Christianity: Divided always?

[murkymick]

If we look from today backwards, we cannot see a time of unity among Christians since at least the East-West schism. The protestant schism only further divides us, and today Christianity seems to be dividing again over the social issues of today. If we look from the opposite end of history, Christianity in its infancy was also divided along the lines of Christian Jews and Gentile Christians. Amongst the leaders of the earliest church there was debate on whether the Jewish Laws would still be upheld by Christian Jews and whether it was necessary, or even appropriate, to force the Laws on the Gentile converts. Unfortunately, I know very little of the time period following. Was there a period where Christians were unified? Where dissent was unheard of or very much on the fringe of Christian society? Was this considered a golden age of Christianity? Or is the division amongst Christians throughout the ages, in part, the source of much of Christianity’s richness? Theological debate stems from theological divisions, right?

note: I hope this is the right spot. Apologies if it isn’t.

 

[fhansen]

If we look from today backwards, we cannot see a time of unity among Christians since at least the East-West schism. The protestant schism only further divides us, and today Christianity seems to be dividing again over the social issues of today. If we look from the opposite end of history, Christianity in its infancy was also divided along the lines of Christian Jews and Gentile Christians. Amongst the leaders of the earliest church there was debate on whether the Jewish Laws would still be upheld by Christian Jews and whether it was necessary, or even appropriate, to force the Laws on the Gentile converts. Unfortunately, I know very little of the time period following. Was there a period where Christians were unified? Where dissent was unheard of or very much on the fringe of Christian society? Was this considered a golden age of Christianity? Or is the division amongst Christians throughout the ages, in part, the source of much of Christianity’s richness? Theological debate stems from theological divisions, right?

note: I hope this is the right spot. Apologies if it isn’t.

Theological debate led to the Church declaring many divisive beliefs as heretical. And that really is the point. Both east and west at least recognized that authority was given to the visible Church. Once that idea was rejected and authority was considered by the Reformers to be situated in Scripture alone, then the floodgates we’re opened for any and all beliefs to arise, due to the fact that now discerning the gospel truth was a matter of personal interpretation of the bible.

 

[Kelt]

If we look from today backwards, we cannot see a time of unity among Christians since at least the East-West schism. The protestant schism only further divides us, and today Christianity seems to be dividing again over the social issues of today. If we look from the opposite end of history, Christianity in its infancy was also divided along the lines of Christian Jews and Gentile Christians. Amongst the leaders of the earliest church there was debate on whether the Jewish Laws would still be upheld by Christian Jews and whether it was necessary, or even appropriate, to force the Laws on the Gentile converts. Unfortunately, I know very little of the time period following. Was there a period where Christians were unified? Where dissent was unheard of or very much on the fringe of Christian society? Was this considered a golden age of Christianity? Or is the division amongst Christians throughout the ages, in part, the source of much of Christianity’s richness? Theological debate stems from theological divisions, right?

note: I hope this is the right spot. Apologies if it isn’t.

It’s human nature isn’t it? Right from the very beginning of Christianity, there was debate and argument. Sometimes it was stamped on fiercely - such as the Ebionites.
The same happened in Islam or any other religion.
There was no period where everyone was unified. If it looks as tho’ there might have been at any time, it’s because the dissenters were very successfully stamped out!
‘It takes all sorts to make a world!’ Do we all agree on anything at all?? Why should we agree on religion? All religions have the same amount of ‘proof’ after all.
Yes theological debate stems from divisions.
The Catholic Church tries and has always tried hard to keep its church together and avoid dissent with strict rules (and threats,) which is why ( to me) it often can be cruel.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do we all agree on anything at all??

You can’t think of one thing? Whats your thoughts on water, air and food?

 

[Kelt]

You can’t think of one thing? Whats your thoughts on water, air and food?

Haha! But those aren’t concepts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Catholic Church tries and has always tried hard to keep its church together and avoid dissent with strict rules (and threats,) which is why ( to me) it often can be cruel.

