Author Archives: jblock@uoregon.edu

Team 6, Question 1: European Christianity

Posted on by under global christianity

European Christian communities responded immediately to World War I by tying up their national identities with their religious identities. Germans, Russians, the British and the French all used Christian rhetoric in promoting war efforts; some saw it as a righteous crusade for Christ, to save the world. But the war took millions of lives and was, as Pope Benedict XV described it, “the suicide of civilized Europe” (Jacobsen, 122). The hate-filled violence laced with religious zeal led many in Europe to question Christianity and a theology that could lead brother to kill brother. While a more humane theology emerged from several Christian pastors and scholars, average citizens were already too weary of the church and began separating themselves from religion in general. When World War II followed, religion played a very different role. Rather than Christian fervor promoting the war, fervor was sadly lacking in the protection of the Jewish people and minorities under Nazi threat. Reflections on both WWI and II, and especially the Holocaust, resulted in deep theological questions that endure to this day for many Europeans. Efforts to renew Christian thinking and practice were important but ultimately too little too late, and church decline in Europe continued significantly. Government-imposed secularization, known as Laïcité, contributed to this decline. France began enforcing church and state separation laws prior to the wars in 1905, and idea that spread in Europe in the postwar era. This resulted in a variety of national religious identities, including officially atheist nations (such as Albania) and communism. After World War I, atheist Russian leadership took disillusionment with the Christian church to an extreme and closed, destroyed, arrested or killed nearly all that represented Orthodoxy. This attitude toward Christianity spread post-World War II and communist countries frequently and oftentimes violently marginalized Christians (Jacobsen, 127).

In many ways, the increasing secularization of Europe has led to a decline in church. For instance, it is no longer socially acceptable to invite people to church in some areas. Christianity when practiced as other-worldly and overly spiritual does not fit in with the modern mindset of sensible practicality. In this way, it is understandable that Christianity has declined. However, some believe that while Europe has shed much of its religiosity, certain Christian values are actually increasing as evidenced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Jacobsen, 130). Marriage and family size has also been steadily declining in Europe, and some see that as an additional threat to traditional Christianity, as fewer babies being baptized means fewer people are being born into a religion. Family structure looks differently than it did in the past, with those having children not always choosing to get married. Church ideals on family as being closely tied to morality in a community are conflicting with mainstream modern life, leading to questions on whether Christianity can adapt to this or not. Immigration to Europe has led to a rise in the Muslim population, challenging European secularization. It is yet to be seen if that challenge will result in further religious decline in the public sphere, or if it will spur a return for some to Christian belief practice. European Christianity is also being influenced by a huge influx of African and Asian immigrants, many of whom are Christian and are starting growing churches.

European Christianity has long held that reason and faith are intertwined. From Augustine of Hippo to Thomas Aquinas to Pope Benedict XVI, theology in Europe has had a rational and philosophical element to it. It is likely that this will continue and even increase as more and more Europeans seek university educations. In the same vein, science and theology are not outright opponents in Europe, but most tend to think that Christianity can (and should) be reimagined to fit with evidence-based science. In some ways, while secularism may seem a threat to Christianity, it does not seem to pose a problem for many Europeans who are deeply dedicated Christians – rather, their faith may be more flexible to accommodate modern ideas.

On the other hand, postmodernism questions whether the truth can be known at all (or if truth even exists). This is potentially a problem for Western Europeans who depended on reason, science and faith to successfully lead them to truth. Eastern Europeans who embrace Orthodoxy have less of a problem with this idea, as they have long believed that human ideas and reason could only attain a very limited view of God. According to many Eastern theologians, humans have limitations when it comes to understanding, and place a greater emphasis on immediate experience (Jacobsen, 143). Postmodern ideas will likely continue to jeopardize traditional Western theology, but if Western European Christians can allow flexibility to their faith (like they did with reason and science), then postmodernism does not need to be the “threat” some think it is. In other words, if the church can embrace their faith with humility and openness, it may look different than it has in the past, but can still offer hope to the changing world.

Team 6, Question 3: Truth & Douglass

Posted on by under slavery

As North American colonists took on the fight for independence from Britain, it was crucial to present a united front. Therefore, while many held views in opposition to the prevalent practice of slavery, the issue was kept quiet and took a back seat to independence efforts. Some Christian denominations were actively against slavery and took active measures to eliminate it from the church, however, as time went on, many of those same denominations relaxed their stance in order to draw wealthy white Southerners to their congregations. What perhaps began as appeasement soon turned into approval, and sermons could be heard on Sunday morning in favor of slavery as “an institution sanctioned by God,” (Gonzalez, 333). An familiar attitude of white Protestant superiority sprung up, claiming that slavery was even beneficial to blacks as it had allowed them the opportunity to be evangelized and saved from their previous pagan nation. It is interesting to note a common thread amongst white Christians who claimed that the aggressive American conquest of the Mexican land in the southwest was actually a door opened by God so the Mexicans could be saved through evangelism (Gonzalez 331).

Certainly some denominations held to an anti-slavery stance, notably the Quakers and some Methodists and Baptists (who ended up splitting due to the controversial issue). Denominational splits were not surprising against a backdrop of the national split that was taking place over the same matter. Civil war, reconstruction, and the Supreme Court approval of segregation added complexity and tension to racial divide. Blacks began to set up their own churches separate from the whites, and while most white American Christians founded their core beliefs on the idea of liberty and individual rights, these principles were withheld from a significant portion of the population. Excluded and oppressed in practice by those who yet confessed beliefs in the same God, blacks found solidarity and a sense of dignity within their churches. Voices from this community began to speak out against the contradiction and hypocrisy that was evident in the church and nation regarding human rights.

