The Spanish Inquisition took place in the kingdoms of Castilla and Aragon (present-day Spain) in 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ordered all the Jews and Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity out of Castilla and Aragon. Ferdinand and Isabella were known as “Los Reyes Catolicos” and were devout Christians. Their religious fervor was what inspired them to send Christopher Columbus to the “New World” in the first place, in hopes of converting the indigenous peoples to Christianity. It was because of this fervor that coerced them to expel all the Muslims and Jews out of their kingdom of Castilla and Aragon. They believed that anyone who didn’t fully believe in or accept the Christian faith were guilty of heresy or the rejection of faith. They were convinced that many of the conversos (Jewish converts) were only pretending to believe in Christianity. They then established the Inquisition in an attempt to purify the Christian Church and drive out all the heretics. The Inquisition gave them the power to arrest, judge, accuse, and punish the heretics. It was then that Los Reyes Catolicos instigated one of the most horrific events in history. Thousands of so-called heretics died during the Inquisition. Anyone suspected of being a heretic could be arrested and were guilty until proven innocent. The accused were given a trial, called an auto da fe, and the sentence if proven guilty, was death. Even after thousands of death, the monarchs remained unsatisfied. They signed an ordinance giving all the Jews four months to be baptized. Some Jews agreed to become baptized, but most tried to flee to France or England who refused to let them enter their countries.
Where Even Reality Checks Bounce
While it’s true that disagreements over some thigns should not get in the way of our overall unity, it is not true that two people can be unified when their belief over fundamental doctrinal questions differs. Unity operates in different spheres, if you will. My wife and I may disagree on the best way to train our kids to clean up after themselves, and can still lead a unified marriage if we find a way to compromise. However, if we differed on the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage, that would be a serious problem and would get in the way of unity. A marriage could not be called unified, if one spouse believes in the exclusivity of marriage and the other spouse thinks that their liaisons outside of marriage are OK. There are fundamental questions of the nature of thigns that nearly everybody would agree are essential to marriage and even Christianity. Beyond the fundamental doctrines, even small thigns can get in the way of unity if the two parties with differing ideas cannot agree on a compromise for working together. Unity is nothing if it is merely theoretical. It must be lived.So, yes, we should see our unity in our identification with Christ, but that does not take us outside the realm of doctrine, because doctrine plays an important role in how we conceive of and know Christ. Doctrine is essentially an agreed upon interpretation of Scripture. How we conceive of the death, burial and resurrection are essentially doctrinal questions, as are questions about Christ’s divine and human natures, the nature of the church and how it should look/operate on earth, the role of faith and works in our salvation, etc. If we are to understand and live out our unity, it is helpful to understand where unity ends and why. Does it consist in merely loving my neighbor? If so, then my Mormon friends and I are much more unified than many of my evangelical brothers and sisters. It was stated above that a person who denies the validity of a baptism outside his or her denomination is a heretic. I agree to an extent (e.g., I believe Mormon baptisms are invalid), but calling somebody a heretic implies a moral judgment about their doctrine that one must be able to defend. There are instances in Scripture of rebaptism, so there are obviously some fundamental distinctives regarding Christian baptism that need to be gotten right. To say someone is a heretic who holds such beliefs is to essentially say that their theology of baptism does not properly capture those distinctives. I would agree with Steve that the idea that all baptisms outside of a specific denomination are invalid is heretical, but one should acknowledge that that idea is itself based on certain doctrinal ideas of unity, heresy and baptism.Since we cannot separate doctrine from our constructs of unity, it is important to understand what are the fundamental Christian doctrines that must be held and why. We must also be able to figure out ways to live in harmony and mutual respect when there remains disagreement in peripheral areas. MB