our reformation
what martin luther began to do in 1517, was to call into question the absolute truths of the religious establishment & its associated power structure. he did this by pointing out accepted teachings and practices that were not scriptural, and by pointing out that infallible teachings from some popes contradicted the infallible teachings from other (earlier) popes.
luther's basis for doing so was the priesthood of all believers.
this opened the door for a less centralized leadership structure and the establishment of independent churches. many of us in protestant circles consider this model a vast improvement over the previous model... local pastors and teachers now have authority to create local versions of truth... we are given essentially more data points on what is truth (vice one data point via the papacy)... and perhaps more flavors of truth to choose from... (in increasing order of discomfort for some).
today we find fiefdoms of power - run by elites, who went to school, have special knowledge, received credentials, and are now empowered to tell us what the scriptures mean. if you've been paying attention, that should sound familiar. what these leaders hold in common today, is a claim that absolute truth exists and we can know it... code for *they* know it. not, *you* or *i* can know it. that should sound familiar too.
in response, we invoke a familiar test... we'll call it Luther's test. we point out teachings that have come down that are not scriptural (e.g. the church phillip yancey grew up in), and we point out that teachings from fiefs (who believe we can know absolute truth) contradict other teachings from other fiefs (who also believe we can know absolute truth).
these folks insist the power structure and the senior / teaching pastor or other leader must continue ... e.g. "to keep us from error". an alternative understanding is these roles are important because these people like their day job... and anyone who claims that absolute truth isn't knowable threatens this system and basis of power. this is their linchpin... so don't expect them to understand this - or to surrender this point easily.
the key to unlocking an understanding in much of this - is to realize that when we are using the word truth in many of these arguments, what were really arguing are facts. facts like; 1) the earth is the center of the solar system, 2) black people are the 'sons of ham' and are inferior, 3) women should cover their head and not speak in church, 4) bringing more wine to parties where drinking has already been occurring is not christ-like, and 5) the whale that jonah lived in for three days was the dunkleosteus.
contrary to what rick warren says, the first reformation wasn't about beliefs - it was about wresting this same notion of absolute truth away from the religious powers that be. and todays reformation, our reformation, led by the emerging church... is not really a second reformation. it's really just a continuation of luther's work.
our basis for doing so is the priesthood of ALL believers.
luther's basis for doing so was the priesthood of all believers.
this opened the door for a less centralized leadership structure and the establishment of independent churches. many of us in protestant circles consider this model a vast improvement over the previous model... local pastors and teachers now have authority to create local versions of truth... we are given essentially more data points on what is truth (vice one data point via the papacy)... and perhaps more flavors of truth to choose from... (in increasing order of discomfort for some).
~
today we find fiefdoms of power - run by elites, who went to school, have special knowledge, received credentials, and are now empowered to tell us what the scriptures mean. if you've been paying attention, that should sound familiar. what these leaders hold in common today, is a claim that absolute truth exists and we can know it... code for *they* know it. not, *you* or *i* can know it. that should sound familiar too.
in response, we invoke a familiar test... we'll call it Luther's test. we point out teachings that have come down that are not scriptural (e.g. the church phillip yancey grew up in), and we point out that teachings from fiefs (who believe we can know absolute truth) contradict other teachings from other fiefs (who also believe we can know absolute truth).
to wit:traditionally, the response of the catholic church when errors or contradictions are pointed out, has been to say that the pope didn't have his infallibility hat on when he issued such and such a statement. today, senior pastors and religious leaders pull the same trick as the catholic church does when confronted by errors or contradictions amongst their teachings. all except for relinquishing either their hold on power or their assurance that absolute truth is knowable.
take all the christian ministers or leaders who claim we can know absolute truth ... (take just those from north america and/or a specific denomination, this will still work) ... and ask them to write down the truths that we are sure that we know.
build a website like baptistaboslutetruth.com and have everyone enter their set of absolute truths. if what they believe is so, we could expect vast agreement with a striking level of detail - with only a few outliers... (we'll call them "false prophets" secure in the knowledge they will burn in hell).
this should be relatively easy to accomplish. even trivial - and would settle the matter. yet, it hasn't been done, and won't be done... because it can't be done... because agreement doesn't exist. rome tried this first.
these folks insist the power structure and the senior / teaching pastor or other leader must continue ... e.g. "to keep us from error". an alternative understanding is these roles are important because these people like their day job... and anyone who claims that absolute truth isn't knowable threatens this system and basis of power. this is their linchpin... so don't expect them to understand this - or to surrender this point easily.
