The Social and Historical Impact of Christianity

Make no mistake, Jesus was put on the cross by the religious leaders of his day.

Jesus only spoke out against the hypocrisy of their message and example.

The message was clear then just as it was in the Dark Ages and clear today. Today we see the Pope giving empty messages about the virtues of government redistribution and climate change and telling people who want to secure their borders that they are going to hell. He may as well be telling people to buy their way out of purgatory as in Martin Luther's day.

Shrug. Human nature is wicked.

Originally posted by whodey
Make no mistake, Jesus was put on the cross by the religious leaders of his day.

Jesus only spoke out against the hypocrisy of their message and example.

The message was clear then just as it was in the Dark Ages and clear today. Today we see the Pope giving empty messages about the virtues of government redistribution and climate change and telling pe ...[text shortened]... to buy their way out of purgatory as in Martin Luther's day.

Shrug. Human nature is wicked.

In most ages, so tragic a parody of human hopes are human institutions, there have been some who have loved mankind, while hating almost everything that men have done or made. Of that temper Luther, who lived at a time when the contrast between sublime theory and hideous reality had long been intolerable, is the supreme example. He preaches a selfless charity but he recoils with horror from every institution by which an attempt has been made to give it a concrete expression. ...“It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty … One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian liberty, and that is the most holy word of God, the gospel of Christ.”

The difference between loving man as a result of loving God and learning to love God through a growing love for man may not, at first sight, appear profound. To Luther it seemed an abyss and Luther was right… For carried, as it was not carried by Luther, to its logical result, the argument made, not only good works, but sacraments and the Church itself unnecessary… Since salvation is bestowed by the operation of grace in the heart, and by that alone, the whole fabric of organized religion, which had mediated between the individual and its Maker – divinely commissioned hierarchy, systematized activities, corporate institutions – drops away, as the blasphemous trivialities of a religion of works. The medieval conception of the social order .. was shattered … Secular interests ceased to possess, even remotely, a religious significance… all men stood henceforth on the same footing towards God; … The world was divided into good and evil, light and darkness, spirit and matter. The division between them was absolute; no human effort could span the chasm.

[Tawney p105,106]

Originally posted by finnegan

In most ages, so tragic a parody of human hopes are human institutions, there have been some who have loved mankind, while hating almost everything that men have done or made. Of that temper Luther, who lived at a time when the contrast between sublime theory and hideous reality had long been intolerable, is the supreme example. He preaches a selfles ...[text shortened]... n between them was absolute; no human effort could span the chasm.

[Tawney p105,106]

Wut?

When has secular interests ceased?

Constantine, who was not even a Christian, shows us how it is done. You just subvert religion to mind the things of the state and its conquering war machines.

Have you ever read Revelation? Some day these statists will force us all to take a mark.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm a little wary of drawing any conclusions from the first quote. You seem to want to connect the Catholic Church with ideological support for high feudalism. The Dark Ages and early medieval (~450 AD to ~1200 AD) societies had manorial production with chattel slavery - pretty much as was practiced in ancient Rome. The later 'high feudal' era had ser ...[text shortened]... ms to tend to confirm the thesis that the Catholic Church was ideologically wedded to feudalism.

I have trouble pinning down where your argument lies. I am sure that is my own failing.

What I was doing was pointing out to Whodey that he needs to think more carefully about the sweeping claims he makes about the social and economic impact of Christianity in history - it would help if he actually checked out some history.

Prior to the Reformation, I am not sure how useful it is to talk of "the Catholic Church" within Europe. The various sectarian divisions arising from the Reformation entailed a divison within what was previously just The Church and one of the points to make clear is that all those different Christian groupings shared common belief systems and appealed to common sources for most concerns. This was certainly the case for economic and social morality.

Nor was "The Church" of the Middle Ages monolithic in its values, any more than the ideas of the Reformation were highly original or necessarily without precedent. To quote Tawney (page 31)

To select from so immense a sea of ideas about society and religion only the specimens that fit the meshes of one’s own small net and to label them ‘medieval thought,’ is to beg all questions. Ideas have a pedigree which, if realized, would often embarrass their exponents. The day has long since passed when it could be suggested that only one-half of modern Christianity had its roots in medieval religion. There is a medieval Puritanism and Rationalism as well as a medieval Catholicism.

Contrary to what you imply, the abolition of serfdom was not a product of religious arguments - certainly not about the human rights of individuals - anywhere including in Protestant England, and the English - like the Dutch - had no qualms about their intensive involvement in the slave trade alongside or in competition with Spain and Portugal. All the evidence suggests that religion works alongside and as a part of a wider ideology. It is not realistic to distinguish cause and effect, chicken and egg, in the way somone like Whodey would like.

It was not that laymen were unnaturally righteous; it was not that the Church was all-powerful… It was that the facts of the economic situation imposed themselves irresistibly on both. In reality there was no sharp collision between the doctrine of the church and the public policy of the world of business – its individual practice was, of course, another matter – because both were formed by the same environment and accepted the same broad assumptions as to social expediency.

[Tawney p50]

Originally posted by whodey
Wut?

When has secular interests ceased?

Constantine, who was not even a Christian, shows us how it is done. You just subvert religion to mind the things of the state and its conquering war machines.

Have you ever read Revelation? Some day these statists will force us all to take a mark.

You just subvert religion to mind the things of the state and its conquering war machines.

No Whodey. That is not subverting religion. That is religion.

You would like to claim that Christianity is something it is not. The facts do not support you.

What you may claim with some reason is that there are many strands to Christianity and you prefer one to another. That is fine. But until Christianity got organized as a religious institution, you would not even have had access to a coherent set of scriptures - that was something they put together for your benefit and without it you would have to whistle. So when you sit there to read what Jesus really said, thank them for it. The idea that you can rely on the words of scripture without being dependent on the people who wrote and assembled your paperwork is a bit odd.

Nor was there an agreed set of beliefs to identify Christians from others until the pagan Constantine insisted on the Council of Nicea. I am not sure how much of that you intend to accept or reject, but you know that is what makes a Christian rather than something else.

.

Originally posted by finnegan
I have trouble pinning down where your argument lies. I am sure that is my own failing.

What I was doing was pointing out to Whodey that he needs to think more carefully about the sweeping claims he makes about the social and economic impact of Christianity in history - it would help if he actually checked out some history.

Prior to the Reformation, ...[text shortened]... nvironment and accepted the same broad assumptions as to social expediency. [/quote][Tawney p50]

It's whatever you wish it to be I suppose.

Your preoccupation with the worldly financial system is but a puzzle to me.

The Bible indicates that the love of money is the root of all evil, this goes for statists who wish to control it all.