The "fall" of the Roman Empire not only marked the end of a powerful geo-political entity of stability for most of Europe, but it also ushered in the demise of an economy that had dominated the continent for centuries. With the dawn of the "Dark Ages," Europeans of all stripes were forced to start from scratch and to establish new rules to govern the newly emerging political, social and economic practices that were emerging in the post-Roman world.
Among the many issues dealt with at this time was the practice of usury (interest practices on monetary loans). During the height of the Roman Empire, usury had been, by and large, an approved practice, though it was almost exclusively a privatized enterprise. Wealthy citizens could, if they so chose, grant loans with fixed interest rates (though the empire did, at times, place certain restrictions on those rates), thereby allowing a quasi-privatized banking system to arise. With the rise of the Catholic church in the early 4th century, however, the practice of usury was met with stern disapproval by early Christian leaders. For these early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible itself, made the practice of usury not only undesirable but downright sinful. From the Book of Deuteronomy:
19.) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20.) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thous settest thine hand to in the land...
This clear commandment against the practice of usury (with the exception given in bold for a "stranger," a loophole that Medieval Jews found quite useful) served as more than sufficient ammunition to criminalize the practice for the majority of the Middle Ages. The elimination of Usury was unanimously accepted during the 325 Council of Nicea. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, usury was, under the law, considered to be a general criminal offence. In 1179, at the Third Council of the Latean, anyone found benefiting from the practice of usury was prohibited from taking the sacraments and could eventually be excommunicated entirely. Later, Pope Sixtus V would call the practice of usury, "most detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."
So, if the practice of usury was so deplorable to Medieval Christians, how did it eventually become standard operating procedure? And how are Christians today (along with capitalism in general) able to so gleefully support its continued existence?
The answer rests primarily with the rise of trade and (eventually) Mercantilism in Europe. As European society continued to progress through the Middle Ages, the growth of trade and finance forced change upon a society that was, for centuries, operating on a set of rules that issued divine punishment for certain practices (such as usury). But these divine punishments eventually had to give way to the sweeping tides of change.
Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialization, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow. Nobles and other elites of European society quickly discovered that the practice of usury was virtually a gold mine waiting to be tapped. As trade and commercialization began to spread its roots further out into the Middle East and the Orient, European powers saw greater opportunities to increase their wealth. Even holy religious orders like the famous Knights Templar got into the act by taking advantage of their complex network of members that were branched out all across the European countryside.
But not everyone was in favor of this new justification on an old sin. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with their followers, expressed severe disappointment with what was taking place, going so far as to claim that those who practice usury were carrying the "mark of the beast" mentioned of in the Book of Revelations. In many ways, this conflict between the pro and anti-usury crowds helped to spark much of the Antisemitism that began to permeate Europe at the latter portion of the Middle Ages.
In the end, the economic and social revolutions taking place throughout Europe, coupled with the eventual discovery of the "New World" made the conversion to an acceptance of usury a virtual guarantee. The new demands for goods from all across the globe created an environment that was simply too rich for the practice of usury not to flourish. This, of course, eventually contributed to the rise of market capitalism, which is essentially married to the practice of usury. As a result, the long-held prohibition on usury had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.
Part II: Reckoning the Genesis Creation with Scientific Creation
***Note: Be sure to start with Part I of this series, which can be found here.***
In this installment I want to attempt to look at how the biblical account of creation (found in the Book of Genesis) compares with scientific reality, and how both can be useful source material. To do so we must first attempt to understand why so many Christians adhere to such a strict and literal interpretation of the Holy Bible.
Sola Scriptura During the Protestant Reformation, religious leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox and many others revolted against the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church, which had maintained a virtual monopoly over Christianity for centuries. Due to a number of factors (church corruption, disagreements over doctrine, church hierarchy, etc.) these "reformers" essentially sought to improve the conditions and direction of Christianity in their day. As a result, the Protestant Reformation brought to life different interpretations for what it meant to be a Christian.
One of the key arguments that arose from the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura(By Scripture Alone). As mentioned above, one of the key problems that reformers had with the Catholic Church was the emphasis it placed on the supremacy of the Pope and other hierarchical leaders. The emerging Protestants had little tolerance for such practices and sought to place ultimate ecclesiastical authority in a source other than a Pope. In consequence, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura became extremely appealing.
At its core, Sola Scriptura suggests that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, and the only source for Christian doctrine. As a result, the authority of all ecclesiastical leaders became subordinate and inferior to the ultimate authority of the Bible. In short the Protestant Reformation taught the defenders of Sola Scriptura that no single person (i.e. the Pope) could ever claim superior status or authority over the Holy Bible.