Any institution that cares about its integrity has rules to follow. Those who don’t want to follow the rules will always think of the rules as cruel. But those in charge of maintaining the unity and integrity of the institution are obliged to use whatever instruments are available at the time. A deserter from an Army post, for example, especially a deserter who thinks the Army leadership is stupid or venal, should be disciplined, even though it may seem to him the rules are too strict and cruel. If he does not follow the rules, how is the Army to function if he is not disciplined nor anyone else who deserts?

 

[balto]

I don’t know that there was ever a time when Christians were completely united in doctrine, even in the earliest days of the Church. You have to remember that many of the early converts were coming out of a pagan society and so they already had a number of strongly held convictions about how the universe worked, how divinity works, etc. The Christian message was probably difficult even for a lot of the devout Jews that accepted the Gospel. Very early on people probably had intense disputes over Christology. Was Christ really God, or some very powerful god but something lesser than God the Father? A lot of the pagans had a conception of nature that stated that the material world was inherently imperfect and corrupt, and that the purpose of religion was to liberate you into the spiritual realm. So they probably had difficulty accepting that Christ could be both fully divine and fully human since their worldview stated that such a phenomenon is impossible. It’s probably what led to Arianism. David Bentley Hart discusses many things like this in great detail in Atheist Delusions.

Not only that but there were several divisions before the Great Schism and in its wake over things such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the role of Mary, the nature of good and evil, etc. Here’s an list of all these divisions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

 

[Kelt]

Any institution that cares about its integrity has rules to follow. Those who don’t want to follow the rules will always think of the rules as cruel. But those in charge of maintaining the unity and integrity of the institution are obliged to use whatever instruments are available at the time. A deserter from an Army post, for example, especially a deserter who thinks the Army leadership is stupid or venal, should be disciplined, even though it may seem to him the rules are too strict and cruel. If he does not follow the rules, how is the Army to function if he is not disciplined nor anyone else who deserts?

I don’t disagree. An institution does have to have strict rules to keep its power. The Catholic Church has done an amazing job to keep its power. However, I also think that Jesus spent quite a bit of time criticising people who got bogged down by rules and word games and preferred action. I think it’s sadly ironic that his ‘church’ that developed after his death became such a huge, rich institution with dogmas developing over the years which have been defended often with little regard to charity. As we have seen more recently, the protection and defence - the greater good - of the institution of the Catholic Church has come before the justice and correction of abuse. No, they’re not the only institution to do that, but they ought to be better than secular ones at putting things right.
Yes there are armies of individual Catholics out there doing great work and loving their fellow man. I’ve seen them in action. But what do you see when you go to the Vatican for instance? Immense wealth - I wondered…What would Jesus say about this if he were to wander in? (Obviously the Catholic Church is not the only one to be rich)
Fortunately pope Francis has got the measure of the bad things going on in the Vatican…and he lives frugally. His heart seems to be with the message and the people…not bogged down with the rules, regulations and the trappings that go with them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t disagree. An institution does have to have strict rules to keep its power. The Catholic Church has done an amazing job to keep its power. However, I also think that Jesus spent quite a bit of time criticising people who got bogged down by rules and word games and preferred action. I think it’s sadly ironic that his ‘church’ that developed after his death became such a huge, rich institution with dogmas developing over the years which have been defended often with little regard to charity. As we have seen more recently, the protection and defence - the greater good - of the institution of the Catholic Church has come before the justice and correction of abuse. No, they’re not the only institution to do that, but they ought to be better than secular ones at putting things right.
Yes there are armies of individual Catholics out there doing great work and loving their fellow man. I’ve seen them in action. But what do you see when you go to the Vatican for instance? Immense wealth - I wondered…What would Jesus say about this if he were to wander in? (Obviously the Catholic Church is not the only one to be rich)
Fortunately pope Francis has got the measure of the bad things going on in the Vatican…and he lives frugally. His heart seems to be with the message and the people…not bogged down with the rules, regulations and the trappings that go with them.

The Church has so much money because there are so many Catholics donating from their pockets. This is a sign of the success of the Church, that no matter how corrupt some of its members may be, people believe that it does far more good than evil in the world.

