On the one hand many Protestants champion Classical
Liberalism as an outgrowth and even the natural offspring of the Magisterial Reformation.
Reason over tradition, progress, the rights of the individual, civil society
and democracy are all viewed as legitimate fruits of Reformation thought
applied to the sociological realm.
And yet it all went wrong and in the background there has
always lingered a rather potent Roman Catholic critique. It perhaps reached its
zenith in the 19th and early 20th centuries and yet the
cultural crisis of that era may in fact be eclipsed by the realities of our own
day. We are still living in the wake of the World Wars, still living out their
implications.
Classical Liberalism so poignantly represented by the United
States was viewed as poison and a triumph of the secular over the sacred. Rome
sought to protect its flock from the influences of American ideology. Classical
Liberalism was the spawn of the Reformation's triumph of the individual. The
lone man was allowed to challenge and cast down all authority. This is the
sociological aspect to Luther that many Protestants have failed to grasp. The
individual gets to decide what is right and wrong and the Reformation unleashed
epistemological uncertainty and the social chaos which began the long process
of dismantling Christendom.
The Reformation led to Modernism and as a consequence
Post-Modernism and now Nihilism.
Undoubtedly there is some truth to this narrative and the
post World War II period has brought about a time of intellectual
reconsideration on the part of Evangelical Protestants and not a few defections
to both Rome and Constantinople. The political Papacy utterly defeated by the
late 19th century reformed its teaching and came up with a new
paradigm for the industrial secular age. Consequently it allied first with
Fascism then with the West (in general) at the conclusion of the war. It began
to build a new empire, one wed to the Capitalist forces so dominant in the
Protestant world and joined the fight (real or imagined) against world
Communism. Today Rome no longer rules a geopolitical realm but instead reigns
over a vast financial empire and has regained a little of its lost ground.
Evangelicals have been forced to reckon with the problems of
Christianity wed to Classical Liberalism and as I've written elsewhere there
are tendencies both toward revisionist history and increasingly in the
direction of abandoning Liberalism for a more Roman Catholic-friendly Throne and
Altar type paradigm.
There is undoubtedly much that is valid in the critique of
Classical Liberalism and in what the Reformation unwittingly unleashed. And for
this reason the glorification of Protestantism which is at its zenith in this
500th anniversary year, ought to be weighed carefully if not
rejected.
But the truth of the critique is limited to the sociological
realm.
The true problem is not individualism (which can indeed work
to destroy society) but the attempt to formulate Sola Scriptura into a
comprehensive societal worldview. That was a rival philosophical project rooted
in speculation and dependent on speculative philosophical coherence... thus it
fragmented.
The Reformers only began to toy with this question. Luther,
perhaps the more conservative of the Reformers was content to sustain the
Medieval-Renaissance order and sit under the protection of a so-called
Christian prince. Calvin's Geneva moved in the direction of Authoritarian
Republican government. Zwingli took up the sword (so to speak) and died by it on
the battlefield.
It was in the 17th century that Protestant
Scholasticism began to earnestly reckon with the implications of the
Reformation applied to society. It was at this point that Sola Scriptura as a
social organising principle failed. Rightly so I would add, as the New
Testament nowhere even envisions a Christian State/Christendom project. In fact
it repudiates the very notion of it.
In wedding Reformation theology to the Christendom project
the Protestant Reformers and certainly the Scholastics after them undermined
their own vision and sowed the seeds for epistemological collapse. They
employed (and even exploited) the Scripture for something it was not meant to
be used for. In the end their project exploded into the 17th century
Wars of Religion and ultimately undermined not only their social vision... but
their theological and ecclesiastical hopes as well.
And yet it took more than a century for this to properly bear
fruit and perhaps took another century (or more) for many to understand what had
happened and why.
The same fragmentation and dynamism occurred in the Roman Catholic
organisation. The consensus patrum as
well as any notion of a monolithic historic consensus were exposed as pure
fiction. The adherents of such arguments laud Thomism which itself was progressive
in the medieval context and yet ultimately fragmented and collapsed under the weight
of its own methodology. It produced Via
Moderna Nominalism, opening the door to the Renaissance, Reformation and
the Age of Reason.
