he was simply applying his Roman worldview to the situation, since religion—specifically emperor worship—operated in connection with the government. Therefore it is no surprise that the emperors who followed him continued and even expanded on this policy—and not necessarily for the spiritual good of the Church!

While Constantine did legalize and promote Christianity, paganism was still prolific in the Roman Empire. That all changed when Emperor Theodosius I (347-395 A.D.) made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in 380 A.D. This was the moment in which the Church-State union was truly established.

Essentially, it could be said that the Church and State were “dating” under Constantine and were now “married” under Theodosius.

Theodosius’ decision had some interesting and unexpected ramifications.

As has been noted concerning Theodosius, “He used his power to officially enforce orthodox Christianity, but ended up placing his power under that of the church, setting a standard for more than a millennium.”¹Unexpected indeed!

Theodosius was crowned co-emperor in the East in 379 A.D., and accepted Christian baptism soon after this during a serious illness. The following year, he proclaimed himself a Christian and proceeded to issue the edict declaring orthodox Christianity the official state religion. Around 391 A.D. Theodosius went a step further and made paganism a crime, closing down all temples and forbidding pagan worship. By asserting his authority to establish Christianity in this way, Theodosius believed he was aligning his will with the will of God; in essence, he claimed to be God’s representative on earth, presiding over the Church as he would the government.

Unfortunately, Theodosius could be rather high-handed and aggressive. The epitome of this aggression was his handling of a riot in Thessalonica around 387 A.D. When a favorite charioteer was imprisoned on accusations of homosexuality, the people revolted, murdering the governor and freeing the charioteer. When Theodosius heard about this incident, he ordered his soldiers to trap the people in the arena during a chariot race and fall upon the crowd. Seven thousand defenseless Thessalonians were murdered in cold blood, arousing the indignation of not only the citizens, but the Church!

Bishop Ambrose of Milan, a leading church figure and spiritual advisor to Theodosius, took a bold stance, refusing to give Theodosius communion until he humbled himself, took off his royal robes and publicly repented. Since Theodosius claimed to be God’s representative and the leader of Church and State, he really had no choice but to comply with Ambrose’s request. The implications of this were enormous. As historians have stated, “It marked a new chapter in the history of church and state. For the first time, a secular ruler submitted to the Church. Less than a century earlier, emperors were trying to wipe out the Church.”² A mind boggling shift indeed when put in that context!

This turn of events suggested that the Church had authority even over the Emperor to some degree.

From this time on, the Church began to grow in its authority and influence. The marriage of Church and State had initially created a tug of war, which led to a power struggle that would prevail for centuries.

Another step in the development of the Church-State relationship came about during the reign of one of the greatest Emperors in history, Justinian I (483-565 A.D.). Although Justinian maintained the upper hand in Church-State relations more effectively than Theodosius, he did much to solidify the concept of the Church and State ruling together in society.

When Justinian came to power, the western half of the Roman Empire had recently dissolved; yet he succeeded in establishing a strong empire in the East. His goal was not just to try to put band aids on the old empire, but remake it, and by the end of his reign, he and his wife Theodora had largely succeeded!

These two were quite a sociopolitical force and introduced many progressive policies.

Theodora in particular influenced legislation that prohibited sex trafficking and infanticide, as well as instituting the death penalty for rape. For his part, Justinian supported these measures while fighting to retrieve many of the Western Empire’s lands and peoples.

Much of Justinian’s desire to reunite and rebuild the empire came from his views concerning Church and State. He wrote, “There are two great gifts which God, in His love for man, has granted from on high: the priesthood and the imperial dignity. The first serves divine things, while the latter directs and administers human affairs; both, however, proceed from the same origin and adorn the life of mankind.”³ He felt that if these God-ordained functions were being carried out properly, then the world would have general harmony—which he believed was signified by a united empire!

It was such views that were spelled out in his legal code, the Corpus Iuris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), more commonly known as the Code of Justinian. The ideals expressed in this code eventually were assimilated throughout Europe as the Law of Church and State. It was strongly Christian and anti-unbeliever; in fact, Justinian made apostasy punishable by death, closed down famous schools in Athens because of their pagan teaching, established churches (the most famous being the Hagia Sophia, considered one of the greatest architectural feats in history) and enforced laws in support of Christian morals and teaching (more legal rights for women, laws discouraging divorce, etc.). As Jennings puts it, “Justinian’s religion was of an active kind.”⁴ However, like Constantine, Justinian believed the emperor should reign supreme in church affairs, which had its drawbacks! In fact, the eastern branch of the Church in particular never really came out from under the emperor’s authority.

So in effect, Justinian made even more concrete that which Constantine and Theodosius had laid a foundation for concerning the empire and the Church.

We could say that Constantine legalized Christianity, Theodosius made it the official religion, and Justinian articulated the Church-State relationship, a relationship that would prevail in Europe for the next 1,000 years until the Protestant Reformation.

In order to attain a proper understanding of any historic event, concept or movement, it is of paramount importance to appreciate its context. It is in understanding the concept of the Church-State alliance, and its formation that we come to realize why it was so pervasive in the centuries that followed; and why it became so difficult to uproot from Western civilization. As we can see, church history reveals how easily well intentioned decisions can have unseen negative repercussions for future generations.

¹ Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, 131 Christians Everyone Should Know
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ A.C. Jennings, A Manual of Church History