Monday, October 8, 2007

Focus Paper #4

Focus Paper #4
October 8, 2007

This selection of readings focused particularly on Martin Luther and the events that led up to the eventual Protestant Reformation which resulted from his actions. He wrote his 95 Theses and posted them on the Church door – although it is debatable whether he literally posted them, or mailed (posted) them. Either way, the effect that his writing had was tremendous. There was much uproar as a result, and authorities were against him and wanted him to appear in Rome for a trial and debate about everything he had protested. One of the things which his 95 Theses focused on was the selling of indulgences, and how they should not be allowed because they should not be the way that a person is able to repent for his sins, and should not be able to absolve all sins. One claim that some of the indulgence sellers, such as Tetzel, made was that even if someone committed a sin as great as “violating the mother of God” (75), that this person could simply buy an indulgence and his sin would be revoked. Another thing which Luther refuted in his 95 Theses was the actions of the Pope and Catholic Church, and also how money was being collected through the indulgences in order to finish construction work on various buildings. He felt that the Pope should use his own money for such situations. Luther also addressed how the Popes paralleled themselves with God and how if they were to approve of something (such as indulgences, etc), then God too would approve.

When Luther did meet with the authorities about his action of posting his 95 Theses and their response to his writing, one of the things which came about was that they wanted Luther to revoke what he had written and say that he had been wrong in what he said. However, Luther refused to do such a thing and would not go back on his beliefs. The result of this was that he was excommunicated and had to leave the area (he was placed under “imperial ban”). However, instead of leaving, he went into hiding with the help of a friend, Prince Frederick, and lived for a year disguised as a knight in Frederick’s Wartburg Castle (he was captured on his way back to Wittenberg by Frederick’s order).

I can not imagine what it would be like to be Luther during this time. He was simply voicing his opinion, and ended up in front of the high courts and the pope in a religious debate. It is likely that many of the things which he disagreed with, others disagreed with as well. It does not seem like he was expecting to cause the effects which he did on society and religion as a whole. Rather, he may have wanted something done about things such as indulgences and the like, but I do not think this was his main purpose in writing – to actually get something done. I think he had just decided to voice his opinion and let it be known that the actions of the Church were not all pure. However, in so doing, the effects were much larger than any which may have otherwise been imagined. They were so large, in fact, that a whole period of reform ensued not long after. Luther had become an idol to many and had many followers and those who studied his writings and followed his beliefs.

I am anxious to continue on in the reading about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. I want to see if he played an active role in the Reformation, or if it was more his ideas which were the most active. Did he lead the rebellion against the Catholic Church, or was it those who studied and practiced his beliefs that did so? Either way, I am definitely interested in learning the details of the Reformation. I think Luther was right in what he wrote, and I want to see the actions which came about as a result.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Focus Paper #3

Focus Paper #3
September 25, 2007

In Response to the Debate

I thought that the class debate on Monday turned out very well. It was definitely an interesting way to learn about the different perspectives on religion which we have been discussing during class. It also made it easier to understand the viewpoints of the Catholic Church, Thomas a Kempis, and Erasmus.

The Pope Leo X side focused largely on how God is the Supreme Power, and how spiritual things surpass all temporal things. It also claimed that in order for the soul to be saved, one must go through the Church.

Thomas a Kempis’ main claim was that one should live a life of solitude and stay away from society, in order to best serve God. He also said that it is okay to feel bad in life, because in the long run, you will be better off. A life of sorrow leads to an (afterlife) of happiness.
Erasmus found it best to read the Bible and to develop one’s own understanding of the Scripture. He did not find it sufficient to simply listen to another and “learn” from them. He believed that by keeping your mind focused on a righteous path, you would be able to resist temptations which exist everywhere in the world.

I think that all groups did a good job of presenting their sides and getting their points across. If I were to be the people who were listening to each of the cases of the debate, I would have to say that I would pick Erasmus’ perspective on religious life and the best way to live. I agree with Pope Leo X’s case that God is the Supreme Power; however, I do not believe that it is necessary for someone to direct all of their dealings with God through the means of the Church. For me, religion is a private matter, and does not require the involvement of a higher organization.

