Protestantism was birthed in the 16th century as a grassroots movement to reform the existing church. Soon it exploded into a division separate from the Catholic Church. The reformation made its mark on Catholicism as well as causing important renewal to take place. However the rise of the protestant church had a tumultuous phase before it found peaceful co-existence with Catholicism.I am currently reading a book on the history of the reformation entitled “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” by Alister McGrath. I am only a third of the way through the book at this time. However, my mind is arrested with the thoughts concerning the drama of the reformation period of history.
I did not previously realize that so much political angst marked the early days of the reformation. Political leaders, governors, Kings, Queens, etc. were dictating what flavor of Christianity their country would align itself with. Some broke off their political allegiances with the pope and established a protestant variant as the religion of the land only to switch back to Catholicism when the next royal took the throne. Kings and Queens were even dictating doctrine and had their hands heavily involved in what the beliefs would be of their respective lands. Basically they were dictating what beliefs best supported their thinking and their power.
Injustices that occurred during the reign of Mary Tudor or other Royals who persecuted those who were not of the state religion were not as I once thought actions of the church that were contrary to the Christian faith, but actions of government that had nothing to do with the Christian faith. It would seem that much of what occurred was politics and not condoned by the church. Not that the church wasn’t involved in the politics of the day vying for state approval, it certainly was involved it would seem. However, in all I read about the turmoil of the age, it all seemed to have little to do with the Gospel and much to do with politics.
As an American used to not having the government tell me how I must believe, it seems so foreign a concept to have the governing authorities dictate religion to the people. However, America is the great exception to the normal way of things in this world. It was because of the problematic policies of Europe that our Founders sought to protect the church from government meddling. Constantine is not seen as a favorable ruler by many American Christians for we do not think the church ought to have ever been enjoined to the state in such a manner.
To have the government dictate religious belief seems akin to going to the doctor to have your car tuned up. Religion might have something to say about governing such as providing leadership principals, ethics, philosophical grounds for laws etc, but the government doesn’t have any jurisdiction dictating religion. It is precisely because religion had something to say that the government was given this restriction. Jefferson wrote so eloquently that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Thus, the Founders believed, our freedom is inextricably tied to our God given unalienable right to liberty and thus the government of America limited itself to make no law regarding the establishment of religion.
I am grateful to live in a nation that values the market place of ideas. I am glad that people don’t have to believe the way their government institutes and that we are free to believe in accordance with our own reason and faith as we choose whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheists, Agnostic, or in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Certainly there are beliefs that are better for a society than another, but a free society is better than one whose beliefs are forced.
As a Christian, it would be unethical for me to support a nation that dictates everyone be Christian. I will stand for the freedom of others of other worldviews just as quickly as I would stand for Christians to enjoy this freedom. God gave us the freedom from the beginning of time to choose our own path and it’s not for me to impose restrictions on humanity God did not impose in all His wisdom and power. True love is only known through freedom, I wouldn’t want a world where love couldn’t be fully experienced.
20 comments:
Nice post. Extra points for mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ;-)
I had an argument with a Christian once who actually believed that anyone who was not a Christian should be jailed for practicing their faith or non-faith. He really wanted a total theocracy. He didn't understand what you do, that if we start dictating those things and the power swings away from your brand of theology, then you are in trouble. ;-)
karla said: Kings and Queens were even dictating doctrine and had their hands heavily involved in what the beliefs would be of their respective lands. Basically they were dictating what beliefs best supported their thinking and their power.
History is very illuminating isn't it?
karla said: in all I read about the turmoil of the age, it all seemed to have little to do with the Gospel and much to do with politics.
[laughs] Oh, it was *all* to do with politics.... and it wasn't just Kings and Queens playing that particular game. The Catholic church in particular was hugely involved in the politics of the day.
karla said: As an American used to not having the government tell me how I must believe, it seems so foreign a concept to have the governing authorities dictate religion to the people.
You probably have that to look forward to. We've had our particular daliance with theocracy... I don't think many people liked it.
karla said: It was because of the problematic policies of Europe that our Founders sought to protect the church from government meddling.
... and vice versa surely?
