Catholics, Protestants, Tudors, and society

[neadods]

I'm still listening to and enjoying the Tudor-Stuart class. (Pity the prof's only done the one!) Good Queen Bess has just snuffed it, and we're taking a few lectures out to see what all this means to the common person.

In passing he said something that has rocked my worldview; I'm still working on the implications, but it definately ties in to modern society as well as the turning of the 16th to the 17th century. Mainly, in the differences of how Catholics and Protestants view social obligations. The argument is that the shift from Catholicism to Protestantism affected the social safety net.

Not just affected. Practically destroyed.

The basic reasoning goes like this (although he didn't use these words): In a Catholic society, good works are part of of your salvation *and* your social duty. Therefore, it is your job to provide for a social safety net, for the good of yourself and those who are in need of it. But Protestantism focuses on a personal relationship with God and specifically discounts good works as a means to salvation. For some of the Protestant sects (Calvinism, Puritanism) good works are seen as bad because they're attempts to bribe God. So once the social safety net is no longer part of God's Green Stamp system (redeemable for your redemption) it evaporates or turns vicious - poverty becomes not part of God's ordained system, but an outward display of moral corruption and God's displeasure. The poor are not to be helped, as that encourages their laziness, but to be punished out of being leeches.

Proffessor Bucholz is using this to talk about the effects of the dissolution of the free hosptials, the writing of the Poor Laws, and the rise of the Workhouses. While not a complete parallel to modern life or all modern Protestants, I certainly see a direct line of succession from this viewpoint to attitudes on the modern hard conservative right, particularly evangelistic notions like the Prosperity Gospel and the drive to dissolve Social Security.

Still digesting this epiphany.

Comments

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

I have read/heard this same premise explicitly discussed in Andrew Greely's fiction and sociology writings. And it seems to me that a similar assumptoion was made way back in school when I first studied "the Puritans".

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I've heard rumblings of similar, but they never stuck the way they have now that I'm ears-deep in studying Tudor history *and* playing close attention to religion and politics in modern America. It's like following a river to its source for me.

And, oy, I can't believe how much I did NOT know about Tudor history, and how much I thought I knew was wrong. I think I might not get through everything in a year - the first book is as dense as a fruitcake - but at least by Faire this year I won't be embarassing myself. I hope. :>

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

While not a complete parallel to modern life or all modern Protestants, I certainly see a direct line of succession from this viewpoint to attitudes on the modern hard conservative right, particularly evangelistic notions like the Prosperity Gospel and the drive to dissolve Social Security.

Not to mention welfare reform, the slow starvation of public education, public broadcasting, public just-about-anything. - sigh -

But I'm forced to wonder whether these conservative religious values are the cart, or the horse. I suspect that credulous religious conservatives are being manipulated by plain old greed. The end result of much of this moralizing is a trend toward privitization. In other words, if I can't own it, it's bad.

Mature modern Christians, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, would agree that there is a balance to be struck between faith and works.

And please indulge me for a moment. The term "evangelistic" isn't really synonymous with the conservative right. Especially if I'm right about the holy rollers being jerked around by big business. There are some liberal Christians who are also quite passionate about "evangelically" sharing their faith. Especially in the Catholic camp, coming back to your original point. But some Protestants also.

In the Reagan years the term "fundamentalist" was used to describe the religious right, but that wasn't precisely correct, either. Progressive thinking Christians like me need to do what we can to restore the balance.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Not to mention welfare reform, the slow starvation of public education, public broadcasting, public just-about-anything

Yeah... even though all of those systems came about because all of the private systems failed miserably. That's a disconnect that I've never quite understood - the public safety net exists because we've already *tried* it the other way, and the people almost universally agreed that it sucked so much that something had to be done to change it.

I suspect that credulous religious conservatives are being manipulated by plain old greed.

Well, yes. Aside from the monetarily obvious - *cough*Prosperity Gospel*cough* - it can (and has been) argued that the society we're living in right now is the result of a calculated effort to satiate greed for political power by specific religious factions. I'm not sure I agree that it's big business jerking the religious around as much as a 50/50 pushme/pullyou - certainly that faction has absolutely no problem standing up and threatening big business or the government. Ask Ford, Microsoft, or the FCC.

As for what to call "that faction" - I know that neither evangelical or fundamentalist is the right term, but what is the right one? There is a defininate line drawn between, say, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, where I grew up, and Focus on the Family/Left Behind evangelicals. (I'm personally rather fond of talibangelical, but that's outright inflammatory.) Dominionist can be argued, since a lot of the politico/religious hard right is part of the premillenial dispensationalist movement, but I don't like to use it because so few people outside the paranoidly watching or the in-on-it seem to know what it means.

Mature modern Christians, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, would agree that there is a balance to be struck between faith and works.

I had a very odd conversation with my Lutheran mother when I finally came out as an atheist. Naturally, she insists that good works don't do much to impress God. However, she has always been strongly involved in charities and charitable work, and supports my doing the same. The attitude, as far as I can tell, is to do good works because they need to be *done* and not worry about *why* one does them.

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's better put like this: mature Christians have fully integrated their faith and their good works into an organic whole, and thus find no conflict between the two.

I don't know what to call religious conservatives, but they've made a deal with the devil, and the bill is coming due. Such as with Ralph Reed, who would dealy love to be Lieutenant Governor of my current home state. Alas, he's about to be slimed in Abrahmoff's wake. Poor baby!

A few years back, when Dobson stuck to his area of expertise (family psychology) he wasn't very controversial. He spoke to his people, and who could argue with that? But these folks always seem to decide that they have to run the world, and that's when they get in trouble.

They provided the Republicans with grunt labor for three decades, but they really don't have much to show for it. Look at this morning's Supreme Court decision on Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon wins, six to three. If Alito were there in place of O'Connor, it's still five to four against the "culture of life." So we just need to keep the other Justices alive until we elect a Democrat president.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I keep meaning to start a regular "deconstructing Dobson" feature. He might not have been controversial back before he made public pronouncements about possible SCOTUS justices, but he still had elements of freakiness. One thing that leaps to mind (aside from his writing quite calmly about beating a dog as part of 'loving' it) was his blanket condemnation of violence as entertainment. Which, fine, he's got a point. But in his rant he specifically singled out Truman Capote and "In Cold Blood" as despicable without ever mentioning that it was a true crime and similarly excoriating the actual murderer!

That bugs.

If the dominionists/whoever look to the courts to get blanket approval of their rewritten social contract, they're going to be continually disappointed. Look at the recent track record: SCOTUS allows Oregon to set state law. Conservative judge pulls plug on Terri Schiavo. Bush-appointed judge smacks down Intelligent Design in no uncertain terms. Roy and his Rock are tossed out of the state court. Some things will waver - I'm worried about my access to birth control, and wiretapping - but in the end, to all but the most fringe-y and nutty judges, the law remains The Law and their decisions are made on it and not popularity polls.

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

in the end, to all but the most fringe-y and nutty judges, the law remains The Law and their decisions are made on it and not popularity polls.

Yes. Thank God. ;-)

And listen to the whackos howl when it happens!

I have neighbors with Ten Commandments yard signs. Like, "Oh, I was going to murder someone, but now that I saw your sign, I guess I won't!" Sheesh!

Actually, I'd love to have one with the Ten Commandments in their original Hebrew. Let 'em chew on that for awhile!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Put up three versions - one Hebrew, one Protestant, one Catholic. (Yes, there's a difference!)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I don't know what to call religious conservatives, but they've made a deal with the devil, and the bill is coming due.

In the circles I frequent, "Christianists" and "Christofascists" are the most common terms. For clarity's sake, I sometimes use "hate-based Christians"; I've also heard "Paulists" and "Old Testament Christians". To some extent, choice of term should be dictated by your audience.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

This is where, as usual, I have to step in and point out that the Prosperity Gospel is most prevalent in the African American churches which are most vehemently not part of the Religious Right.

But I agree with the basic tenet that our society is very much a product of those religious tenets. Look at the view of socialism within countries we view as "Catholic".

Remember, too, that many forms of Protestantism include the concept of predermination -- where the person is selected or not based on an arbitrary deity. There's no sense of good works, drawing closer to God, or anything. You're either saved at birth, or you're not.

Of course, you can also look within our cities and see that many of the services that the government no longer offers (or offers on a much, much smaller scale) are being handled by the Protestant churches.

So, *shrug*.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Prosperity Gospel is also showing up in the megachurches, which are interesting beasts all on their own. Most of which seem to be white or mixed. I think the attraction isn't so much racial as economic - those who are poorer are naturally going to be more attracted to the notion of God as a winning lottery ticket.

And agreed about Protestant churches and their charities - this isn't a hard-and-fast definition about The One Protestant Thought or anything - but it's still a window into something that I hadn't really thought about before.

