The right side of history. It's a phrase we hear all the time
in the news, in lectures and interviews.
The phrase contains the idea that history is moving forward, that it has
a destination. In this way it is reminiscent of old Whig histories which one can
still find on dusty shelves in used bookstores. Tales of progress, early
progress and similar phrasing dominate their titles.
This view of history was also quite common in some of the
Church histories of the 19th century.
Where does it come from? Some might naively suggest that it's
a Scriptural concept referring to the progression toward the Eschaton, but of
course the Day of the Lord is the day in which history as we now know it comes
to an end. A day of doom and destruction, it is not the culmination of progress
but its undermining and antithesis. What will arise in the New Heavens and
Earth is indeed glorious but it's not 'progress'... but a wholly new paradigm.
Of course some Neo-Calvinists might differ but their views of
continuity between This Age (with its works and 'contributions') and The Age to
Come is without Scriptural warrant and prior to the 20th century
such views were basically unknown.
So where does this kind of 'progress' language come from?
Largely it's an Enlightenment idea, the notion that man has
stepped forward and through reason and science is progressively creating a
better world, forging new societies with better governments and bringing justice
and prosperity to mankind. From at least the 17th to the early 20th
centuries a Postmillennial ethos guided and directed much of what was known as
Protestant Christendom. Even if they did not distinctively identify their
mindset as Postmillennial or conscientiously embrace its schema, they
nevertheless believed that the world was being Christianised, made better and
more godly. The Enlightenment notion of progress and Postmillennial belief
often went hand-in-hand and a case could be made that for many people the two
notions were in fact blended. In some sectors the Enlightenment finally
triumphed in the formulation of the so-called Social Gospel often associated
with figures like Walter Rauschenbusch. It was still a type of
Postmillennialism, but in a theologically liberal context.
Secularists embraced a similar idea but obviously understood
the 'progress' in a different sense. They believed part of this progress was
the eradication of superstition and that man would advance beyond primitive
ideas of religion.
For those who truly embraced Hegel's dialectic they might be
said to envision a hard secular reaction to the religious centuries but that
out of it a new spirituality, indeed a new modern and updated religion or
spirituality could be formed. Thus these leaders, many of them in the Church
could view Fundamentalism with disdain as being 'on the wrong side of
history'... reacting wrongly to the
forces and impulses of history and mankind's development, yea his ascent.
Bridging numerous camps and schools of thought, this way of
thinking was so dominant in the 19th and early 20th
century that today many become confused. Conservatives focus on the fact that
Marx came out of the Hegelian movement. They think of Progressivism as a solely
'left wing' ideology. It's simply not true. The truth is that in many ways
Progressivism defies modern labels. Additionally the modern Christian Rightist
will often confuse Right wing impulses with Conservatism. Often they are the
same or even seem to be the same but it's not always the case and they do not
always flow from the same ideological fount. Even Conservatism is also an
ever-changing dynamic. Many ideas they associate with being conservative were
not so at one time. Some of today's Conservative foundations were at one time
associated with Enlightenment Liberalism and later some were reckoned part of
the progressivist outlook. Many of the current notions found in the Christian
Right are conservative, but only in the post-Enlightenment setting. If they
espoused many of their (now taken for granted) ideas in the 1700s they would
have been considered rank liberals if not radicals.
My point is to say there's a lot of confusion with regard to
these questions and today most Confessionalist Christians are if anything
critical of such 'progress' narratives, especially in the realm of theology.
While they may or may not still adhere to formal Postmillennialism, their
ethics and practical theology are in many (if not most) cases certainly guided
and defined by an embrace of Dominion Theology and its progress oriented
imperatives. For this and other reasons they are in a state of crisis as
Confessionalism itself is subject to dynamic interpretation and there are
debates over whether confessional subscription should be required jot and
tittle or if only general principles abide. Interestingly I have found in my
own experience that some of the most insistent subscriptionalists were rather
inconsistent when it came to certain issues and understandings of
doctrine. Certain confessional points
were beyond negotiation and yet other points were either ignored or
deliberately reinterpreted and molded to fit contemporary sensibilities. In
other words, 'progress' and contemporary context all but demand doctrinal
modification and even those who outwardly reject it have in fact embraced it.
Modern Confessionalists who view themselves as opposing both
the liberal theologies of the Mainline and the ever-liberal trajectory of
Evangelicalism also wish to combat the ahistorical claims of Biblicism (and its
forms of congregational polity) that would eliminate any ecclesiastical or
denominational hierarchy. There is a paucity of evidence concerning such
polities for in truth they arose not from textual exegesis but from
'theological progress' and development. For them Confessionalism is not only a
philosophic necessity but a practical measure to combat these various forces
that (from their perspective) have the potential to pull the Church apart. They
believe that theology has developed and that for centuries it has been a work
of progress and yet Confessionalism seeks to 'put the brakes on' at a certain
point and say 'no further'.
