Team 3, Question 1. European Christianity

European churches hyped up the First World War in religious terms; preachers and theologians from many European countries portrayed the conflict as a “holy crusade for Christ” or necessary to “defend Mother Russia,” among other things (Jacobsen, 122). All in all, there was a wave of righteous fervor that swept throughout Europe and incited people to support a war that never should have occurred. Pope Benedict XV came out against the war, asking how followers of Jesus, who profess love and mercy, could hate each other so much that they are willing to kill their neighbors. After the first war, there was a movement among theologians to distance themselves from the “mindless nationalism” of the European nations (Jacobsen, 123). Scholars like Karl Barth and several French theologians emphasized the otherness of God and sinfulness of humankind. Russian Orthodoxy had to deal with communism and was brought to the brink of extinction. WW2 had a much less religious component, but many Christians still considered it a just war (123-4). However, European Christians failed to protect the Jews. When people learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, they started asking questions like, “Was God controlling history, or not? Why would God allow the Holocaust to happen?”

Laïcité was the policy of governmentally enforced secularization that arose in Western Europe in the early 20th century. This originated in France with the Law of Great Separation in 1905. Religion became less important in people’s lives, as shown by decreased church attendance.

Under communist rule, Christians were marginalized and persecuted, and, in the extreme case of Albania, religion was banned entirely (Jacobsen, 126). Churches were destroyed and pastors were arrested. However, after the fall of communism, Eastern Orthodoxy made a comeback that is continuing into the present day, with new churches being built and communities appearing in many countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain.

The idea of secularization and retreat from traditional Christian ideals arose in the period of Enlightenment in the late 18th century with the French Revolution. These revolutionaries had a radically different view of how truth should be sought. They advocated employing reason rather than faith or doctrine, which was in direct conflict with the Catholic Church, the dominant force in European religious life at the time.

The effects of secularization are especially apparent in Protestant European countries and less apparent in traditionally Catholic and Orthodox countries. It is interesting to note that Eastern European countries are less secular than Western countries despite spending time under the Iron Curtain where secularization was the law. Less children are being baptized, less couples are getting married in churches, and more babies are being born out of wedlock. Catholic leaders have come out against this decrease in fertility rate and advocated for remembering that God encourages the creation of new life (Jacobsen, 134). Also, they have called for a return to the traditional family, prompted by the LGBT and abortion movements.

Immigration has shifted the religious demographics in Europe, primarily considering the recent influx of Muslims in Western Europe. This primarily stems from the difference in how visible religion is in public life. European Protestant Christianity is mostly a private affair, with few outward expressions of faith, while Islam (especially its daily prayers) takes over the public and private lives of its adherents. Violent acts perpetrated by radical Islamic extremists have adversely affected Europeans’ sense of safety, but the cultural divide between European Christians and Muslims has, in a way, made Europeans more self-aware since they had unconsciously drifted away from God. Immigrants from Africa inspired by the missionizing efforts of Europeans during the colonial and postcolonial periods have planted large Pentecostal churches in Europe, and situations like these only figure to increase in occurrence.

European Christians have a greater acceptance of reason than other Christians because of their long history of being receptive to philosophical ideas. They argue that using reason is recommended in the Bible by the Apostle Paul. Augustine concluded that faith and reason are necessary and work together. As Jacobsen notes in his text, Europeans have always had an affinity for systematic theology, or a “rational examination of Christian belief” (Jacobsen, 138). While reason has been portrayed as being compatible with faith, science and faith have been in conflict. One source of conflict is the timeline of the origin of Earth, which Christianity traditionally claimed to be seven, twenty-four hour days and science claimed to be much longer than that. European Christians have shown a willingness to reimagine Christianity in light of new scientific claims, and this distinguishes them from other Christians around the world. Most European Christians now accept and embrace evolution as a viable explanation for how humans came to be.

If people do not believe truth is attainable, then they will have nothing to strive for on a daily basis. When people diverge from a previously-held common goal, society has the opportunity to become fragmented with a general loss of motivation to constantly seek out answers. I foresee the further decline of European Christianity with little chance of a return to a previous state of religiosity. Modern European Christianity was never as vibrant as African Christianity is today, and European culture has become so secular that they might be more likely to embrace the postmodernist idea of truth possibly being unattainable.

Team 3, Question 2 for class on 4/28

The Shakers believed in the “dual” nature of life and as a result, thought the Second Coming of Christ would involve Jesus in female form (Setzer and Shefferman, 221). This is why apocalypticism arose in the United Society of Believers, and when a young woman named Ann Lee started to receive visions in 1770, they thought she was the coming Messiah. They believed in the idea of a cyclic nature of history, and thought that once the “culminating point of Spiritualism has been reached,” a new “Church of God” forms for that cycle of time (four of these periods were said to have occurred) (Evans, 222). The Shaker church is the result of the spiritual part of the fourth and final cycle, characterized by the “restitution of all things” and the Second Coming. The formation of Shaker societies arises from a “general agitation of spiritual elements” and a subsequent “movement of the religious elements in man” (Evans, 223). The spiritual faculties in man have been “aroused” and spiritualism has laid the groundwork for the joining of the natural and spiritual worlds (Evans, 223). They called for people to be saved in proclaiming the second appearance of Christ, and just like the Mullerites, claimed the apocalypse was happening, and a new society would be created. The Shakers believed themselves to be fulfilling all of world history, and connected their movement with historical cycles including the rise of a new church. They cite “proper historical data” that confirms their place in the spiritual and historical history of the world (Evans, 223). While they don’t give any solid evidence (Deists would be appalled), the Shakers position their church as the natural extension of spiritual order.

