We've touched in class upon the idea that there is a general trend from order to disorder. We've used this idea to discuss religion and its tendency toward less structure and rigidness. This past weekend I saw a movie called Luther which was about Martin Luther and the actions taken to break away from the rigidness of the Roman Catholic church. I'd like to use this as an example to ask this question: is the general trend regarding religion (more specifically Christianity) "order to disorder", or merely realignment over time?
Martin Luther's original complaint against the Roman Catholic church was not its beliefs as a whole, but its specific practice of collecting indulgences, which Luther believed were not Biblically based. Eventually Luther went to trial for having written the grievances of the Roman Catholic church in his 95 Theses. While on trial for questioning the authority of the Pope, Luther said that he would recant any of his writings if he were given proof from the Bible that he used incorrect reasoning. There were many occurrences following this trial, but one result was the very beginning of Protestant beliefs. Moving ahead a few hundred years and looking back, does it appear that this was an example of order to disorder, or did Luther merely incite a realignment of beliefs. Can the trend be interpreted, then, as "temporary order, to disorder, to realignment, to temporary order, to disorder, to realignment...", etc.?
As the Roman Catholic Church got more exclusive (at one point in the movie Luther asks "what about Greek Christians", and the response is, basically, that they do not exist-- there is only the Roman Catholic church), even Luther, from within the church, began to question. The exclusivity was another factor that led to the break from the Roman Catholic church. This is similar to Puritanism, in which exclusivity led people like Anne Hutchinson to break from the Puritan faith.
I'd just like to note, in addition, how, over time, so many denominations have formed. There used to be one Roman Catholic church. Then there was Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and now there are more denominations that I can't even count. This seems to follow the constant realignment-of-beliefs trend. Like Puritanism, the circles get smaller and smaller, but it seems that the difference is that more circles are created, as opposed to one overriding circle that seems to simply disappear.
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hmm...
I'd say that even when religions die out (ie Puritanism), they still pass on some of their doctrines to new religions that have broken off. Circles form, they shrink, they break, and then new circles form from the fragments of the previous ones. There might be temporary periods of disorder, but eventually it stabilizes and realignment occurs. After all, when any major, significant change occurs, "order" breaks down. However, after a period of confusion, it tends to reestablish itself. It typically is not the same as it was before, as it has now integrated the new and the old.
I'm inclined to disagree with Eric's point of eventual realignment and everything being happy-go-lucky afterwards. If you imagine Christianity as the initial bubble at the top of a web and all the different denominations branching off from it, you could see a certain disorder via over-complexity developing.
Each time you realign a religion, you make the circle smaller. As you keep adding up the changes, the cumulative effect is a fundamental shift in religious ideals. The circle then turns into a triangle, decagon, whatever.
Adapting might save the big circle from disappearing, but it is only a temporary stopgap and not a permanent cure.
Grace Yuan
Wow, this is great. I was thinking along these same lines in my last comment for the previous post, before I even read this one! I love when that happens.
I'm going to have to go with the "realignment" card on this one. Very few religions, besides Puritanism, have fully disappeared. If this were so, the religions still in existence today would be radically different than those that were once practiced. We still follow Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/etc.. doctrines today because none of these faiths have hit total disorder, or failure. Puritanism may be long gone, but Christianity is still around. I feel as though it's a give or take situation. We alter, we tweak, until we find what works for us. What about the people that believe in a supreme being, but do not acknowledge anything else that may be considered "Holy"? They have customized their beliefs to a personal fit.
The thing is, we need something to believe in. We need something to explain that which cannot be explained, so religion will never disappear but merely realign itself continuously to mold to society. Even atheism is a set of beliefs, a philosophy. We need something to believe in. Can anything that falls under this category be labeled as religion?
(Sam Maliha)
I just want to clarify a little bit. By "realignment" I do not mean, necessarily, finding "what works for us", although that is sometimes the case. I am referring to reinterpretation of the already existing religion, not "customizing beliefs to personal fit", as Sam put it. Not changing the religion, changing the interpretation. I hope that clarification makes sense.
Emily T.
Post a Comment