Theology 1.0: What is the ontological argument for God?

[Author's note: The author attempts to present the ontological argument as he best understands it. The author is not in anyway, a philosopher or a theologian. He has a Masters in Biology. He is simply a Christian trying to make sense of the world. This post is also dedicated to his two philosopher friends, Guojun and Mitchel, who helped him immensely through this thought process.]

The Ontological Argument often leaves my brain scrambled like my laptop screen

An argument for the existance of God
One of the arguments for the existance of God is called the ontological argument for God. One unique thing about this philosophical arguement is that we are able to trace its origin to St Anselm of Cantebury. Around 1077-1078, St Anselm wrote Proslogion. This work is where the ontological argument first appeared (Hannam, 2011).

 St Anselm wrote that there is a "conception of God in our minds that is greater than any other thing we can conceive. However, in order for God to be the truly greatest thing He must also exists. A real greatest thing is certainty greater than an imaginary one. If God did not exist he would not be the greatest thing we can conceive and hence he must exist" (Anselm, 1973).

From the wording (and historical research), this argument was not intented to prove God's existance, but rather to show believers why God's existance was necessary. Nevertheless, it has been modified by many philosophers such as Rene Decartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Mulla Sadra as a proof for God's existance (Hannam, 2011).

As with many philsophical agruments, this argument has been refined over time. In this post, I will be exploring the Alvin Platinga's version.

Platinga (1998) argues

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e. God) exists.

If you're like me, you'll confess that it does not make any sense the first time you heard it.. This is why I chosen to write this post-- to explain it clearer, and hopefully, it'll make sense to you and me.

The difficulties
What does "possible worlds" mean?
One of the difficulties of the argument is to understand what the word "possible worlds" mean. It does not mean alternate universes or alien worlds. They simply mean hypotheses of how the world might have been (Craig, 2008).

Using this idea of possible worlds, any entity can either be impossible (exists in no possible worlds), contingent (exists in some possible worlds) or necessary (existance in all possible worlds).

Examples of impossible entities include the proposition of squared circles, or that the prime minister of Singapore is a prime number.

Examples of contingent entites include extant elephants (there are possible hypothetical situations where elephants became extinct) or that the prime minister of Singapore is related to me (not true in the actual world, but is possible in other worlds).

Examples of necessary entities include the concept of mathematics, or the proposition that square contain four sides.

What does maximally great mean?
A maximally great being is one that possesses all qualities (such as necessity) which are considered better to have. Furthermore it not only possess such qualities, it possesses them to the maximum extent. This means it possesses maximum power (omnipotent), maximum knowledge (omniscience) and maximum good (omnibenevolence).

Having these qualities, one would call this maximally great being "God". Since this "God" would be omnipresent (as part of its maximal powers), if He existed in even one possible world, he exists in all.

Strengths of the argument
The summary of the argument is simple this--  if it is even possible that God exists, then God exists. In other words it shifts the onus of proof of God's nonexistance to the atheist. This is because if the atheist even concedes a slight possiblility of God's existance, then God exists.

To debunk the ontological argument, one must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God (or rather, a maximally great being) to exist.

A maximally great rubber duckie?

Objections to the argument
As with any argument, there are always people who disagree with it. I shall go through more famous ones.

The unicorn alternative
A common objection to the ontological argument is that it can be applied to anything. For instance, in this youtube video, an atheist ridcules the argument, stating it can be applied to unicorns. He uses the argument to show unicorns exists, thinking that the argument states "if you can define it, it exists."

Nevertheless, let's look at this objection in the best possible light. Let's say we use the argument for a maximally great unicorn. Even if we had a perfect unicorn in everyway, clear of any defect, it still would not be omnipotent, omniscience or omnibenevolent. (If it did, then it would be "God"; we are then just replacing the word "God" with the word "unicorn".) At best, it would be contingent (only exists in some possible worlds).

In fact, this kind of objection is not new, and handled by St Anselm himself 900 years ago. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, St Anselm's rival used a Lost Island as an example (rather than a unicorn). St Anselm pointed out that even the most perfect island is lesser than the greatest thing can be thought of (i.e. it is not "God"; or it does not have the qualities of "God") (Cornman et al., 1992).

Kant's objection
That said, there are forminable arguments against the ontological argument. Almost all serious objections focus on premise 1 ("It is possible that a maximally great being exists"). This is mainly because premise 2 onwards logically follows (Craig, 2008).

