Church

The eighteenth century is commonly viewed by historians as a period of decline for the Anglican establishment which suffered increasing losses in its authority over local parishes and failing to respond adequately to the changing society of the early industrial age and challenges over the nature of religion and its role in the lives of individuals. In the 1740s, Samuel Wesley and his sons began to preach outside the confines of the Church, advocating a more voluntary approach to religious devotion and encouraging increased involvement of laymen in the work of the parish.

Methodism was effectively born out of societies set up to integrate the church into the community, but in carrying voluntarism to its logical conclusion, argues Gilbert, such a movement would naturally come into conflict with the establishment by offering an alternative to the prescribed methods of religious practise and undermining the ministerial authority and organising machinery of the Church. Although the Wesley family were conservative Tories and John Wesley, who was to become the leading Methodist figure, always expressed a keen desire to remain within Anglicanism, he told a inaugural conference in 1744 that Methodism would either leave the whole church or “be thrust out of it” Whether the Methodists were in essence a radical or conservative group was at the time, and remains a much debated topic. In an essay on Methodism, Dissent and Political Stability2, Gilbert argues that it was in fact both.

Methodism was a means of taking a stand against prescribed religion and the status quo of social organisation through the withdrawal of status respect and assertion of freedom. Methodism was in effect a radical means of political and social protest in an era of new ideas and social instability, epitomised abroad by the violent revolutions in France, and yet the movement was unobtrusive in its politics and the moderate nature of this radicalism had a stabilising effect on society, acting as a “safety valve” that contained tension and helped avoid the polarisation of opinions.

Looking at the religious history of other European nations, Methodism is quite the anomaly, a dissenting movement, cast out of the Anglican Church that eventually serves to prop up the traditional order. Weakness in the Anglican establishment dated back to the reformation, which had been a break away from authority from Rome, but had also meant an increase in secular authority over the ecclesiastical, through the judicial courts, some tithe taxes and rights of patronage.

Though the clerical influence in national politics and in local parishes was still strong, it was no longer as an independent body, but in conjunction with secular authorities. Loss of influence in the upper echelons of power, with monarchs of differing faith on the throne and the abbots losing their majority in the Lords was coupled with strain on authority in the parishes through lack of adequate funding or dynamism.

The demographic boom of the late eighteenth century and the breakdown of the traditional parish based organisation of ancien regime society with the increase in manufacturing towns left many outside the network of pastoral oversight, as Ward notes, this and toleration laws paved the way for eager dissenters to exert influence3. However, the first half of the century is more commonly characterised by a mood of religious apathy. Numbers attending Anglican services were declining, but Gilbert argues, Protestant dissent was also in a state of atrophy in 1740.

Looking at statistics, this could be seen as a dramatic turning point in the history of religious dissent, but it must be remembered that after new toleration acts were passed it became necessary for all groups to register, nevertheless, this was a period when old dissenting movements were being surpassed by the new evangelicals, who could serve the community where the Anglican church could no longer cope. Naturally there was a certain discontinuity of dissent, with different traditions declining and growing in different patterns across the country.

The chapel movement was one that responded to local needs, in some areas lay societies along evangelical lines were even encouraged by the local clergy, but the most prominent groups inevitably sprang up where the church was least effective and inevitably would become a source of conflict with the establishment. The evangelical revival of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was above all a popular movement, and with no central driving force, it is difficult to define the limits of the movement.

Dissenters within the orthodoxy of the Church had existed before, but a newfound zeal, enthusiastic conversion methods and a more coherent programme now developed into a single, if multiform, religious phenomenon. Although there were divisions between Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and Independents, they were not fundamental. All relied on lay preachers and the centrality of village communities to spread their message of voluntary piety, based around the family and spiritual equality, whereby all could receive salvation through faith and good works.

Methodism can perhaps be characterised by its system of connexion networks that linked dissenting groups across the country. Wesley had hoped to unite his movement through the Anglican ministers and in 1764 had sent fifty letters appealing for a unity of purpose, but receiving only three replies, realised he would have to unite and organise his followers outside the clergy. The strength of the movement however, was not in a system of alliances, but its dynamism.

Methodism was a movement that spread rapidly through expansionist missionary societies, and Wesley’s followers breached the movement further away from the church by demanding that its preachers should be able to give communion. A 1793 conference voted that members of a society who were unanimous in their desire to receive the sacrament from their preacher might do so. Ward questions whether this was a case of the preachers following the flock, or the scheming of radical ministers to use the Methodist congregations to spread their radical political ideas.

Samuel Bradburn was one such minister who introduced ideas of unbounded liberty and the Rights of Man into his sermons, but he shunned Kilham, an even more defiant political Methodist, casting doubt on any suggestion of a central political aim. In the 1790s, social tensions were reaching boiling point. Evangelical societies attracted dissenters at all social levels, even at court, where many independent politicians, clergymen and intellectuals deserted George III and headed a campaign as a Unitarian group for reforms to free trade and end slavery, believing in free enquiry and social progress.

