Author Archives: kbuckle4@uoregon.edu

Team 4 Question 1

Posted on by under global christianity

Latin America, defined as Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, was introduced to Christianity through violent methods. This “violent evangelicalism” was politically motivated, as colonizers sought to bring the New World under Christian political rule (74). The colonizers, primarily from Spain and Portugal, received permission for Pope Nicholas V to seize the land of Latin America and introduce Catholicism. The patronage system gave the Spanish and Portuguese settlers unlimited authority over the Catholic Church in their land, meaning that the pope was not considered the head of this sect of the institution. As Jacobsen points out, this system represented a total reversal of what medieval popes so intensely fought for: “independence of the Church from political control” (75). The colonizers obsession with control was racially motivated, as the Europeans believed themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to the Latin Americans.

For many years after gaining independence, religious ideology in Latin America almost exclusively was associated with whichever political party was in power. Following the tumultuous 1960s, liberation theology, a new method of viewing religion, was taken up by many Latin American Catholics. This approach “combined social analysis (often from a Marxist perspective) and social action with traditional Catholic teachings” (86). This manner of thinking emerged due to the political oppression in many Latin American countries, and people began to see the church as a vessel for expressing economic and social justice. Service to the poor is a cornerstone of Christian ethics, and the long oppressed masses began to see the hypocrisy of a supposedly religious driven government allowing such a large gap between rich and poor. The liberation movement reached its peak around 1980, when Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated on the altar, just as he was about to consecrate the bread and wine for the Eucharist. Romero had long been a vocal advocate for social and economic justice, and often criticized the church for their lack of caring for the poor. Romero saw Christian ethics as inseparably connected with activism, and he gained many followers as a result. Following his assassination, his legacy continued, as many began to pressure the church to act true to their values. Liberation theology subsided in the 1980s, after democratic governments were installed in many Latin American countries.

By seeing Latin American Christianity, the West could learn that followers of different denominations of Christianity can work together to achieve social change. Though Latin America is primarily Catholic, Jacobsen asserts that the liberation theology movement was one that required the participation of all Christians, not just Catholics. In my experience, Catholics are often times very closed off, and are unwilling to engage in interfaith dialogue, even with practitioners of other forms of Christianity. It would be wise for Western Christians and Catholics to be more open to working together to bring about social change, just as the Latin Americans were able to do in the 1980s.

Team 4, Question 2

Posted on by under deism

Writing after the Enlightenment had concluded in America, Thomas Jefferson expressed his views of religion and Christianity with his document “Notes on Virginia.” In the opening paragraph, Jefferson declares that “reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error” (160). He describes these two agents as the enemies of error, with the power to eviscerate all false beliefs from society. Jefferson argues that reason and free inquiry must exist in all facets of the government, citing the Roman government’s decision to allow free inquiry centuries earlier. As a result of this, Christianity was introduced in the tolerant empire, and it henceforth has thrived as a societal pillar. Continuing, Jefferson asserts that reason and free inquiry will not lead to uniformity, and that “difference of opinion is advantageous in religion” (161). Attempts to enforce uniformity by means of coercion have caused devastating effects at many points in history. Therefore, free enquiry must be permitted and encouraged, and reason, Jefferson argues, will naturally follow. If this system is followed in precise detail, the rights of each citizen will thereby be protected.

In penning his letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson declares that he formulated his views on religion as a “result of a life of inquiry and reflection,” echoing his sentiments from his Notes on Virginia document (163). He declares himself to be a Christian, meaning that he is “sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others” (163). Jefferson discusses the importance and primacy of conscious, something he believes is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. He speaks of the importance of trying to attain “every human excellence,” and subsequently implies that all other myth based ascriptions are false forms of Christianity. His experiences of trying to live a model Christian life compel him to assemble a syllabus, outlining the comparative merits of Christianity. He does this by offering a comparative view of the Ethics of Philosophers, Jews, and Christians. To begin this document, Jefferson offers his analysis of the ethics of Greco-Roman philosophy, which he argues successfully “disturb(s) the tranquility of mind” (164). For this accomplishment, he applaudes the philosophers. However, in the field of developing duties to other people, Jefferson asserts that Greco-Roman philosophy is largely unsuccessful. They fail to emphasize the “circle of benevolence,” which is implicitly the path to living a Christ like life (164). Next, Jefferson discusses the Jews, analyzing that though they are monotheistic, or Deists in his words, they did not accurately understand the true character and qualities of the one true God. He calls Jewish Ethics before their reformation, “irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality,” rendering them incompatible with a just society. Finally, he evaluates Jesus and Christianity, first by acknowledging that there do exist some disadvantages for Christian doctrine. For example, Jesus himself never wrote anything. He also notes the argument that because Jesus lived only thirty-three years, he therefore did not present a complete set of morals. However, Jefferson continues to state that the system of morals provides by Jesus and promulgated by Christianity are in fact “the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man” (165). He presents Jesus as a teacher and spiritual healer, claiming that he fixed the Jews’ view of God, “giving them juster notions of his attributes and government” (165). Jefferson then states explicitly that Jesus’ moral doctrines were and are far superior to the teachings of the philosophers and the Jews. The application of what Jefferson called “universal philanthropy” contributes to Jesus’ higher moral position (165). Additionally, Jesus’ teachings should be looked upon as authoritative due to his ability to push his scrutinies into the heart of each individual. Finally, Jefferson concludes his document with the assertion that Jesus taught “the doctrines of a future state,” and was unwavering in his insistence on furthering and promulgating these doctrines for all just societies (166).