One of the greatest philosophers of the Western World, Immanuel Kant also had reservations with the ontological argument (even though Kant himself was a Christian). He questioned the existance as a "necessary proposition". In other words, he argue that a triangle must have three sides if it existed in the first place. Being necessary does not mean an object exist. Furthermore, he argues that a judgement of the non-existance entity is impossible (Kant, 1787).

However, Platinga's (1988) version of the argument does not take issue with this (i.e. it leaves the question of whether existing is a perfection open).

 Can a maximally great being exist?
Another challenge to the ontological argument is whether the concept of a maximally great being is coherent. The notion of God seen as classical theism (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But these attributes have been often portrayed as contradictionary. For instance, Smith (1980) argues that God is either not good enough or powerful enough to stop all evil.

Limits of the argument
As with any argument, there are limitations. In the Christian context even if this argument is convincing, it does not lead to the conclusion that this god is the Christian God (since the God of Islam and Judaism is also omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent). Granted, this argument is not intented to lead people straight away to the Christian God, but a step in a series of arguments to get there. So this argument is only at best useful against atheists.

In my personal opinion..
I find this argument logically coherent, but yet in the same way unconvincing. I sincerely doubt if I would use this argument as an argument for God's existance. For one, not everyone would agree to call a maximally great being "God". One of the most famous Christian theologians, Thomas Aquinas pointed this out in his landmark Summa Theologica.

Next, it would require people of some level of technical knowledge of philosophy to understand it, blunting its effiency.


References
Anselm, St. (trans. Benedicta Ward) (1973) Prayers and Mediations of St Anselm with Prologion

Cornman, J.W., Lehrer, K., Sotiros Pappas, G. (1992) Philosophical problems and arguments: an introduction
Craig, W.L. (2008) Reasonable Faith (3rd Edition)

Hannam, J. (2011) God's Philosophers

Kant, I. (1787) A Critique of Pure Reason

Kukkone, T. (2000) Possible Worlds in the Tahâfut al-Falâsifa: Al-Ghazâlî on Creation and Contingency. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 38, 479-502.

Platinga, A. (1998) God, arguments for the existence of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Smith, G.H. (1980) Atheism: The Case Against God

For Further Thinking/Reading
InspiringPhilosophy
GospelCoalition
ReasonableFaith

Alternative Culture: Wicked (musical)

During this year's Chinese New Year, my family and I decided to watch Wicked, the musical. It tells the familiar story of The Wizard of Oz, but in an unconventional way.

Synopsis
Without ruining anything, I shall summarise the story. The story is told from the perspective of Glinda the Good and Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West. The story takes place before, during and after the events of the Wizard of Oz. Let me warn you-- be prepared for a shock twist in the plot.

While high on entertainment and comic value, Wicked subtly challenges our preconceived notion of good and evil by asking us to reexamine our values. In fact, the key question asked at the beginning of the musical was if wicked people were born bad, or did events caused them to choose a path of evil. This will be the issue I will examine in this post.

Born evil, or made evil?
While the musical does not address this question directly, the events of the story seem to imply that events that happened in evil characters' life made them evil. For instance, Boq starts out good and eager to please Glinda, but a series of events twist him to be full of hate. Elphaba's sister Nessarose begins as good-natured, but through a series of betrayals and bad decisions, becomes more tyrannical than her father.

However, a little perspective is needed. Some of the characters such as Fiyero remained good although he suffered a hideous transformation. So maybe things aren't as simple as chance and individual choice as it seems.

 Why do people do wicked things?
I believe that what lies within the human heart is a natural inclination to sin (i.e. disobey God, His laws and not do good). I would even go further to argue that as sin entered the world via one man (Romans 5:12-14), people are born with an innate desire to rebel against God. In fact, the Reformer Martin Luther  knew this well. Examining his own life, he noted that a man is sinful "solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by any outward sin or work" (Luther, 1520), based on his analysis of Romans 3:9-20.

In the Lutheran Ausburg Confession it notes that "all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit" (Tappert, 1959).

Solution
But as a Christian, I know it is not enough to let people realise their sinful nature. There is a solution. We just need to put our trust in Jesus (Romans 3:21-31) whose sacrifice on the cross and resurrection paid for all our sins-- past, present and future. God help us if we attempt to overcome evil by our own efforts.

I guess this is why Marxist and literary critic Terry Eagleton (2009) commented that Christianity is "more hopeful than liberal rationalism, with its unhinged belief that not only is the salvation of the human species possible but that, contrary to all we read in the newspapers, it has in principle already taken place. Not even the rose-tinted Trotskyist believes that."

