Today, with the Culture Wars the emphasis is on
continuity with the Middle Ages and the whole of Christendom. But even a
generation ago this was not the case. Some claimed the proto-Protestant groups
because of their anti-Catholicism. Some exploited them for nationalistic
purposes and created narratives concerning the true faith being present in this
or that land...a sort of 'God has always been with us' badge. Those that use
them in this way show a lack of understanding, a failure to grasp what these
groups were actually about. The Hussites of course would be something of an
exception. There are always exceptions. This is the nature of history and
exposes the problems of those who wish to use it for their own ends. Both the
Taborites and Utraquists were nationalistic. And yet other Hussites weren't and
the groups which formed after the dissolution of the Taborites were not. As
always it's complicated.
Sometimes a narrative is created regarding the 'True
Church' and often this is tied to the British Isles or the Anglo-Saxon or
Teutonic race. These narratives are unacceptable and reveal deeper theological
and historical misunderstanding.
Today as Protestant Evangelicals dream of a revived
Christendom the Dissenters of the Middle Ages are more misunderstood than ever.
Now I find those espousing extreme Right Wing ideas trying to set themselves up
as Neo-Lollards or other proto-Protestants. Somehow Capitalism and guns are the
hallmarks of medieval protest. The Waldensians become Glenn Beck style Right
Wing guerillas.
Or, they receive a patronizing nod but are ignored
as they did not participate in the so called 'great' achievements of the Middle
Ages. The idea that we would reject the castle and cathedral heritage is
unthinkable.
I love to see those things too, but I don't view
them as being Christian.
Others have written them off preferring to accept
the blasphemies and idolatries of Rome as the real Church rather than the
power-eschewing remnant surviving in cellars, woods and caves and yet clinging
tenaciously to the Bible as the sole standard of authority. The rich fat
sodomite bishop sitting in palace represented Christ and the hunted people
huddled around the Bible in a cave were simply misguided zealots. Wisdom is
justified by her children.
As I've often argued Sacralism is a religion
concerned with power. The imagery of Revelation 17 is so poignant in this
regard...the harlot Church joining with the Beast. The followers of the false
lamb who speaks like a dragon worship the beast and in doing so think they
worship the True Lamb of God. The see their Church as pure and white but in
reality it is an idol worshipping adulteress dripping with blood. This is the
city of Zion called Sodom that slew Christ and persecutes his followers.
Thus far I've used the term proto-Protestant to
describe my set of beliefs and to define this writing project. I have meant it
in the sense of pre-Reformational protest against the Constantinian Shift. This
is quite different from how many others would view proto-Protestantism. Those
that wish to use the term or emphasize these groups are usually thinking in
terms of some kind of continuity with Magisterial Protestantism. That is
definitely not what I wish to emphasize, in fact that is precisely what I am
against.
The term is so complicated in its use and misuse as
to be almost worthless. All too often these terms (like Evangelical) are thrown
about, and become so broad and inclusive that they end up being essentially
meaningless and we're driven to come up with something new. Lamentably the word
Christian has certainly reached that point. When someone says they're a Christian,
what does that say? Without explanation, it's an empty term.
Though I can greatly sympathize with the
Anabaptists, I'm not one of them. I think they have a better understanding of
the Kingdom than most Protestants but beyond that I have little in common with
them and sadly I would argue many of these groups have also degenerated into a
legalism so severe as to overthrow the Gospel itself.
The theology I espouse is definitely a minority
position in the history of the Church. There is no camp and I'm thankful for
that. But after years of study, I believe my own positions are closest to what
the majority of Waldensians embraced and certainly if I had to pick a favourite
theologian, a figure I can resonate with more than any other, it's Petr
Chelcicky of Bohemia. Many believe that he represents Waldensian theology and
if that's the case, then his writings are the most exhaustive explanation of
their position.
I could identify this theology with terms such as
Pilgrim, Remnant, or Martyr but I would have to emphasize this does not mean to
suggest a group in retreat or in hiding. Our role isn't to transform society.
Only the gospel can transform. We can't water it down in order to bring in the
numbers. We see it so clearly today and many Protestants denounce the modern
Finneyite and Seeker Church but do not see that their Reformation forebears
made their own compromises to retain the numbers.
We are to bear witness, to cast down the idols, and
to speak the truth. No man made system can work and even begin to solve the
problems of this world. Our message is to repent and believe the gospel. We
know that only a minority will ever do this and so with that understanding we
confess that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth. This affects our
ethics and the totality of our lives.
Pilgrim Theology is probably the term I would say is
closest to what I'm advocating. Sadly, a Reformed theologian recently
appropriated this label for a recent book. It's sad because the Kuyperian
theology he espouses is anything but 'pilgrim' in its nature.
Thus, though it will prove confusing, I'm changing
the name of the site. Proto-Protestantism is too nebulous and in some ways
unhelpful and it definitely confuses some into thinking I'm somehow advocating
connections with the 16th century Reformation which I do wish to
suggest. Divorcing myself from the label of Protestant affords me a certain
liberty and ability to break with a certain period of history.
Rather than appear to be offering a system (an –ism)
it's more accurate to say that I'm trying to open the gate to help others see
the Third Way, a different road, a different path. I am not advocating the
teaching Karl Barth or the Emergent Church. I believe these teachings and
groups to aberrations from what the Scripture teaches. I advocating a very old
fashioned, historically conscious, intellectual Biblicism and I would argue the
same cancer which bred the Roman Church of the Middle Ages lives on in the
Protestant West. The cancer looks different because the context is different.
But it's the same disease. We can learn from those who protested before and now
more than ever we need a dissenting movement.