Magic wasn't threatening because it's strange; it was threatening because it worked. A movement that gave the poor access to power without asking permission? No wonder Rome had a meltdown and no wonder the Church—once it became Rome—buried that power under fear/control
YES! Magic under the control of the state is a religious miracle, but magic not under their control is the terrifying work of demons. Thank you for your comment, Tracy!
One could therefore say that Augustine committed the first betrayal of Christianity—thus invalidating his status as "holy." The second betrayal was then committed by the official church.
Do you have any idea why Luther only denounced the second betrayal — the sale of indulgences — and not the first?
What a great question. Augustine's interpretation of Christianity served as the ideological foundation for the practice of selling indulgences, so it does seem odd that the Protestants would object to the practice but not the idea.
To the Protestants, the Sale of Indulgences was a rip-off in the here and now. But they had no way of knowing that there had ever been a different interpretation of Christianity besides Augustine's. By the time of the Reformation, forgiveness for sexual incontinence (rather than debt forgiveness) had been the Church's business model for over a thousand years.
Even more significantly, Protestants needed the political backing of the emerging banking class to confront the power of the Vatican. The Catholic ban on usury was a major issue for the bankers because that's how they make their money.
In 1545, for example, the Burghers of Geneva agreed to support John Calvin's new Protestant government in exchange for his promise not to ban interest-bearing debt. This anecdote illustrates the political realities of the Protestant Reformation, and hopefully answers your question. Thanks for the comment!
In a sense, the canonical prohibition of interest is indeed a way to prevent the concentration of income and wealth. In other words, the idea seems not to have been completely lost. In the Old Testament, there are several passages in Moses and Ezekiel where the taking of interest is declared immoral. Perhaps this was the alternative to debt forgiveness.
Trade had begun to use bills of exchange as a credit instrument, where the interest could be hidden in the amount of the bill. However, the prohibition of interest hinders the endorsement and discounting of bills of exchange, thus severely limiting their fungibility. Given the almost permanent scarcity of means of payment (gold), this was a major obstacle to a growing economy. This makes the Protestant position understandable.
Christianity certainly bears the stamp of its origin. The 1611 King James Bible renders the Lord's Prayer as, "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12). I think the message, pre-Augustine, was supposed to be something like, "Don't use debt. But if you do, make sure you periodically wipe it out".
As you rightly point out, debt is an indispensable tool. Banning it is one way to avoid its pitfalls. But then you lose out on the potential benefits, such as facilitating economic growth. Pairing debt with period forgiveness seems like an obvious safety mechanism.
In other words, divide the economic game up into a series of economic games. Reset the scoreboard periodically, like in the World Series. Don't make it a one-game winner-take-all, like the Super Bowl. That wisdom could have saved the Roman Empire.
Magic wasn't threatening because it's strange; it was threatening because it worked. A movement that gave the poor access to power without asking permission? No wonder Rome had a meltdown and no wonder the Church—once it became Rome—buried that power under fear/control
YES! Magic under the control of the state is a religious miracle, but magic not under their control is the terrifying work of demons. Thank you for your comment, Tracy!
"Terrifying work of demons" I loved that 😂
That's good ol' St. Augustine for ya 😂😂😂
One could therefore say that Augustine committed the first betrayal of Christianity—thus invalidating his status as "holy." The second betrayal was then committed by the official church.
Do you have any idea why Luther only denounced the second betrayal — the sale of indulgences — and not the first?
Hi Renée!
What a great question. Augustine's interpretation of Christianity served as the ideological foundation for the practice of selling indulgences, so it does seem odd that the Protestants would object to the practice but not the idea.
To the Protestants, the Sale of Indulgences was a rip-off in the here and now. But they had no way of knowing that there had ever been a different interpretation of Christianity besides Augustine's. By the time of the Reformation, forgiveness for sexual incontinence (rather than debt forgiveness) had been the Church's business model for over a thousand years.
Even more significantly, Protestants needed the political backing of the emerging banking class to confront the power of the Vatican. The Catholic ban on usury was a major issue for the bankers because that's how they make their money.
In 1545, for example, the Burghers of Geneva agreed to support John Calvin's new Protestant government in exchange for his promise not to ban interest-bearing debt. This anecdote illustrates the political realities of the Protestant Reformation, and hopefully answers your question. Thanks for the comment!
In a sense, the canonical prohibition of interest is indeed a way to prevent the concentration of income and wealth. In other words, the idea seems not to have been completely lost. In the Old Testament, there are several passages in Moses and Ezekiel where the taking of interest is declared immoral. Perhaps this was the alternative to debt forgiveness.
Trade had begun to use bills of exchange as a credit instrument, where the interest could be hidden in the amount of the bill. However, the prohibition of interest hinders the endorsement and discounting of bills of exchange, thus severely limiting their fungibility. Given the almost permanent scarcity of means of payment (gold), this was a major obstacle to a growing economy. This makes the Protestant position understandable.
Christianity certainly bears the stamp of its origin. The 1611 King James Bible renders the Lord's Prayer as, "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12). I think the message, pre-Augustine, was supposed to be something like, "Don't use debt. But if you do, make sure you periodically wipe it out".
As you rightly point out, debt is an indispensable tool. Banning it is one way to avoid its pitfalls. But then you lose out on the potential benefits, such as facilitating economic growth. Pairing debt with period forgiveness seems like an obvious safety mechanism.
In other words, divide the economic game up into a series of economic games. Reset the scoreboard periodically, like in the World Series. Don't make it a one-game winner-take-all, like the Super Bowl. That wisdom could have saved the Roman Empire.