Conclusion
Wicked is a good show and I recommend it to all. I give it 85/100. While I did not find any of the songs memorable, I did enjoy it. I also wished some parts of the story (such as Nessarose's tyranny) were elaborated.

References
Eagleton, T. (2009) Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (2009)

Luther, M. (1520) The Freedom of A Christian

Tappert, T.G. (1959) The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

With Due Respect: The Church persecuted Galileo for his scientific views!

Tower of Pisa, Italy 2009

Galileo, the man, the myth
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) is often portrayed as a man ahead of his time. After all, he was a brilliant astronomer and mathematician. Appointed to the chair of the University of Pisa in 1589, he was spent the next twenty years making groundbreaking scientific discoveries.

The story of the man himself is often used as an example of how Christianity inhibits scientific discoveries. Galileo is shown as a man who was the first to show that objects of differing weights fall at the same speed, disgraced Aristotle's theories, proved Copernicus's ideas (of heliocentrism; the idea that the earth moved around the stationary sun) right, and ultimate irked the Roman Catholic Church with his findings so much that they finally persecuted him. A fascinating tale-- too bad none of it is true (Hannam, 2011).

Wait, what?
First of all, the idea of falling bodies moving at the same speed was already being championed by the scientific community at that time, as part of the project to show that the Greek philosopher Aristotle was wrong among many things. Secondly, Copernicus's ideas had already been proven by Johannes Kepler. And lastly, the Roman Catholic Church placed Galileo under house arrest for political reasons, rather than scientific or theological reasons. For the purpose of this post, I will be focusing on the apparent conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church. (Hannam, 2011)

Welcome to the 17th century
During the early 1600s, the prevailing view of astronomy were that of Aristotle's. The heavens (which could neither be generated nor decayed) were moving in concentric circles, with earth at the centre.

In 1609, Galileo was making astronomical observations using a brand new scientific equipment-- the telescope. After noticing more stars in the universe than previously thought, he observed sunspots and lunar craters. This suggested that the heavens were not unchangeable and perfect circles as Aristotle thought. More importantly, he noted that the planet Venus had different shapes at different times-- sometimes a complete disk, sometimes a semi-circle, and sometimes even barely visible. This made him conclude that Venus did not revolve around Earth; it revolved around the Sun.

The die-hard Aristotelian professors were eager to reject Galileo findings in advance. His colleague, Giulio Libri (c.1550-1610), Professor of Aristotelian Philosophy at the University of Pisa had trouble seeing through the telescope, and when he died, Galileo remarked that he could probably see the moons of Jupiter "on the way to heaven". This statement suggested how Galileo treated his opponents publicly, and it was no surprise that Galileo had few friends later in his life.

Ironically, it was the Jesuits (the Roman Catholic order of monks dedicated to education) who first warmly received Galileo's findings. The Jesuit Christopher Clavius (1538-1612), the most respected astronomer at that time confirmed his discoveries, and planned to set about ideas to reform astronomy (Lattis, 1994). The problem for Galileo now was that even though his observations contradicted the Aristotelian model of astronomy, he could not prove Copernicus's.

You mean there is another model?
Years earlier, another astronomer named Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) proposed his system of astronomy-- the earth was stationary, the Sun went around the earth, and everything else moved around the sun. After Galileo presented his work in 1611, Tycho's model became the preferred one over Aristotle's, and Copernicus's.

Furthermore, Copernicus's model was already in a bad light--Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino (1542-1621), the 'Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions', was unconvinced that the Copernicus model was true (as it had yet to be demonstrated) and an Italian theologian Paolo Foscarini (1565-1616) had been aggressively advocating the Copernicus model. Thus in 1616, Copernicus's Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres was suspended from public till it's correction (Hannam, 2011).

Vatican City, 2009

Friends in high places
In 1623, Galileo's good friend, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini (1568-1644) ascended the papacy to become Pope Urban VIII. Earlier that, Galileo published Il Saggiatore ('The Assayer'), mocking Jesuit Orazio Grassi(1583-1664)'s theories about comets. Grassi had argued that comets were further from the earth than the moon, while Galileo insisted that comets were an atmospheric illusion. (Incidentally, modern science concurs with Grassi.) Pope Urban VIII enjoyed the Il Saggiatore, and composed a poem in Galileo's honour.

