Stand back.... Fire in the hole................
Ok so October 31st is a day of evil (as some claim). It's also the day Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses that began the split of the Christian church. Hmmmmm.....
I know may of you will take exception to this, but hear me out. The Reformation that officially started on Oct 31st was not an attempt to reformulate the Christian faith, it was rather a battle over issues of Church order. It was an attack on the only Christian church that existed at the time. That revolution produced an angle of vision radically different from the one in which the Bible was written and through which the primary theological tenets of the Christian faith were formed. So I'll ask, was it evil? Was Martin Luther doing the work of the devil when he sought to radically change the Church? (Take a moment to calm down and read on)
You shall know them by their fruits. So let's look at the fruit of the reformation. Luther initially saw himself as a great reformer of the Catholic church, a simple monk who thought the force of his ideas would single-handedly redirect the church; in the end, however, he divided Christianity into two separate churches and that second division, Protestantism, continued to divide into separate churches.
Luther (and all the other reformers) saw themselves as returning Christianity to its roots, in reality, their ideas irreparably changed the world and pushed the church into the modern era in which we customize our beliefs to fit the moment.
Luther opened the door to challenging the authority of the church. Many people cheered Luther, yet they pounded their fist when people like Charles Darwin challenged traditional Christian world views and church beliefs.
The gates had been opened. Darwin was followed by Sigmund Freud who analyzed the symbols of Christianity and found in them manifestations of a deep-seated infantile neurosis.
The list goes on and on of people who have challenged the beliefs and teachings held for thousands of years by the Church. The results or "fruit" is Christianity has degenerated into fundamentalism based not on historical and traditional Christian beliefs, rather it's based on a narrow personal interpretation of ones choosing.
As Christianity has moved more and more in this direction people had divided themselves into sects of Christendom all claiming various beliefs. If you believe that the only Christian Church that exsisted was so deserted by Christ that it taught the wrong way to salvation for nearly 1500 years then one might reconsider Christ himself.
My goal in writing this is not to upset anyone. I don't want to start another tired old mudslinging debate. I do hope to challenge all of us to think. Not just about what "team" we are on, but to consider all that has happened over the course of history and the impact it has had on the once unified church.
9 comments:
A two-part question:
1, Does unified automatically equate correct?
2, Does division automatically equate wrong doing?
I didn't want you to think I hadn't actually read your post ;) .
"The list goes on and on of people who have challenged the beliefs and teachings held for thousands of years by the Church. The results or "fruit" is Christianity has degenerated into fundamentalism based not on historical and traditional Christian beliefs, rather it's based on a narrow personal interpretation of ones choosing."
It is a very good thing to be challenged on what we believe and why we believe it because too many people have no idea of either, and do disservice to the Name.
You say narrow interpretation of one's choosing, but when that interpretation matches the oldest available proof texts, to then take the word of a person is to decide that person is more trustworthy than the Word which God has preserved so carefully.
When humanity disagrees with the revealed Word of God, humanity must take a back seat. Cleary revealed in Scripture and even other historical writings is the propensity (inevitability trithfully) of the fleshly turning away from Him.
People walked away from Christ even during His short ministry herre on Earth so it is to be expected that the Church will have people who have not only walked away from, but altered the Truth (as best they can) to fit their own sensibilities.
Are we then to rely on flesh to bring us back to truth, or the encouragement to go back to the Word itself? Is God not able to retain His written, inspired truths for the sake of all who will listen?
It was Augustine's teachings of checking with tradional views which were misused and give far too much authority that led to the Reformation.
He was right to teach that, in interpretation of passages which were not clear, reference to the way it was traditionally handled should be undertaken, but men after his method elevated tradition first over context, then even over original intent.
Scolastically speaking, tradition should be the last forum considered in translation.
1) I seem to remember something about a "great schizm" that occurred prior to the reformation.
2) What else was one to do when the church's changing teachings on many issues contradicted scripture.
3) Luther helped break the stranglehold of the church on the political lives of countries at the time. Before that, the church had power over peoples' lives, and even tried to make people believe they also had power over their afterlives. This power, enjoyed by the church for a thousand years, is what I believe was most responsible for church's corrpution of the faith and many of its leaders throughout history. In light of this, I believe the Catholic church has itself to thank for the Reformation.
4) On the Darwin comment, had he lived prior to the reformation and published the same theories, he would have received the same treatment as Galileo and Copernicus.
To continue upon an incorrect but unified path is not a thing to be pined for.