It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Sola Scriptura caught on very fast with the emerging Protestant congregations. As the Bible became more prevalent in the lives of ordinary believers (thanks to the printing press), more and more people were able to study for themselves the doctrines found in scripture. This essentially placed the burden of salvation back into the hands of the individual, since ultimately Protestants rejected the need to follow a Pope. By studying and then applying the teachings of the Holy Bible, one would be able to find all the needed guidance in order to gain salvation.
And as one would expect, any attack on the sovereignty and infallibility of the Bible was met with severe scorn. In Puritan America, for example, Roger Williams' ideas were met with such scorn that he was eventually forced to flee. Williams suggested that the anti-Christ was the Catholic Church (a common belief at the time) and that its distortions of true Christianity were so severe that a restoration of the holy apostleship was needed in order to know God's true will:
If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe
. (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).In other words, Williams was stating that Christianity needed further guidance and understanding in addition to what the Bible taught. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with those who embraced Sola Scriptura.
Fast forward to today. Scientific discovery has completely changed many of our traditional views of the universe, and in the process, has contradicted (heck, completely refuted) many of the teachings found in the Bible. As a result, those who defend Sola Scriptura are constantly attempting to explain (in a futile effort mind you) why the Bible is still the superior source of knowledge. Take for example this ridiculous debate over dinosaurs. If we take the Bible as literal truth, we must accept that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old (see 2 Peter 3:8). Faced with this Biblical teaching, defenders of Sola Scriptura must then attempt to explain why science insists that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Here is an example of their futile attempt to reconcile this dilemma:
Needless to say, this willful rejection of scientific fact combined with blind allegiance to ancient scripture, has become the main catalyst for today's religion/science debates. Men like pseudo-scientist Ken Ham (shown in the video above) have gone to such ridiculous and futile lengths to prove the Bible's validity that it comes as no surprise to see that 4 in 10 Americans believe in the literal Bible account of creation.
So how are we to reckon the realities of scientific discovery with the biblical accounts of creation? Perhaps we will never fully be able to. With that said, there are ways that we can see the truth of both arguments.
The "Seven Days" of Creation
The Book of Genesis opens with a very general overview of God's creation of humanity, the Earth and the universe in general. Needless to say, this vague creation story has become the topic of ridicule in the scientific community. After all, science has proven that the earth is much older than a few thousand years and life took millions of years not days (or 1000 years for each day) to develop.
But is the Genesis story of creation completely worthless? Should we discard it right out of the gate for its apparent flaws? If you accept Sola Scriptura my answer would be, yes. Of course the creation story in Genesis isn't literal truth as so many suggest. But if you believe that the Bible is ancient man's attempt to explain his origins, then some incredible truths can be found. If we take each day and juxtapose it to what science teaches, we can see that there are some striking similarities.
Genesis 1:2-5:2.) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3.) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4.) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5.) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
According to astrophysicists, the universe began when a singularity of light, heat and matter suddenly exploded roughly 14 billion years ago, sending an immense amount of heat, matter and gases into the expanses that became space. As the matter and gasses cooled, it eventually coalesced into giant galaxies, stars, nebulas, planets and other celestial bodies.
Genesis 1:9-10: 9.)And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10.) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Geologists have shown how during the Archean Eon the Earth experienced incredible tectonic activity. As the Earth's core continued to form, the planet experienced a huge jump in temperature. Volcanic activity spewed molten rock across the surface of the planet. During this era, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which protected it from the immense solar winds of the time (winds that were 100 times greater than what we see today). This protected the infant planet's atmosphere from being stripped away, unlike the atmosphere of Mars which was completely annihilated during this era. During the later parts of the Archean Eon and the beginning of the Proterozoic Eon, water began to form on the newly cooled planet's surface.
Genesis 1:11-1211.) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12.) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
At this point, life is introduced to the world. Some have suggested that these verses are in complete opposition to evolution since they employ the phrase "after his kind." Geologist and theologian Greg Neyman suggests otherwise. He writes:
Notice that God did not say, "Let there be grass," and there was grass. God told the land to produce the vegetation! It was the land doing the producing, not God. God told the earth to bring forth grass, and in verse 12, "the earth brought forth grass..." In essence, God let the land "do its thing" on its own. Instead of flat, out of nothing creation, the text for Genesis actually supports evolution better!
And when speaking of verses 20-21 (which also have to do with the creation of life) Neyman writes:
In this passage where God creates ocean life, He tells the ocean to bring forth the creatures. He does not say, "Let there be whales;" or "let there be sharks." Verse 21 shows the result, that "God created great whales." Verse 20 gives the process God used to create..."Let the waters bring forth..." Again, this seems to support evolution better than flat, out of nothing creation.
