Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (VIII)
The question of Waldensian placement becomes complicated as
they transcend the three epochs we're touching upon – the pre-Schism First
Reformation, the post-Schism shift and fragmentation, and finally the
Magisterial Reformation.
Confessionalists, Catholic Revisionists and other sloppy or
agenda driven historians tend to focus exclusively on the group located in the
Cottian Alps which form the political and cultural border between Northwest
Italy and Southeastern France. For some
Protestants this might be because of this Waldensian group's role in the
Magisterial Reformation, their interactions with Farel, along with their
persecutions which led to the threatened intervention of Cromwell in 1655.
Milton's famous sonnet 'On the Late Massacre in Piedmont' is at this point
invariably quoted. The Cottian-Piedmont group which was Lyonist (as opposed to
Lombard) in character and thus in some respects a doctrinal minority (given the
grander Waldensian spectrum) is given special treatment but in a way that
sometimes misleads readers and students regarding their overall testimony and
influence – and the identity of the wider group or movement.
Apart from the Hussites turned Moravians, the Cottian
Waldenses are the only pre-Reformation (or First Reformation) group that
continued with a distinct identity into the Magisterial Reformation (or Second
Reformation) period. They became Calvinists but in the 19th century
would become affiliated with Methodism. Sadly today they have largely succumbed
to theological liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy. Centuries of Roman Catholic
persecution couldn't break them, but seduced by the temptations of Magisterial
Protestantism, their once Biblicist walls would finally be breached by
Scholasticism and Enlightenment philosophy. Roman Catholicism couldn't break
them but Theological Liberalism did – as indeed it destroys all things in its
path and eventually consumes itself.
The other Waldensian groups ceased to be throughout the 16th
century – being eradicated or becoming Calvinists, Lutherans, Czech Brethren or
Anabaptists.
Because of this some treat the Cottian group as if they're
the only group – and thus they are treated as irrelevant in the larger stream
of Church History. This is to ignore the 400+ year testimony of Waldensians
that ran underground schools, hospitals, copied and distributed Bibles and
preached New Testament Christianity across France, the Low Countries, the
German lands as well as Italy and the kingdoms and principalities of Central
and Eastern Europe.
Were they part of the system that built universities,
castles, cathedrals, and palaces – the system that built empires, amassed
wealth, waged war and forever tarnished the testimony of the Christian Church?
No, they opposed that system – again, until the Magisterial Reformation won
them over to the vision of appropriating it.
Others have cynically perpetuated this exclusively Cottian
misrepresentation by going further and all but dismissing the Waldensians,
suggesting the Church wasn't comprised of some small group holed up in the Alps
for several hundred years. The historians who say this, including some who
teach at Reformed seminaries demonstrate their historical ignorance and poor
methodology. Or perhaps it points to their wantonly biased interpretation and a
historiographical ethic that can only be described as consequentialist – a
willingness to spin history in order to serve (in this case) their Confessionalist
narrative. At which point they are not historians at all but propagandists and
apologists for a specific historical narrative. One Reformed seminary professor
even quoted from Euan Cameron's 2000 publication, Waldenses: Rejections of Holy Church in Medieval Europe. This was
particularly surprising given that Cameron is actually quite hostile to the
Waldenses (or Waldensians). One would think that a Reformed Church Historian
would read him with a bit more of a critical eye – but then again given this
Reformed historian's utter and supra-scriptural devotion to his Confessional
tradition I am not surprised.
Cameron for his part (and from what I can ascertain) is a
theological liberal but with strong sympathies for a kind of cultural and
conformist Christianity. The book is hostile to the Waldensians as indeed he
mocks them calling them 'contradictory', suggests their leaders were incoherent
and unqualified. The Waldensians are called 'frantic' and subject to
'extremism'. Through an interpretive grid that vacillates between pro-Roman
Catholicism and rank modernist secularism Cameron clearly cannot understand the
Waldensians nor the religious motivations that stirred them. By his estimation
their dissent stems from abuses within the Roman ecclesiastical system and
bureaucracy – it's a kind of lame lay-protest against what was effectively bad
management.
Often mocked for their rusticity and non-academic
qualifications, Cameron frequently resorts to statements regarding
Waldensianism such as 'its claims could not bear the glare of those trained in
the syllogistic logic of the schools', exposing his own failure to understand
the epistemology and pilgrim motivations of New Testament Christianity.
They are accused of 'false modesty' and he repeatedly
suggests a degree of cowardice in the clandestine comings and goings of
Waldensians preachers and leaders – an echo of their contemporary critics who
seemed to begrudge them for not openly proclaiming their faith and challenging
the system that would have quickly seized and burned them. Cameron clearly
sides with those who criticised the Waldensians and seems to all but deride
them at times.
Cameron repeatedly provides evidence to suggest that Peter
Waldo was not the founder of the movement but then accepts the standard
conclusion that he was its originator – a point he uses to expose the
inconsistency of the suggestion and the common claims concerning Waldo's
(Valdez) historical placement. He all but admits that Waldo doesn't explain the
origins of the movement but then uses the Waldo narrative to discredit their
narrative.
