When the remnant of Magellan's crew returned to Spain from their voyage around the world they made an unexpected discovery. They had lost a day! In the final chapter of World Lit Only by Fire, William Manchester draws an important observation from that discovery. He writes: “Geocentrism—the age-old conviction that the earth was the center of the universe—was discredited. The earth was not only round; it was moving. In fact, it was revolving around its own axis.” In the next paragraph he interprets this discovery: “And the authority of the Bible, historically interpreted, denied the possibility of a heliocentric system.”
Here Manchester leads the reader into a trap which he may have intended to avoid in the statement "historically interpreted." The trap being, the presupposition that the Bible is subservient to the perspectives of the people in any given era.
To be sure, people in the middle ages drew the conclusion that the earth was the center of the cosmos and was flat. They even sought Scripture to validate those conclusions. In retrospect, however, a humble reading of Scripture should have made them second guess themselves. They failed to consider that the Bible, in describing man’s significance, does not use centrality as a model. Rather, the narrative draws attention to mankind's relative insignificance and sends strong warnings to those who have an over-important view of themselves. Had the churchmen thought of that the model of geocentricity might not have had a free ride.
The Bible is vulnerable to the perspectives of interpreters in any given era, but it is not the servant of those perspectives. This must be kept in mind in order to weave around the cynicism which crops up in Manchester’s exposé of sixteenth century darkness. The Bible's clear statements and overarching narrative cannot be dismissed with the cant, "The Bible means what we say it means." The Bible means what it says. The sword of judgment presses its point against the chest of the interpreter.
The Bible is vulnerable to the perspectives of interpreters in any given era, but it is not the servant of those perspectives. This must be kept in mind in order to weave around the cynicism which crops up in Manchester’s exposé of sixteenth century darkness. The Bible's clear statements and overarching narrative cannot be dismissed with the cant, "The Bible means what we say it means." The Bible means what it says. The sword of judgment presses its point against the chest of the interpreter.
Having said that, I recommend this 1992 masterpiece to anyone who is serious about the study of the Scriptures and the spreading of the gospel. Manchester does an excellent job unpacking the baggage which has been placed on the testimony of Christianity by those who made it a tool for controlling others and advancing themselves and even excusing the worst of their lusts.
Books like this force the authentic Bible student to be wary of reading it flatly, interpreting it presumptuously and presenting its message commercially. Several centuries of Roman buffoonery and Protestant instability make it necessary to revive and reaffirm not only the “plan of salvation” but the whole narrative which unfolds that plan. Those who have embraced Christ and encourage others to do so should know how that very concept of embracing him has been buried beneath a heap of pagan and/or political rubble. Manchester helps us understand this.
He also helps us understand why “unity” in the Church is not synonymous with organizational solidarity. Centralization breeds corruption of a heinous character; and all of the sixteenth-century dangers are still in place and waiting for an atmosphere to reassert themselves.
Man will always seek inordinate centralization; and centralization will organize itself to eliminate those who think out of its box. Such organizations package themselves to win “members” by charm and keep them by fear. The Gospel, on the other hand, stands on its own merit and is willing to be rejected. It speaks to the grace and mercy needs of sinners before a holy God. It describes the God who offers himself to those who know their need. It makes that offer in an explainable way without organizational paraphernalia. Local churches, in the biblical narrative, are fellowships of those sinners who have turned to Christ for redemption, forgiveness and growth in newness of life. They are not organizations endowed with the power to grant or withhold salvation.
Man will always seek inordinate centralization; and centralization will organize itself to eliminate those who think out of its box. Such organizations package themselves to win “members” by charm and keep them by fear. The Gospel, on the other hand, stands on its own merit and is willing to be rejected. It speaks to the grace and mercy needs of sinners before a holy God. It describes the God who offers himself to those who know their need. It makes that offer in an explainable way without organizational paraphernalia. Local churches, in the biblical narrative, are fellowships of those sinners who have turned to Christ for redemption, forgiveness and growth in newness of life. They are not organizations endowed with the power to grant or withhold salvation.
What would the sixteenth century have looked like had the biblical understanding of the Gospel been practiced? Manchester cannot help us. No historian can. No era since the Apostles can help us. The eras of history are the records of the undulations of nations ruled by political forces - political forces which will use religion or religious non-religion to achieve control. To see the role of biblical Christianity one must peel back the layers of power and find in the villages and hamlets of even a World Lit Only by Fire - those knots of people who have found grace in the eyes of the Lord and of whom the world is not worthy (Hebrews 11:38).
William Manchester
1992. Hachette Book Group. New York, NY
I looked at the Amazon reviews of the book. They weren't very flattering. It seems, according to the reviews, that he doesn't really like the Middle Ages. Also, the idea that people in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat, is a canard disproven by scholars such as C. S. Lewis. In fact, the best book I've read on the Medieval World View is Lewis's "The Discarded Image." I highly recommend it.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your post. I'm always excited about learning of another work by Lewis. In looking over the summary of "The Discarded Image" it sounds like the perfect foil to Manchester. Lewis was, of course, fascinated with things Medieval and saw in them a "love for the universe." Manchester is cynical about them (as am I) and saw in them a thing dark and corrupt. Francis Schaeffer's take was that the Medieval era was heavily weighted toward a fear of the universe. I think Manchester gives a good account of the way people perceive that time period. My first line of response is not to defend the era but to answer the conclusion (be it right or wrong). Much ado is made today in the science community about Copernicus and his discoveries and their repudiation the allegation of the Bible's support of geocentricity. My first line of response is: if people believed the Bible taught that, shame on them. Now, with the information you provide, I can begin to build a back-up ("Oh, by the way, did you know...") response to their interpretation of that era. Again, thank you. I look forward to more observations from you. You are a highly respected source. I have great memories or our fellowship in Brazil in 2013. Keep on keeping on.
ReplyDelete