This is an important and often ignored distinction. The Bible does not say that God simply snapped his fingers and created all forms of life. Instead, it says that "the water brought forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). And as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, life on earth began in the sea. As evolutionary biologist Steven Faux (who happens to be a distant relative of mine) states:
Animal life developed in the sea before reaching dry land. The first fishes were evident about 500 million years ago. Land tetrapods (four-footed land animals) evolved from sarcopt fishes (lobe-finned) about 400 million years ago.
By 300 million years ago the first reptiles were found.
The first mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) were evident by 200 million years ago. True mammals probably arose about 100 million years ago (see also: Bininda-Emonds).
The first birds (like Archaeopteryx) were evident about 150 million years ago, and they derived from dinosaurs.
So does the Bible support evolution? That probably depends on how you interpret the "Good Book." As I have stated before, any literal interpretation of scripture makes it extremely difficult to accept and embrace the realities of scientific discovery. It's just one of those unfortunate side effects of Sola Scriptura. With that said, I do not see any problem with embracing evolution and the general Genesis story. One can imagine those early biblical prophets, who lacked the current understandings of science, trying to explain the origins of the universe within the context of their time and understanding. From their perspective, breaking the creation into a week-long event seems to make sense, and all things considered, they didn't do as bad of a job as some seem to think.
A recent article by German historian Eva Schlotheuber reveals that Medieval nuns were not as humble or anti-worldly as we may think. Recent research on medieval nuns shows that many of them were dressing in the latest fashions instead of simple religious habits. And while their were efforts by the church to make nuns dress more humbly, by the 14th and 15th centuries these rules were becoming less and less adhered to. As Dr. Schlotheuber states:
in the rhythm of daily life and feast days the nuns developed a great deal of creativity, and lived in a much more lively fashion than the morally and didactically coloured theological texts of the period want us to think.
And though efforts were made to restrict clothing for nuns, particularly at the Council of Vienne (1311-12), which forbade the waring of silks, furs, sandals, and lavish hairstyles, many Medieval nuns were slow to fall in line. As Dr. Schlotheuber points out:
The fact that these rules were being repeated again and again makes it clear that many nuns were not following them. This can be seen in the visitation reports of clerics to nunneries. In 1249, Eudes Rigaud wrote that the nuns at Villarceaux were wearing pelisses of rabbit, hare, and fox fur; they wore their hair long and curled, scented their veils with saffron, and adorned their belts with silver- and steeled-work clasps. The nuns were also not following other monastic rules either – Rigaud noted that everybody in the convent seemed to have a lover, and several had children.
Besides wearing fashionable clothes, rings were also widely worn – this symbolized their marriage to Christ. Sometimes these would be adorned with precious stones. During special occasions, such as some feast days, the nuns would dress up. An elderly nun at the German town of Ebstorf wrote how her sisters celebrated the Feast of St. Inocentius (September 22) by wearing felt caps, clothing with fur and knives hanging from the side. She added “others dressed in the courtly style and had primped their hair with a curling iron. A few wore monk’s habits. But we [the older girls] were not allowed to put on costumes. But we were jolly anyway.”
So how did Medieval nuns justify their worldly apparel? Some believed that it was their duty to appear separate (and dare I say superior) to the common people of their community. Being considered the brides of Jesus Christ himself, one could easily see why such fancy clothing and jewelry were considered desirable. After all, if the wife of a king/prince should be adorned in the finest of clothing, then shouldn't the brides of the King of Kings have just as much? And let us not forget that many women who filled the ranks of Medieval nunnery came from the higher social strata. Wearing fancy apparel would only be a natural thing.
But for those who saw the church and its clergy/nunnery as the guardians of faith, one can only imagine how they reacted to the sight of women who were supposed to dispose of all worldliness being covered in silks and jewels. Hard to imagine how they reckoned this with Christ's admonition to go into the world "without purse or scrip."
No wonder why Martin Luther and others would eventually condemn the church for its apparent worldliness.
In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of history is to see how ancient customs and traditions from hundreds or even thousands of years ago still manage to weave themselves into our 21st century world. Such is the case with many of our current holidays. Whether it be Saturnalia (Christmas), Imbolc (Groundhog Day) or St. Patrick's Day, it is astonishing to see just how many of these ancient pagan traditions are still with us today, even if their meanings have been lost to time.
Such is the case with Halloween. This holiday, which has become a favorite for children in many parts of the world, has its roots in an era from long ago.
In the highlands of modern day Ireland and many other parts of the British Isles, the Celtic festival of Samhain was celebrated by scores of small towns and villages throughout the land. Samhain (one of the most important Celtic holidays), which was essentially an end of the harvest festival, marked the beginning of winter's reign (called the "dark half" of the year). During this day (the night of October 31 extending into the morning of November 1), Celts believed that the barrier between the living world and the "otherworld" was so thin that the souls of the deceased were able to easily pass between the two.
