You say you want a Revolution
Once upon a time, I wanted to use this blog as a means to hone some skills. In my graduate work, I have to write several book reviews and other assorted papers. So, this summer, for instance, I wanted to read some fiction and write about the strengths/weaknesses and breadth/limitations of those books. Well, since summer has gently sweated its way into fall I see no reason of starting, or returning to that now. And, trust me, you don't want to hear about what I'm reading, now. The most interesting book has been: The Life and Thoughts of Hanzo Uchimura.
Of course, there is Exegetical Fallacies which is a candle burner. I can't tell you how many nights I have stayed up just to get through to the end. And, of course, everyone's bedside companion The Dictionary of Later New Testament and It's Developments.
The list goes on and so do the hours I put into reading these books. The redeeming part is that the end is in sight. At least, the end of this stage. Then, I can return to fiction. In all of this school work, I'm learning a lot about dissenting viewpoints that, in effect, didn't win the debate. Of course, all of the viewpoints that are discussed in my classes are held within the realm of "Christianity." This term encompasses all the divergent movements such as Protestantism, etc. Historically, there was one Church. The Catholic Church (as it has come to be known). Around 500 years ago, this guy got it into his head that there was something wrong with this Church that had been around for 1500 years or so. So, he made a big deal and wrote a series of arguments and nailed it up on a door. Well, the world has never been the same. This is severely abbreviating 2,000 years of Christian history, but that's a real turning point. All of a sudden everybody can think for themselves and the Catholic guys are just pissed because they have to support their traditions with something other than tradition! Talk about a lot of work!
What I think is really hard to grasp for us in the twenty-first century is that when this guy disgreed (and made it public that he disagreed) he upset the entire social order. In those days, there was one Church and pretty much everybody belonged to it; being European was being Catholic. It was a part of your identity. Individualism or existentialism would have landed you in the funny farm, or worse at the stake via the Inquisition. There were Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc. But most of the world held the same fundamental beliefs. Can you imagine, for those of you in America, that if you were to, oh, I don't know, publish a dissenting opinion, maybe on a blog site or something, and someone of any authority read it and, immediately, demanded you recant or you would lose your ability to peacabley live in the United States? In the Medieval world, this is kind of how it worked. If there was a disagreement with the church, you were excommunicated and it affected everything in your existence. Your friends would no longer hang out with you. Your business was going to be limited to whoever you could find that wasn't a part of the Church and that was extremely difficult to do.
It's easy to talk about moving away and starting over when all you have to do is move a few miles away and get another job, but what if we couldn't do that? What if the only way to make our opinions heard is by turning society on its head?
Of course, there is Exegetical Fallacies which is a candle burner. I can't tell you how many nights I have stayed up just to get through to the end. And, of course, everyone's bedside companion The Dictionary of Later New Testament and It's Developments.
The list goes on and so do the hours I put into reading these books. The redeeming part is that the end is in sight. At least, the end of this stage. Then, I can return to fiction. In all of this school work, I'm learning a lot about dissenting viewpoints that, in effect, didn't win the debate. Of course, all of the viewpoints that are discussed in my classes are held within the realm of "Christianity." This term encompasses all the divergent movements such as Protestantism, etc. Historically, there was one Church. The Catholic Church (as it has come to be known). Around 500 years ago, this guy got it into his head that there was something wrong with this Church that had been around for 1500 years or so. So, he made a big deal and wrote a series of arguments and nailed it up on a door. Well, the world has never been the same. This is severely abbreviating 2,000 years of Christian history, but that's a real turning point. All of a sudden everybody can think for themselves and the Catholic guys are just pissed because they have to support their traditions with something other than tradition! Talk about a lot of work!
What I think is really hard to grasp for us in the twenty-first century is that when this guy disgreed (and made it public that he disagreed) he upset the entire social order. In those days, there was one Church and pretty much everybody belonged to it; being European was being Catholic. It was a part of your identity. Individualism or existentialism would have landed you in the funny farm, or worse at the stake via the Inquisition. There were Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc. But most of the world held the same fundamental beliefs. Can you imagine, for those of you in America, that if you were to, oh, I don't know, publish a dissenting opinion, maybe on a blog site or something, and someone of any authority read it and, immediately, demanded you recant or you would lose your ability to peacabley live in the United States? In the Medieval world, this is kind of how it worked. If there was a disagreement with the church, you were excommunicated and it affected everything in your existence. Your friends would no longer hang out with you. Your business was going to be limited to whoever you could find that wasn't a part of the Church and that was extremely difficult to do.
It's easy to talk about moving away and starting over when all you have to do is move a few miles away and get another job, but what if we couldn't do that? What if the only way to make our opinions heard is by turning society on its head?
6 Comments:
Don't you think most conservative evangelical denominations in the US are quite a lot like indulgences-selling Catholic church of yore? Obviously, they aren't quite as mercenary as the medieval church, and they have no power to make you move from the country, but there is an increasing lack of tolerance for dissent. In particular, the Southern Baptists, who historically were known for their commitment to autonomy and freedom of conscience, have been on a warpath against dissenters for the last 25 years.
If you’re talking about the preachers who promote Jesus as a “Get out of hell free” card, I agree. If you’re talking about the tele-chubbies and the “blessings for sale” theology, I’m right there with you. I don’t, however, think that all conservative denominations are intolerant and need to be denigrated. I can’t speak about the Southern Baptists. I don’t have the first hand experience necessary for an honest analysis. I wouldn’t criticize another denomination without experiencing it first. Except for those damn Methodists. Anyway, I don’t want this post to seem like I’m criticizing Catholicism, either. I have great respect for Catholics and the tradition that made my experience possible.
However, as the only liberal in a school of staunch conservatives, I do know the trials of being misunderstood. I have been lucky, however. When I ask a loaded question or provoke discussion on a “hot” issue, I have not been ostracized. I don’t have a lot of close friends at that institution, though and the friends that I have may not agree, but that is not the foundation of our friendship. I know that the movement to which I belong is in a season of change. Everything is up for grabs, except our beloved and hallowed 16 Fundamental Truths (which, in my opinion, could stand a “freshening up”).
One distinction that a professor/friend of mine makes is the distinction between orthodox belief and popular piety. Orthodox, in this case, would be any denomination’s standard or stated beliefs and popular piety would be what the belief is developed into by the constituents. For instance, Mary has been revered by Catholicism, but was not deified in their doctrine until the eighteenth century. To say that every Catholic believes that salvation only comes through Mary’s petitioning of Jesus would be a baseless generalization and in need of correction. In the same way, many believe that Pentecostals are rattlesnake-handling, chandelier-swinging, Kool-Aid-drinking freaks. That may be a section of sections of Pentecostalism, but it’s not the majority and definitely not advocated in the organized doctrine.
Referring, again, to the Assemblies of God and their current restructuring: if they don’t allow discussion, even voices of dissent, to inform their restructuring, they will separate themselves from mainstream society in such a way that the belief system will become archaic and may only be passed down through procreation because evangelism without relevant language or a relevant paradigm will not help a movement grow. Liquid electricity. That’s how a friend of mine described the ability of God to operate in any situation; in any place or time with relevancy and intensity.
I'm sorry it took so long to respond. I worked on a response at work and couldn't find it until today.
Peace. Love. Bourbon.
*whacks Loomis over the head with the fiery Methodist cross*
*grin*
by "fiery," what are you insinuating?
Post a Comment
<< Home