I have already discussed the absurdity of Thomas a Kempis’ work in my previous focus paper, so I will not go into detail about his case here. Basically though, I feel that his beliefs that everyone should live in solitude do not make sense at all – how can one thrive in life and religion if he is not able to discuss it with others? Furthermore, how is it possible to procreate (as God desires) if we are not supposed to interact with others?

This leaves Erasmus’ perspective, which I have already depicted as “the best”. Erasmus just makes the most sense to me, perhaps because his is the most modern version out of the three. Erasmus wants us to understand religion on our own and not simply rely on others, and he does not find it necessary for us to separate ourselves from the rest of society (just to do what we need to do to avoid sin and temptation). His view not only seems the most logical, but the most practical as well.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Focus Paper #2

September 10, 2007
Focus Paper #2

After re-reading Thomas a Kempis’ piece – The Imitation of Christ – it has now occurred to me just how twisted and distorted his views and opinions are. As I wrote in my last focus paper, Kempis expects that everyone devote themselves entirely to God, and even goes so far as to say that everyone is supposed to live a life of solitude apart from the rest of society. In so doing, one is able to devote themselves to serving God, and living in fear of him: “If you wish to live in holiness, you must live in fear of God” (2). Furthermore, not only should you live in fear of and complete dedication to God, but you should consider yourself and your own life unworthy of God’s comfort and should focus entirely on your relationship to Him and means of serving Him – not on any external mortal relationship or materialistic values.

I can understand where Kempis is coming from with all of this – that God is the most important being – even higher than our view of ourselves in our own lives. However, what he recommends for those interested in achieving a holy life and entrance into Heaven upon death is not realistic or practical for any member of society. It is normal for one to interact with others, to have conversations with them and relationships with them. God set up the world this way when he put Adam and Eve on the earth – if He had wanted Adam to live a life of solitude and utmost devotion to Him, He would not have put Eve in the Garden as Adam’s companion, nor enabled them to reproduce and ultimately create a huge, interacting society; He would have just put Adam on the earth, alone and only with his thoughts, and set Adam up for a life of complete devotion and dedication to Him. Because God did not set up the world as such, there is no reason to believe that we are expected to live in lives of solitude and complete dedication to God, and that if we do not live in this way, that we will be condemned and not allowed to enter Heaven.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Focus Paper #1

Focus Paper #1
September 5, 2007

In The Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis discussed the different methods of worship and commitment to God, and had various recommendations on how one should live his or her life. These rules and guidelines, which one would expect to be directed mostly at those choosing a life of complete devotion to God (such as the life of a monk or nun) due to their serious and absolute nature, ultimately depicted a life of servitude to God which should also be followed by everyday Christians. Basically, he writes that it is necessary for someone to devote themselves entirely to God and to worship and study and learn about Him. He even states that a relationship with God is more important than any relationship here on Earth, and that material objects and possessions take a “back seat” to a life of God. A life of serving God in solitude is essential if you want to approach Death and Judgment and achieve positives results – if you do not entirely devote yourself to God, you cannot be guaranteed a deserved spot in Heaven and may be forced into a time of suffering and punishment.

In reading this piece, I could not help but to think about the Lindberg text (pages 53-55) and reflect on the situations of various popes described there. Although there were only a few popes described on these pages, the majority were classified as “bad” and not dedicated to God or to serving Him. Rather, they often focused on violence and deceit as main components of their life and “ruling”. I found this to be somewhat ironic – that those supposedly committed to serving God were perhaps doing the most evil and disservice to Him. In reading these descriptions and reflecting on Kempis’ interpretation of how religious people / every Christian should live their lives with complete dedication to God, it has become more clear to me just exactly how the Reformation was able to begin – perhaps as a rebellion against the wrongdoings

Thursday, August 30, 2007