And while it may seem strange to us in the modern world to hear of mystical barriers between one world and the next being thinned on a singular fall evening, we need to keep in mind that the ancient world of Celts was deeply dependent on the elements. As agricultural societies of the ancient world, Celtic people understood all too well what the winter months meant. Is it any wonder that these people, who saw dying trees, plants, animals and even people with the advent of winter, would see October 31 as a day when the barrier between the living and the dead faded?
During the celebration of Samhain, Celts would invoke the help of their local priests (druids) to pray to the gods for safety from death. These prayers reached a crescendo on Samhain, when the souls of the dead (particularly those who had died in the previous year) could come to the aid of their loved ones.
But not all the souls who crossed into the land of the living were kind. As a result, Celts went to extremes to protect themselves from these unwanted visitors. Bonfires on the outskirts of town were dedicated to the gods as a way to beg for the return of the sun and as a way to keep the evil spirits away. Average people would also dress up in various costumes to ward off the unwanted spirits from their village. In addition, blood sacrifices of animals were regularly made by druid priests, who believed that on Samhain they could better predict the future of the coming year than on any other day.
Samhain wasn't the only festival in the ancient world. In Rome, the celebration of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and gardens, was held on November 1. On this day, divination games (essentially fortune telling games) were a regular part of the Pomona celebration. One of the many games, particularly for men and women who had reached the age of maturity, was to bob for apples, peel the skin, toss the skin over one's shoulder and then analyze it to see which letter of the alphabet it resembled. It was believed that the letter was the first letter of the man/woman that the participant would marry. As the Roman empire continued to expand into northern Europe the ideas of Pomona (the celebration of the harvest) and Samhain (the celebration of the dead) began to fuse with each other. Soon the Roman and Celtic festivals became a united and mainstream celebration that spanned over an entire continent.
But Pomona/Samhain would not overcome every obstacle. With the emergence of Christianity as the preeminent force of the Medieval World, the celebration of Pomona/Samhain would change forever. With its hostility towards all things pagan, the Catholic Church quickly sought for the removal of festivals like Samhain (and Saturnalia). However, church authorities quickly realized that these beliefs and traditions couldn't simply be squashed out. As a result, the church adopted a different tactic. Under the direction of Pope Gregory I, church authorities no longer sought to remove pagan ideas but to Christianize them. Pagan idols were given Christian identities while the pagan devotion to the souls of the dead was converted into a devotion to saints.
Under Pope Leo VI this tactic of pagan "hijacking" was taken even further by the creation of All Saints Day, or All Hallows Day on November 1st. On this day, all of the chosen saints of God were praised by the church, while devout disciples and priests prayed for their assistance to intercede on their behalf with god (does this ring a bell with the ancient Samhain rituals?). As a result, the day before All Hallows Day (October 31st) was known to Christians as "All Hallows Eve", which was eventually shortened to "Hallows Eve'n" and then "Halloween."
But the demonetization of pagan beliefs didn't stop there. In 1486 Pope Innocent VIII made witchcraft (by papal decree) the work of the devil. In consequence, traditional pagan roles for female druids were castigated as being the work of Satan. Needless to say, this spawned a title wave of fear and animosity towards anyone who had the slightest appearance of being a witch. Ridiculous new laws and tests were created to help "identify" witches. Black cats were seen as being the animal embodiment of a witch's soul and were considered bad luck if they crossed one's path. Heck, even the famous Joan of Arc was killed on the grounds that she was a witch!
Halloween wouldn't alway remain in the hands of the Catholics. On October 31, 1517 Marin Luther published his "95 Theses" against the Catholic Church. One of his main grievances, which became a staple of Protestantism, was a rejection of all things linked to popes, priests and saints. As a result, Halloween became a horrific celebration for devout followers of Luther and Protestantism in general. For example, Puritan settlers in America forbade its celebration (along with Christmas) from taking place in the New World. Perhaps this helps to also explain their paralyzing fear of witches, which eventually overcame them and brought about the Salem Witch Trials.
Which brings us to today, where Halloween is seen as a secular holiday for kids. And though this current interpretation is a lot more serene than those of old (no witches have been burned in quite some time) it is still important to remember the origins. After all, they show us just how much we still maintain the legends and symbols of old.
Yesterday marked the 492nd anniversary of Martin Luther's "95 Theses," which many consider the "launch pad" of the Protestant Reformation. Luther's contributions to Christianity are tremendous. Next to Jesus, Muhammad and perhaps the Apostle Paul, there is arguably no more important man to religious history than Martin Luther.
But did you know he could rap? I bet not. Check out his new album:
