Group items tagged

At the core of Stark's investigation is his argument that specific ideas innate to Judaism (especially that found in Diaspora Jewish communities) and Christianity played a pivotal role in enabling the West to make and sustain political, legal and economic breakthroughs that eluded other civilizations.  First and foremost, Jews and Christians viewed God as a rational Creator.  In that sense, God was not at all like the Greco-Roman deities — capricious, self-indulgent beings for the most part.  Moreover, the Christians, from the very beginning, not only understood the need to reason out the implications of Christ's teachings; they also viewed reason as the great gift which God gave man to know the truth about the Creator but also the world He created in order that humans might help unfold God's design. The second religious ingredient of the West's success, Stark maintains, was Christianity's unwillingness to attribute life's ups-and-downs to fate.  Unlike the pagan (and many contemporary) religions, the Jewish and Christian "conception of God is incompatible with fate" (p. 120).  It is true, Stark writes, that particular pagans such as Cicero had a somewhat similar view of free will.  The difference is that belief in free will was more than simply a philosophical tenet for Jews and Christians.  It was also a matter of specific religious conviction, which meant, furthermore, that people could — and would — be held accountable for their free choices before the same rational God who had given them free will.

It is in the medieval period, Stark maintains, that perhaps the most significant flowering of this commitment to reason and free will took place — and not just in the universities that were first built by the Christians.  The key, as Stark puts it so precisely, was the Christian commitment to "the pursuit of knowledge.  Not to illumination.  Not to enlightenment.  Not to wisdom.  But to knowledge.  And the basis for this commitment to knowledge was the Christian commitment to theology" (p. 159).  From this flowed, among other things, the enterprise of natural philosophy.  That in turn underlay the development of the scientific method that first acquired real momentum in medieval Europe, as well as, Stark emphasizes, the emergence of key economic insights and institutions that promoted and relied upon freedom.

With regard to the latter, Stark illustrates that the central foundations for modern capitalism — "the rise of banking, elaborate manufacturing networks, rapid innovations in technology and finance, and a busy network of trading cities" (p. 181) — were very much products of medieval Christianity, especially in Northern Italy, Flanders, and, by the early-thirteenth century, England.  In this light, Stark argues, we begin to see that industrial capitalism didn't appear out of nowhere in the late-eighteenth century.  In Stark's words, the Industrial Revolution "was not a revolution at all but part of an evolution of invention and innovation that had begun … perhaps as early as the eleventh century" (p. 184).

If we begin with the books of the New Testament the Church looms very large in their pages. Moreover, it is clear that there is only one Church: Christ promises to build his Church on the rock of St. Peter (Matt. 16:18), and St. Paul calls Christ head of the Church (Eph. 1:22 and 5:23, Col. 1:18) and compares the love of a husband for his wife to that of Christ for his Church (Eph. 5:29-32). There is no question of there being any other but this one Church, which is also identified as the Body of Jesus Christ.1 Yet St. Paul also speaks often of "churches," for example, at the conclusion of his epistle to the Romans, Paul writes, "All the churches of Christ greet [the church at Rome]" (Rom.16:17),2 and often he begins his epistles by greeting "the church of God at Corinth" (I Cor. 1:2) or "the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2).3 But what is the relationship between the one Church, which is the body of Christ, and these local churches? Is the one Church a kind of federation of local churches? And is it possible for a local church to exist apart from the one Church?4

The word "Church" . . . means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God. . . . By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. (CCC 751)

In view of God's plan to restore mankind after the fall of Adam (Gen. 3:15), God at certain times has called together and constituted certain men as his people, such as the inhabitants of the Ark and the entire people who would be the descendants of Abraham, the people of Israel.5 But with the Incarnation, a new era was inaugurated. Now membership in the New Israel, the Church, was opened to all of mankind. Israel remains the People of God, but now Israel includes not only those bound together by ties of blood, but also the New Israel, the spiritual kingdom of the Church, the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Paul makes it clear in his epistle to the Romans, especially chapter 11, that the Gentiles were grafted onto the pre-existing "olive tree" (verse 17) of Israel, which is now constituted on an entirely different basis and whose sign of entry is no longer physical descent or circumcision, but baptism, the rebirth by water and the Holy Spirit. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, with which our Lord promised to be always (Matt. 28:19-20).

One could point to at least three influences of Australian culture on the ecumenical movement. Firstly, Australians are very often fairly pragmatic and easy-going. They do not appreciate public conflict or lack of harmony over matters they consider fairly private or "no-one else’s business". Very often they include among these matters a person’s spirituality or religious beliefs. This means that they have an automatic sympathy for the ecumenical movement because it serves to facilitate the points of intersection between members of different churches on civic occasions or on occasions of communal social response. Governments at all levels have rejoiced in the churches becoming ecumenically engaged because it has made it possible to have ecumenical services on civic occasions. Communities have been glad that at times of communal celebration or grief the churches have been able to serve them together. For many, theological, doctrinal, liturgical, and spiritual differences pale into insignificance in comparison with the massive gain for society of churches working together and being able to collaborate. There is almost a pressure on churches to be ecumenical in Australian society for the sake of social harmony.