Happy Reformation Day!

On this day, 491 years ago, a monk called Martin Luther pinned up, on the church notice board (which happened to be the door) of the Church in Wittenburg, 95 Theses.

These Theses were all about the problem of indulgences, the selling of bits of paper, signed by the Pope, granting time off purgatory for you or a dead relative. As Tetzel (the indulgence commissioner for Germany) said "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs." - Tetzel even had a price list for different sins, and allowed indugences to be brought in advance of a sin. The Pope used this money to build St Peter's Basilica in Rome. Indulgences 'removed' the need for repentance.

Luther, in his Theses challenges the right of the Pope to forgive sin, the whole Catholic Doctrine of Penance - that you could do certain things (give money, look at some relic, attend a Mass, go to confession and do some rosary prayers) and have your sins forgiven. Luther realised that those things did nothing, and gave false hope. He was still very Catholic at that point, but he was disgusted at the practises of the Roman Catholic church at that time - the defrauding of the pious in return for false assurance.

Here's Baldrick giving the Archbishop of Canterbury (Edmund the Black Adder) the run down of what the market is (sadly cut a bit short)...


Yes there were 2 Popes for quite a while, and both declared the other to be the Antichrist!
Luther joined in the fun - he circulated a pamphlet inviting people to come and look at some 'relics' he had - Theology Network has a list.

The main reason the 95 Theses were important is that, in order to defend his case, Luther had to read the Bible - the Pope took 3 years to respond, and by that time Luther's Theology had massively improved. He was a completely changed person by 1520, understanding Justification and not being rather scared (and bugging of his priest by confessing every tiny sin) - actually being a Christian. In 1520, Luther wrote "On the Freedom of a Christian" which opens:

A Christian is a free lord, subject to none.
A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant, subject to all.

The 95 Theses aren't great in and of themselves, but what they started in Luther (searching the Scriptures) changed him, and then what Luther had learnt changed Europe, added to greatly by other's work (it certainly wasn't just him). Political things (like the Pope and Henry VIII not getting along due to Henry's wanting to annul his marriage as illegal), technological advances (the printing press), scholarly works (Erasmus' Greek New Testiment) and many other things all worked together to overthrow the captivity of people by the Church - stuck in Latin that many priests could even understand, or pronounce properly, stuck in false hope and also false fear. Tons of things worked together to return Biblical Christianity to the world (after a short absence - only in 1514 had there been a report to the Pope saying that there were no more Bible-believers, that they had finally been defeated), and it returned in a big way.

Where the lines are on Christian Unity

There are two main problems, with regards to Christian Unity - one is that those who follow the apple, thinking it's a tomato get considered followers of the One True Tomato, either as people only have a vague idea of what a tomato is, or because they don't question enough and go "sounds like a tomato to me". The other problem are those who refuse to unite around the fact that they follow the same thing - the One True Tomato, and make mountains over minor issues (obviously they haven't heard the famous song!).

There also is a third problem, one that's really obviously stupid, but still gets done lots - that's when people think that the banana and the tomato are the same thing, simply as some people call the banana a tomato. This means that obviously there should be fellowship between both groups, as they say and think that follow the tomato.

A Catholic friend of mine wanted unity over the fact that we are both Christians. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but explained that Catholic official doctrine isn't Christian, and that while there are some Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, the RCC itself isn't Christian. He then explained that "Through Jesus, and the intervention of His mother, and my own patron saint's intervention on my behalf I might stand a chance of redemtion." and that therefore, he's a Christian. I then explained that if Jesus needs the help of Mary and of a saint to intercede to the Father (who loves the Son), then he's rather rubbish - basically God's not good enough to do it on His own in my friends view. It's a different god, a different Christ - it's an apple, not a tomato. (I also put his 'might stand a chance' against the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith, and found it lacking, and suggested that he might like to read Romans 8, Ephesians 1 and other texts that show that assurance is there for Christians and his complete lack of any form of assurance shows that he's not a Christian at all).

Likewise, it's like that with the whole gay Bishops Anglican split. Parts of the Anglican communion in the USA, Canada and the UK have changed track and started chasing an apple, rather than that tomato. The apple of a god whose changed his mind, a god who says "homosexuality isn't a sin - I know I made it rather clear in my book 2000 years ago that it was, but it's not now". Many, many people are deceived that this apple is a tomato, even if they disagree with what's been said, they're treating it as a pronunciation difference, rather than a whole separate fruit, but at the base of it, it's a god that flip flops, one that you can't trust his promises, because he might change his mind - that's not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, who calls us to trust him and remember his faithfulness to his promises as the basis of the whole of our response (there's more, but it all stems from that trust). It's a different fruit - there can't be unity there.

To sum up - if it's the same God, go for unity and fellowship despite disagreements on what are minor issues. If it's not the same God, don't. People who aren't Christian have exchanged the truth of God for a lie - they worship created things, rather than God himself - even if they look like God from a distance and on the surface. While we can (and should) dialogue with those who worship a different god, we shouldn't have any false pretences that they are worshipping the same God, or that they are Christian - for they have a different Christ, one who can't save.