Among the lower social orders there was a backlash against the increasing number of dissenters and riots broke out, prompted by food shortages but also calling for “Church and King” and were largely unhindered by the clergy and magistrates of the old order. It is important to remember that while the growth of evangelical movements was significant, it still only affected a small proportion of the population, with many remaining ambivalent towards new ideals of piety and man others choosing to remain firmly within the Anglican fold.

For some, traditional means of expressing discontent were still favoured. Davidoff sees the Evangelical movement as a largely middle class phenomenon. This was a rapidly expanding social group that needed to form their identity. He argues that a sense of religious belonging was provided by the various evangelical movements became a part of middle class culture and the success of the movement can be credited to its ability to fill this need. Traditional church practise did not involve participation from the lay community, and while the middle classes were a group with little political power, there role was gradually becoming more like that of the traditional gentry, as Lords devolved their duties in a practise of stewardship. Dissenting evangelical groups formed a basis of a middle class community as well as a middle class culture. The religious focus is undeniably meritocratic in tone; that salvation was open to all through their own piety.

Davidoff also believes that there was a notion that this piety could give individuals strength to bare hostility from others, as the new middle classes may well have faced in the years of hardship and social tension at the end of the eighteenth century. The central importance of the family crossed denominations, another middle class value. The ideal was of the home as a moral haven from the amoral world of the business market. This haven was created by women, who were viewed as naturally more pious than men.

The concepts of masculine and feminine were being transposed into more distinct social roles, each with their own responsibilities. Men were the material providers of the family and women’s role was to create a moral home for her husband and children, domestic seclusion was a moral ideal and some serious evangelicals even shunned the pleasures of sport and the theatre in favour of this domesticity. Women did have increased prominence in church life, in some denominations they could even be ministers, but overall, the new movements were still male dominated.

In some areas women may even have lost influence, where before they could have performed duties of clerks where necessary, roles were now more often formalised into those that were acceptable for women and those that were not. The evangelical community gave the middle class a forum to profess their beliefs and help to form their own culture and community. Dissenting groups were most prominent in new manufacturing towns and much of their establishment can be seen as benefiting the middle classes.

They set up church schools and welfare societies, seeing their community almost s an extension of their family that need to be provided for. Schools were central to the evangelical movement, supporting the middle class love of reading and reflection as alternative entertainments. Indeed it was often the case that the school came before the chapel, as was the case in Bollington, a manufacturing town in the Northwest. Although initially non-denominational, the school soon became dominated by the Methodists.

But importantly, the erection of such public buildings was not decided on by the preachers, but went before an appeal to the town, in tune with democratic principals. The practise of the Sunday school was an important means of gaining support among the locals, as many sent their children to work in factories at an early age and this would still give them a chance to learn to read. The work of evangelicals within their communities through charity and education may have stunted working class resentment, but Davidoff asserts that they still tended to stay away from Church.

Gilberts sees the evangelicals as targeting the lower echelons of society, corroding the image of the lower orders as simple minded and maybe thus giving cause for concern to the ruling classes, but it is probable that these are two differing views of what was essentially the same social group, seen as the lower orders by contemporaries, but viewed by some historians, in the pattern of social evolution, as the emerging middle classes. The end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries saw a demographic boom, centred around new manufacturing towns.

It was the early years of the industrial age and the changing structure of society had new needs that the state and church could not provide for. Looking abroad for a point of comparison, French society, with its firmly established monarchy and church was thrust into a violent revolution that was to remove both. In England, the less powerful position occupied by the monarchy and church could be seen as perhaps what saved them from a similar fate. Dissenting movements had been allowed to develop that were then to serve as a moderating force.

There was much confusion in the late eighteenth century as to Methodists and their significance. The movement grew further and faster than other evangelical societies, and what Smyth called “Christian godliness without Christian organisation” in 1795 was attacked by others as having too much organisation and followers were subject to too much pastoral oversight, threatening the formation of a radical political force. 5 Indeed, Sidney Pollard and Robert Southerly were of the view that revolution was imminent.

With hindsight, historians like Halevy have argued that there was nothing for the state to fear in the rise of Methodism, but contemporary powers would not have been able to see the larger picture of changing society and the development of a middle-class and so the movement may have been forced into its unobtrusive political stance where perhaps more radical beliefs were deep-seated. Jabez Bunting, a radical Methodist figure after the death of Wesley, saw the movement as wide, but not deep. He was relatively apolitical, but was keen to preserve the liberties that Methodism had benefited from in the face of conservative reaction to social tensions and revolution in Europe. But the evangelical revival, viewed with historical hindsight is indeed a political movement, the energies of the chapel communities were a force that resisted to reactionism and later advocated reforms, but after 1850 the dynamism of the movement had dwindled, as the social tensions of the age eased.