They want to stop the clock, stop the flow of progress or
change, even while basing their theology on a foundation and narrative of
progress. They believe today's 'progress' is actually degeneration and even
disintegration. They scoff at the Progressivist mindset and its naiveté, its
harmful (but misguided) do-gooder-ism and its faith in man's capacity. This is
true on almost all levels. From sociology to theology to politics and
philosophy, the Confessionalist is a conservative in every sense.
They want to argue that things took a wrong turn. Now just when
exactly that happened, on that point they will not agree. Most Confessionalists
will say it happened with the Enlightenment (if they can agree on when it
started) and others (disingenuously) will try and push the blame further back
and place it on the Pietists and Anabaptists. Somehow these minority groups are
to blame for the modern catastrophe and the abysmal state of institutional
Christianity. Any serious student of history would find such a notion laughable
and yet I continue to hear such assertions on a regular basis.
The Confessionalist wants to return to what they think are
the 'old paths' of 17th century Protestant Scholasticism and the 16th
century Magisterial Reformation. For many Confessionalists in the Reformed,
Lutheran and Anglican traditions, this truly was the Golden Age of
Protestantism.
The 18th century was a time of decline and
confusion and though the 19th century was in many ways a disaster it
was also a time of stalwart resisters, of figures who sought in almost Romantic
fashion to recapture the old Protestant flame. They laboured (largely in
defeat) to restore the Reformation spirit and save Christendom and the West
from its rapid descent.
These are their narratives. While they (like most narratives)
contain a degree of truth, they are largely subjective and I would argue when
compared to Scripture... are found beggarly and wanting.
The whole mindset of Christendom, dominion, progress and the
advance of civilisation is I believe greatly flawed. I say this as a Biblicist Christian
who believes we are called to antithesis and to refuse conformity to the world.
Called to suffering and worldly defeat our victory rests in the Blessed Hope,
the return of Christ and the completion of all things. All these variations of
the 'Christendom' model do away with Paul's teaching in Romans 12/13 and the
sundry passages in the New Testament that outline the Church's opposition to
the world and its permanent pilgrim identity throughout what remains of This
Age.
Rather, they believe (whether they will admit to it or not) that
much of the New Testament can be rendered all but obsolete and hypothetical
through the creation of a so-called Christian society. In this scenario,
Christians will not be contra mundum
but regnandi mundi, ruling the mundum-world. They will not be
persecuted because they will bear
the sword. They will not turn the other cheek but strike in the name of Christ. They will not lay up
treasures in heaven but turn Earth into
heaven. Some view the transformation as almost achievable in this age and
others would say that cultural transformation while limited and incomplete in
this age will nevertheless play a part in the age to come, in the experience
and culture of heaven itself.
What degree of 'success' will the Church have? The various
factions differ on this but in terms of practical day-to-day living they are
part of the Christendom project and thus embrace historical metanarratives that
wed the Church and Kingdom to society and civilisation. The Kingdom is not
something operating outside of or parallel to the world but is instead
intimately part of its development and/or its decline. Under this model, as a
Christian, your daily work, your contributions to society, your wealth
generation and success directly contribute to the vitality and growth of the
Kingdom of God.
This is why Confessionalists are generally not interested in
the vibrant and yet separatist history of the Underground and Remnant Church.
Even though many of these groups professed sola
scriptura centuries before the Protestant Reformation, they are downplayed
or even rejected. The fact that they were on the outside, in the underground
and principally rejected the mainstream currents of Latin and Greek
Christianity renders them trivial and extraneous. In other words they are not
relevant. If praise is given, it is token, an acknowledgment of their
persecution even while their often Biblicist and separatist principles are
rejected.
Their sola scriptura position doesn't count because it led
them to largely reject the theology of Christendom, of the schools, the
Scholasticism of the Medieval period and the philosophical and cultural
debates. They were not interested in the so-called sacred arts. Their
separatism renders them guilty of having something less than a 'Christian
Worldview'.
Magisterial Protestantism took up the mantle of Constantinian
Christendom (or attempted to) and has always been keen to appropriate the
heritage surrounding the universities, philosophy, cultural movements, art and
architecture. Magisterial Protestants see themselves as part of the narrative,
part of that spiritual and theological heritage.
Prior to the Magisterial Reformation the Waldensians and
others rejected this and labeled it as the kingdom of Antichrist. The
cathedrals and castles that stir romantic passions even to this day were for
them the symbols of the system which oppressed them. They were monstrosities of
heresy, idolatry, war, torture and oppression.
For this reason the Protestants before Protestantism are
giving a patronising pat on the head and are often attacked as much as they are
praised. They are caricatured and misrepresented. Even modern Church historians
will wag lying tongues and proclaim 'The Church' wasn't a 'little group holed
up in the Alps'. This is a tiresome repeat of the oft misrepresented extent of
Waldensian influence. The group based in the Cottian Alps became the most
famous because they endured some notorious persecutions, publicly joined the
Reformation and retained their cultural identity well past the16th century.
The truth is the Waldensians numbered in the thousands, and
tens of thousands and were spread across the continent with populations in
Southern France, the Rhineland, Brandenburg, Austria, Northern and Southern
Italy, Bohemia and the Kingdom of Hungary which today comprises not only the
modern state but Croatia, Slovakia, Transylvania and portions of Serbia. And
this is just the various factions of the Waldensians. There were others groups
as well. Not all were as Scripturally based but many held positions vis-à-vis
the Bible that find equivalence among today's conservatives. And this was all
before Luther and the Magisterial Reformation.
But Magisterial and Confessional Protestants face a
particular difficulty in their metanarrative. A strong case can be made that
their movement laid the groundwork for the dismantling of Christendom. Roman
Catholic apologists and even secular historians will point this out. The
fragmentation of authority, factionalism and raw politicking led to war and the
disintegration of Christendom. Perilous doors were opened as men sought
solutions to the problems of epistemology and principles for ordering society.
And thus was born the Age of Reason and all that followed in its wake.
Individualism born of the Protestant ethos and the elimination of the old order
led to a new Middle Class, new economic structures, theories and ethics which
would forever change Europe and sow the seeds for modern secularism.
There's much to be said for these arguments and while it's
probably more than a little unfair to lay the disease that is modern society solely
at the feet of Protestantism, the Confessionalist position of setting a marker
in the mid-17th century and dismissing any part of or culpability
with regard to what followed is disingenuous if not myopic.
Ironically only a couple of generations ago many Protestants
beamed with pride when pointing to modern society. They distinctly viewed it as
a healthy harvest, the fruit of the Reformation being applied to society at
large. With disdain they would point to 'Roman Catholic' countries like Italy,
Spain and Ireland. They would emphasize their backwardness, dilapidation, lack
of political progress, economic might and paltry industrialisation.
But with the decline of Western Civilisation the narratives
have changed and some Confessionalists have come to reject not only the once
celebrated values of Classical Liberalism but even modernity and the fruits of
industrial transformation.
It would seem that the progress of ideas is highly subjective
and defined in no small part by one's context.
Likewise today's Confessionalism presents us with an equally
absurd narrative regarding Roman Catholicism.
Until the rise of modern Evangelicalism in the decades
following World War II, Protestants saw the Middle Ages as a period of
darkness. They largely accepted the Renaissance narrative of the 'Dark Ages'
and in addition to accepting that the era was characterised by a barbaric
socio-political order it was reckoned as dark because the gospel was largely
absent.
The Reformation was viewed as a cross between a reform and a
revolution. In other words it was viewed as not just providing a remedy to
Roman apostasy but was viewed as progress, a vibrant new order replacing the
old degenerate regime. The Church (in this case erroneously conflated with
Western Civilisation) was 'advancing' in reforming doctrine but also in
bringing down the old corrupt and counterfeit order. The Reformers themselves
were mixed on this. Through somewhat sleight-of-hand arguments Calvin and
others argued that Rome had 'left them' or Rome had defected from the True
Church doctrine they the Reformers were adhering to and advocating. And yet for
all that the Magisterial Reformers are reminiscent of later revolutionaries attempting
to build a new order, even employing a kind of vanguardist approach to applying
their ideas and ordering the political might they required to legislate and
militarily defend the territories transformed by the Reformation programme.
They could try to argue for continuity and yet what they were really doing was
trying to transform Western economic and political norms that had been
established from at least the days of Charlemagne.
Later some would rely on the Tridentine Argument. In other
words they can say that Rome was 'a' True Church up until it formally denied
and anathematised Justification by Faith Alone at the Council of Trent which
met between 1545-1563. This convenient but misleading narrative makes
Justification the sole mark for determining whether a Church is indeed a valid
Biblical Church.
Never mind the fact that Rome had for centuries taught a
gospel of faith and sacerdotal works. Apparently the Papacy, Mariolatry, the
Sacramental and sacerdotal systems, indulgences, image-worship, transubstantiation,
purgatory and the treasury of merit weren't enough to disqualify Rome from
being a Church. They were still a valid communion because they hadn't formally
denied Sola Fide even though on almost every point of doctrine their teachings
militated against it. Certainly the medieval dissenters (who never taught sola
fide either) had no doubt about Rome's status but the heirs of the Magisterial
Reformers had a narrative to maintain, along with a Protestant version of
apostolic succession. Their story-line required them to identify the Papacy as
antichrist but Rome as being a true Church until the 16th century.
Of course they are not easily divided, and though many try (even today), the
papacy is at the very heart of what Roman Catholicism is.
Why hadn't Rome condemned Justification by Faith Alone prior
to the mid-16th century? The answer is very simple. No one taught
it. You will find references to Justification by Faith, a Biblical doctrine
Rome has more or less always taught and still teaches. Of course for Rome the
truth of the doctrine is buried and all but destroyed by the crushing weight of
their false teachings. But the specific doctrinal formulation of Justification
by Faith Alone and all that it entails was novel, a creation of the 16th
century.
The Bible may (or may not) teach the theological
technicalities Reformation formula but in terms of the historical argument, the
Magisterial Protestant argument falls flat.
The argument that Rome ceased to be a valid Church at Trent
is frankly absurd. If Sola Fide is the standard then Rome had never been a
Church and the narrative implodes.
Continue reading Part 2
Continue reading Part 2