So Peter brought up a good point (see comments on Reformation post); however, my approach to the subject was not meant to imply which of the Protestants or Catholics were right, but to highlight the fact that they both thought they were right. Let me explain...
It's human nature to think that what you believe is right. It's also human nature to tend towards separation upon hardship rather than maintaining union. When the church was split (for a second time, after the great East/West Schism was formed), the Protestants called it a Reformation, which by its implications, is a slam to the Catholic institution. The maturity level seems to be very low, and it continues today. Whether you're Mennonite, Catholic, Lutheran, United, Methodist, Pentecostal, Non-denominational, Eastern Orthodox, and to expand our horizons, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, or whatever... you think you're right. In itself, there's nothing wrong. But then creating labels to enforce your superiority is a bit childish (I think).
On the backburner in my mind, while thinking about the mislabeled Reformation, I'm thinking of the ideal outcome of that era. What do you think? I think ideally, we'd be one church. When it's all said and done, will Catholics go to one side of heaven, Eastern Orthodox the other side, and pockets of Protestants everywhere in between? I think not. Truth will be known, and until then, everyone seems bent on dividing over what they believe that to be. Did you know the Protestants have divided themselves into more than 30,000 different denominations? 30,000!
How difficult to bite the bullet, to swallow your pride, but isn't that what life is for those led by the Spirit rather than the "survival of the fittest" beast?
Anyway, I rant I rave... nothing will ever change!
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Reformation: Cont'd
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow, I wish I had a mind like yours and the education in such topics to be able to even make an appropriate argument. I do agree with many of your statements, especially the idea that ideally we should all be "one church". I have often thought of how petty some of our differences are that divide us, yet they do just that. They divide church's and church families. It's sad things aren't worked out but we take the easy way out by dividing into polar opposites. I guess we all can't have your refreshing insight into such matters of the church, but hey if you ever need some nursing insight...you know who to ask! :)
Matt,
Good follow-up post. A few comments:
When the church was split (for a second time, after the great East/West Schism was formed), the Protestants called it a Reformation, which by its implications, is a slam to the Catholic institution.
Remember that the Reformation directly preceded and overlapped with the Enlightenment period. The church was emerging from the Renaissance, where they had discovered that a lot of their 'scriptural' beliefs were actually scientifically false (think Copernicious and Galileo). Europe had begun to understand that things were not always what they thought they were, and so the Enlightenment thinkers set out to try and discover 'the truth'. The enlightenment's key proposition is that what is known can be known primarily through reason. The idea that facts about the world were transmitted through tradition or religious doctrine were seen to be suspect, especially in light of the centuries of religious wars that had ravaged Europe, and the failure of dogmatic science. The Reformist thought that it was important to highlight the fact that the Catholic Church had gotten it wrong, and they thought this was easily demonstrated through reasoned discussion and interpretation of scripture (ironically, the idea of faith is most commonly associated with the Reformers, perhaps unfairly so). In light of the failure of the Catholic scientific tradition to provide factually correct information to the people, and in light of her insistence in keeping with the dogma that gave them power over the enlightenment of the mind, the Reformers thought it necessary to point out that if the Catholic church could be wrong about science, then they could surely be wrong about theology. So yes, it WAS a slam against the Catholic institution, motivated by an primitive understanding that reason could get them further in their theological interpretations than could the Catholic dogma, which had already failed them in the scientific arena.
I remember from the class I took at Briercrest in the History of Christianity one comment about unity. The leaders of the Reformation had gathered at a council, all the various kinds, and, understanding that unity was to be the goal, set out to develop a statement of faith that was common to them all, so as to unite the Reformers. They agreed on 14 of 15 points. It was only the method of baptism that was disagreed upon. Now we have all of the 30,000 groups with disagree on minor issues (many of them overtly political and not theological in nature at all), each one of them claiming that they have it the 'most right'.
Truth is important, especially when it comes to matters of faith. If you have an understanding of what it true, you are apt to have an understanding of what is right (Phil 4:8). I think it is important that Christians aim at what is true and what it right, but that they do not neglect to critically examine their own stock of beliefs or the stock set that belongs to their particular church, such that they are able to eliminate the chaff from the wheat. I've heard it said that the greatest lies the Devil has ever told are the ones that are closest to the truth. I believe that is right, and I would suggest that it makes the search for truth that much more urgent.
Response to Peter:
And yet--another irony--it is in the Roman Catholic Church that, following Thomas Aquinas, it became church doctrine to insist on "natural theology," to insist that reason and faith are not and are never contradictory. And it is the current-day Roman Catholic pope who continues to loudly proclaim the need for reasoned theology.
Post a Comment