The Canterbury Tales is a famously satirical piece written by Geoffrey Chaucer at the end of the 14th century. Though there are many theories of what Chaucer was criticizing, he mainly was questioning the motives of the church. Chaucer used important figures in the church as characters in the story who go on a journey to Canterbury although the characters do not match the typical ideals of those who would be attributed with the church.

Historically, according to the feudal system, the king was to give twenty-five percent of his wealth to the church, which proves the church had plenty of money to use in ways that would not agree with the typical morals of the church. Chaucer is making social commentary by highlighting on the religious hypocrisy and the church as it relates to money. Chaucer begins with his criticism in “The Prologue” by immediately characterizing those who are affiliated with the church in order of their social status, showing that there are many aspects of the church that fall short morally.

For example, the Knight, though he is a nobleman and not a religiously affiliated character, is the most virtuous; he comes at the top of the hierarchy in terms of social status. Chaucer has nothing but good things to say about the Knight, especially when he says “he had proved his worth in his Lord’s wars…in Christendom and in heathen-lands and he had always been honored for his valor. ” (ll 47-50) The Knight was always respected for what he had done, even when he was doing things for his religion which cannot be said for many of the other characters that Chaucer was describing.

Though he is not part of the churchman group, Chaucer highlights on the Knight’s religious affiliation, saying of him that he is “a valiant warrior for his lord. ” (ll 47) French speaking, with a dainty smile and polite demeanor with a hidden agenda, the Prioress offers an insight to the twisted world of the church that Chaucer wants the reader to see. The Prioress was characterized as a plump woman because “she never let a morsel fall from her lips” (ll 128), though this is ironic because as a nun she was supposed to take a vow of poverty.

Chaucer then goes on to explain that the Prioress “had a few small dogs that she fed- with roast meat or milk and fine bread” (ll 146-147), further showing that the nun didn’t take her religious duties as seriously as she should have. The Monk comes next in Chaucer’s hierarchy, with the description being “he didn’t give a plucked hen for that text that said hunters are not holy men”… “why should he study and drive himself mad. ” (ll 177-178) Chaucer mocks the Monk’s lifestyle by criticizing what he chose to do instead of taking his holy vow of silence.

He was a hunter and wore expensive clothes: “I saw that his sleeves were edged at the cuff with gray fur…and to fasten his hood under his chin he had a very intricate pin made of gold” (ll 193) though as a man of the church he should not have had the funds to support his lavish lifestyle, which is why Chaucer criticized the church, because he thought that it was corrupt. Chaucer goes on to say, “He was a fine fat lord in splendid shape,”(ll 200) of the Monk, hinting to the reader that he was well fed as well, though like the Prioress, he should not have been due to a vow of poverty.

The Pardoner’s purpose in the church was to pardon the sins of the church goers, though Chaucer made his character corrupt too, by charging people to pardon their sins, something that should be unheard of, though unfortunately, it happened quite commonly. This just relates back to Chaucer’s thoughts of the church being corrupt by wrongly using the money that it had. The Pardoner’s description says, “he’d make more money in one day alone than the Parson would in two months come and gone,” (ll 703-704).

This line also makes mention of the Parson, another religious character, though he was not criticized as much as other characters due to his description of being the only devout churchman. Chaucer uses less harsh descriptions of him and even explains that he does work for the church in non-corrupt ways, much un-like the other religious characters he describes. He says of the Parson, “[he] was poor, but rich in holy thought and work.

He was also a learned man, a clerk; The Christian gospel he would truly preach, devoutly his parishioners to teach,” (ll 479-482) from this line the reader gains a more clear understanding for how the church was supposed to be viewed. Those who were affiliated with the church were supposed to be devout and faithful to their God, though many did not fulfill the stereotypes that they were expected to. All in all, the problem with the church is that those who are supposed to be the most holy are not at all.

The obsession with money and the wrongful spending of it by all of those who are affiliated is what made the church receive so much criticism. The implied solution to the corruptness of the church is simple: to remove the money. The one character who received little criticism was the only one who helped the church be seen in a positive light, and that was the Parson. By removing the excessive money from the church, the corrupt clergy members would go back to their vows of silence and poverty and the church would be restored to its original holiness.

Question: What was Luther’s fundamental religious problem with the Catholic Church? Trace the development of this problem and why Luther solved it. Among the many problems Luther pointed out in the Catholic Church in his 95 theses, the one he had the most problem with was the issue of salvation and the selling of indulgencies. At the time, the doctrine of the church stated that those who did not receive a baptism would spend time in purgatory for their sins. The Church said that acceptance of Jesus took away the blame of the sin but did not clear the sins completely because of the fact that the people were sinners.

