While Higher Critics and other Biblical sceptics
chafe at the suggestion that sixty-six books composed over a period of 1500
years could somehow supernaturally be bound together in a common theme,
Christians recognize this as reality. It is indeed miraculous and the fact that
God has spoken to us and we have His Words is a profound and essential truth
theologically liberal 'Christians' and other unbelievers fail to grasp. And
thus, they entirely miss the narrative of Scripture and cannot comprehend its
message or themes.
When it comes to Church History, every faction has
its own meta-narrative, their own way of explaining the course of history with
all its ebbs and flows. Often there are heroes and villains and they view
history in terms of the good fighting to defeat the bad. There's a goal in mind
and usually the way the history itself is written to demonstrate the means to
continue to proceed toward that goal. They chart their path so that they can
say 'here we are' and 'this is how we got here', and, 'here's how to get where
we are going'.
Though problematic, this is not entirely invalid and
certainly as Christians we have a different view of history than say a Buddhist
or someone who is agnostic. We do believe God has been, is and will be active
throughout history and we also believe history is moving toward the Eschaton,
the end. Even modern Secular Materialism has some notion of eschatology.
Believing science to be messianic they hope to ultimately create a futuristic
utopia.
Many view eschatology as speculative and certainly
some camps like Dispensationalism engage in great speculation. But this is due
to their misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about the Kingdom. It
greatly affects how they live now and I would also say has had deeply negative
consequences for the Church and the world in the form of wars and policy which
has generated a hostility to Christianity.
It cannot be disputed that Postmillennialism helped
to fuel 19th century Imperialism. They believed it was their goal to
conquer the earth in the name of Christianity, to create a global Christendom.
It was an empty dream. They almost accomplished their goal, though it would
have been meaningless and empty, lacking all substance. But just as the project
was near completion, the European powers turned their guns on each other and
destroyed post-Reformational civilization.
These are errors but whatever our eschatological
position it will shape our view of the history of the Christian Church.
Thus Roman Catholics will view history in one way.
They will see a suffering Church imitating its Saviour ultimately defeating the
Roman Empire through attrition. They see the Kingdom of God represented in the
subsequent civilizational shift, the creation of Christendom. They also will
see the Reformation as a great apostasy which opened the doors to the Age of
Reason, the era falsely labeled the Enlightenment. They view the Church as
representing God's presence on earth, which of course is true, but that the
Spirit in particular rests in the Magisterium which guides the faithful and is
a beacon to mankind. The world's problems will only be solved when people
return to the Roman Mother.
Protestants have their own narratives and there are
many versions. American Protestants have a unique variant giving special place
to the history and Providential destiny of North America. Some Protestants such
as Lutherans view the Middle Ages as spiritually dark and in need of great
reform, but this is a far cry from others who view medieval Christendom as
apostasy and spiritual abomination.
When gazing on the history of Europe whether abstractly
or in person, standing and looking at a cathedral, is it viewed in continuity
with the present? A Lutheran would say absolutely. Though someone like Aquinas
was wrong, he would be viewed as a brother and a member of the True Church. A
Lutheran or Anglican would view the history of the Medieval Church as something
they can empathize with. A Reformed might feel this too but a little less
keenly. A Baptist will often struggle to
find the connections. They will struggle to look at the history and say, 'This
is the Church that I'm part of today'.
History of course has its tangles. What do you do
with the Crusades? The Inquisition? The debauchery and murder of both Papal and
Byzantine courts?
Are these sad chapters in the history of the Church,
a little dirty laundry, or are these tales of the apostates, the chronicled
sins of Samaritans, the hallmarks of false Christianity?
If the Byzantine and Roman Catholic Churches are
apostate false bodies, when did this happen? When did the Roman Catholic Church
become Roman Catholic? Was it by the year 325? 500? 1000? A case can be made
for any of them. Some would even argue the Roman Catholic Church doesn't really
come into existence until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
These are difficult questions and how you answer them depends on how you define
your terms and how you answer basic foundational questions.