~
the key to unlocking an understanding in much of this - is to realize that when we are using the word truth in many of these arguments, what were really arguing are facts. facts like; 1) the earth is the center of the solar system, 2) black people are the 'sons of ham' and are inferior, 3) women should cover their head and not speak in church, 4) bringing more wine to parties where drinking has already been occurring is not christ-like, and 5) the whale that jonah lived in for three days was the dunkleosteus.
contrary to what rick warren says, the first reformation wasn't about beliefs - it was about wresting this same notion of absolute truth away from the religious powers that be. and todays reformation, our reformation, led by the emerging church... is not really a second reformation. it's really just a continuation of luther's work.
our basis for doing so is the priesthood of ALL believers.
Labels: church, emerging, power, reformation, truth
posted by P3T3RK3Y5 for meltingearth
3 Comments:
sweet post, man. Nice.
I've been grooving on some Phyllis Tickle podcasts lately. You two seem to be singing the same tune.
She actually suggests that we are in the beginnings of (what she calls) The Great Emergence (in the tradition of The Great Reformation, The Great Schism, The Great Councils, etc.). Interestingly, she points out that all religious movements are social movements, and so uses Luther as an example of religious leaders kinda following the people. So, thirty years before he posted his 95 Theses, there were *three* popes running around Europe (each with his own army!) claiming infallibility. Tickle points out that any observer-- lay or clergy-- will look at that and realize that not only are they not infallible, but they're probably not even 'honorable'. So Luther senses this, identifies it, and makes a historically identifiable move in 1517. But he's really following a social movement.
So too, 500 years later, there is a swell of unrest at the conventional religious structures. As you so eloquently write, people are walking away from the protestant version of infallibility in droves. All to the shrill cries of those whose jobs and power structures depend on it. Some sensitive, sharp folks (I'm looking at you, iPete!) see it, and speak about it on our modern printing press.
Thanks for writing this, and especially for that Yancey link (thanks for opening the blinds, Pete!). Great stuff.
Wow Pete! Reading this resonated so deeply with me! I have been struggling with this issue with a very dear friend of mine who has just finished his second year of seminary (Lutheran). It truly amazes me how far from Luther the Lutherans have become! His skepticism at the emergent movement was linked to his fear that the "tradition and truths" of the "Church" would not be adequately passed down. He even went so far as to raise himself above the "masses" or "sheep" because of his education. I am so fearful for him, because he appears to have lost the free and open spirit that initially brought him into relationship with God through Jesus. Thank you so much for so eloquently sharing your thoughts on this issue.
Ditto on the good post.
So, yes the church leadership at Luther's time lacked honor and integrity. Additionally, the infallibility argument became increasingly absurd, as these popes had no answer for the millions of people who died the previous century from the Bubonic plague. The conclusion largely then was it had to be God's punishment. That must have been too much of a burden to bear even for a largely unlearned population. I would suggest this also could have led to the eventual unrest and the ensuing Protestant Reformation.
We too have been offered shallow platitudes for the solutions to today's complex problems, such as future earthquakes in the Middle East being signs of the soon coming tribualtion, i.e., God is punishing the Muslims.
Thanks for the thoughts and for putting this in an insightful historical context. This difficult "current reformation" is easier to grapple with and should make us feel less alone and that we are part of something so much larger than all of us. I believe that might be just what some of today's modern ministers need, the comfort in knowing that giving up the infallibility tendency can bring much needed peace and relief to both themselves and their frocks;)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home