This was significant because the church was selling indulgences. The Catholic Church once sold indulgences to people who would fight in the Holy Wars to be forgiven of their sins. However, this time, the Church sold indulgences to followers at a certain price so that buyers would be forgiven of past and future sins. According to Luther, this was nowhere to be found in the Holy Bible. Luther preached self morals and on the acceptance of Jesus and complete obedience as the true way to reach heaven as stated in the Bible. This influx of indulgence buying and selling by the people around Luther irritated him to no end.

In his sermons he emphasized the true scriptures in the Bible and not doctrine according to the so called “Holy Church”. The Catholic Church was selling indulgences in an effort to raise money for St. Peters Basilica, which was under construction in the Vatican during this period. It would be a very costly project and therefore the Church needed a means to pay for it and their answer was to sell indulgences at a monetary price. This infuriated Luther because it advocated that people could literally buy their way into heaven without truly accepting Jesus as it states in the Bible.

A man by the name of Johann Tetzel was selling the indulgences in Germany at Luther’s time and Luther pleaded to his followers not to buy them but to simply read the scriptures and accept Jesus. The sale of indulgences greatly upset Luther because he felt certain that people were eternally damning themselves by relying on the indulgences instead of the scripture. This drove Luther to write his 95 theses which blasted the Catholic Church from a variety of angles on its policies and the controversies surrounding the Church.

Some of these included the sale of indulgences, the flaws and errors in the Church’s doctrine, and in some cases the ignorance by some members of the clergy to even read the scripture. In one case, Luther even inquired as to why the Pope insisted on paying for St. Peters Basilica through the poor people’s money instead of taking money out of his own pocket to pay for the new Church. Luther then nailed this list to a Church door in Germany, as was the tradition, on the day after Halloween.

At first, Pope Leo X did not take Luther seriously calling him “a drunk friar”, however when Luther’s 95 theses began to spread around Germany like wild fire with the help of Gutenberg’s printing press the Church took notice. The 95 theses gained sympathy in Europe because many rulers were sick of the power over the Church over their provinces and used this as an excuse to break away from Catholic Church. Because of this, many new Protestant religions, such as antibaptism and Calvinism, began popping up as more people began to speak out against the church.

The church’s own personal attempt to reform was largely unsuccessful and it simply pushed more converts in to Protestantism. At the Edict of Worms where Luther stood trial for heresy, Luther plead his case to the Church. The Church’s verdict however was that one man who has different views than the thousands of clergy men before Luther must be wrong. Luther was to be taken into custody, his books burned, and delivered to the Emperor. Luther, however, was able to escape and hid for brief period before he returned to Wittenberg to build a new Church.

The Catholic Church’s unwillingness to reform and it’s continuance of its programs set the stage for the rest of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Although Luther’s true intentions can only be speculated, most historians believe that at the Reformation’s onset he had not intended to break from the Catholic Church. In this area, he failed. He was not able to simply reform the Church from the inside and clean up its practices. Thus, Luther’s solution to this problem was unfortunately to split from the church along with millions of others and to change the Catholic Church forever.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Church and state violation If the criteria of Matthew and Thomas’ “Christian-only” hiring policy was spread across to all religions, then they could probably get away with it as long as the employment contracts with employees state such. If this were for a school and they had more than 15 employees, then they would have to have posters posted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 informing employees of their rights with the utilization of the language approved by the EEOC.

Under the Great Commission Perspective this policy would be advisable. Being raised Baptist, currently non-denominational,some of my old Baptist fundamentalist views came into play. Being raised Baptist, I was taught that it is our rights as Christians to setup outreach ministries, missionaries, and bring as many souls to the kingdom as possible by ministering to people we meet on a day to day basis, even if this means going door to door. This goes hand in hand with several passages from the Bible. In re-reading Genesis 12: 1-3, the Great Commission Perspective, Gen. 8: 14-15 and Matthew 28: 18-20, we see the promise of God for our lives as well as the duties expected of us as Christians. “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. ” (Matthew 28: 18-20, KJV). In verse 19, Jesus charges us to teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the trinity.

Verse 20 is our assurance, His promise that he is with us always, until the end of the world as we know it. “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. “And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. (Genesis 28:14-15, KJV). In verse 14 we shall travel all ends of the earth saving souls for Christ and as a result of our faithfulness to God’s word, our children and generations to come will be blessed. Verse 15 is God’s promise that he is with us until the end and will keep us, protect us, and will not forsake us. Other scripture that comes to mind that gives the same instruction based on the Great Commission Perspective is, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ” (Mark 16:15, KJV).