Taking advantage of his new-found favour with the Catholic Church, Galileo travelled to Rome in 1624 to meet with the pope to explain his advocacy of the Copernicus model. Despite meeting Galileo no less than six times, Pope Urban VIII remained unconvinced. While he did not consider the Copernicus model heretical, he was unsure if it was correct either. He encouraged Galileo to treat the Copernicus's ideas as a hypothesis, rather than a fact, and asked Galileo to publish a book comparing the three models of astronomy (Aristotelian, Tycho and Copernicus). Pope Urban VIII was actually asking Galileo to be more open-minded in this case (Hannam, 2011)

But Galileo took the pope's kindness for granted
So in 1632, Galileo wrote Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems. In it, he portrays the astronomical debates as a discussion between an academic named Salviati (who represented Galileo), a Aristotelian simpleton named Simplicio and a biased chairman named Sagredo (who always agrees with Galileo's views).

When Pope Urban VIII read the book, he was furious. Some of the pope's doubts and arguments against Copernicus's models were placed in the mouth of Simplicio. Furthermore, Galileo's book omitted Tycho's model entirely, even though Galileo's "evidences" for Copernicus's model could also be applied to Tycho's (Finocchiaro, 1989)*.

And Galileo's punishment? He was NOT burnt, tortured or even flogged. Despite his soured relations with the pope, Jesuits and academia, he was placed under house arrest, and lived in comfort till his death in 1642.

Conclusion
So in the life of Galileo we learnt that
a) Despite Galileo being right about Copernicus's models, he did not prove it scientifically or observationally, although he showed it to be superior to Aristotle's (but not Tycho's).

b) The Roman Catholic Church did not go after Galileo because his findings were a threat to Christianity, but because he was extremely rude to his colleagues and superiors. He was persecuted for personal (and perhaps political reasons).

c) Although this example often crops up a science vs Christianity case study, it is a misrepresentation of issue.

Let me be clear-- Galileo was a great scientist and presenter. He was able to write fluently and present his scientific ideas as a coherent whole. However, his attitude got the better of him.

References
Finocchiaro, M.A. (1989) The Galileo Affair

Lattis, J.M. (1994) Between Copernicus and Galileo

Hannam, J. (2011) God's Philosophers

Further reading
Bethinking

*Galileo's evidences for a rotating earth mainly included the existence of tides in the waters. He argued that tides exist because of the inertia experienced by the waters as the earth moved. However, it was not convincing at that era because if he was right, we would been experiencing great winds all the time. Now we know tides are caused by the moon's gravitational effect on the waters (Hannam, 2011).

With Due Respect: Christianity is like atheism, just one God less!

It is often touted that Christians are actually atheists. The author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has said that Christians are actually atheists with respect to Greek gods (such as Zeus) and the Norse gods (such as Thor and Odin).

But it makes no sense!

However, what defines an atheist is the lack of belief in ALL gods, not just simply one god. To make the statement that "Christianity is like atheism, just one god less" is like saying "marriage is like singlehood, just one relationship less".

If you allow me to extend the analogy, suppose Gentleman A is married to Lady B. Would it be right to say that Gentleman A is single with respect to unmarried Lady C? Of course not! Gentleman A would still be married to Lady B with (or without) respect to Lady C.

Similarly, a Christian is still as Christian in the light of Zeus or Odin.

Isn't the atheism the default state?

I'm not too sure about this assumption either. Recent research (Barrett, 2004; Foster, 2010*) has revealed that if anything, children are born religious. They seem to start a belief that some supernatural agent is responsible for the workings of the world. In other words, atheism was seen to be something to be learnt, rather than a default state to maintain.

While this observation certainity does not prove Christianity or atheism true, one must not be to hasty to conclude atheism is the default state.

Conclusion

While it may sound cool, sweeping statements like "Christianity is atheism with one less god" does not hold water. The Christian must be wary in engaging in such word games-- while it may be fun, Christians are dealing with people's eternal destinies.


References

Barrett, J. (2004) Why Would Anyone Believe in God?

Foster, C.A. (2010) Wired for God?

* Foster is not a scientist, but rather a lawyer. However, he wrote a review about the biology of religion in Wired for God? which is interesting to read.

Update: My new job

A collection of beetles (Coleoptera)

 My new career

I have some great news! I just started my term at NIE (National Institute of Education)! For those not in the know, I am now a student at an institute that trains teachers.

This grants me my long, sought-after relief from academia. I will now be spending one year learning how to teach.

 

 My timetable appears rather hectic, so as a result, expect the freuqncy of posts to drop. Not to worry, I will still be keeping this blog updated, at least bimonthly.

So take care, and remember, God loves you.