Elsewhere Inquisitors are praised for their 'dexterity',
'subtlety' and 'erudition'. They are often reckoned in heroic terms and
described as 'embattled'. Murderous Inquisitors (who Biblically speaking were also
arch-heretics) are in some cases reckoned by Cameron as 'dedicated, intelligent
and (by the standards of inquisitors) merciful and sympathetic opponents'.
Others like the butcher Peter Zwicker are praised for being 'lenient' and
'gentle' and elsewhere as 'unusually clear-sighted and merciful'. Siding with
the inquisitors, the Christ-hating Cameron clearly agrees with the portrayal of
Waldensians teachers as inconsistent, hypocritical and even cowardly. He speaks
of them as escaping and resisting 'ecclesiastical justice' – and Cameron gives
no indication that he's using such terms in ironic fashion. Even Popes such as
the notorious Innocent III are reckoned 'accomplished', 'astute',
'statesmanlike', and 'balanced'.
Cameron repeatedly downplays the number of those killed and
evidently trusts the testimony of Inquisitors. He falls into a common fallacy
of assuming that a group did not exist or have a presence until they are
detected. Any mention of a presence or theatre of operation prior to detection
is reckoned as out of bounds.
Despite this and his efforts to denigrate the witness of
these faithful people, their light shines through. In Cameron's work we read of
a vibrant and diverse underground group that persevered through incredible difficulties.
While being persecuted they clung tenaciously to Biblical authority and were
devoted to doctrinal exploration and New Testament ethics. They produced
vernacular Bible translations, copied and distributed them. They ran
underground schools and hospitals and actively evangelised. Under the shadow of
what can only be described as a totalitarian system that controlled not only
conduct but thought and speech they did the best they could. They were flawed
and inconsistent and many members clearly vacillated between the claims of Rome
and those of the Scripture-based underground. The movement never existed as a
tightly run and ordered institution – yet another reason why some in our day
struggle to resonate with it. For them a 'church' without buildings, without
multi-storied edifices and the proper accoutrements and trappings of a
societally established institution is problematic – though it shouldn't be. In
fact in terms of the New Testament the very institutional mindset they possess
is in fact problematic and ultimately undermines the testimony and even
identity of the Church.
Many members of the underground fell into forms of
Nicodemism, others were seemingly torn – occasionally attending compulsory Roman
worship while clandestinely meeting with the underground. Many with no little
amount of bitterness and resistance would attend Roman services once or twice a
year to avoid detection. These practices would later be condemned by the
Magisterial Reformers as unjustifiable compromise. And indeed such capitulations
were indeed troublesome and yet for many members of the underground, the
alternative was almost too terrible to contemplate. So as the record indicates
they would attend, refuse to bow, mutter contradictions and otherwise
demonstrate in low-key fashion that they were opposed to the Catholic
proceedings. But failure to attend at all would have provoked inquisition and
led to the destruction of their community and mass slaughter. While the modern
apologists of Christendom praise Rome for its civilisation and the bringing of
freedom to the West the truth is an honest examination of this period allows us
to view Rome in all its unmasked satanic horror.
The Christians of the Middle Ages were living in an Orwellian
nightmare minus the technology and for that reason some were able to survive.
The means simply were not there to track everyone – something modern
underground Christians cannot say. It was a pilgrim life, one of poverty, of clandestine
meetings and great danger. There are tales of secret passages and lonely but
valiant quests in the wilds to bring the Gospel and copies of the Scripture to
isolated villages or to hostile cities. And there are many tragic but
God-glorifying martyr-endings.
Cameron's coldness and hostility toward these people is
repeatedly on display as is his basic failure to understand the nature of New
Testament Christianity. For Cameron, the faith is all about culture, cultural
uniformity and social values. And so while in our day and age he can stand with
apostate sodomites, he can at the same time resonate with those who stood for
that era's conception of justice and order and likewise condemn the Biblicists
of that day.
The book despite its doctrinal and moral shortcomings still
has value. The same is true of Malcolm Lambert's Medieval Heresy. Many twentieth century Protestant histories treat
the various proto-Protestant groups superficially. On the contrary nineteenth
century Whig Historians often treat them but with bias – and a tendency to
whitewash shortcomings and to paint them anachronistically as Magisterial Confessional
Protestants, which they weren't.
In all honesty a good doctrinally sound but honest history of the Waldensians has yet to be written. Cameron's book is helpful but this is despite Cameron. As such I would only recommend the work to those with keen discernment. Their light shines through his ideological filth. I remain not a little baffled by the way it is used and quoted without qualification by some in the Confessional community who are apparently just as keen as Cameron to defend the notion that medieval Roman Catholicism was in fact the true Church of the epoch and that the Waldensians while novel, quaint and perhaps sympathetic were in the end – heretics.