We can also look at the book of Luke for the same instructions, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. ” (Luke 24:47, KJV). Like Paul, some of us are meant to be apostles, setting up churches for the greater good of the kingdom and overseeing them to ensure that kingdom work is being carried out. Even though Thomas and Matthew have a good idea in regards to their hiring policy of Christians only, in my opinion it would only be foreseeable in a perfect world and in my own utopia.

With so many laws that protect others religious beliefs, it makes it hard to turn a profit with such a policy in place, especially if they are looking for federal assistance in regards to utilizing tax payer dollars. My answers would change drastically if Thomas and Matthew were opening a Christian school rather than a manufacturing company. The conditions and laws change in matthew and thomas’ favor greatly. Being a school means that they have the freedom to carry out these hiring policies. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII allows churches and religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion (Bagley & Savage p. 68). Under the RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, federal grant programs can exempt Christian relief organizations from prohibitions against hiring only those of its own faith, (p. 136). During the Bush Administration, more funds were appropriated for expansion of religious hiring rights, including issuance of an executive order that set the policy for federal administration agencies, (Esbeck, Carlson-Thies, Sider). Christian schools need a Christian only hiring policy in my opinion because it protects the morals, values and ethics of the Bible and how each professor uses it in accordance with everyday learning.

You have people who study the word and know the word, but don’t live by the word, including some Christians, but when it comes to instructing others on how to live according to the Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth), then a hiring policy that discriminates against religious preference makes sense. These principles are maintained by the federal government when it comes to hiring for Head Start programs and for the Workforce Investment Act References Carl H. Esbeck Stanley W. Carlson-Thies Ronald J. Sider http://www. religionandsocialpolicy. org/docs/religiousstaffing. pdf

Martin Luther, a monk, was tired of the way the Catholic Church was being led. Some of his biggest concerns about the way the Church was being run, where the sale of indulgences and that the Mass and Bible were both only in Latin. In turn, he nailed his 95 Theses to a church door, which inadvertently started the Protestant Reformation. Then later on in 1533, King Henry VII wanted an annulment with his wife, at the time Catherine of Aragon, so that he would be able to marry Anne Boleyn.

The Catholic Church refused to give him an annulment. Subsequently, because of this King Henry VII decided to start his own church, the Church of England. Yet, the Church of England didn’t really begin to differ much from the Catholic Church until his daughter Elizabeth I took over and became Queen. Although the Church of England was the religion Queen Elizabeth I practiced religious tolerance during her reign. After Queen Elizabeth, I came along James I and Charles I, who was not nearly as tolerant towards other religions.

This leads to people of all other denominations to seek a safe haven and they looked towards the New World for that very thing. Even though all these people left seeking religious freedom they formed remarkably different colonies. A strong example of this can be seen by looking at the colonies of Chesapeake and Plymouth. Chesapeake tolerated many religions, had better land for crops and had a set system of government. While Plymouth had one main religion, were better at industries such as lumber and timber, and a self-governing body.

Plymouth was founded in 1620 and had no charter, it was self-financed by the Massachusetts Bay Company. Plymouth was also founded by Separatist, who called themselves Puritans in America, and that is the only religion that they really allowed to be practiced within the colony. They were even known for exiling or excommunicating people who opposed their beliefs, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. Chesapeake, on the other hand, was a proprietary colony that was given to George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, by King Charles I.

The colony was founded at Chesapeake Bay, Massachusetts in 1634. The colony was originally meant to serve as a safe place for Catholics, but they were extremely tolerant of other religions. They also had the most culturally diverse settlement in the world. Chesapeake and Plymouth not only differed in the way they were founded but also in the way in which they made money. While Plymouth relied mostly on the fishing and lumber industries, because of their poor soil, Chesapeake was able to rely mostly on farming tobacco and grains. They ended up supply such an abundant supply of grains that they became known as the ‘bread basket’.

They also differed in the way they ran their system of government. In Chesapeake, they had the House of Delegates, which was mostly made up of immigrants. While Plymouth’s government was known as the General Court and was adapted over the years into a system of self-government that was made up of a two-house legislature. They also established a judicial branch, that resembled Englands in structure but differed in-laws. They both also differed tremendously in family life. In Chesapeake the men greatly outnumbered the women, there were high death rates, and servitude all made for an atypical family pattern. While in Plymouth the Puritans generally moved to the colony in families.

While the colonies had many differences they also shared a few similarities. Both Plymouth and Chesapeake continued to expand taking over Native American land in the process, which caused conflicts with the Native American tribes in the area. Another thing which they had in common is that they both were founded by people of English descent and had at least half of there colonist were English natives. Rather than people of other nationalities and cultures. The two also both participated is business opportunities such as ironworks, trading and shipping, and shipbuilding. Then within agriculture, the pair both participated in raising cattle and grains.