God bless,

defensedefumer

Alternative Culture: Singapore's train problems and the limits of man

 

City Airport Train, Vienna, Austria 2011

Triple train trouble!
In December 2011, Singapore (my country) suffered three major train (a.k.a. MRT [Mass Rapid Transit]) disruptions. As these incidents were consider the worst malfunctions in the 24-year history of the MRT, many have called the CEO to step down.

Having studied in London for the past 4 years, I was initially quite surprised by such demands. If the CEO had to step down everytime there was a line malfunction, then the CEO of the London Underground (London's train services) must have stepped down many times. However one of my friends pointed out that the MRT have often touted itself as being the best, so such incidents was considered a slap to the face to its reputation. Furthermore as many as 125,000 people were affected by one of the disruptions, making it a major accident.

So should the CEO stepped down?

If you're looking for a political analysis of the situation, you're viewing the wrong blog. I'm just humbly here to give a theological view of the event, and that will be the purpose of this post.

I'm here not to criticise the MRT management or the engineers. In fact Singaporean engineers are one of the best in the world. During my time at Imperial College, the students who topped every engineering course I could think of (Electrical, Mechanical, Material, Chemical and Aeronautical) were Singaporeans. In additional to that, I would go on record to say that travelling on the Singapore train/subway/metropolitan is very reliable.

The limits of man
But it's a strange situation isn't it? Despite possessing some of the best engineers in the world, the MRT was shown to be prone to breakdowns. But this isn't the first time man's pride was shamed, isn't it? We were once told somethings were unsinkable, and others would last for a thousand years. And this (series of MRT malfunctions) is in the field of engineering, one of the most highly disciplined fields in academia.

And it's not just in the issue of engineering that man struggles with. We struggle with health, self-worth, justice, poverty, morality, artistic expression and so many other things. And often we tend to elate man's ability to solve everything. If we even struggle to solve for these issues, then what about the issue of salvation, our eternal destinies?

[I am not saying we shouldn't work on these fields, but I'm merely highlighting man's limitation in these areas.]

The ultimate struggle
And here's the ultimate struggle for Christians--we either tend to be religious, or irreligious (Keller, 2007). To be religious, is to look within ourselves-- our acts, achievements, behaviours and morality for justification before God. Then the religious would look to the others and condemned the others for not following the traditions they do.

To be irreligious is also another great temptation-- it is to deny there is a problem with the world and us, and therefore do not see a need for accounting before God.

Both the religious and irreligious can be dangerous forms of self-centredness. Chesterton (1908) used the analogy of images of Buddhist saints to illustrate this well-- that we close our eyes to the world and look within ourselves for satisfaction.

What about Jesus?
Just as a Roman centurion looked to Jesus for his servant's healing and a father looked to Jesus for his son's exorcism, we must look to Jesus (and not ourselves) as our source of justification. As the Reformer Luther (1520) wrote that it was by "impiety and incredulity of heart" that mankind became deserving of "condemnation". In being religious or irreligious, a man makes himself "as an idol in his own heart".

So how do we save ourselves?
You can't!-- that's the point! That's why we can be grateful for Christmas. If we could do everything on our own, God didn't have to come down. So take heart, my Christian friends. There's grace! The salvation issue is not about what we can do for God (being religious), or how we redefine God (being irreligious). It's not about how much faith we have in Jesus either. It's about whether we trust Him in the first place.

And we can. That's why I can joyfully and truthfully declare "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Reference

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Keller, T.J. (2007) The Reason For God

Luther, M. (1520) Freedom of a Christian

Theology 1.0: The Reformation in England and Scotland-- a tale of two Reformations

[Author's note: The following post is dedicated to Dishon, who is interested in what happened to England during the Reformation]

Leeds Castle, UK, September 2011

Pre-Reformation Britain
Robert Grosseteste
England and Scotland, although not the most powerful countries at those times has a unique relationship with the Reformation. For instance, long before Luther came up with his understanding of justification, there was Robert Grosseteste. Grosseteste was appointed the Bishop of Lincoln in 1235. He believed that clergy should place more importance in preaching than giving Mass, and that preaching should be done in English (so that the commoners would understand), rather than Latin (as all Roman Catholics priests would). He was also famous for speaking against the pope on several issues, including the appointments of non-English speaking clergy in England, and the paying of the crusades.

The exhumation and burning of Wycliffe's bones.

John Wycliffe
Then there was also John Wycliffe, who was a preacher in Oxford. During his time, the Roman Catholic church appointed two popes (see my Reformation post for details). He then began to identify the Bible as the source of spiritual authority (rather than the pope). Having ideas which were contrary to orthodox Roman Catholic beliefs (such as rejecting papal authority), he soon irked the English authorities enough to force him to retire. After retiring, he started a secret project to translate the Latin Bible into English. He passed away in 1384, thankfully before the Roman Catholic Council of Constance deemed him a heretic. They exhumed his body, burned his bones and scattered his ashes.

