Best writers. Best papers.

Let professionals take care of your academic papers today.


It is easy-peasy to use our online assignment help service. See how it works below:-

Submit Requirements

Track Your Order

Download completed work

Check our affordable prices

275 words

1 pages × jQuery22.05: jQuery22.05 ( 48 hours, double spaced)

Approximate price: $22.05

continue to order

Christianity expanded tremendously between the 11th and 13th century. It spread throughout Europe. Many European countries declared Christian as the national religion. This increased the influence and power of the pope. Nobles struggled to get control of the papacy. The number of educated cleric also decreased. The official of the church misused their authority and became corrupt.  The Roman Catholic Church had the largest number of followers in Europe than any other denomination. The center point being in Rome. The pope is the senior most leader of the church. Under him are other church official such as the bishops. The king should lead a Christian nation in Europe. This is due to a variety of reasons such as the fact that kingship rules and means of leadership are not the same as that of the pope and the church in leadership. The Christian teachings on leadership are based on ancient teachings while civilization is changing daily and so should leadership. This is the case in kings (Ross 61).

The struggle for power between the popes and kings has been evident since the beginning of the 1st century. After Christianity spread to Europe, most of the leaders either embraced it as the official religion or even went to the extent of forming alliances with the church leader. This was done by the emperors appointing some church leaders; e chose those whom he knew were loyal. For instance when Otto 1 was the emperor of Germany in the year made a lot of effort to win the influence of the church. He even went to the extent of assigning German land to the officials of the church. Otto III went to the extent of making Rome to be his capital. He also declared himself as the emperor to the Romans. From these example, it can be seen that the Roman Catholic leaders have had great influence and over on the adherents. After Europe embraced Christianity, the conflict of who should rule at time amounted to severe conflicts. For instance, when Otto third attempted appoint church leaders who were not Italian. This led to a rebellion that the led to him being exiled. Therefore, the battle for power has been brought down over the years up to the present (Ross 52).

On my opinion, Kings should be the one to rule the Christian Europe. The kings have been ruling Europe long before the existence of Christianity. They have been upgrading their leadership strategies over the years. This therefore makes them better at leading the people of Europe. The structure of the king’s leader ship has been in use for long and has therefore been accepted and embraced by the Europeans. This structure is ever changing over the years according to the civilization level of the people. (Ross 45). Changing this structure to that of the church led by the pope will come with so much change that will lead to unrests, rebellion and even rejection by the people.

The Romans Catholic Church, led by the pope are spiritual leaders, the will therefore see most of the people’s needs and desires from a spiritual stand point. As much as some issues can be sorted better through religious insight, most of the leadership issues are better dealt with basing on facts and history of civilization. This is to say that religion, Christianity included base leadership on the bible and Christian teachings. This teachings and leadership are not relevant to the countries whose society and civilization is dynamic. Therefore, the kings can lead better since they are flexible to the needs of the people in relation to the changing societies and diversification of people’s needs. Most of the Christian teachers are ancient and some do not have relevance to the prevailing circumstances. Leadership on the other hand is as dynamic as change. It can be swayed from one side to the other depending on the prevailing circumstances such as crisis.

When Christianity began, its sole purpose was teaching the word of God, spreading the news about salvation and conversion of non-Christians to Christianity. There was no teaching that ever pointed towards the church leading the people at the political level. The struggle by the pope over power is seen as greed for power and more influence by the church leaders. More so, it is not based on the Christian teachings. This will therefore mislead the Christians from the main purpose and teachings on Christianity. The church has been constantly fighting for the rights of especially the marginalized and the oppressed. This therefore means that the church leaders keep the kings and their leadership at check in order to maintain better leadership (Ross 45)

Therefore, leadership is best done by the kings but with the help of the church to regulate the influence and power of the kings. The church can take part in leadership by enlightening of the people on Christian values in the sense that Kings are raised with the Christian values and therefore lead the people but basing some of the decisions on the Christian values gained. The church can also use its influence and place in the society to keep the leadership as per.  As in, if the king for instance misuses his powers while in the leadership position, the church can help replace him or warn him against it. The church therefore should have a role in leadership but not the main role.