The colonies that were settled in North America by the English all came over with the idea of religious freedom in their heads. Yet, they ended up being so different, Plymouth and Chesapeake being prime examples. Chesapeake tolerated many religions, had better land for crops and had a set system of government. While on the other hand, Plymouth had one main religion, was better in industries such as lumber and timber, and a self-governing body. However, none of them would see the turn of events that would lead them band together to break connections with their Mother Country.

Decision making without concrete evidence can lead to faulty actions Leaders need to make decisions on the basis of substantiated evidence. Decisions made under other circumstances can cause the observer to doubt the legitimacy of the leader’s decision. In the play Doubt: A Parable, by John Patrick Shanley, Sister Aloysius’ mischievous mind is always looking for ways to over analyse the actions of Father Flynn. She is almost diabolical in her actions to have him removed from the school. Father Flynn, on the other hand, appears only interested in doing what is best for Donald Muller.

Unfortunately, his well-intentioned actions make him vulnerable to the suspicious Sister Aloysius. Sister Aloysius’ certainty that innocent actions are harmful causes her to unfairly judge Father Flynn. Sister Aloysius unfairly judges Father Flynn’s sermons and suspects his motives. At this point Sister Aloysius has only suspicions that Father Flynn could be in Doubt or knows someone that is. While speaking to Sister James, Sister Aloysius indicates her concerns about Father Flynn’s and indicates that by saying “Well, sermons come from somewhere, don’t they? Is Father Flynn in Doubt, is he concerned that someone else is in Doubt? (Shanley 14). Sister Aloysius does not have any substantiated evidence of Father Flynn, as she only has her suspicions. One of her major character flaw is that she harbors a deep mistrust in her students, fellow sergman and society itself. So far, all she knew at that point was that Father Flynn grabbed a boy’s wrists, and that he was talking about Doubt in one of his sermons. Father Flynn said later on in the book that his sermons are not true stories because lies make for a better sermon. “I’m sorry, I’m not forthright, but I must be careful not to create something.

I can only say I am confused, perhaps needless, about matters in St. Nicolas School,” Sister Aloysius remarks. You can tell by this quote that she has some negative thoughts about the incident with Donald Muller, as she assumes that Father Flynn is having inappropriate behaviour toward Donald Muller. She is trying rephrasing it so it is less obvious of her concerns and assumptions. Sister Aloysius negatively judges Father Flynn’s interest in promoting a closer relationship between the Church and the community because she feels it is an inappropriate way to interact with the students and community. But we’re not members of their family. We’re different… And they think were different. The working class people of this parish trust us to be different”. Sister Aloysius remarks. Sister Aloysius believes that because they are a Catholic school, they must stay true to their vows that the school believes in. She believes that the rules are in place for a reason, and to be true to God, she must obey the oath that she took to become a Sister. Anything that challenges the operation of the school, and is out of line, she would not stand for.

Therefore, she did not believe in the recommendation of changing the way things were already being run. The traditions of the Roman Catholic Church form the back bone of the rules and standards that Sister Aloysius is supporting. Father Flynn is a strong believer in the proposition that the Church should be more lenient and fun with the students, as it creates a better community of people. He makes a statement in the play that goes a little like this, “I think the message of the second Ecumenical Council was that the Church needs to take on a more familiar face.

Reflect the local community. We should sing a song from the radio now and then. Take the kids out for ice cream. ”  Father Flynn does not believe in following the rules of the Church to such a high extent that it is needed to emphasis every single rule. Unlike Sister Aloysius, he feels that having the school a more relaxed and fun environment results in creating a better learning strategy for the students. It also makes it a better environment for the teachers and student to be in because there is less stress.

In result though, Sister Aloysius is against this proposition because she feels that she must abide by the rules and is more for the old school kind of method. Sister Aloysius unfairly doubts Father Flynn’s explanation regarding the incident with Donald Muller because of her preconceived notions regarding his motives. “What happened in the rectory? ”. Sister Aloysius questions. This quote states that she is clearly tired of dancing around the question, as at this point she has given up and just wants an explanation.

She wants him to admit that he seduced the boy because she ‘knows’ that this is true due to her certainty. She does not believe his explanation that he was just talking to Donald in the rectory about keeping him on as an altar boy, even though he stole the wine. The needs for Father Flynn to tell her that she is right is important to her. This will put her at ease with the case and allow her to feel satisfied by her gain in authority and power. ”There was alcohol on his breath when he returned from the meeting with you.” Sister Aloysius remarks.

She believes that Father Flynn is also guilty based on the fact that she assumes, he gave Donald Muller wine so he could seduce the boy. Believes that he did something to the boy, Sister Aloysius thinks that it is inappropriate and therefore, when he came back to class, he had his head on his desk and had alcohol on his breath. Sister James corroborates this remark by stating, “I did smell it on his breath”. This comment gives more certainty to Sister Aloysius and her beliefs. She does later on tell Sister Aloysius that she is going to bring Father Flynn down with or without Sister James’ help.