Sojourner Truth’s compelling speech, “Ain’t I a Woman?” was delivered in 1851 at a women’s rights conference. Her perspective as a black, former-slave, Christian woman demonstrated the absurdity of inequality in race and gender. Truth argues for blacks and black women in particular, by recalling her own strength, abilities and humanity in ploughing, planting, bearing children, and grieving the loss of those children to the horror of continued slavery. Truth then simply picked apart common so-called Biblical arguments for the inferiority of women. So what if Jesus was a man? He came from God and woman, and “man had nothing to do with him,” Truth argues. Moreover, if Eve (from the Genesis story of the fall of creation) could single-handedly “turn the wold upside down,” then surely all the women fighting for their rights now could together make the world right again. While Truth says intellect has nothing to do with rights, she certainly makes her case through reason, exposing the holes in Christian arguments that result in oppression, by laying out plainly the rationality and superiority of Christian love and care.

A year later, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech entitled, “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” and compellingly argued the injustices birthed in the midst of a new, liberated nation. This criticism calls to mind that of John Wesley who had criticized the colonists for “claiming freedom for themselves at the same time that they denied it to their slaves,” (Gonzalez, 322). With eloquence, Douglass alludes to the destruction of the kingdom of Judah when he quotes Psalm 137. The illustration depicts a captive people, far from home, tormented and distraught – clearly meant to parallel the suffering Israelites in Babylon with the American slavery blacks had endured. Douglass calls America’s “boasted liberty, an unholy license” and “shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery,” (Douglass, 3). By using language from the Declaration of Independence he paints a stark contrast to the reality of the nation, and challenges the oppressive (or empty) use of religion and sermons as fraud and impiety. Despite all of this, Douglass ends his speech on a hopeful note, declaring that the light of knowledge, unity and liberty are drawing where no abuse can hide. By drawing upon multiple biblical passages, the notion of jubilee demonstrates Douglass’ hope for the future. God’s arm is not too short to save (Isaiah 59:1), his voice commands action (Genesis 1:3), there shall be liberty for every person (Leviticus 25:10) and injustice and oppression will be undone (Isaiah 58:6).

Team 6, Question 3 – Henry VIII

Posted on by under reformation

Reformation of the church was most often sought due to theological principles and authentic desire for papal integrity, but during the sixteenth century, King Henry VIII initiated reform in England due to his political needs. While Henry VIII believed the teachings of the church, it was evident through the scope of his reign that he had no theological problem adjusting some of those religious beliefs to meet his political and personal whims.

Henry’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon was an effort to strengthen ties with Spain – however, the legitimacy of the union was not certain as Catharine was Henry’s brother’s widow. As king, it was very important for Henry to produce a male heir to his throne in order to continue the power and legacy of his throne, but also to retain good religious standing by showing God’s presumed approval through a son. While Henry and his wife Catharine of Aragon did have a daughter, through time it became clear that they would not have a son. This created a big problem for Henry, who sought annulment from his unhappy marriage through the pope. Pope Clement VII was rightly concerned about his standing with Spain if he should approve the annulment and so he delayed as long as he could. It was suggested to Henry through papal representatives that he take a secret wife, although it would do no good to have an heir if Henry could not make him public. Catholic scholars agreed that Henry and Catherine’s marriage was invalid. While the marriage was considered invalid, the pope still resisted annulment, causing Henry to gradually shift authority of the church under himself as king and away from Rome. Doctrine was not the issue nor motivator – power and politics were.

In 1533 Henry managed to get annulment through ecclesiastical court, resulting in his excommunication by the pope. In response, Henry VIII issued a legal document refuting the pope’s authority and demanding a ‘loyalty oath’ to the king; abstaining was punishable by death. This document, Act of Supremecy of 1534, explicitly placed the King of England as head of the Church of England and use such language to describe the king as “sovereign lord” and “the only supreme head on earth.” Authority to interpret and enforce ecclesiastical duties in England was not the job of the pope in Rome, but of the English king and he alone “shall have full power and authority…(to) amend all errors, heresies, abuses…by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered…” Of course now that Henry had given himself the authority, he officially annulled his own marriage and then legalized his next marriage that had already taken place in private.

Henry’s split from the Roman church naturally was seen by Protestant Reformers as an encouraging sign. However, the reformation Henry had in mind had nothing to do with restoring integrity to church leadership or the revision of theological teachings that the Protestants championed. In fact, he wanted no part of a Protestant Reformation in England. Henry made this clear in his Act of Six Articles in 1539. In this document, Henry lists out several of the hottest topics for reformers and comes out strongly in favor of the Catholic church’s traditional position. For example, on the question of transubstantiation, it is deemed that the bread and wine do change substance completely to that only of the body and blood of Jesus. This position had been greatly contested by reformers, along with that of the position of the ability of clergy to marry. While the reformers saw no Biblical argument for clergy to remain unwed, Henry VIII agreed with the Catholic church’s stance in his articles that this tradition must be upheld. Anyone who disagreed (in teaching, writing, speaking, or even in mere opinion) would be declared a heretic, found guilty of treason and executed. These strong decrees clearly positioned Henry VIII’s new Church of England in alignment theologically with the Roman Catholic Church – in seemingly every way except that of the papal authority.

Skip to toolbar