If protestants started canonizing people, who would they choose?

[aicirt]

I put "maybe" behind MLK's name because of the accusations that he was a womanizer. For Catholics, that would have to be disproved. Would it make a difference if he did have affairs for Protestants?

[Taestron]

Originally Posted by aicirt

I put "maybe" behind MLK's name because of the accusations that he was a womanizer. For Catholics, that would have to be disproved. Would it make a difference if he did have affairs for Protestants?

Yes. But only if the claims were substantiated. I've not really paid attention to that accusation.

[aicirt]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Yes. But only if the claims were substantiated. I've not really paid attention to that accusation.

Okay, let's leave MLK out of it. I was just using an example. What I'm asking is would Protestants do a search into the man/woman's life?

[Taestron]

Originally Posted by aicirt

Okay, let's leave MLK out of it. I was just using an example. What I'm asking is would Protestants do a search into the man/woman's life?

Interesting question; I am not sure. Most people have skeletons in their closets, and there is a general mindset that we want to remember the dead in the best light possible, at least around the Protestants I know. Bringing up past grievances would only sully the reputation of what are viewed to be very respectable people. There is also a tendency to focus in on specifics and not get the full picture view. We say that MLK was the great leader, but we ignore the other parts of his life. This has generally been enough for Protestants; we can say that so and so was an example in such and such. But if we were to canonize.... perhaps we would need to view the full picture of the person.... skeletons and all.

[aicirt]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Interesting question; I am not sure. Most people have skeletons in their closets, and there is a general mindset that we want to remember the dead in the best light possible, at least around the Protestants I know. Bringing up past grievances would only sully the reputation of what are viewed to be very respectable people. There is also a tendency to focus in on specifics and not get the full picture view. We say that MLK was the great leader, but we ignore the other parts of his life. This has generally been enough for Protestants; we can say that so and so was an example in such and such. But if we were to canonize.... perhaps we would need to view the full picture of the person.... skeletons and all.

Yes, you would.

Second question: Some churches....Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran....retained saints who had been canonized by the RCC before the Reformation. I realize you are Church of the Nazarene so you might not be the one to answer this. If they accepted RCC canonization of Saints before the Reformation, why stop after?

[Della]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Hmmm... as much as I love him, I don't think I would canonize C.S. Lewis. The man was brilliant, but I would feel uneasy canonizing someone purely on written works. For sure those people that were martyred for the cause of Christ are on the short list:
Corrie Ten Boom
Jim Eliot (his co-missionaries and the women too but I forget their names)
Martin Luther King Jr.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

and others who might not have given their lives but were impressively charitable nonetheless:
Clara Barton
Florence Nightengale
Mother Teressa
William Wilberforce
John Woolman

Lewis was extremly generous with many people who received support that he never spoke about. A person's actions speak louder than his words, but Lewis not only wrote words, he lived them.

[tabycat]

Bessie ten Boom Corrie's older sister who died in one of the Nazi camps hat and all of Corrie ten Boom's family that died in the Nazi camps for their work of trying to save as many Jews as possable from the camps.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Yes. But only if the claims were substantiated. I've not really paid attention to that accusation.

I don't think the accusation is seriously disputed. Hence, I don't think MLK could possibly meet any traditional criterion for canonization.

Now one might argue that some other more "traditional" saints, like St. Cyril of Alexandria or St. Jerome or St. Thomas More, engaged in other kinds of immoral behavior (having to do with their harsh treatment, rhetorical, political, and/or physical, of those with whom they differed) but get a pass because their misbehavior wasn't sexual and was in support of orthodoxy (though not entirely so in Jerome's case).

But while sexual misbehavior certainly isn't the worst kind of sin, adultery is something that Christians have always considered wrong and which Rev. King surely himself considered wrong. It's a pretty clear-cut case of a Christian engaging in serious sin.

I would therefore say that he should be regarded as a hero but cannot be regarded as a saint in a traditional Christian sense.

Edwin

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Della

Lewis was extremly generous with many people who received support that he never spoke about. A person's actions speak louder than his words, but Lewis not only wrote words, he lived them.

Agreed.

We now include Lewis in the Episcopal calendar (in fact my own bishop was one of the people pushing for this, and he partly wrote the collect assigned to Lewis' "feast day"), but as I said above including someone in the calendar isn't quite the same as a traditional canonization.

Edwin

[Della]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Agreed.

We now include Lewis in the Episcopal calendar (in fact my own bishop was one of the people pushing for this, and he partly wrote the collect assigned to Lewis' "feast day"), but as I said above including someone in the calendar isn't quite the same as a traditional canonization.

Edwin

I'd heard that Lewis was given that honor. I don't disagree with it--I just have to wonder if Lewis would think it a good idea. He hated any self-promotion--not that that is what this constitutes. It's just that he, being a traditionalist, might not think himself worthy. But then, what saint would?