This indicates how committed and certain she is to her stand on this critical issue. With the lack of supported evidence that Sister Aloysius has discovered concerning Father Flynn’s motives, it is unfair and unreasonable to be certain about her unquestionable justifications. She has closed her mind on all the other possibilities that could be, because of her singular mind set. If she doubts herself, she would feel unsteady and uncertain. Her hard-won knowledge would evaporate right before her and she would be vulnerable, a characteristic that she does not feel comfortable exploring… just yet.

Religion was an ongoing cause of issues in history, and the Church of England was no exception. Issues with the monarchy ruling the church in Britain was the reason for many debates, wars, civil issues and rights to the throne. Initially the Church was under Papal rule, making the Pope have control over something the Throne did not. Hunger for power in the sixteenth century was not limited to land control and civil control; it spread right up to the Church of England causing many problems for the monarchy and Papal authority.

The argument during this time was whether or not the monarch had the right to rule church and state, or if the church was meant to be run by Papal authority. The Church of England has a deep history going back to the Roman Empire. An invasion in Britain in the fifth century by pagan Angles, Saxons and Jutes caused the Church to lose its organization. Missionary work in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory the Great, led by St Augustine of Canterbury led to the eventual combination of three forms of Christianity.

The new Church of England amalgamated the Roman tradition of St Augustine, the old Romano-British church and the Celtic traditions from Scotland. As a result of this new formation the influence of the Church was wider spread and more organized. Traditions assimilated with the Western Christians such as liturgy, theology and church architecture. All of this also meant that until the sixteenth century the Church of England was under Papal rule and was considered a branch of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 when Martin Luther published his Ninety Five Theses. They opposed the Catholic Churches doctrines and stated that the teachings and sales of indulgences and the abuses of them showed corruption in the religion. This was the jumping off point for many people questioning the Catholic Church. In the sixteenth century the English monarchy began to question the fact that their church was still following the authority of the Pope. A main factor in this questioning came from King Henry VIII.

Henry wanted his marriage to Catherine annulled, and his marriage would normally be illegal under church law because Catherine was the widow of his brother, but it had been allowed by special consideration from the Pope. Henry claimed that the Papal consideration contradicted church law and therefore the marriage was not legal. The pope upheld his choice and refused to annul the marriage. The underlying cause was the fact that many believed that the authority of the church should belong to the English monarchy not the Pope.

Henry broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself the head of the Church of England (1534), removing the church from the authority of the Pope. During this time Henry also forced the Dissolution of the Monasteries, this was viewed as suppressing the catholic faith. He also started statutes, such as, Statute in Restraint of Appeals, 1533, various Acts of Succession 1533-36, and the first Act of Supremacy in 1536. These acts all dealt with the relationship between the King and the Pope and how the Church of England should be structured.

Henry’s belief in the independence of the Church was the dominant influence in making religious policy. Those who still worshipped Catholic rites during Henry’s rule were quietly moved into secrecy. Henry’s son Edward VI further reformed the church by saying that the Protestant Reformation was more like what the Bible’s teachings meant than that of the Pope. Edward was very young when he was in power so most decisions were ultimately decided by a regency council who were mostly Protestant, so of course the decision was made to keep the church under monarch rule.

Edward was the first King who had been raised Protestant even though he was only nine when he was crowned his council did allow him to make decisions. By the age of eleven he had already written a treatise on the Pope as Antichrist and made educated notes on theological controversies. Edward wanted to keep the Church of England Protestant rather than Catholic so instead of allowing his half sister Mary to take the throne upon his death he left the crown to Lady Jane Grey. She was only on the throne for nine days before being imprisoned after the council changed sides declaring Mary Queen.

During the reign of Mary Tudor (Henry’s daughter) the Church returned to the Pope’s authority. Throughout her father’s and her half brother’s reign Mary had remained loyal to the Roman Catholic faith, she had even asked for a private chapel to worship in since everyone else in the family worshiped under the Church of England. Mary’s change in the Church did not last long when in 1558 Elizabeth I became Queen, and made the Church of England essentially what it is to this day. She removed it from the Pope’s authority, but she kept the catholic creeds, the architecture and aspects of the catholic liturgy.

While keeping aspects of the Catholic Church she also incorporated Protestant insights of theology and the general shape of its liturgical practices. In the seventeenth century the Church of England had another crisis; tensions over theological and liturgical issues were part of the reasons that led to the English Civil War. From 1649-1660 the Church of England’s bishops were abolished and the Book of Common Prayer was banned. During this time the church was under Papal rule but when the monarchy was restored in 1660 these decisions were over turned and once again the Church was returned to monarch authority.

