Author Archives: spangler@uoregon.edu

Team 4: Question 1

Posted on by under global christianity

America exited World War 2 as one of the two strongest countries. It saw itself as the defender of western culture and an agent against atheism. Most people were still protestant, but the country was making a shift towards religious freedom for the majority. Catholicism started to grow, and they even started their own educational system. Church attendance was at it’s highest ever in the 1950’s, but baby boomers in the 1960’s started to go against societal norms. Trust in government and trust in the church plummeted. There were four public concerns that are highlights in the shift: “civil rights, the “war on poverty,” opposition to the war in Vietnam, and women’s liberation” (Jacobsen 202). Christianity’s response to these events defined American religious life today as one being directly associated with politics. People don’t define themselves through theology anymore, they define themselves through ethics and public policies. “Specific denominational identities have been largely set aside” which has given rise to the growth of congregation-centered, non-denominational Protestantism (Jacobsen 204). Americans these days want churches that support themselves and that aren’t tied to a larger body. Where you go matters, not the specifics of what you believe in. People who are “religious” are associated with organized religion and are viewed negatively, while being “spiritual” is the new trend because it’s authentic, unique, and allows separation from the harsh rules and strict laws of the past. Americans don’t know or don’t agree with the religious denominations of the past so they choose to move away from organized religion as a whole. Americans are combining religions, picking and choosing what they like and dislike, or avoiding it altogether. The shift towards individuality over organized religion isn’t negative, but it’s changed people’s understanding of Christianity dramatically.

      Religious freedom is a huge characteristic associated with Christian Americans. The idea of “soul liberty” first came up in the early 1600’s by Roger Williams, and then continued through the Baptists and Quakers. It was to do with not constraining people’s religious beliefs and allowing them to find God on their own. This is an idea that is largely thought of today. People don’t want to be convinced into believing a religion, it isn’t authentic that way, they must find God themselves. When Americans do find God, He is much different than the God of the past. Early Puritans characterized God as believing all humans “deserve to be cast into hell,” creating an anxiety that came out during the Great Awakening (Jacobsen 217). People felt God come into their lives, they felt Him working through them, and this evolved into feelings of reassurance that they’re all going to heaven as long as they believe. Jesus became a friend, a father. He doesn’t force himself on anyone, but will provide salvation and happiness as long as you know He is real. Also, faith in America is largely associated with community. The Puritans spoke of it in the past, and Martin Luther King Jr. reintroduced the idea when he spoke of a community based on love. He wanted people to respect each other and to work together in a “beloved community.” Instead of seeking personal triumph, Americans focus on giving back to society and their community. This is the same when it comes to Christian Americans, and it all comes back to American’s freedom to choose a religion of their choice.

      If I could create a “super Christianity,” it would look much like the religion that Jesus spoke of in the New Testament. Loving God and loving your neighbor would be the only points people are concerned about. If people focused on loving each other, hateful rhetoric and violent actions would vanish. Religious freedom would be a large part of it, and not imposing your religious will on others would be a main idea. Loving your neighbors means loving people of other religions too. Don’t look down on those that believe in different things, it isn’t the Christian way. Also, people would teach those who are seeking religion and wouldn’t force it on them. Instead of missionaries focusing on turning others to Jesus, they should solely focus on helping the poor. If people ask about a religion or seek it out, teach them then, but don’t brainwash children to advance your own selfish agenda. I love the devotion African communities have for their god, and I love the urge to help the poor in Latin America, but hating or acting against others because they’re different in appearance or because they believe in different things would be the biggest change. Equality would be the strongest point, along with loving all people, and loving God most of all.

Team 4, Question 2

Posted on by under civil rights movement

In “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” Martin Luther King Jr. proposes different methods to support the sanitation workers who are on strike in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1968, hundreds of these workers walked away from their job in protest because of dangerous conditions and years of discrimination. King told people during his speech to “tell their neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk” because these are companies that have not been fair to workers, so King is suggesting that the people of Memphis refuse to purchase their products (King 186). Also, they are companies with a lot of power and by boycotting them they’ll be forced to “support the needs and the rights of these men that are on strike” (King 186). King’s other method to support these workers is to “strengthen black institutions” by starting “bank-in” and “insurance-in” movements (King 187). People would need to take their money out of the big banks and start using the Tri-City Bank, and they would need to start getting insurance from “black” insurance companies. By doing this, the local government would be further pressured with huge bank and insurance losses; it would force them to fix their broken worker system.

