Protestantism and selfishness

[judge]

Did protestantism contrbute t making a virtue of selfishness?I have a lot of time for Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and was interested in his appraisal that protestantism made a "major contributon" to making a a virtue of selfishness.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PearceSolzhenitsyn.htm

If we read Solhenitsyns 1978 Harvard address we see that he suggests the root of contemporary crisies lies in a defective view of man and the world that was born in the rennaissance.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.


http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document060603.asp

Here (in the more recent interview) he seems to clearly suggest that there was something lacking in protestant theology which has prevented it from overcoming this dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

 

[kimber1]

i don't think it has a thing in the world to do with the "protestant theology". MAN makes the choice to worship material things adn i think this could be said for ALL denominations. so pointing out protestantism as the reason behind why this problem exists is not fair in any way.

 

[ZiSunka]

I don't know. The protestants I know are a lot more generous than people of other religions, or of no religion of all...

Also, the so-called protestants are more likely to tithe and give to the poor regularly. Practically all the innercity missions to the poor are run by protestants, as are the free clinics. Habitat for Humanity is a protestant organization, as is Samataritan's Purse, Feed the Children, Compassion International, Kid Brothers, etc and so on.

The Rennaissance was a lot more than just a religious revolution, it was a personal and political revolution, too. People became free of the religious system that kept them in slavery to an oppressive church and an oppressive form of government called the Feudal system. When people were released from spending every waking moment making the church and their "lords" rich, they realized that they could work to give themselves creature comforts like food, clothing, fuel for the furnace, education and so on. Things we take for granted in the US today. We see them as birthrights, but back then, few of the common people had even these basic needs.

Selfishness arose out of discarding God and his command to love others. That certainly is NOT a protestant teaching. The acquistion of material things is not a protestant teaching, either.

This discussion ought to be moved to the Interdemonination debate area, since it seems inflamatory and intended to stir up anger and hurt feelings.

 

[eldermike]

Jesus said if a man lust in his heart He has committed adultery. Did He say this so we would never lust in our hearts?. If you think so, do so. And when you fail look at what he really meant. He was trying to get us to understand that the law, no law, new ones/old ones, or any system whatsoever was going to save you. The New Covenant is one of Grace. He was making that point.


Any system that prevents materialism is 10 times worse than materialism. Now: materialism is not good, but worse is a system of laws that prevents materialism, because it ignores the Grace of God (misunderstands the New Covenant) and does not one thing to quench the desires of our hearts (which is like filthy rags).

So, I would say that thinking that man has done something/anything, that essentially changed his nature is missing the biblical understanding of mans nature. Also, thinking that controlling mans actions changes the desires of our hearts is again missing the true nature of man. And finally; the basic idea is missing the most esential part of the heart connection to God, through Grace.

 

[Lotar]

Solzhenitsyn: Of course, one cannot declare that only my faith is correct and all other faiths are not. Of course God is endlessly multi-dimensional so every religion that exists on earth represents some face, some side of God. One must not have any negative attitude to any religion but nonetheless the depth of understanding God and the depth of applying God's commandments is different in different religions.

Do the orthodox really believe this?

 

[Metanoia02]

I think the original post was poorly worded. Selfishness has been part of our human nature since the fall. It was not something that was somehow creatred as a vice (not virtue).

But what Solzhenitsyn said is in part true. Up until the time of Luther, atheism didn't exist as we know it today. Once man was able to self administer the Gospel outside the boundries of the Church, the genie was out of the bottle. The elevation of man above the Church has progressed up until this very day. Not only do we no longer need the Church, we don't even need God. Is it the fault of "Protestantism"? No. Did it change the course of human thought? Yes.

 

[ZiSunka]

Up until the time of Luther, atheism didn't exist as we know it today.

That's pure fiction. Have you read any of the writings of the secular authors of the time? A lot of them were agnostic or atheist.

 

[Metanoia02]

That's pure fiction. Have you read any of the writings of the secular authors of the time? A lot of them were agnostic or atheist.

Point me to them please.

 

[nyj]

That's pure fiction. Have you read any of the writings of the secular authors of the time? A lot of them were agnostic or atheist.

An atheist website states that Charles Bradlaugh was the first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization. He lived during the mid-19th century. Voltaire was born at the end of the 17th century.

 

[Lotar]

The idea that Protestantism spawned atheism is rediculous. Try showing some proof, other than dates. Also, first militant atheist doesn't mean first atheist.

Advent of modern day atheism is the result of advances in science, and it's elevation to a form of religon.

 

[eldermike]

I understand the RCC prespective on atheists. Even the atheist relate to the time of the reformation, although more as a freedom issue than the begining of any movement. I think we have a problem though. The bible is full of atheist folks: Seems that God has always known some that held a belief in "no gods".

JUDE 1:5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who didnotbelieve.

 

[ZiSunka]

An atheist website states that Charles Bradlaugh was the first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization. He lived during the mid-19th century. Voltaire was born at the end of the 17th century.

"Militant atheist" being the key words. Atheism and "militant atheism" are two different things aren't they. Most atheists never protest, act up or do anything to call attention to their lack of faith in God. There are authors from pre-ref days that hint, if not directly state, their disbelief in God, but remember that making such a confession publically was punishable by death in Europe in the middle ages, so most weren't blatant about it. These were among the "heretics" that were tortured and executed during this dark period, so it was only the brave who committed themselves publically to atheism.

Stephen J. Harris, of Loyola University-Chicago is the one who came up with the theory that there were no atheists until the reformation and that protestantism was the cause of atheism, but strangely, his website is now down, so I can't link you to his statements. A professor at Loyola, a catholic university, might not be the most unbiased source for such statements. The truth is that the reformation allowed EVIDENCE and EXPRESSION of an atheism that already existed.