William Miller, a former Baptist, believed scriptural prophecy was knowable and actually happened/happens. His method of biblical interpretation led him to conclude that 1843 was the year the return of Christ, restoration of Jerusalem, and the kingdom of God would all take place. He believed all of the prophecies in scripture can be attributed to different authors writing in different time periods and geographical areas, but all agree and confirm each other (Miller, 227). He states that the biblical student should bring all relevant pieces of scripture together and “let every word have its own Scripture meaning;” if one does this, his/hers theory is correct (Miller, 228). Miller posits that all prophecy centers on the first and second coming of Christ. He concludes that Christ will come in 1843, the conclusion of a 2300 year period, evidence for which Miller pieced together from scripture. He encourages his audience to study scripture, set aside their prejudices, and believe in God so they may be saved and gain admittance into the New Jerusalem.

Ellen White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Church, concurred with Miller, but only went as far as saying the process of the apocalypse had only begun in 1844. She too advocated for biblical study, and claimed the Bible is the ultimate tool (“Book of books”) for understanding the world, from moral instruction to universal wonders to God himself; it is the ultimate source of truth (White, 230). She says that when people disregard the Bible, Satan springs up and does evil things, taking advantage of the situation to strip people away from God. She even goes as far as saying that God simply does not accept those who “[belittle] his powers” and only composes Heaven with “spiritualized” people (White, 230). Those who “cherish pride” and “[contemplate] sin” are “unfitted for moral advancement” and cannot fully understand the truth (White, 231). If one studies the Bible, they are blessed by God and “may enter in through the gates” into Heaven (White, 231).

The Shakers, Miller, and White all supported rigorous spiritual study, which they believed led believers to the truth and into Heaven. Likewise, all of these parties envisioned themselves as part of the immediate, apocalyptic fulfillment of scripture and coming of the new heavenly society.

Team 3, Question 2

Originally, John Calvin hoped for an ecclesiastical career in France, and became acquainted with humanism. When his father (who helped Calvin gain two ecclesiastical posts early on) had a falling out with the bishop of Noyon, Calvin pursued law, studying under two of the most famous jurists of the time. While it is not clear what caused Calvin to abandon Catholicism, Calvin left his ecclesiastical posts, and when King Francis I of France became more intolerant towards Protestants in 1535, Calvin fled to the primarily Protestant city of Basel, Switzerland. He eventually settled in Geneva after an eventful 6 years in which he wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion, was kicked out of Geneva by the bourgeoisie-led government after being persuaded to build a church there, and pastored in Strasbourg, where he got married and wrote a second edition of Institutes. Finally, in Geneva, he composed the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, in which he proposed an organization of the ministry of the church in a way that reflected the New Testament. In the Ordinances, Calvin envisioned a society that is driven by communal piety and rules that Calvin thought reflected God’s law and the “Christian” lifestyle. Strict rules were set on church life and procedures, as well as temporal matters of churchgoers. Sermon attendance was compulsory, along with requirements including timeliness and attentiveness (215). Violators of these rules were punished through fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment (215-217). Prohibition of quarrels between churchgoers, “outrageous” songs and dance, and drunkenness were all features of Calvin’s ordinances (217). Calvin also specified certain procedural things regarding baptism and communion.

These guidelines for Calvin’s ideal Christian community reflect Reformation concepts that circulated around Europe in the early-to-mid 16th century. There are only two sacraments discussed: baptism and communion, which is in agreement with Luther’s theology. Also, there seems to be a consensus among early reformers on the importance of resisting excesses, and we see this same idea in the Ordinances with the regulations regarding drink, song and dance, sexual immorality, and games with large quantities of money at stake (217). Like Calvin, many reformers condemned the abandonment of moderation under the Catholic Church, whose frivolous spending habits and lavish lifestyles of its clergy contradicted the humble life Jesus advocated for in the Gospels. Also, in the section “Superstitions,” Calvin lists several actions for which the offender should be admonished (216). Among these are idolatry, pilgrimage, and observation of the “papistical feasts,” for all of which the person at fault should be at the very least admonished, and in some cases, imprisoned or fined (216). Here, Calvinist doctrine explicitly departs from Catholic doctrine. Pilgrimage to holy sites and icons was encouraged by the Church, and pious acts like these were a significant monetary boost to the papal treasury, which funded the very extravagant building projects the reformers disapproved of. Next, any person who contradicts the Word of God is to be admonished, writes Calvin, and in some cases, where a scandal erupts, the matter is turned over to the local lord (217). There are two important ideas here. The reformers consistently accused the Catholic Church of deviating from the Bible and inserting rules into doctrine that are unsupported by scripture. In addition, the local lord (along with ministers and in some cases, guardians) ultimately had power over temporal matters, which is opposite of the Catholic Church, where religious authority had power over all matters, regardless of whether they were church business or not. For them, this represents an improvement over the previous Catholic society. Lastly, a common punishment was a fine, ranging from 3 sous (roughly the daily wage of an artisan) to 60 sous (215-217). These were relatively large quantities of money, and since there were no indulgences to purchase, the offender had no choice but to pay his fine and face the consequences of not being able to feed him/herself or his/her family. This was likely a great deterrent to breaking Calvin’s rules, which. In Calvin’s eyes, improved the cohesiveness and “Christian-ness” of society that was not apparent during Catholic times.

Ordinances gives us a glimpse into Calvin’s theology and his concept of an ideal, Christian community. It took a considerable amount of time for his ideas to be accepted in Geneva, as he still faced opposition for many of the same reasons as he did previously in Geneva. Eventually, in 1549 Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger signed the Zurich Consensus, a doctrinal agreement that sought to unite Protestant Switzerland.

Skip to toolbar