One of the biggest turning points in Western, if not world, history occurred on October 31, 1517. Today, many churches from a reformed or semi-reformed tradition celebrated Reformation Sunday to commemorate Martin Luther's dispute with the Pope Leo X. While there is dispute over whether Luther actually nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, there is little doubt that Luther had Ninety-five Theses or disputations against Leo.
Some may wonder what this has to do with American history. Just a quarter-century prior to Luther, a Genoese sailor by the name of Christopher Columbus claimed the New World for Spain (except for Brazil, which went to Portugal according to the Treaty of Tordesillas). While Columbus did not exactly discover America, since his voyages began continuous interaction and the famed "Columbian Exchange" his trip is worth remembering. Spain and Portugal were both intensely Catholic nations, and after the breakup of Catholic hegemony in Europe, controversy was bound to erupt as other nations attempted to rival these early explorers.
While England was still within the fold of Rome when Giovanni Caboto claimed parts of North America in 1497, it was after Henry VIII's break with Catholicism that the Reformation became important for current Americans. Although Henry just wanted Catholicism without the pope, a more Protestant England emerged permanently under his daughter Elizabeth I. It was under Elizabeth and her successor James I that England began attempting permanent settlements in the New World, partially as a part of this rivalry with Spain and other Catholic powers. The more radical Protestants in England, the Puritans established Massachusetts, and the traditional Puritan lifestyle of early New England began around 1630 (partially due to persecution from James' son Charles I and his archbishop William Laud).
Had Luther not complained about the selling of indulgences in Wittenburg back in 1517, the American religious landscape would be radically different than it is today. Therefore, whatever one's religious belief, it cannot be argued that October 31 has little significance for the history of Christianity.
Showing posts with label Martin Luther King Jr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Luther King Jr. Show all posts
30 October 2011
19 October 2011
October 19th Important for Luther and Arminius
According to Christianity Today's "This Week in Christian History," October 19 was an important day for both Martin Luther and Jacob Arminius. Luther earned his doctorate from UW (that's the U of Wittenberg, not the U of Wisconsin) on this date in 1512, while October 19 was not a particularly good day for Arminius in a strictly earthly sense. Arminius actually died 402 years ago today in 1609.
The fact that they share this date, albeit for differing reasons, is a bit ironic considering their differing theological positions. Luther, as you might know, exchanged niceties with Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam over the issue of free will. Luther wrote On the Bondage of the Will in response to Erasmus' work on the The Freedom of the Will, which was originally written as a response to Lutheran ideas about human will. Arminius provided the impetus for the famous TULIP of Calvinists because of his attempt at softening Calvinist doctrine related to predestination and election. Luther and Arminius probably could have had a game of literary volleyball had they been contemporaries as Luther and Erasmus did.
Of note in American church history, on this date in 1744, George Whitefield arrived for his third preaching tour in British North America.
The fact that they share this date, albeit for differing reasons, is a bit ironic considering their differing theological positions. Luther, as you might know, exchanged niceties with Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam over the issue of free will. Luther wrote On the Bondage of the Will in response to Erasmus' work on the The Freedom of the Will, which was originally written as a response to Lutheran ideas about human will. Arminius provided the impetus for the famous TULIP of Calvinists because of his attempt at softening Calvinist doctrine related to predestination and election. Luther and Arminius probably could have had a game of literary volleyball had they been contemporaries as Luther and Erasmus did.
Of note in American church history, on this date in 1744, George Whitefield arrived for his third preaching tour in British North America.
05 September 2011
Progressive Baptists
Saturday was a pretty good day in my estimation. The weather wasn't the best, with temps around 65 and steady North winds, there was a reminder that a wonderful North Dakota winter is nearing. So, it wasn't the weather that was great. I did, however, get a couple of historical publications, one of which was Baptist History and Heritage.
This edition of Baptist History and Heritage focuses on the 50th anniversary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, an African American denomination. While the fact that this is one of the 276 (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much) Baptist denominations in America is not surprising or unique. What is unique is the origin of this organization. Frustration with one of the leading black Baptist groups, the National Baptist Convention, over issues of Civil Rights led those who were more committed to complete equality (including Martin Luther King, Jr.) to split off from the parent organization in 1961.
While I've not read the entire journal yet, I've found the first couple of articles pretty interesting. One question that always comes to my mind when looking at churches and racial issues is why there are churches and racial issues. Some of the most segregated groups in America today are churches. There are "white churches" and "black churches." I can understand ethnic churches or specific ethnic ministries for immigrants because of the language barrier. However, even though cultures can be very different between ethnic groups, it seems that the whole "no Jew or Greek, male or female, etc." from Paul would preclude divisions based upon differences in culture when language is not an issue. However, I guess it should not be surprising from a glance at some of Paul's letters (especially the one to the Galatians) that show problems between racial groups. While it isn't surprising, it should not be thought of as ideal in any way. Differing core theology would be a good reason for division, while ethnicity should not be a reason for division.
With the word "Progressive" in the title, perhaps a definition is in order. Today, political discourse at times seems to equate progressive with radical communists intent on overthrowing the established order. In much of American history, this was not necessarily the case. Theodore Roosevelt (a "progressive" president) was not interested in overthrowing capitalism or America, but rather in righting some serious problems that actually threatened to destroy "the system." The idea of progress has generally been considered a positive, as it generally indicates an attempt at improvement. While social activism is not exactly the main purpose of the church (in a general sense) in the world, in the area of race relations, a group that pushed the envelope for equality and integration deserves applause for their push in that direction.
This edition of Baptist History and Heritage focuses on the 50th anniversary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, an African American denomination. While the fact that this is one of the 276 (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much) Baptist denominations in America is not surprising or unique. What is unique is the origin of this organization. Frustration with one of the leading black Baptist groups, the National Baptist Convention, over issues of Civil Rights led those who were more committed to complete equality (including Martin Luther King, Jr.) to split off from the parent organization in 1961.
While I've not read the entire journal yet, I've found the first couple of articles pretty interesting. One question that always comes to my mind when looking at churches and racial issues is why there are churches and racial issues. Some of the most segregated groups in America today are churches. There are "white churches" and "black churches." I can understand ethnic churches or specific ethnic ministries for immigrants because of the language barrier. However, even though cultures can be very different between ethnic groups, it seems that the whole "no Jew or Greek, male or female, etc." from Paul would preclude divisions based upon differences in culture when language is not an issue. However, I guess it should not be surprising from a glance at some of Paul's letters (especially the one to the Galatians) that show problems between racial groups. While it isn't surprising, it should not be thought of as ideal in any way. Differing core theology would be a good reason for division, while ethnicity should not be a reason for division.
With the word "Progressive" in the title, perhaps a definition is in order. Today, political discourse at times seems to equate progressive with radical communists intent on overthrowing the established order. In much of American history, this was not necessarily the case. Theodore Roosevelt (a "progressive" president) was not interested in overthrowing capitalism or America, but rather in righting some serious problems that actually threatened to destroy "the system." The idea of progress has generally been considered a positive, as it generally indicates an attempt at improvement. While social activism is not exactly the main purpose of the church (in a general sense) in the world, in the area of race relations, a group that pushed the envelope for equality and integration deserves applause for their push in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)