From the initial Biblical teachings, God appointed leaders for his people through his prophets. The leaders were mostly humble servants or at times prophets. Later on in the New Testament. The Christian teachings indicated that leaders should be servants. This can be interpreted to mean that political leadership was left to the kings, while spiritual leaders were chosen to lead people towards salvation (Ross 44). We can therefore deduce that political leadership should be left to the kings while spiritual leadership should be left to the church leaders such as the pope. Mixing of both political and spiritual leadership might mislead the people as most of the Christian teaching is about salvation and holiness, leadership on the other hand involves making of hard decisions for the physical needs of the people rather than their spiritual growth. These hard decisions sometimes require a great deal of sacrifice that can only done by kings due to the power they have.  The pope can therefore led and make hard decision.

The political posts of leadership such as kings are usually categorized by wrangles, corruption and sometimes and dictator ship. On the part of Dictatorship, at some point in time a country needs a dictator with a vision for the people; such leadership can bring a country out of an error of suffering and poverty. For instance, Germany rose and fell several times before and after the world wars. The rises were attributed to dictatorship leaders. Such leaders are not found in the line of popes (Ross 65).

At some point during the middle ages, the pope was very powerful. They decided whether a king should have the throne or not. At some point, they had the power to dispose a king. The y tried to exercise this right with failure at some point and succeeded in others. There have been instances where the pope had much influence over the prevailing kings. But this can’t be compared to the number of times the kings had power over the church. As much as the pope was powerful, it takes more than power for a country to be led (Ross 35). The church has values that can impact positively on a countries morality but will not entirely be helpful for the development of the economy of the country. A king on the other hand can head a country with the priorities being to raise the economy and enhance development of the country.

The church pope has spiritual influence, definition and basis of morality in the Christian nations. There many followers to Christianity but a very small percentage are these adherents actually follow these teachings. This therefore counter the influence the church should have on the political leadership of a country. If the pope has many followers, and yet the followers don’t entirely believe or strictly follow his teachings, then the leadership of the pope is bound to crumple. For a leader to lead he/she should have a course and his followers should work towards these course. A king will use all means necessary to achieve the vision he has, while the pope will have to rely on peoples believe, which isn’t much to go with for political leadership (Ross 22).

Giving leadership to the pope will involve oppression of the minority group living among the Christians, who are not Christian. The world has diverse religions. Some of these religions are found in Europe among the Christian nations such as pagans and atheists among others. For instance, the church officials will have to make the constitutions or the leadership based on Christian teachings. Apparently, these teachings are not universal. The minority group will therefore have to comply without choice to the church based leadership. On the other hands, kings come from among the people in the country regardless of the religious belief. A king could therefore unite all the people by being neutral. We can therefore say that kings can better lead a Christian nation in Europe because he has a higher chance of uniting all the people together under his leadership in relation to the pope (Ross 77).

Therefore the leadership should be left to the kings as they are better suit to lead the nation that the pope as the kings has more power, and fewer restrictions to lead a nation as compared to the pope. A king from a Christian nation has the Christian teachings and can also lead people and unite them under Christianity. The king tries to serve Gods people by leading and uniting them.  And lastly church leadership is totally different from a country’s leadership due to the dynamic changes in the leadership area due to civilization

Work Cited

Chance, Jane. Women Medievalists and the Academy. Madison, Wis: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 2005.

Print.

Ross, James B, and Mary M. McLaughlin. The Portable Medieval Reader. New York: Viking Press, 1949.

Print.

Get an answer to this question in three simple steps

Submit instructions

Submit instructions required to answer your question by filling out the order form and including as many details as possible. Fill out the order form by selecting discipline, word count, format, academic level, and other details.

Track your order

You can check your order’s status or chat with the writer any time you want.

Get your paper done

You will receive a notification once your order is complete. It is ready to use, simply download it. 

Stay anonymous with our online academic writing help service


We guarantee our service is private and confidential

New looks. Same us. Say hi to all new EssayCrackers