Remember, some of Jesus’ best friends were rich men. He loved everybody, and so should we. If those riches are not shared with the Church, who gets them?

I would say, on balance, they would go to do the devil’s work. And we know the devil is very busy robbing the Church.

 

[davidv]

I don’t disagree. An institution does have to have strict rules to keep its power. The Catholic Church has done an amazing job to keep its power. However, I also think that Jesus spent quite a bit of time criticising people who got bogged down by rules and word games and preferred action. I think it’s sadly ironic that his ‘church’ that developed after his death became such a huge, rich institution with dogmas developing over the years which have been defended often with little regard to charity. As we have seen more recently, the protection and defence - the greater good - of the institution of the Catholic Church has come before the justice and correction of abuse. No, they’re not the only institution to do that, but they ought to be better than secular ones at putting things right.
Yes there are armies of individual Catholics out there doing great work and loving their fellow man. I’ve seen them in action. But what do you see when you go to the Vatican for instance? Immense wealth - I wondered…What would Jesus say about this if he were to wander in? (Obviously the Catholic Church is not the only one to be rich)
Fortunately pope Francis has got the measure of the bad things going on in the Vatican…and he lives frugally. His heart seems to be with the message and the people…not bogged down with the rules, regulations and the trappings that go with them.

I think your claim that its about power needs some substantial evidence.

 

[Kelt]

I think your claim that its about power needs some substantial evidence.

What I’m talking about is its power to keep its members in line - having power over their lives and keeping them sticking strictly to the rules. Otherwise there’d be splinter groups popping up. In the past they had considerable political power too of course - look at the Borgias! I guess it still has some political power. It’s quite an achievement, but it has it’s costs.

 

[Seraphignatius]

What I’m talking about is its power to keep its members in line - keeping them sticking strictly to the rules. Otherwise there’d be splinter groups popping up. It’s quite an achievement.

Jesus said that if we love him we are to keep his commandments. He also gave the church the authority to teach in his name, so that whoever rejects the church rejects him and he who sent him. Now if the church has the authority to teach in his name what his commandments imply, and has the power to create, alter, and abolish discipline, (to bind and lose as Christ put it) then how could one object to the church having rules?

 

[Kelt]

The Church has so much money because there are so many Catholics donating from their pockets. This is a sign of the success of the Church, that no matter how corrupt some of its members may be, people believe that it does far more good than evil in the world.

Remember, some of Jesus’ best friends were rich men. He loved everybody, and so should we. If those riches are not shared with the Church, who gets them?

I would say, on balance, they would go to do the devil’s work. And we know the devil is very busy robbing the Church.

I have no problem with people’s donations going to good works via the church, but I do object to the wealth tied up inside the churches - not getting to the poor the church is supposed to look out for. I know there’s an argument for glory of God etc etc but I think money spent on people and their environment is more of a way to do it. And there is that saying about rich men and eyes of needles…
Of course it’s not simple - we in the UK have very old churches which are part of our history and cost money for their upkeep. But they are an historical inheritance.

I, for one, choose my charities carefully and don’t feel the need for a church to make decisions for me.
I don’t know how you think the ‘devil’ is robbing the church?

 

[Seraphignatius]

I have no problem with people’s donations going to good works via the church, but I do object to the wealth tied up inside the churches - not getting to the poor the church is supposed to look out for. I know there’s an argument for glory of God etc etc but I think money spent on people and their environment is more of a way to do it. And there is that saying about rich men and eyes of needles…
Of course it’s not simple - we in the UK have very old churches which are part of our history and cost money for their upkeep. But they are an historical inheritance.

I, for one, choose my charities carefully and don’t feel the need for a church to make decisions for me.
I don’t know how you think the ‘devil’ is robbing the church?

So, do you live in the cheapest most humble shelter reasonably possible then? I suppose you also drive the cheapest car that still functions too. I eagerly await your response, but I understand if it takes a while, the library’s computers can be a little slow.

 

[murkymick]

Thanks for the replies, it’s given me more to think about. It’s a very interesting history and it offers so much if you just dig a little. To look at a religion that started off very much Jewish in nature, spread with astonishing speed, changed to something more greco-roman and became the religion of Rome - Wow.