King also uses many Biblical references in his speech. These references are used to show his developed ideas of social and economic justice. He asks, “Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher?” and then says the preacher must say, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream (Amos 5:24) and that he “must say with Jesus, ‘The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor (Luke 4:18)’” (King 185). King is using these Biblical passages to build on his belief that it’s God’s will to help people of social and economic injustice. He continues by saying, “God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can’t eat three square meals a day” and if nothing is done then his “agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you” (King 186). With all of these people suffering from poverty, how can King call himself a Christian if he stands by and does nothing? How can any church claim to preach the gospel if they aren’t helping the poor? King doesn’t want violence, he just wants fair treatment for all. And if the people don’t get it, if they don’t get social and economic justice they deserve, then everyone should avoid the companies that are oppressing them.

“I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” also has some similarities to Frederick Douglass’ “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.” Besides the repetitive diction and style of speech, both speak of injustices happening to people because of greed, selfishness and hate. They bring up scripture and how it’s God’s will to help those less fortunate than you; and yet, many Christians are on the side against the poor, so they need to realize that what they’re fighting for isn’t godly, but against Jesus’ word. Biblical quotes and references are used throughout both to really show that God wants this change to society because innocent people have suffered for much too long when they shouldn’t have to. Both just want equality and fair rights for all.

Two parts of King’s speech were the most persuasive and influential. The first is at the beginning when King brings up different time frames and repeats that he “wouldn’t stop there” so he can “live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century (King 183).” He said, “I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding – something is happening in our world. The masses are rising up” (King 183). Not only is it the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. died the next day after saying this, but it’s his foreshadowing of a movement that would change the world that makes this portion so significant. It isn’t just King that’s demanding change, but God himself that is working through the masses, making this a very persuasive message. The second significant portion is at the very end when King seems to allude to his death by saying, “I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land” (King 189). This last part really hones in on King’s belief that this movement to the “promised land,” or freedom from racism and injustice, isn’t really about him, but about everyone. He’s almost acting like a prophet who is preaching God’s will before his death. It’s a passage filled with many emotions. After hearing or reading this and seeing that King got assassinated the very next day, many people flocked to his cause or felt even more motivation to enact change.

Team 4: Question 2 – Spangler

Posted on by under pietism

After the Thirty Years’ War from 1618 to 1648, Germany saw the rise of a new movement, Pietism. Founded by Philip Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke, Pietism was born from a Lutheran background. Spener “suggested that there be less emphasis on the differences between laity and clergy, and more on the common responsibilities of all Christians” (Gonzalez 260). He wanted Christians to be more devoted to their beliefs, so he formed “colleges of piety” which were small groups that studied scripture and religious practices in an intense manner. This is how Pietists practiced their religion, by coming together and studying. People were motivated about Pietism because of Spener’s ideas of focusing on a personal faith. Soon, many saw him as a “new Luther.” He had an intense dedication to God and how he spoke of “the need to return constantly to Scriptures and to read it with a spirit of devotion and piety” reminded people of how Luther was (Gonzalez 260).

Francke’s beliefs were very similar to Spener’s. Both believed in self-dedication to God and coming together in small groups to practice. They had a vision of a society filled with people constantly practicing and worshipping. Preachers wouldn’t focus on their own personal knowledge, but would “call believers to be obedient to the Word of God” (Gonzalez 260). After Spener passed away, Francke was asked by the king of Denmark to send missionaries to India. Francke sent two of his disciples, and the trip was such a success that he began training missionaries himself which helped lead the way to it’s common practice today.

Spener wrote Pia Desideria early on in his practice. In section one, he focuses mostly on how Scripture should be approached and studied appropriately. Not everyone is able to understand the Bible, many aren’t even capable of reading, and Spener believes that “all Scripture, without exception should be known by the congregation if [they] are all to receive the necessary benefit” (Spener 31). So, Spener suggested that all households keep a copy of the Bible, that Bible readings should happen often in specified places, and that the church should reintroduce group discussions about Scripture with a preacher leading the teaching. This last point is very different from previous Catholic beliefs where the priest’s word was the law of the land. For Spener, having an open conversation with a group about Scripture will enhance your knowledge to God, and therefore your connection to God. But for Medieval Catholics, giving authority to the audience is not Biblical; only priests have the power to translate the knowledge of God to the people. Protestants were very much for having an open conversation about God among others. Personal devotion was a large part of the Protestant religion, so Pietism is almost an extension of it.

By having these large groups come together to discuss Scripture, Spener believed that it would make people more devoted and motivated to practice on their own. People who really practice Scripture and who have a constant conversation of teaching and learning with a group could even transform their lives and the lives of those around them. Parents would spend more time teaching their children, neighbors would have open discussions, and everyone would have the self-devotion to God that is necessary to be spiritual.

Skip to toolbar