Did they do it?

I came across something really interesting today in "Too loud a Solitude" by Hrabal, a book that's an excellent rubbish story, or a story about rubbish that's excellent. He mentions in the course of his fiction the "fact" (it has the ring of truth about it, but I'm enclosing that statement of fact in inverted comma's because it's embedded in fiction and I haven't as yet found any non-Hrabal references to it!) that on the publishing of the proofs by Copernicus that we live in a heliocentric, or Sun centered 'universe' a group of monks devoted to the idea, or at least so used to living with the idea that the Earth is center of the 'universe' (so that this idea was closely tied in with their belief structure as a whole and viewed as being just as much based on scripture as these other beliefs) committed mass suicide rather than have to come to terms with the fact.

Now, what comparisons could be made! What's devastating about this is that heliocentricity is not taught in the Bible per se, or to put it another way, the very few places the Suns "rising" and "setting" are mentioned are hardly explicit teachings on the construction of the solar system- even we who know its construction refer to the Sun as doing these things, it's just our "point of view"! Are there people who base important parts of their belief systems on a very few verses in the Bible, verses that could hardly be said to be an explicit statement of a certain fact, for example of a way to worship God, a "right" view of him (or his Creation, as above), verses that could be seen differently by different people, depending on their "point of view"? If God wanted it to be known for certain where the Sun was in relation to the Earth, wouldn't he have made it clear? If worshipping God through a certain man-made organization is so important, wouldn't he make it clear? Wouldn't this be just? In my view, the important things in the Bible ARE clear, for a just and loving God does not hide, nor does he hide his teachings: "he is not far off from each one of us", and Jesus spoke "on the rooftops"- not in secret.

Let me ask you: do you read from Jesus' words here, the establishment of a new "organization" of men to handle his dealings in the late nineteenth century? If you don't, then you agree with me, but 5 million would disagree with you:

Matthew 24(NIV):
45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.
47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

When Jesus wanted his disciples to understand a parable, he explained it to them, but not so with the above and some may say this is because it's clear what the meaning is: it's not an explicit teaching revealing a new and future earthly organization, but a reminder for Christians to carry on where Jesus left off. Yet those that see a (hidden to the majority of people who call themselves Christians) teaching about such an earthly organization here have in effect made this organisation the center of their universe, with even the glorious Son revolving around it, instead of the other way round. For by choosing to answer "I am that slave" where Jesus himself did not (he just ASKED, "who is..?") they are in effect taking the responsibility from Jesus, who has not yet said to whomever he chooses "you are the slave". Unwittingly perhaps, they have usurped Jesus' rightful place at the center of a Christian "church", but the true facts of the matter when learned (in my case) has had, and yet will have (in others) a huge effect on their view of the universe.