Concrete Christianity?

This week has been filled with interesting discussions and discoveries, all things medieval. Beginning on Monday with the continuation of our Julian of Norwich discussion, the issues of proof, faith, and science versus religion were brought up. For me, this discussion challenged my ideas of faith and led me to question the validation of the Christian religion as a whole.

As I've stated previous, before this class began I had many preconceived notions about the Middle Ages. Now, most of these have been proven wrong in the sense that I had significantly downplayed the role of X, Y, Z and given them some sort of lack of credit. However, the notion of Christianity is something I may have actually overestimated. See, I believed that the Middle Ages was a "peak" time period for Christians and their religion. I understood there was fighting (Crusades) and killing (Crusades) and discrimination (Crusades)* BUT I was steadfast in my assumption that Christianity was a secure, flourishing, and popular backbone for citizens to rely on during this time.

However, after reading the pieces from these past two weeks (Rules of St. Benedict, Boethius, and Kempe's autobiography), participating in Monday's discussion, and researching a bit about indulgences, the fragility of the entire "system" of Christianity has come to light. For example, during my research of Medieval indulgences I came across several articles in reference to Martin Luther (You can thank K. Avery for that link). He argued that the Church had become too corrupt to provide people with the actual guidance that people would need to obtain salvation. So, he nailed his infamous 95 theses to the door of a cathedral all of which discussed 'the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences'. I say all of this to make the point that, although it may be a bit of a stretch, Mr. Luther may or may not have become the newest candidate for the position of 'Other' for my specialty area. Obviously, him and his theses represent religious conflict but, even more interestingly, this case almost represents an internal conflict (Religion A vs Religion A) that reveals a subtle yet notable "break" in the Christian system.

One last thing that caught my attention this week is in directly regarding my research about indulgences and the discussion on Monday. The most interesting aspect of that discussion, I thought, was the issue of faith and proof. I have always been confused as to why, if one truly has faith, their seems to be an implied inclination to actively demonstrate it. As in, I find that those deemed 'most faithful' in society are those that have the most tangible 'proof' of their faith (this could explain why saints with relics and indulgences are regarded with so much respect meanwhile Kempe and her visions are simply dismissed as crazy). When researching indulgences, this thought came up again because, it seems, indulgences give the common people and their self-proclaimed faith their much needed 'proof'. I personally think that the historical abuse of indulgences proves my hypothesis correct but I'd be interested to hear a differing opinion or some further insight regarding one's faith and it's relation to proof.




*I understand that the Crusades were not the only Christian outlet for fighting, killing, and discrimination but I just repeat them because the entire blatant hypocrisy of it all gets me every time...