On Christianity and Tradition [split]

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Gnist

What I would like to know, and I believe that noone asked these questions as of yet, is why people have this reluctance against Christianity.

I frequently hear comments like:"I believe in God, but not in the Church", so I agree with your next quote. People believe in the omnipotent deity that we call God, but refuse to believe in a system that is governed by human beings and thus flawed.

I think that there are several reasons for it, but the main reason is probably that they don't feel that the church caters to them, that it's not about them and that to a great extent it is for show or for things they don't really care so much about.

I agree. Aside from that, people see that the church (like any human-controlled system for that matter) is flawed and vulnerable to human weaknesses and imperfections, considering that priests are just an ordinary people who make mistakes.

The Swedish church was vulnerable to changes in modern times...

I've always had the impression that not only Swedes, but all Christian Scandinavians don't exactly have a strong connection with their Church. Is it a product of modern times, or does it have roots further in the past?
It is exactly the opposite in my country, where Church has been a safeguard of our national identity, culture and pride through centuries.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I've always had the impression that not only Swedes, but all Christian Scandinavians don't exactly have a strong connection with their Church. Is it a product of modern times, or does it have roots further in the past?
It is exactly the opposite in my country, where Church has been a safeguard of our national identity, culture and pride through centuries.

You are right. The one explanation that makes more sense than any other explanation I know of is the one I already offered. But I will go into closer detail, because it is interesting to know some history behind it.

We had here a certain degree of compulsion surrounding the church. It was mandatory to attend mass, for example. When I was searching for more precise information about the date of installation of that order, I didn't find anything, but I will keep looking. What we can assume is that the arrangements surrounding the church became looser with reformation, in the sense that they became subordinated to the King. So it's quite reasonable to assume that reformation itself was a seed of what would come later. On the one hand, the closer ties with the state enabled such a thing as mandatory attendance and observance, while on the other it left the church in the hands of political power.

------------------------------------------

But the change for Lutheranism was a slow process. During the 16th century, the King acquired the power to confiscate church property, to some extent at least. Later in the same century King Johan III tended toward reformed Catholicism, and his successor, his son with Katerina Jagelonica, Sigismund, who had become King of Poland, became King of Sweden also. In the same time, the Augsburgian confession, Confessio Augustana, a Lutheran document, was accepted by the Uppsala church meeting as the official teaching in 1593. Sigismund's successor Karl IX was in his turn attracted by Calvinism, causing another setback for Lutheranism. So it was not until the 17th century that the church was dominated by "Lutheran orthodoxy", and that was also the time when the ties to the state became even stronger.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, the church was challenged by new movements from outside. First came pietism, which, if I'm correctly informed, was originally a movement within Methodism. Second came what we know in Sweden as "herrnhutism" which is a word formed from "Herrn Hus" (Mr Hus), the founder of the Moravian Church. So it was the Moravian Church that came to have influence in Sweden. There were conflicts that led to a split up of the Lutheran unity, and a number of "free churches" came into existence. Religious freedom was installed to a limited degree, and was initially reserved for foreigners under King Gustav III. From 1860 onwards it allowed also for Swedes and Geats to be members of a new denomination.

Svenska kyrkan - Wikipedia, den fria encyklopedin

I found another source on the concept of folk church or national church, which was what I was initially looking for to back up my presentation, since a historical review of that concept is also a detailed representation of the ominous turns that made the Lutheran church of Sweden into the disastrous policy bureau that it is today as "The Church of Sweden". I found an article published on the Catholic website with permission by the author, a polish immigrant by the name of Maciej Zaremba: En fri kyrka del 2 Av Maciej Zaremba 991203

I'm using it for reference for Swedish readers, but there are surely more complete accounts in a good book, of which I don't know the title. Zaremba doesn't reveal his sources, but everything seems to be correct, although his perspective is not the same as mine.