In 1689 the Toleration Act was passed and Protestantism was legally accepted as long as they followed the doctrine of the Trinity. After this was passed the Church of England became the mother church of the Anglican Communion. One of the main arguments throughout the formation of the Church of England was whether or not the monarchy had the right to decide how the church should be run, or if the church is meant to be run by the Pope. Most believed that since the Pope was not politically affiliated with anyone, it made him impartial and made his rule of the church more pure.

He was the representative of God therefore he could settle doctrinal disputes and help spread Christianity without influence from political leaders. Pope Paul III formed the Council of Trent (1545-49) which made the Papacy have power over rulers who wanted to reconcile with Protestants and who were opposed to Papal claims. The monarchy was too powerful and eventually the Papal authority had to bring their focus to spiritual issues as opposed to trying to get secular power (It was not until 1929 that the Lateran Treaty was passed that guaranteed papal independence from secular rule).

When the English monarchy declared that the Pope was corrupt and Antichrist they pulled the Church of England out from under papal rule. The throne holds complete political authority in its own state, but the argument of whether this authority crosses over to religion as well was ongoing for many years. Henry VIII makes it easier for himself by having Parliament pass an act appointing him and his successors the head of the Church of England so that they could rule the church whatever way they please. This act caused more problems than solved because now every time the throne was changed the church was changed.

The political side of the monarch caused more problems as well. By having political affiliations the monarchs chose rules of the church to follow that suited their political alliances. Affiliations with Scotland made them include Scottish traditions into the Church of England, but bad blood between the British and the Irish made them turn the church away from Catholicism even more. There are arguments that the fact that the Irish worshiped under Papal rule it made the tensions between Britain and Ireland worse.

The relationship between France and England was even worse; Henry VIII went to war with France three times during his reign. The national religion of France was Catholicism and during this time though there was a large Protestant following, they were greatly persecuted. This was a major contributing factor to these wars; with France under Papal rule and the Protestants being persecuted the British monarchy was livid, giving them plenty of cause to declare war. During this time Henry declared France to be Britain’s number one enemy. When Elizabeth was in power the hostility towards Catholics was increased.

While she was not as intense as Henry she did ban mass and other Catholic practices, and also made her Parliament swear an oath of supremacy threatening the charge of treason to anyone who refused. This threat made many Catholics run from England to avoid persecution. Many of these people were writers and went against Protestantism and implied that the Papal authority was superior, but also tried to not anger their Queen in their writings. This showed how the people were expressing their unhappiness in the choices made for them in religious aspects, but they still respected and honored their monarch.

Elizabeth’s main fear was that the brash Catholics would attempt to have her taken out of power. Elizabeth’s fear was so profound that in 1571 she passed The Treason Act which made it high treason to say that Elizabeth was not the true monarch. It also made it illegal to say that she was heretic, tyrant, infidel or usurper. This Act made catholic’s even angrier and made them criticize Elizabeth even more. These criticisms towards Elizabeth made her worries of being de-throned more relevant because now Catholic followers were trying to defend Mary Stuart’s right to the English throne.

They claimed that Elizabeth caused tensions in foreign affairs because of her focus on religion. At the same time all of these writings that criticize Elizabeth’s choices for religion, they still spoke kindly of her as a person and a Queen in other aspects. Most respected her as a Queen but condemned her choices towards the Church of England. During this time many Catholic writers from France also condemned Elizabeth’s choices showing that the tensions between Britain and France were still very much active in her reign as in Henry’s.

The monarchies strive for complete power in the sixteenth century did them more harm than good. Instead of gaining the trust and fellowship of their people, they caused war, tensions, and general unrest among most of their people. With debates between the Papal authorities, who at the time the people viewed as a direct line to God, and the monarch caused distrust for the people against their leaders. With no right to their own choices in religion people that went against the crown were exiled, imprisoned, or worse, executed for their thoughts and beliefs.

With most of Britain being raised Catholic during this time a sudden switch by Henry VIII because of his unhappiness seemed ungodly. The choice to remove the church from the Papal authority was viewed as blasphemous, and it made the people view their King in a different light. Most of Britain lost faith in their Crown during these Reformations because of unorganized systems, and a constant change between monarch authority and Papal rule. Tensions between Britain and neighboring Countries did not help the monarch’s relationship with their people either, as much of the cause of these tensions was from the monarch persecuting Catholics.

The goal of total power over the people, land and neighboring Countries by the monarch was not a success because there was no consistency in the way they chose to run their Parliament, church and state. The monarch may have believed that they had the right to run their church, but realistically the political affiliations and personal wants caused more destruction than if they had allowed a more pure source to lead and make decisions for the church. Ultimately relationships in Western Europe could have drastically changed if the Church of England had remained under Papal authority.