Posted on 08/04/2021 2:19:35 PM PDT by MurphsLaw
The promotion of Biblical interpretations serving secular, liberal political agendas of sex and race is only the latest manifestation of a centuries-old trend.
The Bible makes no explicit condemnations of transgenderism. It makes no claims as to the morality of abortion. It encourages racial reparations. Such claims can be found virtually everywhere in corporate media like the Washington Post, New York Times, or CNN, which seek to promote the various political objectives of the Democratic Party.
During his campaign for president, Episcopalian Pete Buttigieg argued that Jesus never mentioned abortion and that Bible verses censuring homosexuality were culturally conditioned, not eternal truths. The Washington Post, in turn, cites secular academics, who offer Biblical exegesis of a progressivist, feminist, and racial identitarian variety.
Of course, the Bible has always been a political document. The Old Testament was not only a religious and liturgical text but one that had much to say about the governance of the ancient kingdom of Israel. Jesus told his followers to respect and pay taxes to the Roman Empire. St. Paul described the temporal ruler as “God’s servant for your good.” (Romans 13:3-4)
For most of ecclesial history, the primary interpreters of Holy Scripture were not journalists, politicians, or secular academics, but the Catholic Church herself. Most early Church Fathers were priests or bishops. Ecumenical councils like Nicea, Chalcedon, or Lyon made determinations on theology, morality, and the meaning of the Bible.
But beginning in the fourteenth century, scholars like Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham began questioning the hierarchy’s hold on biblical interpretation. Instead, they proposed, the Bible should be under the authority of scholarly experts supported by secular political authorities. Though it would take several centuries for their ideas to proliferate, this thinking came to fruition in the Reformation and Enlightenment, and inspire trends in scriptural exegesis to this day.
This story is the focus of Scott Hahn’s and Benjamin Wiker’s book, The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture: How the Bible Became a Secular Book. Less than three-hundred pages, the book summarizes the central arguments of the authors’ 2012 Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700, which is more than twice the size. This is a welcome development; it makes their important contributions accessible to a larger audience.
While the story begins with Marsilius and Ockham and their Erastian belief in the supremacy of the state over the Church, the reader will encounter many familiar faces. John Wycliffe, esteemed by Protestants as the “Morning Star” of the Reformation, argued that “the pope ought, as he formerly was, to be subject to Caesar.” The monarch would then employ “doctors and worshipers of the divine law” to interpret the Bible. Martin Luther also called for the German princes to wrest ecclesial power away from corrupt bishops and the Roman pontiff, and grant him unequaled interpretive authority. Indeed, Luther asked the prince of Saxony to expel fellow reformer Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt because of the latter’s radical teachings. Around the same time, Machiavelli viewed the biblical text as material for furthering secular political ends.
All of these men influenced the court of English King Henry VIII, who recognized that the Reformation offered an opportunity to consolidate his political power. Thus, he pursued the Act of Supremacy in 1534 to grant him “supreme” headship over the Church of England, followed by the dissolution of monasteries, closure of shrines, and seizure of Church wealth. His King’s Book then declared that individuals must be subject to the “particular church” of the region in which they live, and obey the “Christian kings and princes” to whom they are subject.
Other Englishmen would further endorse this thinking. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes asserts that there is only “one chief Pastor” who is “according to the law of Nature. . .the civil sovereign.” Hobbes also rejected many of the supernatural elements of Scripture, as well as Heaven and Hell. John Locke, dismayed by the violence and distemper caused by the English Civil War, endorsed a state-controlled church whose most important feature would be “toleration,” since religious sentiments were private matters “of the mind.” For Locke, Jesus was ultimately a political messiah whose teachings focused on the perpetuation of a “civil morality.”
There are many other actors in this torrid tale – Baruch Spinoza, J. Richard Simon, John Toland – but enough is clear from the above to appreciate the consequences of these religio-political trends. Proto-Reformers called for dethroning the Catholic hierarchy’s supremacy over biblical interpretation. The Reformers, relying on princes and kings, put that wish into practice. And political philosophers and state-sanctioned scholars normalized it. Wherever the Catholic Church ceased to exert ecclesial authority, the state took up the reins.
There has always been this tension between Church and state. St. Ambrose excommunicated the emperor Theodosius because of his execution of 7,000 citizens of Thessalonica. Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV because of a dispute over investiture. And Thomas Becket’s resistance to English King Henry II’s attempts to control the Church resulted in his murder at Canterbury Cathedral.
There is actually something healthy about this tension: when the state and the Church both operate strong spheres of power and influence, they serve as checks upon one another. Kings and governments cannot pursue any policy without risking moral condemnation from ecclesial leadership that will undermine their popular support. And Church corruption and nepotism can be used by secular authorities eager to usurp power.