Thanks Mike. I've never met a Christian that had that argued for a theocracy like that. Most Christians when they are talking about Christianity and government are talking about a return to Christian values not a return to mingling the government with the church.
I read a book by an orthodox Jewish Rabbi once advocating such values to protect the freedom of all. He argued that the Jewish people ought to be grateful for the Christian influence in the nation's foundation which protected their freedom as well as everybody else's.
Cyber "The Catholic church in particular was hugely involved in the politics of the day."
Agreed. I mentioned how I'm not in favor of Constantine's making Christianity a state religion, that's when Catholicism became so intertwined with the government.
Actually the word Catholic simply means "one" or "unified" I would imagine before the Protestant Reformation there wasn't much emphasis on the Church being "Catholic" because it simply was the established church. It wasn't different from something else, it just was what there was. Protestantism brought a schism because new ideas were promulgated about having the Bible be accessible to the common person for personal study as well as some of the corruption of the church of the day being addressed. Luther was looking for the church to examine these ideas, rather than create a separated body, it just didn't work that way. Of course, there were independent changes happening throughout Europe that weren't only brought on by those influenced by Luther. It's like this transition was being birthed, but had to survive the turmoil of change to settle into what exists now.
Well that's enough history for now. I plan to write more post on what I am currently reading.
Here's the blog of the guy I had the argument with. Covenant Theology. I don't read there anymore.
I found the discussion. Here's the quote:
"Mike: "So, witchcraft should be illegal, any other religions?
Response: Any religion that does not honor God. I hold the First Commandment to be superior to the First Amendment (which itself was never meant to tolerate all religions)."
And the actual article and discussion:
Modern "Tolerance": Defining A Self-defeating Premise
I also do not read that blog any more.
Yikes. Well I best not comment over there, I don't want to encourage that thinking over here.
That's not supported at all by Christ. Jesus said, as you know, to love those who persecute you and do good to those who wrong you, and love your enemies. He said if you aren't received in a city, move on. He said nothing of imposing morality, or beliefs. In fact, He rebuked the Pharisees for that mentality.
Like I was saying over at CL's blog, the Scripture without relationship with Jesus can lead to some crazy things. In fact I will be writing something up soon about some thoughts concerning the actions of different streams in the early days of Protestantism; the difference between internal relationship and external adherence to doctrines.
I think he's the one, the guy from the blog, that I got in a post-cross/ pre-cross covenant discussion with. It's been a long time since I studied all the different covenants, but he came across as incredibly legalistic.
Looking forward to more in this series, Karla.
Nice job, Mike. This stuff has to be countered at all times. It's always an evil for the Christian church to be entangled in politics. Feel free to enlist me in any future arguments about church and state--not like you needed any assistance. And, what's with the "tolerance is not the prime virtue" line? I'd agree it's not, but that doesn't mean it's not a virtue. Man, Mike, I'm even getting riled up over this.
"... and vice versa surely?"
Whether they did or didn't, that's the way it ought to be Cyber. But don't call me Shirley...
Tolerance, to me, is tied to respecting others, to, as someone once said, love others as I love myself. So, while not the prime virtue, it's up there pretty high.
Thanks for the offer, MS Quixote, I don't get into too many arguments anymore, but folks like that scare the heck out of me.
Mike, yeah when I saw the name of the blog it sounded like he is into some off beat variant of old covenant theology and hasn't understood the new. Even in the old it wasn't to be about legalism, but became thus contrary to the point of the covenant. Jesus talked about this.
BTW, Mike I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I doubted that you had encountered such a person. I was just saying I hadn't yet, not that I thought you were incorrect.
Quixote, I think that every American as a citizen has a duty to be involved in the marketplace of ideas regarding government/politics including Christians. But I do not advocate a merging of church and state. I think there is a difference between being involved in politics as a person or even as a group of people rather than mingling the identity of the church with the state.
"I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I doubted that you had encountered such a person."
Oh, I know. I just thought you would find the discussion and his blog interesting.
Cool. It certainly is "interesting" not mainstream at all though.
"As a Christian, it would be unethical for me to support a nation that dictates everyone be Christian."
I would like to see you support that statement. As a human being, it would be unethical. As a Xian, however, I don't believe you can say the same thing.
