When Protestants and Catholics agreed: the sun revolves around the earth

Despite the mathematical proofs of the Greek mathematicians Pythagoras (580-500 BC) and Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), the later of whom calculated the earth's circumference within 2% by comparing the angles of shadows at different locations on the earth, it was still possible to find Early Church leaders hundreds of years later who rejected the notion of a spherical earth based upon references in the Scriptures to the "foundations of the earth, "corners of the earth", pillars of heaven", and the "waters above the firmament".  While the prevalence of those believing in a "flat earth" prior to Columbus is often over-stated by prideful modern people disdainful of the wisdom of the ancients, it is clearly true that some within the Church had theological reasons for doing so that had nothing to do with scientific observations.

Eventually the Church embraced the Ptolemaic system (Ptolemaeus AD 83-161) which continued to place the spherical earth at the center of the universe and posited ten concentric spheres which rotated around it containing the heavenly bodies.

"The geocentric model represented the best that science had to offer during the time when it was firmly held.  It was entirely consistent with both naked-eye observation and philosophy.  It was equally accepted and endorsed by both science and religion.  The problem is that while scientific conclusions are always tentative, the Christian Church - just as some did with the ancient cosmogony - decided to build an elaborate theological and scriptural defense of the geocentric model.  By failing to apply the lessons of the past, the church once again foolishly committed itself to a popular scientific theory supposedly based on the testimony of the Scriptures." (Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation)

In the 16th century, when Copernicus proposed that the earth and all the planetary bodies revolved around the sun, a theory which would soon be confirmed by observation's made by Galileo Galilei with the newly invented telescope, it became a theological issue rather than merely an astronomical one because the Church had previously decided that the Ptolemaic system had the support of Scripture.  Thus Copernicus and Galileo would eventually be condemned as heretics by the inquisition; a stain upon the reputation of the Church that remains to this day {Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II did so in 1992}.

Protestants might want to snicker at the following words of Pope Paul V in response to Galileo, but they might want to hold that thought.  "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.  The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

There were few issues of agreement between the leaders of Catholicism and Protestantism during the 16th and 17th centuries, the two sides couldn't even agree to present a united front against the ongoing threat of Ottoman invasions.  And yet, both sides had chosen to elevate the language of Scripture into the scientific realm, turning any contrary scientific observations and theories into challenges to Church authority and potentially heresy.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.  Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.  This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours.  But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.  It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." (Philipp Melanchthon, Elements of Physics)

John Calvin: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

With hind-sight, the words of these respected and often brilliant theologians seem both appallingly arrogant and exceedingly foolish, and yet they are a symptom of a larger problem that even those gifted by God to lead his Church can fall victim to: The Pride of Certainty.  I'm all for certainty in its proper place, without it we have only shifting sands and chaos.  We, as a Church, must be certain about the core tenants of our faith and the essence of the Gospel.  But what happens when we elevate other issues, other ideas and interpretations to the level of dogma and with disdain dismiss those who disagree with us as heretics?  In that case, not only does the Church suffer a lack of humility and grace, not only does it foster anger and divisions, but it also appears foolish to the Lost, to those with whom we are called to share the Gospel.

Consider, then, how the lesson of these futile attempts to deny that the earth revolves around the sun might be applied to the Church in our world today.  Let us take great care to distinguish between the Truth revealed to us by God's Word, a Truth that never changes and has no fear of knowledge and fact, and the interpretations and theories of men, however brilliant we might think them to be.

Pope Francis' views on capitalism and Rush Limbaugh

I turned 18 on the day of the 1992 Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton.  It was my first opportunity to vote, and my first experience with being disappointed by an election.  I grew up in a solidly Republican rural county, was a member of a Bible preaching church that was also clearly Republican in its attitude.  I remember speaking out against the Pope (John Paul II at the time) without knowing much about him because it was a given within evangelical circles that when the Anti-Christ came he would be the Pope (as reflected in the Left Behind series).  I listened to Rush Limbaugh on my commute home from work and agreed with much of what he had to say.
Over the years my eyes were opened to ecumenical issues, I became aware of the work of God within churches of other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church.  My opinion of Pope John Paul II, now informed, was raised greatly by his brave stance against Soviet Communism.  At the same time, I began to listen to Rush Limbaugh less with each passing year; much of the reason was simply that I was tired of hearing the same old complaints and no longer accepted that Democrats were inherently evil and Republicans more/less good.  My understanding of human nature informed my understanding of politics because I could see that Lord Acton was right when he spoke about the tendency of absolute power to corrupt absolutely.  The solution to America's problems was never going to begin in Washington, on that level I still agreed with Rush, but we diverged when he saw an economic solution through the American businessman and I saw a spiritual solution through the Church.  Eventually, I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because I still have hope for America's future and the constant government is evil pronouncements he continues to offer isn't helpful to me as I work on a daily basis with the poor alongside government officials who I know truly want to help them.
Is Pope Francis a Marxist?  Hardly, Pope Francis decided not to join the Liberation Theology movement in Argentina, nor did he side with the government as they tried to suppress communist movements.  What the future Pope did instead was to continue to minister to the people that God had called him to serve.  Rugged Individualism may sound like a great idea, but it isn't a Biblical one.  Yes, each person should work if able, but washing your hands of those who are struggling, or have failed, to succeed in a given economic system is an unacceptable anti-Christian attitude.  We may disagree on how to truly help the poor, but we cannot afford to write-off the poor lest we destroy the integrity our very message of love in Christ.
Who will I listen to about justice for the world's poor?  The man who spent his life living with, and helping the poor as a representative of God's Church, or a man who sits behind a radio microphone and calls that man a Marxist?  The choice really isn't that hard, I'm done with Rush Limbaugh.
I know that this line of thought may cause some of the people who knew me growing up to shake their heads and wonder what took me down a road away from their idea of what a Conservative Evangelical Christian should be; they may even stop reading my blog out of some sort of allegiance to Rush.  If they do, that's their choice, I'm living my life in service to the call of Christ to help the widows and orphans, to hold out hope to the hopeless, to love them in the name of Christ.  Politics isn't the solution, it never was.  Pope Francis may not have all the answers, but at least he's on the right track, and I have no reason to doubt his willingness to carry his cross for the sake of the Gospel; I'll keep listening to him.