The concept of national church came to Sweden from Germany in the beginning of the 20th century, but it was not until Einar Billing, bishop in Västerås 1920-1939, put stress on it, that things began to get serious. According to Billing, every nation had its own signum from God. Billing had an appealing intention, and it should be understood in the context of split up of Lutheran unity mentioned earlier on in my presentation. The church was no longer what it had been, and Billing wanted to revive it with a national turn, for the people, although it was a very fatal idea. Mass attendance was no longer mandatory, and people didn't attend in such great numbers anymore.

The Social Democrat Worker's Party (SAP, Socialdemokratiska Arbetarpartiet) came to power in 1933, and the stance of the party on religious freedom changed markedly after that. Arthur Engberg of SAP was now ecclesiastic minister. He was a cultural radical who, in the 1910's, had said that there could be no greater crime against the deepest and the best of a human soul than a state religion. But now that the SAP had come to power it was said that, yes, the state church shall be abolished, but in another time! What a U-turn!!!

That's the relatively late point at which I can say, with absolute certainty, that the church became corrupt, if not much earlier.

In 1961, Kjell-Olof Feldt of SAP - who later became minister of finance - said that anyone who wanted to marginalise Christianity/Christianism should guard the state church. You know... I often mention the SAP as the scoundrel for a reason in my posts. They took everything away from us, those lousy thieves.

With the millenium shift, the church was in official terms "separated from the state" but that's a big lie, a scam and completely bogus, if you ask me. Simultaneously, the parliament legislated that "The Church of Sweden" must be "evangelic-lutheran, open, democratic, national and a church for the people". And that may sound as a step forward to some, but it's nothing but a scandalous insult of everything that is truly national. They promote sodomy actively, and it's just a question of time before they will force all the clergy to sanction the marriages of "homosexuals" in the name of God. At the same time, the state also controls what religious societies can be registered. Registered religious societies can receive massive funding, and the great lot of it goes to "The Church of Sweden".

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I frequently hear comments like:"I believe in God, but not in the Church"

A very wide-spread and somehow Protestant attitude.

Originally Posted by Monolith

People believe in the omnipotent deity that we call God, but refuse to believe in a system that is governed by human beings and thus flawed.

In the Catholic teaching, the Holy Ghost works even through the church run by corrupt priests. The flawed men of the Church will bear responsability for their evildoings on the individual basis, but they cannot "corrupt" God or his church as repository of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Aside from that, people see that the church (like any human-controlled system for that matter) is flawed and vulnerable to human weaknesses and imperfections, considering that priests are just an ordinary people who make mistakes.

It has always been so. In the Middle Ages people used to mock corrupt clergy, even by putting a hat of a cardinal on a donkey's head etc. But those people believed nevertheless, they saw those flawed priests as not fulfilling their duty and serving God properly. In more modern times, however, many people came to the conclusion that, since the Churchmen are so corrupt, that the very institution of the Church has no meaning, nay, that even there is no God. Is this also stemming from this overestimation of man's powers? From this worship of man I referred to... As if mortal and sinful men who make mistakes were so powerful that by their malice they could "abolish" God.

Originally Posted by Monolith

It is exactly the opposite in my country, where Church has been a safeguard of our national identity, culture and pride through centuries.

The role of the high Church hierarchy was not always unequivocally positive in the Croatian history. But the lower clergy was generally always "on the side of the people" and lived with the people and its distresses.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Gnist

You are right. The one explanation that makes more sense than any other explanation I know of is the one I already offered. But I will go into closer detail, because it is interesting to know some history behind it.

We had here a certain degree of compulsion surrounding the church. It was mandatory to attend mass, for example. When I was searching for more precise information about the date of installation of that order, I didn't find anything, but I will keep looking. What we can assume is that the arrangements surrounding the church became looser with reformation, in the sense that they became subordinated to the King. So it's quite reasonable to assume that reformation itself was a seed of what would come later. On the one hand, the closer ties with the state enabled such a thing as mandatory attendance and observance, while on the other it left the church in the hands of political power.