In fact, Henry Charles Lea, and atheist author, states his opinion that "Had not the Reformation come, the culture of Europe would inevitably have been atheistic, or devoted to sublimated deism, scarce distinguishable from atheism." (p 577 of A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages). Lea laments that the reformation ruined atheism by giving people an alternative to the abuses and excesses of the catholic church of the time. Lea states that if the catholic church would have been allowed to run its course, it would have caused massive political and proletarian rebellion that would have ousted the church from its seat of power anyway, and that in order to assert a new order, atheism would have become the order of the day, as people wholesale abandoned the old, corrupt way of doing things.

So really, it can be equally argued that the reformation SAVED Christianity and prevented a hostile take over by atheism.

 

[nyj]

So really, it can be equally argued that the reformation SAVED Christianity and prevented a hostile take over by atheism.

Quite possibly, but since this is the Protestant forum, I won't be arguing, as it's not allowed here.

 

[Metanoia02]

lambslove,

So a Catholic is a biased source, but in your next paragraph you have no problem accepting the conclusions of an atheist. What's the deal?

 

[ZiSunka]

lambslove,

So a Catholic is a biased source, but in your next paragraph you have no problem accepting the conclusions of an atheist. What's the deal?

First, I did not say that the atheists words held anymore weight than the catholics. I was placing equal weight on them. But it stands to reason that a catholic who is stating that protestants are to blame for the rise of atheism might have non-catholic bashing in mind. And if you could have seen his website before it was taken down, you would have seen that it is exactly what was intended. His website had a lot of anti-non-catholic messages on it that I wish you could have seen. And, non-catholic bashing certainly happens around here enough to make that plausible. The atheist, however, wasn't bashing catholics or protestants, he was stating that protestantism gave people a choice, and that people chose. More historical opinion than catholic-bashing.

But again, if one man's hypothesis can be stated as if it were fact, as in the case of Harris, then it seems fair that we offer the same benefit to the other, Lea.

I mean, this whole thread seems like it was started as a non-catholic bashing, and I wanted people to see that there is at least one alternative hypothesis.

 

[judge]

Thanks for all the replies, and yes perhaps my post was poorly worded, so apologies for this.
I don't know if I understand exactly what Solzhenitsyn is trying to get at so appreciate any input.

I do know that a recurring theme in Solzhenitsyns writings is that our purpose here on earth is to grow spiritually, that is to become better people, to grow morally.
Now, the criticism he makes of protestantism is that all comes down to faith (and I don't know whether this is entirely true) but certainly the emphasis is more pronounced.

If righteousness is something aquired by faith rather than something we struggle to conform ourselves to then could this lead to a lessening of the concept our lives being measured in terms of spiritual growth?

If this is the case then does this then leave a danger of measuring ourselves in other ways?

Interested in your thoughts?

 

[Rising_Suns]

If righteousness is something aquired by faith rather than something we struggle to conform ourselves to then could this lead to a lessening of the concept our lives being measured in terms of spiritual growth?

yes (although I would change "faith", to; "faith alone")

If this is the case then does this then leave a danger of measuring ourselves in other ways?

yes.

(i'm Catholic so I can't say anything more than that here. )

 

[Ken]

Atheist Dr. Gordon Stein says that atheism can be found in the ancient Greeks, and perhaps, even before that....
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c25.htm

another atheist says much the same
http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html

 

[Ken]

judge, you ask "If righteousness is something acquired by faith rather than something we struggle to conform ourselves to then could this lead to a lessening of the concept our lives being measured in terms of spiritual growth?"

Judge, it could also be asked, if righteousness is acquired by works along with grace, couldn't this lead to a Pharasaical attitude, an attitude that demeans the work Christ did on the Cross as not being sufficient for their sins, therefore one must attempt to add one's own works in order to justify themselves before God. Or one might ask, would such an approach to justification take less seriously their sins because they think that they can sin with impunity, then say a few formulaic prayers, and be pronounced "forgiven" by someone else, couldn't this lead to a cavalier attitude towards prayer? Sin away on Saturday night, then go to confession on Sunday morning, and "get forgiven"....? Does this mean that necessarily a person with a synergistic approach to soteriology will become Pharisaical or cavalier towards sin? No, of course there have been individuals have lived very pious loves under this system. But those who believe that justification is by grace through faith alone lived pious lives as well. There are, of course, those who live lives that are dishonoring to God under this monergistic system of soteriology, but I do not see that it follows necessarily from the belief system itself, any more than it would for the other system.
blessings

 

[Blackhawk]

Atheist Dr. Gordon Stein says that atheism can be found in the ancient Greeks, and perhaps, even before that....
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c25.htm

another atheist says much the same
http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html

Oh yeah there were many atheists in greece. When they had gotten to the stage of seeing their gods as not beig real many of them became basicaly atheists. I would say also that many in the RCC at the time of the reformation were atheists. They had religion but not Christ. Notice I am not saying all but It is an historical fact that some used church positions just as a way to gain political power and financial gain. I also believe that there were some protestants after the reformation living in Geneva or Germany that were really atheists also. I think anytime you have church and state fused together you find that kind of thing occurring. The system tells the atheist that if they want power they have to be a christian so they become one in name only. Or it just a customary thing but not a real relationship. Basically after Constatine through the middle ages and through the reformation and even today there are some who do not really believe who use the church as a means to gain power. that is hwy I a staunch supporter of the seperation of church and state. I think it helps to make those kind of people not choose to be a part of the church.