Yet his legacy lived-- his works would inspire the Czech Jan Hus, and later the Reformer Martin Luther.

Patrick Hamilton
Born in Glasgow, Patrick Hamilton was appointed an abbot and received his education at the University of Paris. Paris was where Hamilton would encounter the works of the Reformer Martin Luther. Returning to Scotland, he began to preach, and soon was tried as a heretic and burned in 1528. Despite his high connections, Hamilton was willing to die for his beliefs (he agreed to be tried knowing the likely consequence). This raised the profile of Protestantism in Scotland, as many commoners wondered why this new theology was that one was so ready to be killed for it.

Thomas Bliney
Educated in Cambridge,  Thomas Bliney had a personal struggle with sin, but came  an understanding of salvation via faith in Jesus Christ with the passage of 1 Timothy 1:15 of the Erasmus's translation of the New Testament. Just as Erasmus's work inspired the Reformation in Germany with Martin Luther and Switzerland with Ulrich Zwingli, Bliney began to preach against saints and relics veneration, and against pilgrimages to holy places. However, Bliney was no Lutheran-- he upheld the authority of the pope and the sacrifice of Mass. Nevertheless, he was still burned for his views in 1531.

William Tyndale
As Luther's works began to flood into England (despite a ban), a linguist named William Tyndale started translating the Bible into English. Inspired by Erasmus's translation of the New Testament, Tyndale decided to sail for the German town of Worms (where Martin Luther had been tried years ago) to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. His translation of the New Testament, together with his work, Parable of the Wicked Mammon (which argued for salvation by faith alone) was smuggled back to England. Followers of the late Wycliffe treated the works as a godsend; the English bishops on the other hand were not so keen.

Tyndale had translated 'do penance' in the Latin Bible as 'repent' in the English, 'charity' as 'love' and 'priest' as 'senior'. What was once viewed as an external sacrament, was now a call for the inward change of the heart. Tyndale had translated a good portion of the Old Testament before the wrath of the Roman Catholics caught up with him. About 16,000 copies of his translations had been smuggled into England. Executed in 1535, his famous last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!".

The Reformation in England-- the monarchs
Henry VIII
The king that Tyndale was talking about was Henry VIII. Ironically, he was the one who kick start the Reformation in England.

King Henry VIII

King Henry VIII was a deeply religious king-- he would serve Mass to his priests and attend Mass thrice a day. Passionately Roman Catholic, he opposed the Reformer Martin Luther's view with his work, A Defense of the Seven Sacraments (written by several ghost writers). For his zeal, the pope award him with the title, Defender of the Faith. It was highly unlikely that this king would be favourable to the Reformation.

The most potent problem that King Henry VIII was being without a son. He had just went through a war of succession (War of the Roses), and having a son was essential for political stability. His wife, Catherine of Aragon underwent a series of miscarriages, only one baby (Mary I) survived passed infanthood. Interpreting this as punishment for marrying his brother's widow(Leviticus 20:21), Henry VIII sought to annul his marriage and find a new wife. He sough papal favour (with Pope Clement VII) to do so.

But there were two problems-- firstly, Catherine of Aragon insisited that her marriage with Henry VIII's brother was never consummated, so her marriage with Henry VIII was legitimate. Secondly, Catherine of Aragon's nephew was Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V had sacked Rome once and imprisoned Pope Clement VII. There was no way the pope was going to irk the wrath of Charles V again.

But the king was determined. He assembled an army of scholars to prove that his case was right, and that the pope had no authority over him. They did one better-- they showed that the church in England was planted earlier than the church of Rome, and thus the church of England was independent of the church of Rome.

Armed with this reasoning, King Henry VIII made laws to favour to reflect the increasing independence of the church of England, annulled his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, appointed Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the church of England) and married Anne Boleyn. The separation between the churches of England and Rome was complete in 1534, where the English Act of Supremacy declared the King of England, the supreme head of the church of England.

However, his marriage with Anne Boleyn failed to produce a male heir, and rumors that she was having an affair spread. So she was executed and King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. She was his favourite wife as she bore him his only son (Edward VI). However, she died from complications in childbirth.