"He argued that the Jewish people ought to be grateful for the Christian influence in the nation's foundation which protected their freedom as well as everybody else's."
And, he would be wrong. Many Xians of the time were quite happy to persecute the Jews, just as they had in Europe. It was the deists and freethinkers of the time that actually fought to ensure that all would have freedom (think Jefferson, Madison, Paine, etc.)
I should add that Paine was summarily shunned after the Revolutionary War, however, as a supposed atheist, and basically thrown out of the country for his views. The freedoms that we tout weren't so kind to all.
GCT "I would like to see you support that statement. As a human being, it would be unethical. As a Xian, however, I don't believe you can say the same thing."
If you are talking about the history of the church I could see how you think my statement contradictory to Christianity. However, I am speaking of what Jesus would have supported and His message was one of the heart and not of forcing people to believe. No where will you find Jesus training anyone to use the law or violence or manipulation to make anyone believe anything. The church being intertwined with the government, didn't begin until Constantine (an Emperor (ie government) instituted that it become the state religion.
GCT "Many Xians of the time were quite happy to persecute the Jews, just as they had in Europe. It was the deists and freethinkers of the time that actually fought to ensure that all would have freedom (think Jefferson, Madison, Paine, etc."
Deists believed that God created the world and left it to its own devices. That would mean that deists aren't those who believe in Jesus and yet most if not all the Founders spoke as if the Gospels were real. Albeit, Jefferson pulled out a lot of supernatural elements of the New Testament in his own revised version of the Bible. I don't think he dispensed with Jesus altogether, so I am not sure he could be classified a deists.
Furthermore, Christians persecuting Jews doesn't mean that Jesus (a Jew by the way) condoned it.
When I say something is Christian, I don't mean that all Christians have always acted this way, but that it is consistent with what Scriptures say about how the followers of Christ ought to act.
"If you are talking about the history of the church I could see how you think my statement contradictory to Christianity."
No, I'm thinking about the Bible itself and how one interprets it.
"However, I am speaking of what Jesus would have supported and His message was one of the heart and not of forcing people to believe. No where will you find Jesus training anyone to use the law or violence or manipulation to make anyone believe anything."
Jesus does use a whip in one lesson. god also seems to have a fondness for asking people to convert others or kill them. Read the OT lately? Sure, the NT is kinder and gentler (minus that whole hell thing) but that's also a reflection of the lack of political and military power that the people had at the time.
"Deists believed that God created the world and left it to its own devices. That would mean that deists aren't those who believe in Jesus and yet most if not all the Founders spoke as if the Gospels were real."
And those founders were the ones that wanted to promote a Xian nation. It was the view that lost out, thankfully.
"Albeit, Jefferson pulled out a lot of supernatural elements of the New Testament in his own revised version of the Bible. I don't think he dispensed with Jesus altogether, so I am not sure he could be classified a deists."
Jefferson was certainly not a Xian. He may have believed a preacher named Jesus lived and said some good things, but he did not believe in the Xian god or that Jesus was a god.
"Furthermore, Christians persecuting Jews doesn't mean that Jesus (a Jew by the way) condoned it."
True. But, it doesn't make your previous statement any more correct (or that of the Rabbi's to be more accurate).
"When I say something is Christian, I don't mean that all Christians have always acted this way, but that it is consistent with what Scriptures say about how the followers of Christ ought to act."
No, what you mean is that it is consistent with how you interpret scripture and you are making a no true Scotsman argument.
GCT, there is a lot of scholarship pointing both ways as to the worldviews of the Founders and the point of my post wasn't about that so I think I'll just let that be, because I don't see any good served in debating it.
"GCT, there is a lot of scholarship pointing both ways as to the worldviews of the Founders..."
There's a lot of dishonest lies from Xians about the views of the Founders and what happened, yes.
Colonial America is my favorite area of history. I enjoy reading primary documents over that of secondary sources. Though I did just read a book by the historian Joseph Ellis on the time period and plan to read more by him. He didn't cover this topic though.
I have read much of the Federalist Papers, some John Locke, some of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography and some writings of Adams, Madison, and Washington. This way when I read secondary sources I can compare their view with the original writings and better navigate around modern bias.
Post a Comment