It comes down as to what you accept as the "word" of God. I don't believe His word is exclusive to the Scriptures. I believe it is also contained in what has been passed down through the ages. I belive it is part of the historical church.
I agree people will always try to twist thing to suit their needs. That is why there is such a need for a single magisterium. It's not relying on man, it's adhering to what the early Christians taught and believed.
I would disagree that tradition should be the last forum considered in translation. The two should not be separated.
We must be cautious to determine if we are questioning the teaching of a man or the entire church. Was Luther not called to submit to authority?
I'm not saying that the leaders of the church were pure and abuses did not exsist. I'm not saying Luther did not have some justified concerns. I do question the method and result.
Unification does not equate correctness but division would suggest that one (or more) are wrong assuming you believe there to be a single truth.
The Church will always be attacked. There will be those who seek to confuse and divide.
I'm not looking for a debate. Consider my words as you will.
Last time I checked a God who cannot sustain his community of believers is no god of the bible.
If Christ's church failed so did Christ, which is impossible.
Ask yourself if God wants to unite all of humanity into his covenant family, or does he wish to endlessly divide us?
Disunity is clearly a sign of human origins and dealings. Sorry my Prot brothers, call a spade a spade for once.
God unites Satan divides.
Psalm 133
A song of ascents. Of David. How good it is, how pleasant, where the people dwell in unity! Like precious ointment on the head, running down upon the beard, Upon the beard of Aaron, upon the collar of his robe.
Like dew of Hermon coming down upon the mountains of Zion. There the LORD has lavished blessings, life for evermore!
"It's not relying on man, it's adhering to what the early Christians taught and believed."
~Which takes us right back to where we began: the extreme fallability of humans.
"I would disagree that tradition should be the last forum considered in translation. The two should not be separated."
~Augustine's writings disagree with you. There are times when Tradition doesn't even need to be consulted. For example, "Thou shalt not murder". That's pretty clear. If one wanted to dig deeper, you'd go to the author's intent and the context under which it was written. Then only if you still had confusion does it become necessary to say "Well, how did they practice this over the years." That's a good and important thing, but the way one plays the game doesn't tell as much as reading the rules and consulting with the printer.
"We must be cautious to determine if we are questioning the teaching of a man or the entire church."
~True!
"Was Luther not called to submit to authority?"
~How does requesting an audience and a reexamination of practice and belief bring into question his submission to authority?
"I'm not saying that the leaders of the church were pure and abuses did not exsist. I'm not saying Luther did not have some justified concerns. I do question the method and result."
~Fair enough, as long as you draw into consideration the existence since before Christ was even crucified of differing "branches" of Christianity. They did not begin with the Reformation, that was merely the leaping off point of more varieties.
"Unification does not equate correctness but division would suggest that one (or more) are wrong assuming you believe there to be a single truth."
~Agreed.
"The Church will always be attacked. There will be those who seek to confuse and divide."
~Yup!
"I'm not looking for a debate. Consider my words as you will."
~Sorry buddy...put it out in public on a discussion forum and debate is a must! :D Besides, that's how men sharpen one another. ;)
I agree people will always try to twist thing to suit their needs. That is why there is such a need for a single magisterium.
And what to do when that single magisterium does the same?
Disunity is clearly a sign of human origins and dealings. Sorry my Prot brothers, call a spade a spade for once. God unites Satan divides.
See above. Division isn't the only thing that comes from satan.
Furthermore, is unity even possible now before Christ returns? Every group insists they are right in matters of faith. For Catholics, the only possible unity would be for all we heretics to renounce our "errors" and come back to "the one true church(tm)". For Baptists, the only possible unity would be to use their view of scripture. For Lutherans, it would be to follow scriptures through the teachings of Luther. On and on with every group.
"It was an attack on the only Christian church that existed at the time"
As Click and Clack would say "boooooo-gus". "Unity" didn't exist before the Reformation. If memory serves there was division even as early as the first century (heck you could say that Judas started the first schism). The RCC didn't exist until well after the apostles were dead. The RCC and the Eastern and Greek Orthodox churches split off from the same root.
"I don't believe His word is exclusive to the Scriptures."
And therein lies your first mistake. There are plenty of scriptures that say otherwise.
"We must be cautious to determine if we are questioning the teaching of a man or the entire church."
The most important teachings are to be found in the Bible. That is where the teachings of the church (visible) should come from. Anything not ound therein should be questioned, scrutinized, dessected, etc.
*And please note that a)I'm not upset and b)I don't believe that if you're Catholic you're automatically not a Christian any more than I believe that if you're Protestant that you automatically are.
Post a Comment