Hahn’s and Wiker’s history tracks the growing imbalance in favor of the state, a disparity whose roots can be traced back to the late Medieval period. The ubiquitous promotion of Biblical interpretations that serve secular, liberal political agendas related to sex and race is only the latest manifestation of this centuries-old trend. To reverse it requires a return to a more ancient understanding that the Bible is, before all else, the book of the Church, rather than the state or its acolytes in the media or the academy. Catholics need to support and celebrate churchmen who appreciate and seek to realize that essential mission.
On judgement day, you will stand alone in front of the God of the universe and be held to account for every action, inaction, and thought of your life. Every single human. In that terrible moment, when you will have to examine your own life and compare it to perfection, only one person other than yourself will be able to speak on your behalf.
Jesus
Not your parents, not your spouse, not your neighbors, not your children, not your priest or pastor. Just Jesus. And if Jesus counts you as one of his, that will make all of the difference for eternity.
I highly recommend that you make the effort to learn what it takes to be counted as one of his disciples. The howto on becoming a disciple can be found in the New Testament of the Bible.
John Wycliffe, esteemed by Protestants as the “Morning Star” of the Reformation, argued that “the pope ought, as he formerly was, to be subject to Caesar.” The monarch would then employ “doctors and worshipers of the divine law” to interpret the Bible. Martin Luther also called for the German princes to wrest ecclesial power away from corrupt bishops and the Roman pontiff, and grant him unequaled interpretive authority. Indeed, Luther asked the prince of Saxony to expel fellow reformer Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt because of the latter’s radical teachings. Around the same time, Machiavelli viewed the biblical text as material for furthering secular political ends.”
Twisted in only the way that Scott Hahn can....
Nice fantasy but not Biblical.
powerfully and simply stated, well done
..beginning with the absence of the judgement seat of Christ and ending with the missing Gospel of your salvation. Other than that...
Exodus 21:22 - 25
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Seems very similar to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and used the clause "separation of church and state" within and it got highjacked by the enemy of America for a political purpose .... and STILL not adjudicated correctly ....
It has entered the realm of "tradition"al usage.
This article starts out with lies.
Scripture forbids men dressing as women.
Unborn children are referred to as people and we aren’t allowed to murder people.
Never does it endorse racial reparations of any kind. Restitution of actual personal theft, yes.
Well, this is a bit strange to be posting on this Catholic-owned website. But Jerome (the one who translated the Vulgate bible) was not at all capable or competent as a translator. My point is that a LOT of the Bible was never translated correctly until Tyndale, Wycliffe, King James edition (and even the KJ has some problem areas).
Aa-aa-annn-nd, a lot of Catholic teachings rely on (or were justified by) the Jerome Vulgate translation.
Seems like every generation is on the verge of losing the faith. Do you think God is aware?
Perhaps you missed the point that I made in my comment that Jesus will be the only one who can speak for you. That is the judgment of Christ.
Clarification question about your comment where you mention “Gospel of your salvation”. How would giving an account of all of your actions and thoughts -not- be included? It seems to me that when one has to give account, that contained in that accounting, their story of their acceptance of Christ as their savior (or not) would be apart of that accounting.
And the buybull isn’t...
Scripture forbids men dressing as women.
Unborn children are referred to as people and we aren’t allowed to murder people.
Never does it endorse racial reparations of any kind. Restitution of actual personal theft, yes.
Perhaps with a quick read you missed the line:
Such claims can be found virtually everywhere in corporate media like the Washington Post, New York Times, or CNN, which seek to promote the various political objectives of the Democratic Party.The author was stating that these were false claims made by the left.
ROFL
Those who are IN CHRIST are no longer accounted as sinners for the blood of Christ cleanses from AOLL unrighteousness. Thus those in Christ will not be stood up at the gReat White Throne to give account for they have been judged already in Christ and are, not will be, ARE a new creation. John explained that the born again have GOD abiding in their come-alive spirit, which means they are already living eternal life. There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for they HAVE passed from death into Life, the life of God is abiding in their spirit.
So are you talking about the judgement Seat of Christ in or the White Throne Judgement?
Because the Judgement Seat of Christ is only for believers, and it’s for rewwrdsy, not salvation. The Great White Throne Judgement is for unbelievers and is for neither rewards nor salvation. It is for showing the lost just why they are lost.
At the JSoC there is no accounting. That was done at the Cross and those who believe we’re declared not guilty of the moment they accepted Christ’s finished work for themselves.
“rewwrdsy” SHOULD be “rewards”
Jeez.. *😳*!
We knew what you meant to write. You got it Sister. see you in the clouds.
MARANATHA!
“Christ’s finished work” The greatest release from the chains of religious legalism Bondage there is.
Accepted Christ at 14, tried to “earn” my salvation for 12 years. When the Finished Work on the Cross was made known to me, the chains fell off and I have been free in Christ ever since.
When my mom was on her death bead, she cried in fear to her preachers that she was not sure she would be saved because “I haven’t done enough!”
THEY assured her she had. How did they know.
I wanted to scream “IT is not what YOU have done for Christ, it is what CHRIST has done for YOU!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.