I finished it. It took me ten months, but I finished it. Last night I completed The Reformation: A History by
Diarmaid MacCulloch. Part of the reason it took me so long is because after reading so much of the history of the 16th century, I was inspired to go and re-read Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle, a work of fiction heavily dependent on the history of the 17th century in the aftermath of the Reformation.
Coincidentally last night I was provided with a reminder that some of these battles of Christianity are recurrent or never settled — for example the discomfort of more established Christianity with more mystic strains of Christianity. I was tuned into “Family Talk,” the Christian talk station on my XM radio, and the host was Al Mohler. He was criticizing the work of an individual whose name escapes me, but the person had apparently posted a modern 95 theses. (Martin Luther is credited with kicking off the Reformation when he posted his 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517.)
On the Family Talk program Mohler had specific criticisms for the modern writer but his critique seemed to apply generally to more individualized forms of worship, unbound by more organized teaching. In particular, he was critical of forms of worship that focused on a “feel good” positive view of humanity and its relationship with God and didn’t start with original sin and end with salvation through Jesus. Mystics crop up again and again through Christian history and, again and again, they are attacked and put down by more established, organized forms of Christianity. (This is a bit of an aside, neither Reformation Protestants or Counter Reformation Catholics had much use for mystics.)
The idea of making original sin the linchpin of Christianity (and resistance to that idea) crops up again and again. St. Paul and St. Augustine focus on the irredeemable sinfulness of humans more so than did Jesus or the medieval Catholic Church. Luther and John Calvin also made human sinfulness the starting point for Christianity. As I read these folks, humans are such depraved worms in the eyes of God that no actions we take in life could possibly make us worthwhile and so, only by God’s infinite grace can humans be worthy of salvation. (I’m a bit troubled as to why an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely good God would craft us to be such worms, but that’s beyond the scope of this entry.) Still today we have ideological struggles between people who think that humans are powerless to make themselves worthy through actions and those who think that good works are the measure of one’s worth.
The clashes between Reformation Protestants and Counter Reformation Catholics was one of the things that led indirectly to the Enlightenment and our more secular Western culture. In part this is because it is difficult not to be a bit skeptical when you have decades of people torturing and killing each other because each side believes it is an adherent of the one true religion and is compelled to force the other side into the fold. And, if your skepticism reveals to you that these people are torturing and killing each other over the question of whether, during mass, bread and wine turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus or are merely symbolic of the blood and flesh of Jesus, you might start looking for answers elsewhere.
In any case, if you are interested in this period in history, this is the book to read.
I’ll have to check that out. It must be better than the movie “Luther”. That movie could have been great, but it just never “hooked” me.
As for the fighting over one idea or another in such minute detail, I’m reminded of an episode of “Enterprise” (Back off, I liked it!). In it, two sects of one religion are fighting each other to the level of genocide. When the captian asks one side why the other is so evil, he says something like “We know the TRUTH to be that the universe was created in 3 days. Those heritics claim it was created in 10.”
I’m actually a member of the Lutheran church for reasons of tradition. I agree more than I disagree with many of the things this denomonation does. HOWEVER, I don’t feel that any other denomonation is somehow outside grace. Usually all that seperates all the different groups are a few points of tradition. Wine or grape juice. Sprinkling or immersion. Organ or drums. Most agree on salvation. Most are probally 90% wrong on everything else. It isn’t worth getting bent about. We’re all Christians. Protestants and Catholics worship the same God.
To attempt to answer your question about why God would create such worms: I know you have children. If you could, would you design your children that you love so much to be blindly love you and follow your every command? I know I wouldn’t want that from my girls. Their love would be a result of my programming, not because they actually loved me of their own will. It is my understanding that God is the same with us. He (BTW, God isn’t he or she IMHO, but it makes it easier to type) wants us to follow his commands because it makes out lives better. A Buddist friend I have summed up his religion as “It’s kinda like following the 10 commandments”. Others can see that following things like that bring real happiness. He also wants us to love him when we have the CHOICE of not loving him.
I’m not trying to convert anyone, and I hope I don’t start a thread about the existance / non-existance of God. Just offering my explanation to what you’re asking.
These are very important issues,especially in light of the fact so many americans proudly call ourselves Christians.Just 2 examples of religious conviction: What is there that binds Baptists in the South( who go to church 2-3 times a week) with liberal ND-inspired catholics like myself ( who rarely misses Mass)?Lets define Christianity and then discuss it.I bet we fight over the definition everytime.It really isnt a battle between Secular and Religious… it’s rather an intramural Judeo-Christian debate.And already ,including Judaism in Christian chat is an issue for some.
And we should read history,and not just that created by our own tribe, which is becoming more and more commonplace. (sorry ,I tend to preach)
Read it – good book. If you enjoy this sort of detailed history (and have nothing else to read for the next ten months ;>) may I suggest “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America” by David Hackett Fischer. It sheds light on the early days of this country in much the same fashion that “The Reformation” does for it’s period.
Be well,
Dave H.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments everyone. Just want to cherry-pick one before I get to work this morning. Jason offered the example of wanting to offer your children free will instead of making them mindlessly devoted to you by way of explaining God’s creation of worms such as ourselves. (My phrasing, not his.) Obviously your right that raising a child (or creating humanity) such that they can’t or won’t think for themselves would be pointless (not to mention abhorrent. Oh, and you want to talk geeky — this reminds me of the scene in Tolkien’s Silmarillion where Aule creates the dwarves, but they are only moved by his will. Illuvatar chastizes him then shows him mercy by infusing the dwarves with true life and free will.)
But, I think the problem of God’s omniscience and predestination get in the way. And certainly Calvin believed in predestination and the notion that only the “elect” would be saved. I think it’s tough to square the notion of free will with the notion that God knows everything that will ever happen. If God *knows* what will happen, than it can’t happen otherwise. And if it can’t happen otherwise, we don’t have a real choice in the matter.
Omniscience and predestination are not the same from my POV. If you come to a fork in the road and turn left, does the fact that someone knew you would do that change your ability to have free will? I think God knows what we will decide to do, but does not lay out a script to that we will all follow. Sorry Calvin. :)
There are probably theorists about space and time who would find my simplistic approach laughable. But, to me, if God has known about your decision to turn left from the beginning of time, you never really had a chance to choose to turn right.
I guess to me, omniscience means that there is a script, otherwise the future couldn’t be known with certainty. If the future isn’t known with certainty, it’s not omniscience, it’s just a very educated guess.
Doug,
Did you find the book to be written from something approaching an objective viewpoint? I find the history of Christianity to be a fascinating subject, but sadly much of the literature I’ve encountered on the subject has a sectarian agenda to press.
For example, one book a friend at work loaned me had tedious asides wherein the author seemed to be straining to reconcile his admiration for Origen with the necessity of belief that Origen was a heretic and thus damned to Hell.
In your view, how does MacCullogh’s book stack up as a detached, scholarly effort?
But how can God not know our free choice in advance, since He is all-knowing? Chalk it up to ‘matter of faith’,and don’t ponder it beyond our capacity.That’s what faith is,isn’t it?
“Still today we have ideological struggles between people who think that humans are powerless to make themselves worthy through actions and those who think that good works are the measure of one’s worth.”
It is troublesome to me to equate Luther’s theological conception of justification by faith outside of works with secular standards regarding the social worth of the individual. Luther was confronted by a Roman Catholic penitential system which seemed to demand evermore “works”, not to save the soul after death from Hell, but to expedite its freedom from Purgatory, a place of continued temporal existence and punishment. I could be off base here, but my understanding of Catholic theology is not that “works” save you, they just get you heaven faster.
I should think that a Lutheran would see justification by faith not as making man into a worm, but as freeing him from the torment of figuring out just how much he had to do to please G_D, or for that matter Rome.
“I should think that a Lutheran would see justification by faith not as making man into a worm, but as freeing him from the torment of figuring out just how much he had to do to please G_D, or for that matter Rome.”
Correct, Paul. You can even remove “Lutheran” and insert “Protestant”. I didn’t address Doug’s use of the “worm”, but my personal feeling is that I am someone loved by God, not detested. I HATE meth, and I would HATE for one of my daughters to do meth. However, I would not stop loving her if she did.
I also think that you are correct on your understanding of Catholic theology, although I understand the requirements have lessened. I think there is a belief that there is no way someone could go from earth directly to heaven. They would need time in purgatory to prepare. The more preperation you do on earth, the less you have to do in purgatory. Or so I hear 2nd hand.
Agreed Lou, we won’t figure it out while living on Earth. We can each talk about what we feel, but there is not much use in trying to convince the world our view is correct on the smaller issues like that. I just think knowing the future is different than controlling it. If we somehow were given vision of what was going to become true it does not mean we caused it to occour.
I thought so, but then I’m coming at Christianity from the perspective of a skeptic. Certainly I didn’t note any particular axes the author was seeking to grind. But, by the same token, it was pretty clear, for example, that the author thought that religious toleration was something desirable in societies and that the Jews were treated pretty badly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those are biases and, while they’re pretty common, not everyone shares them. I’d say the book is scholarly without question and it’s reasonably dispassionate up until the last 20 pages or so where a bit more opinion creeps in.
Certainly I’m not out to defend the protection racket of the 16th century Catholic Church, and when I say “worm” I’m probably not thinking so much of Luther as of Jonathan Edwards. What I’ve taken away from the faith versus works debate is that the default setting for humans is to be destined for hell because we are all sinners who lack the capacity to redeem ourselves. It is only through the grace of God that such irredeemable sinners can avoid eternal torment.
While we probably won’t figure all of it out, I think it is our duty to try, using the senses and the ingenuity we’ve been given.
“While we probably won’t figure all of it out, I think it is our duty to try, using the senses and the ingenuity we’ve been given.”
Exactly! My point is that no one can say “I have all the answers and I can not be wrong”. Same goes for sin. None of us could ever claim to be sinless, but that does not mean should not try. Perfection being unattainable does not prevent us to make that our goal.
Certainly our efforts mean something to us, but from what I’ve read of predestination and salvation through grace alone our efforts at good works are meaningless to God.
The statement of Doug’s I quoted I thought potentially rich in irony and it was certainly thought provoking. Consider that the “works” side of the debate on human merit, as represented by the Roman Catholic Church and its penitential system, seems to me to have been part of the intellectual underpinnings of monarchical church government and earthly human hierarchies. The irony lies in that a system that posited self improvment ended up justifying a system where everyone was placed in a hierarchy (even here on earth) based on their (presumed) merit. When Luther said we are all accused (the function of the Law)and all redeemed by Grace (Gospel) we were made equal before G_d. While Luther intended this narrowly, the inadvertent earthly effect may have been to weaken the monarchical principal and earthly hierarchies generally. This may have been worked out more fully in other branches of Protestantism, since Lutheranism (through the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms) seems to rather easily accomodate itself to whatever earthly regimes it encounters.
As i reread all the above posts what struck me is that the institutional church is so often viewed as the church.Let’s compare the nature of church works to corporate works that get us ahead in Enron,for example.. These works are defined by others to please those who control our destiny for the sake of the institution but beyond that there is my own possibility of manipulating the system to get ahead.The church and Enron are purely both institutional.
Most of us lack intellectual and historic anyalysis capabilities and that’s what the manipulation by the institution counts on. Does a person go to Mass because it’s a duty to the chruch or because Mass is a conduit to God? I’m one of the greatest critics of the institutional church and I mean ANY and ALL institutional churches. .There is just one church.Becoming a Baptist or Lutheran would put me in a different room of the same church.Might as well stay in the same room where I was raised or just move out, and never look back and that has often been a tempting second option. Yet I go for what I find significant and truthful..God is in the Mass.It may be thats because I was taught that’s where God is,but that level of thinking is irrevelant for me at this point.
I just thought I’d try to present another side of ‘the church’.
It’s ironic to me that in 1960 americans had a real fear that a ‘foreign’ church would take over our country,but what has happened is that a more native form of ‘the institution’ has done that,or at least has been trying.Always be wary of those who want to lead us to Salvation!They want to lead us less far than that.
Two recent events are very noteworthy. A protestant president nominates 2 Catholic judges to the Supreme Court and it barely gets notice and the protestant leadership speak with great fondness and reverence for Pope John. Perhaps the Reformation which threaten to destroy Christianity in the end made it stronger. It seems to me that Jesus’s message of love, forgiveness, and tolerance got lost in the turmoil. If the branches ever again merge it will have been shared values that brought them together.
An excellent follow on book would be “How the Scots Invented the Modern World” by Arthur Herman who is the coordinator of the Smithsonian’s Western Heritage Program. The Scottish Enlightment was an outgrowth of the Reformation and it did shape the mordern world.