Which leads to:
There's no sense of good works, drawing closer to God, or anything. You're either saved at birth, or you're not.

That seems to be mixing in with dominionism (and I mean pre-millenial dominionists specifically) in wierd and toxic ways. Dominionism allows that people can save themselves with their faith - but it also preaches that nothing particularly matters because the world will end soon anyway. The matter-of-fact nihilism inherent either predestination or premillenialism freaks me out.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Prosperity Gospel is also showing up in the megachurches, which are interesting beasts all on their own. Most of which seem to be white or mixed.

*boggle*

I have yet to come across a white one in this area. Name some of them. I'm very interested in the mega-church thing and in this area, at least (and Houston, and Atlanta), the only ones I've heard of are black in their founding (even though they may now be a bit more mixed).

I know that my point of view is a bit skewed, so I'm really interested to hear of the mega-churches in this area that are white.

I can think of four mega-churches off the top of my head in this area (for the sake of argument I'll set "mega" at 5,000 members) ... but all are African American.

I'd love more insight.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Wow, did a bit more searching. Nationally, at least, the mega-church thing is predominantly white. But it is interesting that apparently a much, much larger population of the African American church-going public attend mega-churches than do caucasion church goers.

Like I said, skewed perspective. I'd still love to know about mega-churches in this area that are not African-American.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Nationally, at least, the mega-church thing is predominantly white.

Is it mostly a suburban phenomenon overall? I've had that impression, but since I've lived in the suburbs since they started really showing up on the social radar, I'm sure that skews my perspective. It seems logical, tho, just because you have to have a chunk o' land to build one...

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I've put a call out for backup of my cites. I'm still thinking that it's economic - the Megas might not have the close-knit community that, say, my parent's church has - but they do provide a wide range of social services that make them attractive.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna punt on this one tonight. I've gotten that impression not from the local mega-churches (I'm not familiar w/them at all) but from the reports coming out of the dominionist watches.

So I'm going to go back to my source and point blank ask 'em over on dark_christian (which is a domninionist watch, not a Christian-bashing group.)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Given the locations of most of the mega-churches in the Houston area, I'd be amazed if they weren't primarily white. OTOH, I've also seen billboards advertising black-oriented non-affiliated churches, some of which might qualify as mega-churches.

Side issue: does it frost you as much as it does me to see churches ADVERTISING ON FUCKING BILLBOARDS all over town? Those things don't come cheap, y'know; one wonders how many poor people could be fed with the money these places are spending on promotion.

I'm tempted to start a grassroots campaign: every couple of months, send one of these churches a single sheet of paper with the following message on it in the largest font that will fit:

STOP PAYING FOR BILLBOARDS. DO JESUS' BIDDING - FEED THE HUNGRY!

yeah, we are *soooo* screwed by the 1600s

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

seiously, the fact that so much of who we are is determined by factors from our 16th c ancestors' fuckups is something that has been eating away at me lyke a braineworm since I firrst read "The Name of War" about 10 yrs ago, and only gotton more certain of this the more i have read of the time. Did you knwo there were radical commie christian communes back then, fighting against the "Prosperity Gospele"? Of course they lost, but Chris Clarke had an article on them that I want to talk about sometime soon. And the tension of Freedom of Speech and the first Feminism came in with the English Civil Warre and Bunyan's time and all, to be a Nonconformist of any sort was as bad as in the Sixties!!!

(sorry about the typos and the cavalier nature of htis post, but i am *sooo* accidentally snockered on wild blueberrys from maine, fermented. No, really. I didn't know that blueberry wine had such a kick. It goes down smoother than honey, and all the sudden your face is numb and the letters aren't in the same placeson the keyboard any more! It opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for 16th c puritans getting illicitly blasted in new england...)

[karentoe.livejournal.com]

I had a long conversation with a Protestant friend of mine about good works vs faith and the whole pre-determination thing when I was in High School (good Ol' Aquinas High). I kept asking her if she thought a cold blooded murderer who believed in God would go to heaven just because he or she believed in God even if they did no atonement of any kind for the crime? She said yes. I said no. That was the last bit of the argument.

Years ago someone asked me to sign a petition to allow Christmas trees in the public schools and I said no. They called me anti-Christmas and I answered that Christmas Trees in Schools has nothing to do with celebrating Christmas. Celebrating Christmas is doing something to make someone else's life a little bit brighter (which is what we did in three Catholic schools I attended), not decorating a Christmas tree. She said what did doing something for someone else have to do with Christmas? I realized we had two different views on what it meant to be a Christian.