Catholic apologists can place the blame on the Reformation,
some will attack Ockham and Nominalism... but precious few are willing to go
after Aquinas and the revival of Aristotelianism.
As an interesting aside, this might be identified as a subtle
theme in Umberto Eco's The Name of the
Rose. The antagonist and villain, the Spanish monk Jorge of Burgos is
absolutely anti-modern. The early 14th century setting places him
against both Nominalism represented by the Franciscan William of Baskerville
and the new orthodoxy of Aristotelian Thomism. Eco clearly condemns the
anti-modernism of Jorge (and would probably place Biblicists like myself in the
same 'evil' category) and yet what does he end with? Uncertainty and
Postmodernist reflection. Even if I don't agree with Eco it is undeniably a
brilliant and captivating book.
New Testament Biblicism is peripheral in terms of society.
Yes, if one takes up the sword of state and attempts to compel the lost world
into a forced obedience... the form it generates would appear cold and cruel.
More accurately it produces at best a Judaized Pharisaism, a world affirming
perversion of the Heavenly Zion put forward on the pages of Holy Writ.
The New Testament ideal is that of a Martyr-Remnant
witnessing subculture that transcends sociological frameworks. It is
internationalist (minus the politics) and thus hostile to all Sacralist
frameworks (those claiming to be Christian or otherwise).
We necessarily reject the vision and aspirations of Medieval
Christendom but at the same time equally excoriate the doctrines and false
hopes of Classical Liberalism. Democracy and Civil Rights provide a social
matrix in which the Church can survive. And yet they're not universal moral
concepts. They're not Christian in any way shape or form. In actuality they are
quite hostile to the ethics and doctrines of the New Testament and while the
Church can live at peace under such a sociological paradigm, there are real
dangers. History has demonstrated that all too easily can many a blown about
member of the Church adopt and incorporate these doctrines and values. Synthesised
and syncretised with Christian doctrine a host of heresies and idolatries can
easily be generated. One need only appeal to America as Exhibit 'A'.
This is all the more facilitated by the confused
philosophically rooted epistemology that is passed off as theology, a framework
that all too often confuses, confounds and undermines Biblical doctrine.
Necessarily speculative, it employs inference (both inductive and deductive)
and as a consequence ranges far beyond the boundaries of textual revelation.
New Testament Biblicism is anti-philosophical and negative in
terms of any claims of coherence, any attempt to formulate a philosophical or
social monism. And yet as a peripheral movement, pilgrim and remnant in its
ethos, it serves as salt and light. It's not a preservative per se though it is that in some sense, but a seasoning as Christ himself described
it. Its role is prophetic, offering both criticism and hope in its proclamations
of doom and glory, death and life.
Man is fallible and his knowledge is necessarily subjective.
As redeemed mankind we find our unity forged not in a contrived or even
syncretic social monism, nor in an institution, but in and by the Spirit. The
Oracular Mark of the Church is the presence of the Word, meaning it is
venerated, respected and submitted to. This is not applicable to Roman
Catholicism or Protestant denominations (as denominations). Nor is it located
in Christendom or Protestant forms of Modern or Liberal society as such. In
fact the incorporation of the social element, the synthesis of Church and State,
the ideal of both Roman Catholicism and Protestant Sacralism has in the end
always produced a corrosive effect and ultimately destroys the Oracular
authority of the Word. Instead of setting the stage for the Zionic Kingdom's
triumph in the world it lays the foundation stones for the Whore-Beast
relationship, the always apostate Christendom of Antichrist.
How is the Oracular Word to be interpreted? It is a valid
concern and one that must be addressed. But the standard critiques of Sacralist
Theology represented by Traditionalist Roman Catholicism and Dominionist
Protestantism can't get there because they necessarily deny Sola Scriptura as a
premise.
How so? Is that not an unjust charge at least as far as
Protestantism?
Sola Scriptura is meaningless apart from Sufficiency. Sadly
Sufficiency today is often interpreted as an a priori platform or basis for inference and speculative deduction.