Thank you for the detailed reply.
Judging from what you wrote, is seems that the reason why Swedes don't have a firm bond to their church lies in a fact that there were so many turmoils and corruption in the history of their Christianity. I guess that Church had lost its confidence in the eyes of the people through centuries because of that. But what about the pre-Christian religion in Sweden? I've read somewhere that the Christianization of Sweden wasn't exactly received with enthusiasm, since Norse paganism was forbidden in the eleventh century. Was there any impact because of that?

Originally Posted by Marulus

In more modern times, however, many people came to the conclusion that, since the Churchmen are so corrput, that the very institution of the Church has no meaning, nay, that even there is no God.

Correct. For that we can "thank" the modern world.

Is this also stemming from this overestimation of man's powers? From this worship of man I referred to... As if mortal and sinful men who make mistakes were so powerful that by their malice they could "abolish" God.

I agree. It is caused by arrogance.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Thank you for the detailed reply.
Judging from what you wrote, is seems that the reason why Swedes don't have a firm bond to their church lies in a fact that there were so many turmoils and corruption in the history of their Christianity. I guess that Church had lost its confidence in the eyes of the people through centuries because of that. But what about the pre-Christian religion in Sweden? I've read somewhere that the Christianization of Sweden wasn't exactly received with enthusiasm, since Norse paganism was forbidden in the eleventh century. Was there any impact because of that?

Norse and generally pagan traditions survived all the way - and I mean outside the church now - up until modern times of the 20th century. There is proof for it. It is in the SAP era that everyone has gone completely mad and forgotten about everything they knew. I swear.

And still today, with no signs of waning, the things relatively constant in the way people celebrate their holidays are pagan. Our Easter celebration is chuck full of pagan fertility symbolism, for example. We even have the pagan word for Christmas - Jul - and there is no other word for it.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Gnist

It is in the SAP era that everyone has gone completely mad and forgotten about everything they knew. I swear.

It is very disturbing and frustrating to see that so much people are fighting so fiercely for their own demise..

And still today, with no signs of waning, the things relatively constant in the way people celebrate their holidays are pagan. Our Easter celebration is chuck full of pagan fertility symbolism, for example. We even have the pagan word for Christmas - Jul - and there is no other word for it.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I wanted to know about the bond between the pre-Christian religion and the ancient Swedes. Was it strong, and were the Swedes distrustful towards the Christianity in the first place (in a way that such distrust could have been transferred by the last generation of pagan Swedes to the first generation of Christian Swedes), thus creating a certain degree of alienation from the Christianity even among the Christians?

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Monolith

It is very disturbing and frustrating to see that so much people are fighting so fiercely for their own demise..

It is totally disturbing. And that's another reason to point out all their flaws.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Yes, I'm aware of that. I wanted to know about the bond between the pre-Christian religion and the ancient Swedes. Was it strong, and were the Swedes distrustful towards the Christianity in the first place (in a way that such distrust could have been transferred by the last generation of pagan Swedes to the first generation of Christian Swedes), thus creating a certain degree of alienation from the Christianity even among the Christians?

I don't know. My own speculation is that people were happier with Catholicism than with Lutheranism, for several reasons. Catholicism wasn't so much subject to change by the whims of whoever was King at the moment. Catholicism wasn't as fiercely antipagan as Lutheranism was/is. It is a fact of history that protestants ruined many objects of art because they were "pagan" or "not orthodox" or whatever. I've seen remains that were partially restored in modern times with my own eyes. It is also a rather uncontroversial fact of history that protestantism wasn't favoured by the Swedish King on any folkish or spiritual grounds, but primarily on political and economical grounds. For example, he confiscated church gold to become rich.

[Piast Wheelmaker]

A very good thread, thank you to everyone! do you guys think that there would be any place for a similar dispute a hundred years from now on? in other words - does traditional Christianity have any place in this rapidly changing world?

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Piast Wheelmaker

does traditional Christianity have any place in this rapidly changing world?

What do you mean by having a place? I believe that traditional Christianity will still exist in a hundred years from now.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Piast Wheelmaker

A very good thread, thank you to everyone! do you guys think that there would be any place for a similar dispute a hundred years from now on? in other words - does traditional Christianity have any place in this rapidly changing world?

I don't see why not.