And where do the various proto-Protestant groups fit
in? Were the Waldensians the True Church in an age of apostasy? What makes
these groups Protestant? What is a Protestant? Some would define it as a body
that 'protests' the Established ecclesiology whether it be Greek or Latin.
Others believe Protestantism is fundamentally rooted to concepts like Justification
by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura. If that's the case, then with regard to
Justification, you won't find any Protestants before 1517, and I'm including
the Early Church. And the Sola Scriptura question is further complicated by the
fact that Waldensians were committed Biblicists and wouldn't understand the
Confessionalism of the later Protestants to be compatible with their
understanding of how to use the Bible. In other words, I would argue, they
would say the Lutheran and Reformed didn't actually believe in Sola Scriptura
or at least not in the same way they did.
And what of the Protestants who don't follow Sola
Scriptura? The Church of England? Later groups like the Quakers? Are they
Protestants or not?
Are the Waldensians a faithful ecclesiola in ecclesia? A little church within the larger body? Are
they a group of ardent Christians protesting a lot of sin in the Church...but
the larger body, the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages is nevertheless
the one True Church?
Were they schismatics to be praised for their
fortitude and commitment to conscience? If so, why then after the Magisterial Reformation
when others insisted on following their Biblically informed consciences were
they persecuted? I'm referring of course to the Anabaptists. The Waldensians
and Anabaptists differed in some ways and were very similar in others. But in
principle the Anabaptists were merely following conscience and refusing to go
along with the Magisterial Protestant programme. The primary issue wasn't
Baptism but Constantinian Sacralism. Yet, the Medieval Waldensians were praised
and the Anabaptists were murdered. The Reformers were happy to praise the
Waldensians for resisting Rome, but they didn't like it when they were
resisted.
Of course none of this is simple either. The
Waldensians were not monolithic in their beliefs. They existed more or less in
a hybrid Congregational/Diocesan form. Areas were under the leadership of
groups of teachers who would rotate and visit the congregations. This wasn't
due to an ecclesiastical principle but to pragmatism. They often didn't have
teachers for every congregation. But there was a wide variety of practice and
different testimonies from different places.
And it's interesting that the Reformers did not
universally praise them either. They demanded changes and their praise really
came later by Milton's pen and a 19th century version of Protestant
Romanticism.
Before the establishment and empowerment of
Secularism in the West (which could be argued to have occurred during the latter
half of the 20th century), for many Protestants the greatest threat
and enemy was Rome. For this reason, they happily embraced virtually every medieval
dissenting group as being in some form Protestant and worthy of sympathy of
praise.
Today this is less the case. As the Constantinian West
itself totters on its foundations the tendency has been to look at Church
History in an organic manner and see Protestantism not as revolutionary but as
truly reformist and continuationist. This perspective wishes to view
Protestantism as the continuation and even heirs of the Constantinian
achievement. There's no doubt the Reformers thought more in these terms even
though sociologists and non-partisan historians will clearly identify the
Reformation as nothing less than a macro-historical social revolution.
Others Protestants have viewed it as a bit more complicated.
They would argue the Roman Catholic Church had more or less become apostate but
was still barely retaining the status of a viable Church. They believe the
Scholastic formulations of the 17th century and after represent a
recovery of true Biblical Christianity. They believe solid foundational markers
were laid at this point, not during the 16th century Reformation.
The Reformation opened the door, started the process, but its zenith was not
reached for several generations.
While appreciating the 'ad fontes'/to the sources
outlook and mentality of the Renaissance that helped to foment the Reformation
on a social level, ultimately they believe it is unnecessary and even undesirable
to go back and glory in the medieval past or to try and emulate it. Their
epistemology at this point was so firmly rooted that in many ways history
hardly existed before 1517, in the same way for many Secularists history did
not begin until 1789.
Go to Part 2
Go to Part 2