Although Henry VIII had a son, he wanted more to secure his succession. With the suggestion of his chief minister Thomas Cromwell (not to be mistaken for Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell; who ruled England a century later), he married Anne of Cleves, but was so repulsed by her that he never consummated the marriage. Cromwell paid with his head, and the marriage was soon annulled.

He then married Catherine Howard, but she was caught being unfaithful, so she was executed. He finally married Catherine Parr, but it was a childless marriage. King Henry VIII died, leaving Edward VI to succeed him.

Summary of Henry VIII's marriages

One thing to be noted is that King Henry was no Protestant (despite his break with the Roman Catholic Church). Although he had appointed a Protestant Archbishop (Thomas Cranmer), a Protestant Chief Minister (Thomas Cromwell), and married Protestant wifes (only Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Howard were Roman Catholic), all King Henry VIII was interested in was to deny the pope's supremacy in England. In other words, he did not want a Roman Catholic England or a Protestant England, he wanted an English Catholic England (the difficulty is deciding what was Roman to be rid of, and what was Catholic to be retained).  For instance, in a single day he burned three Protestants for heresy and hanged three Roman Catholics for treason.

Nevertheless, he appointed Protestants in key positions (who pushed their Protestant agendas). Egged on by Thomas Cromwell, he stripped the Roman Catholics monasteries of their land (which he sold for funds).

Furthermore, having used the Bible for his case for his first annulment, it was hard for the king to limit the authority of Scripture. He decreed that every church should have at least one Bible. Soon private Bible-reading became a popular hobby (even the illiterate started to learn how to read, to be in touch with the Word of God), and common folk started challenging priests on their theological ideas. Although King Henry VIII was not really Protestant, he had unleashed the Reformation in England.

Edward VI
In 1547, Edward VI was nine, and succeeded his father as king. Due to his youth, his uncle, Edward Seymour ruled in his stead as Lord Protector. Seymour and the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer worked to acclimatised England to the Reformation. Only preaching in English was allowed, images of saints were removed from churches and chantries were dissolved (as they encouraged praying for people in purgatory).

King Edward VI

The Reformists in the English government were adamant is ensuring that the move from Roman Catholic theology was a slow reform, rather than rapid revolution. For instance, the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer procedure for Mass included the words "The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given to thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life". Both Reformists and Catholics could attend Mass with clear conscience.

However, Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. John Dudley, who had succeeded Edward Seymour as Lord Protector panicked-- he knew the person in line was the strongly Catholic Mary (Edward VI's half-sister). He appointed Lady Jane Grey (Mary's cousin) to be the next queen, but to no avail. The people were more interested in the monarchy than religion. Mary gained support and dispatched Lady Grey to be executed. The Protestants supported Mary, unaware of how harshly she would treat them.

Mary I
Daughter of Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII's first wife), Mary had been declared illegitimate when her father broke with the church of Rome. To Queen Mary, the Reformation was not only promoting a heresy, but the source of all her troubles.

Swiftly, Queen Mary instilled Roman Catholic policies. Cardinal Pole replaced Thomas Crammer as Archbishop of Cantebury. Married clegry were separated from their wives. Bibles were removed from churches. At first, the English people generally happy to accomodate.

To wipe out twenty years of history was going to difficult. For one, forcing landowners to return their land to the monastrieswas unpopular. Secondly, the people had already read the Bible, so they had doubts about Roman Catholic teachings. Thirdly, her choice of potential spouse was the future King Phillip II of Spain, a traditional enemy of the English.

Mary's policies soon became brutal-- she burnt popular Protestant preachers and figures like Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester), Nicholas Ridley (Bishop of London) and Thomas Cranmer  (ex-Archbishop of Cantebury). Watching the brave martyrs die had the undesired effect for Mary-- the populace were moved by the courage of the martyrs (although Cranmer renounced Protestantism initially under torture, he took back back renouncement before his execution). Hundreds of Protestants were killed during Bloody Mary's reign.

Mary passed away from stomach cancer in 1558, without an heir, allowing her sister, Elizabeth to take the throne.

Elizabeth I
The famed Queen Elizabeth I regarded her reign as God's work-- after all, she survived Bloody Mary's policies. And Elizabeth I had to be Protestant-- her mother was the reason why the England broke from Rome, and Rome did not recognise Elizabeth I's reign as legitimate.

Knowing there were many different Protestant factions in England, as the head of the Church of England, she kept to a very English Protestantism. She wanted England to be a united, moderate Protestant nation. Everyone had to go church, whether they agreed with the theology behind it or not. Catholics did not need to take Communion if they did not want to, but just had to attend church. Elizabeth was concerned that foreign Catholic nations might invade if she was too Protestant.