Thomas Jefferson’s was clearly influenced by the Enlightenment ideas that preceded him. Trademark of the Enlightenment period was the importance of free thinking, and Jefferson echoed this sentiment with his belief that uniformity was impossible. He cites that the government must accept all religious faiths, and employ “reason and persuasion” in order to influence people to believe what is true (162). Clearly, Jefferson believes that there is a true faith, namely Christianity, but Jefferson contends that people must realize this truth on their own, rather than have it presented to them by force. This manner of thinking was clearly the result of Enlightenment influence, which stressed the importance of having a personal experience and relationship with God.

Team 4, Question 2

Posted on by under reformation

Seeing the sixteenth century Catholic Church as intensely flawed, Martin Luther wrote extensively on what he perceived to be the main issues with the institution. In the document “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” Luther posits that there are three distinct “walls” that have been constructed around the church hierarchy, thus causing the church to be rendered incapable of reform. The first wall was metaphorically erected due to the church’s contention that spiritual power is non-negotiably superior to temporal power. Next, the second wall was structured around the church’s concept that only the pope had the ability to accurately interpret the sacred scriptures. Finally, the third wall was contingent on the belief that a council could only be summoned by the pope himself.

In addressing the first wall, Luther declared that the church’s teaching that only their clergy are members of the spiritual state while all others are of the temporal state amounts to “deceit and hypocrisy” (91). Luther contends that instead, “all Christians are of the spiritual estate” (91). He utilizes scripture to support his argument, claiming Saint Paul teaches that Christians are all collectively one body, and thereby all compose the spiritual realm. Luther quotes Paul’s teachings by citing Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and 1 Peter 2, with each verse echoing the idea that all Christians compose one united body. Further, Luther sarcastically rebukes the church’s ritual of ordination, reducing it to only a bishop “prescrib(ing) garb different from that of the laity” (91). He insists that no form of consecration can make a man into a spiritual Christian. To continue in his attack on this “wall,” Luther proposes an analogy in which ten Christian laymen are deserted with no ordained priest. If one of these members were to preach the gospel and perform the sacrament of baptism, Luther asserts that his actions would indeed be valid in the eyes of God. Therefore, Luther contends that the role of the bishop and priests is wholly unnecessary, and there is no basic difference between the layman and the church clergy.

The second wall Luther deconstructed involved the doctrine of papal infallibility, meaning that “the pope cannot err in matters of faith” (93). Luther exposes the hypocrisy of this belief, rhetorically asking the question that if this statement was objectively truthful, what need would there be for scriptures? He sarcastically suggests that the scriptures be burned so all with be “satisfied with the unlearned gentlemen at Rome who possess the Holy Spirit” (93). Sarcasm appears to be the primary strategy Luther utilizes to convey his points, as he finds it the most effective means of capturing people’s attention. Continuing, Luther again makes reference to St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians, this time choosing a verse that corresponds to divine revelation being available for all (93). Luther points to John 6, which claims that Christians shall be taught by God, and therefore the pope is not qualified to make statements on behalf of the Father. To go further, Luther points to the absence of scriptural support available for the church’s position, meaning that the Bible does not give the pope ultimate and singular authority. The church had long contended that Christ handed the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter, and he followed this tradition by passing the metaphorical keys along to each of his papal successors. However, Luther disputes this tradition, instead positing that the keys were not handed to Peter alone, but rather to the whole community of believers.

Luther claims that this this wall would fall on its’ own accord once the first two have been demolished. He begins this argument by again pointing to the lack of scriptural basis for the belief that the pope alone has the authority to call a council. Luther’s theory of “Sola Scriptura,” or by the scriptures alone, proves to be a prevalent and guiding force throughout his arguments. Luther points to a passage in Acts 15 which he interprets as a direct contradiction to this particular church teaching. In this chapter, a council is called not by St. Peter, but by the group of apostles and their elders. If that right was to be given to Peter alone, Luther claims, “the council would not have been a Christian council, but a heretical” one instead (94). Luther propounds that when the pope is at fault, the temporal authorities should have a moral responsibility to call a council and rectify the situation. He then puts forward another analogy, but rhetorically asking if it would be logical to watch a fire burn in a city, and to wait for the proper authorities to arrive, even if the observers had the ability to offer their assistance. Luther returns to the teachings of Paul, who in 2 Corinthians instructs that God has prescribed His followers with the authority to prevent Christendom from ruination. If the pope were to ever refuse a council, Luther argues that this would be a contribution to the destruction of the church, and therefore must be prevented.

To conclude his document, Luther gives his “fool’s song,” which offers a list of ideas that he thinks should be enacted to reform the church. One of his opening proposals is that “the Christian nobility should set itself against the pope” (96). This particular proposition was a direct attack on the head of the Catholic Church, and one that the established institution could not reconcile. Additionally, the ninth decree of the song proposed that the pope should have no power over the emperor, which would eliminate or at least severely reduce the pope’s role in the secular world. He continues to request in nonspecific terms that certain elements of canon law should be eliminated, despite the fact that the church believed the divinely revealed law to be unchangeable. Finally, Luther concludes his document by claiming that the practice of indulgences was to be eliminated immediately. Ceasing the collection of indulgences would put a huge financial strain on the institutional church, but Luther nevertheless insisted that the immorality of the practice was simply too great for it to be allowed to continue.

 

Skip to toolbar