This does not reflect what the Scriptures themselves say about sufficiency and
the nature of revelation.
Sufficiency also necessarily implies a limitation. Limiting our knowledge does not mean our worship, awe
and sense of profundity are lessened. Not for a moment. Yet, the doctrine of sufficiency
as well as the doctrine contained within the Scripture itself implies the
Kingdom and its Lord (and certainly His purposes) are to a degree mysterious to
us, available only through revelation. We live at best in a state of informed
ignorance. Will we do so and be content? Is this not also an aspect and act of
faith?
Societies cannot be constructed on the basis of Sola
Scriptura, at least without distorting it and abusing it. Where does that leave
us? If we're adherents of a Pilgrim mindset, then it's not really a problem, is
it? It only becomes an issue when we try to wed New Testament Christianity to
social visions and political projects. Then we must necessarily turn to
philosophy as a means of developing a theology. This turn to philosophy is the
birthplace of deviation and heresy. From it flows error and ultimately ethical
distortion. The entirety of the Arius, Constantine, Nicaea episode comes to
mind. The Church was right to oppose Arianism but the means of opposition
represented a defection on many levels. The problem was solved by generating at
least ten more.
The Protestant narrative of a 'Christian' Classical
Liberalism is easily dispensed with. While there is a degree of historical
truth to it, it can be critiqued on that front as well. In many ways Liberalism
was born of intellectual rebellion, the Enlightenment rejection of the
doctrines that formed the very heart of what Protestantism was supposed to be.
Whether it ever was what it proclaimed to be is another matter.
But even granting the narrative that Liberalism and Modernism
were the natural outgrowth of Protestant theology applied to society, then such
a notion must be condemned as sub-Biblical. It does not represent New Testament
doctrine either in its concepts of values. Confidence in reason? I think not.
Rights? The individual? Progress? None of the concepts are found in the New
Testament. Only deformed Judaizing hermeneutics can locate them through
distorted readings of the Old Testament.
The Roman critique is valid but that doesn't mean a
romanticised Throne and Altar is any better or has something closer to a
legitimate claim to truth. As a Christian I might find some aspects of Pre-Liberal society to be preferable, in no way can
I point to it as an example of a 'Christian' society. In some ways in its
Kingdom-confused Christendom-claiming zeal it was actually more problematic.
Speaking generally if both paradigms were and are wrong, what
then are we to make of the so-called and very misnamed Judeo-Christian West?
Not much. As a society it has some very good things about it and many that are
rightly condemned. Christian it is not. And the more it is associated with
Christianity the more problematic it becomes.
As pilgrims we understand that this world is not our home. We
look for a city to come, a new heavens and new earth. We can live and function
as the salt and light Oracular Church in any culture and civilisation. That
said, some will be more pleasant than others. But pleasant isn't always better,
especially if it leads to laxity, complacency and confusion. Though not
pleasant the most spiritually vivacious times of my life have been during
periods of hardship and opposition. It's not pleasant to live that way but the
antithesis becomes razor sharp which spiritually speaking is healthy. It's a
good place to be. If goods, lands, and prosperity are set aside and no longer
important to me, then hardship becomes certainly less hard. The yoke of
suffering, the burden of Christ to which we are called, becomes a little
lighter.
And though on a practical level I lament the downfall and
paganising trajectory of the West... spiritually speaking it's probably the
best thing that could happen. The widespread apostasy is like a forest-burn. In
the end it will make for a healthier forest. The forest to which I refer is not
society, but the Church. Don't ever confuse the two.
While on the one hand I celebrate the fact that the
Protestant Classical Liberal narrative is being exposed as a lie... both
doctrinally and historically, I am concerned that many Protestants are quickly
succumbing to an equally problematic lie... the Pre-Liberal Throne and Altar
vision of Medieval Roman Christendom.
I take comfort in that if I believe the apostasy serves a
greater and even positive purpose, than I must view this Protestant shift in
the same light. But that's a long-view. In the short term it's painful to watch
people, some you personally know, embrace the error and defect to degenerate forms
of Christianity (and their ethics) which upon consideration must be decried as
being something less than the religion presented to us by the Apostles.