Not that it helped-- in 1570, the Pope encouraged English Roman Catholics to rise up against their Queen. Now being a Catholic was dangerous-- Elizabeth I had tolerated them, now they were seen as traitors. The Catholics of Europe saw England as a sole Protestant nation to be brought down-- if England fell, the spirit of the Reformation would die.

The Catholic's hope was in Elizabeth I's Catholic cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots. If Elizabeth was assassinated, she would be the next queen. But this Mary was neither popular in Scotland, nor with Elizabeth I. Under arrest in England, Mary was soon suspected of treason and executed. Mary's son, James was being brought up by Protestants. The English Protestant line seemed secured, even if Elizabeth remained virgin (and hence childless).

In 1588, the Catholics had enough. Under the pretext of making England Catholic, King Philip II lauched the Spanish Armada against England. With the help of bad weather, the English navy defeated Spain. Elizabeth I saw this as God's blessing on a Protestant nation. She continued her Protestant moderation.

The old Roman Catholic ways slowly died out in England-- the only Bible the people knew was English, the only church they attended was Protestant and the only Protestant theology was taught. This secured Protestantism in England.


The Reformation in Scotland-- the people
 John Knox
While King Henry VIII of England was having marriage problems with the Roman Catholic Church, King James V of Scotland had no problems with Rome. He was already the head of the Church of Scotland, and there was no benefit for James V to break with Rome.

John Knox

In 1542, James V passed away, and Mary, Queen of Scots was next in line. However, she was still an infant, and James Hamilton, the Earl of Arran was her regent. James Hamilton was famous for flipflopping between Protestantism and Catholicism.

In 1543, James Hamilton favoured the Protestants. Bibles were sold and Protestant preachers were appointed to church positions. He even had Cardinal David Beaton of St Andrews arrested.

In 1544, James Hamilton favoured the Catholics. Reading the Bible (in the vernacular) was illegal again, and the leading Protestant preacher, George Wishart was burned as a heretic. Upset, the Scottish Protestants marched up to St Andrews castle and murdered Cardinal Beaton in 1546. French troops (under Scottish permission) marched up to St Andrews castle and defeated the Protestants. Wishart's ex-bodyguard, John Knox was among the defenders.

Condemned to be slaves on board French ships, Knox and his defenders caused problems for his captors. Knox refused to respect the Catholic Mass and tossed an image of the Virgin Mary overboard. In 1549 he was released (under unclear circumstances).

Taking refuge in England, Knox tried to persuade Thomas Cranmer to speed up the Reformation in England. When Bloody Mary took over, he left for Geneva. Coming into the city that hosted the Reformist John Calvin, John Knox thought Geneva to be a paradise. In 1558, he penned The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. To Knox, the horrors unleashed on both England and Scotland were due to the reigns of both Blood Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots. It was poorly timed, as Mary I's reign was short. No way would Queen Elizabeth allow Knox to return after writing such a sexist book.

Nevertheless, Knox returned to Scotland in 1559. There, his sermons stroke up passions of Protestantism. Despite being declared an outlaw, Catholicism was beginning to be seen as something foreign. After all, Mary, Queen of Scots was living in France, married a French and was brought up in France. Soon Protestantism was fused with Scottish nationalism, and the French were driven out of Scotland (with the help of the English; Queen Elizabeth I would rather have a Protestant Scotland than a Catholic one).

In 1560, the Scotish Parliment declared that the pope no longer had any authority in Scotland, and a new confession of faith (the Scots Confession) was drawn up by John Knox. Mary, Queen of Scots, returned to Scotland the next year, but she had to accept a Protestant Scotland, whether she liked it or not.

Conclusion
What a turn of events! In 1558, both England and Scotland were Catholic, but both became Protestant in 1560. Yet the story of the Reformation in both these kingdoms were different. For one, the Reformation in England was monarchy-driven, while the Reformation in Scotland were people driven.

Now when comparing the stories of the Reformation in England, Scotland, Wittenburg (led by Luther), Geneva (led by Calvin) and Zurich (led by Zwingli), I am quite surprised by how different the events were. While it is possible to use the Reformation for political purposes (as in England), the Reformation can also occur without political support (as in Zurich and Geneva).

What this showed that the Reformation was not moral, social or political reform dressed up in theological clothing, but that a theological revolution laid underneath everything. As a project to keep living the gospel, we should not belittle the fact that theology may drive history.


For further reading

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

Ryle, J.C. (1960) Five English Reformers

Recommended websites

Theology Network