It seems so much of our religion is tied up in such a tumultuous time that I’m having difficulties in identifying what Christ’s message was and is, and what is a reaction to the social or political climate of early Christendom. It’s quite easy to see the influences surrounding early Christianity - Most of which add substantially to the movement and helped it gain its incredible momentum. Could Christianity have spread if there was no diaspora? But other things? Was the Romanization of Christianity guided by God?

but I do object to the wealth tied up inside the churches - not getting to the poor the church is supposed to look out for. I know there’s an argument for glory of God etc etc but I think money spent on people and their environment is more of a way to do it. And there is that saying about rich men and eyes of needles…
Of course it’s not simple - we in the UK have very old churches which are part of our history and cost money for their upkeep. But they are an historical inheritance.

When I look towards the Vatican I see an issue that’s plagued many organisations and people. Having wealth tied up in items of such great importance that it is nearly impossible to sell them. Not only is the Vatican full of items of great importance to Catholicism, but much of what it is important to the Italians. Did we suggest Greece sell off many of its ancient wonders a few years back? I hope not.

I also remember seeing a documentary about the Vatican. That the money it brings in via tourism is just about enough for the upkeep of the Vatican. They’re in a situation where it’s not really profitable for the Vatican to exist as it does now, but they cannot let maintenance of it lapse because of its great importance. So, I see no concern of the rich of the church.

I guess I have another question. Is it possible to separate theological debate from the time period it came from? How closely linked is theological to the social and political issues from whence it came? Does a study of theology necessitate an understand of history? If so, could we attempt to use theology to better understand the thought processes of people throughout the ages?

 

[Abu]

Kelt #3
All religions have the same amount of ‘proof’ after all.

Totally false.
No other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that The Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion there own beliefs and morals.

Yes theological debate stems from divisions.

Not necessarily. Theology is literally the science of God. (Latin theologia; from Greek:* theo*, God + -logia, knowledge).

The Catholic Church tries and has always tried hard to keep its church together and avoid dissent with strict rules (and threats,) which is why ( to me) it often can be cruel.

That obviously ignores Christ, the Son of God, and fails completely to understand the teaching of Christ who mandated the Ten Commandments proclaimed by God the Father through Moses, which include loving your neighbour as yourself, and who clearly instituted His own Church led by St Peter and warned “If you love Me, keep My Commandments.” (Jn 14:15), authorizing in His Name re dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6).

The mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Any “cruelty” comes from human frailty not from His Church. In *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”

The reality: thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].

 

[Abu]

Kelt #8
a huge, rich institution with dogmas developing over the years which have been defended often with little regard to charity.

Totally without evidence.

As we have seen more recently, the protection and defence - the greater good - of the institution of the Catholic Church has come before the justice and correction of abuse. No, they’re not the only institution to do that, but they ought to be better than secular ones at putting things right.

Once again the failure of some is used as an excuse to vilify the Church. Of course what Pope St John Paul II started to correct has been substantially added to by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis.

murkymick #15
guess I have another question. Is it possible to separate theological debate from the time period it came from? How closely linked is theological to the social and political issues from whence it came? Does a study of theology necessitate an understand of history? If so, could we attempt to use theology to better understand the thought processes of people throughout the ages?

It might be better to focus on the definitive dogmas and doctrines of Christ’s Church and try to understand why and how they were challenged by those who misunderstood, or did not want to follow, Christ’s teaching as He proclaimed it through His Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

Was there a period where Christians were unified?

You mean was there ever a time when people weren’t people? The answer is no.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know how you think the ‘devil’ is robbing the church?

By tempting certain corrupt Churchmen (and laymen) to rob the Church coffers.

You haven’t heard about such things?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Was there a period where Christians were unified? Where dissent was unheard of or very much on the fringe of Christian society? Was this considered a golden age of Christianity? Or is the division amongst Christians throughout the ages, in part, the source of much of Christianity’s richness?

I don’t think division can be the source of Christianity’s richness. If it were, you would have heard Jesus saying the opposite of what he actually said:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” John 10:16.