29 March 2019

The Northern Kingdom Analogy

A way to view Rome as a covenantally relevant but apostate form of Christianity.


Those who say Rome has no status and never did err both theologically and historically. It's not a tenable position.
And yet those who argue Rome still has status also err.
The Confessional metanarrative which insists Rome was the Church until the Council of Trent upon which the mantle was taken up by Magisterial Protestantism also err, a point I will briefly touch on in the conclusion.


The Northern Kingdom Analogy is how I explain a way in which to view Catholicism as apostate and yet not wholly divorced from Church History. The Northern Kingdom after Rehoboam apostatised and established a rival and counterfeit altar. Later this kingdom was additionally affected by even more extreme forms of syncretism in the introduction of Baal worship from Tyre. And yet even through these dark days the nation officially remained a Yahvist or Jehovah-ite nation, though its form was so degenerate that the faithful in both the Northern Kingdom and in Judah would not recognise it as legitimate and also reckoned its rulers (despite their Yahvist/theophoric onomastics) as illegitimate. They were Covenant breakers, no longer reckoned as legitimate. Despite this the covenant was still evoked when the final destruction came at the hand of the Assyrians in the 8th century BC.
The Southern Kingdom of Judah had its ups and downs, at times it was apostate and in other seasons it became a viable representative of the Holy Covenant. But in most cases the faithful were represented by a remnant. They took the form of extreme dissidents in the North and as traditionalists in and out of favour in the South.
This analogy is far from perfect but it approximates the situation as it has developed throughout Church History. Rome (and by extension Constantinople) is like the apostate northern kingdom of Israel. It's still relevant to the Covenant but its status is that of an apostate. Southern Judah which in terms of the analogy qualifies as Biblically oriented Protestantism retains its status as ecclesiastically viable though it has often proven less than faithful and those who would obey God must often denounce it and live as nonconformists. Extending the analogy, the oracle and Holy Presence rest in the south where Zion is located and yet even this history is clouded by episodes of great apostasy.
Of course this analogy lives on during the Intertestamental period with the rebuilt temple and the formation of the Samaritans.
Rome's apostasy is difficult to pin down. Historically it is proper to speak of an Old Catholic Church apart from a fully formed Roman Catholic Church. The confusion is found in that there is significant overlap. I would posit that full-fledged Roman Catholicism did not appear and begin to exert itself until the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th century.
That said, the seed and spirit of full fledged Roman Catholicism... centered on the Papacy.... certainly existed during the Dark Ages and was already manifest in the days of Leo I and Gregory I. The Papacy waxed and waned during this period and while powerful and influential it was never able to enforce a complete uniformity within its domains and indeed the papacy almost collapsed in the 9th and 10th centuries.
But by the 11th century a resurgent papacy formed a powerful and coherent Roman Catholic Church which came into conflict with both the Empire and large groups of dissidents. Prior to this epoch a strong case can be made that there were numerous examples and even whole regions that were not in full conformity with the teachings and practices of Rome. There was a degree of catholicity and even respect for the ecclesiastical hierarchy and tradition but the Catholicism that existed was something less than fully Roman.
The 11th century Gregorian Reform extended, concretised, ratified and established the apostasy. Contrary to the assertions of the Magisterial Protestant 'Council of Trent' narrative I would argue it was at this point, if a point must be selected that Rome was officially apostate. Its continued doctrinal formulations in the Lateran Councils would only accentuate this.
The Magisterial Reformation marked a type of Judaean reform on the order of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Joash.... not the full reforms seen during the days of Hezekiah and Josiah.
Of course the analogies again break down as the assessment of Judaean kings can only be reckoned in terms of obedience to God, not in terms of their policies which are judged by the criteria of Mosaic Law, something qualitatively different from the imperatives of the New Covenant.
But the analogy is still helpful on a basic level and is by no means unique to my way of thinking. If anything some of the Magisterial Protestant leaders thought in these terms but of course viewing their own movement as analogous to the reforms which took place under Hezekiah and Josiah. John Knox in particular utilised this analogy during the reign of Edward VI, another boy king.
See also: