Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (IX)
Another way of reviewing and emphasizing the characteristics
of the First Reformation and the various proto-Protestant movements is to
juxtapose and contrast them with the Magisterial Reformation and the type of
Protestantism that it produced. This is seen in two areas – doctrine and
ethics. Questions of Biblical authority and general understandings of how
doctrine functions were answered differently. And, there were profound
differences in how the First and Second Reformations interacted with society,
power, wealth and the state. In other words the two movements had radically
different concepts of ethics in light of the Scriptures – at which point we
will begin.
First, there is the issue of cultural secularisation. One of
the great ironies of Sacralism is that while it intends to sanctify society and
expand New Testament definitions of the Kingdom to include the state, coin,
sword and the larger culture it nevertheless results in a nominal form of
Christianity – a situation in which everyone and everything is Christian. And
yet out of necessity its approach ends up being based on a lowest-common denominator
approach. Strict New Testament discipline and an emphasis on antithesis vis-à-vis
the world becomes impossible as it would become socially detrimental and
destructive.
When this has been attempted historically it has always
resulted in a cultural backlash. After a few generations the project implodes
and we can see the results in places like New England, Spain, Holland, Scotland
and Ireland – places once deemed über-'Christian', now hotbeds of secularism,
sodomy and other forms of wickedness.
The profound and often rapid cultural shifts expose the fact
that sacralist culture has shallow roots, it is but a veneer that quickly
crumbles and is replaced by a backlash or reaction culture that's largely
hostile to the moral ideals and doctrines of the previously imposed society. In
other words it actually leads to forms of secularisation – the very thing it
hopes to avoid, is the very thing it produces.
Deductively this does not mean the attempt or ideal of
societal and cultural Christianisation is necessarily
wrong – though we would say in actuality it is (in light of the New Testament) and
the collapse is therefore a form of judgment.
Some would dispute this but ultimately we can safely say the
model is not in accord with the New Testament and as such is doomed to fail.
But worse it confuses and erodes the identity of the Church by confusing it
with the culture (our leaders, our troops, our police and the like) and so on every front the model fails. The
Church's identity and goals get conflated and confused with that of society.
The culture ends up worse off and the Church ends up losing its identity – yet
another aspect of secularisation.
We can contrast the Sacralist ethos of both Rome and the
Magisterial Protestants with the deliberate and principled pilgrim-separatism
of the First Reformation – and yet this is a claim that must be qualified.
Those that utterly rejected the Church of wealth and power and in other cases
expressed a distinct rejection of the Donation of Constantine were rejecting
the sacralist principle of Christendom and the very idea of a monistic societal
construct.
The fact that the so-called Donation (along with the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) was later proved to be spurious is actually
immaterial to the doctrinal question. Even if it was real it wouldn't change
the debate. The fact that it was false just testifies to the wicked duplicity
of the papacy and the fact that Catholic leaders were willing to lie in order
to codify their doctrinal claims. The point is, though based on fraudulent
claims, the document provided a cover for the functional doctrine and the goals
of the papacy during the period. It expressed the principles of
sacralist-Christendom in its papal form. In that case the Roman See was to be
atop the social pyramid. The Magisterial Reformation rejected this particular
model but not the larger sacralist concept. They simply recast it in a different
form.
The First Reformation (c.1050-1500) rejected the concept and
yet as mentioned there were exceptions that became manifest during the Great
Schism period of 1378-1417. Branches of Lollardy and Hussitism took up the
sword during this period, with Taborite violence continuing into the 1430's.
And yet in the aftermath of these failures (this misguided attempt to forge a
reformed Christendom and on a proto-nationalist basis no less), the surviving
elements of these groups would come to eschew violence and the very principles
and assumptions of Christendom itself. Therefore we can view this period as
both a crisis and an interlude.
The Magisterial Reformation would from its very outset seek
to not just challenge the claims of Roman Catholic Christendom but to replace,
appropriate, and succeed them.
The Magisterial Reformation looked for a robust Christian
social and political order while the First Reformation ideal was more in
keeping with the New Testament and Early Church – a separatist conception of
the Church rooted in social pluralism.
This social pluralism must not be confused with religious or
theological pluralism. The claims of Christ are exclusive and yet Biblical law
(both Old and New) is covenantal and not universal. The nations are commanded
to repent and believe in Christ and this as opposed to the legal basis for a
social order is the point of divide. The ethics of the New Testament are
Spirit-empowered and activated and as such are meaningless to the unbeliever –
as Paul suggests they cannot submit to the commandments of God, all the more
when we understand the keeping of the commandments is itself a spiritual grace
and an exercise of pious obedience.
Social Pluralism is simply an idea, a pragmatic polity in
this present age. It is not an absolute and thus our speaking of it is in
wholly different terms than how the culture at large utilises the concept.
Once Christ returns and everything (both good and bad) is
reconciled in light of His shed blood and resurrection, the very concept of
pluralism will be meaningless. As such it's not meant to be understood as an organising
political principle as seen later in Classical Liberalism. It's a
functional-hypothetical model which never actually lasts for very long in terms
of eternity. Paul assumes it in passing in 1 Corinthians but then also a short
time later speaks of this world as passing away.
States and societies always slip back into what could be
described as the sacral default – the Babel idolatry that keeps rearing its
head throughout history. We're not to champion pluralism or confuse it with New
Testament principle and yet it's the best we can hope for.
This understanding and rejection of Christendom (the
pseudo-Christian version of Babel idolatry), its principles and ethics explains
the First Reformation perspective with regard to the Church-State struggles in
the centuries after the Gregorian Reform.
While Magisterial Reformation historians champion the cause
of the Roman Church versus the state and the claimed prerogatives of kings, the
First Reformation perspective is different.
There is no cause to rejoice in seeing Henry IV do penance in
the snow or for Henry II to accept humiliation for his inadvertent role in the
murder of Thomas Becket. In fact, the medieval dissenters of the First
Reformation appreciated and benefitted from the imperial party which rejected
the papacy. Indeed in the Guelph-Ghibelline wars which tore apart Italy and
some of the German lands from the 12th to the 14th
century, the 'heretics' found favour with the imperial Ghibellines and often
sought shelter in their domains.
This is not say that they offered them political or military
support but that they found dwelling in the Ghibelline lands to be preferable.
The Ghibelline domains were often put under interdict which to the folk of the
First Reformation was not a burden but a cause to rejoice. Roman Churches were
closed and the whole oppressive machine was effectively shut down. They were
free to operate without fear and without being compelled to Nicodemism –
outwardly conforming to Catholic practice while secretly engaging in true
worship at night with the underground movements.
Also the Ghibelline lands were less likely to employ activist
clergy – but rather clerics with connections to the noble families of the
region which opposed the heavy hand of the papacy. From a Roman Catholic
perspective this of course is problematic and yet from a First Reformation
perspective of pragmatism, this was the best that could be hoped for – clergy
(of the False Church) that would leave them alone.
While romantics and moderns view the great cathedrals and
castles with a wistful eye and dream of the grand old middle ages – the First
Reformation viewed such structures as the edifices of oppression and symbols of
the False Church. They were places of idolatry, dungeons and the rack. They
were not viewed as something to be admired or appreciated but were rather the
tools and symbols of an authoritarian and often totalitarian system.
For it must be remembered that Roman Catholicism established
an order in which the wrongly whispered word could result in torture and flame.
Being caught with the wrong book meant death and often did for Waldensian
colporteurs seeking to distribute their vernacular translations. You were
expected to conform and if you accepted the system you could be happy enough,
drink your fill and even live a debauched life. Sinful conduct was accepted but
what was not accepted was any kind of principled challenge to the order. As
such those atop the hierarchy feared words and laboured to keep the people in a
state of illiteracy and ignorance. In contrast literacy was a hallmark of the
First Reformation. By no means universal, there is nevertheless every indication
that there were high rates of literacy among them. They were people of the book
and we read of underground scriptoria and schools. The 'heretics' were known to
produce copies of the Scriptures and other works in miniature form which they
would distribute throughout Europe.
Embracing a completely different social posture and view of the
world, the men and women of the First Reformation lived as pilgrims in their
society. They rejected its ethics of the sword and coin – and the sham
Christianity which overlay the system. Consequently they also refused to engage
in a great deal of commerce and were dubious regarding the rising burgher
classes in the cities. And as would be expected they also rejected the levies
or conscription which put them at odds with the feudal order.
The Magisterial Reformation has long chosen to ignore the
profundity, magnitude and scope of the First Reformation because not only was
it of a different character (an interesting admission Schaff makes when he
effectively dismisses these groups as irrelevant) but to embrace them is to
reject the medieval order in toto.
While the first generation of Magisterial Reformers was more
apt to entertain this rejection posture, the later generations saw themselves
as the heirs of medieval Christendom and very much wanted to lay claim to the
heritage of the castle and cathedral, not to mention the university and the
arts. To embrace the First Reformation would also mean a rejection of this
heritage. And so the consequence has been to either dismiss the protestant
nature of these groups by defining Protestantism in specific Magisterial
Reformation and Confessional terms that excludes them, or it has been to treat
them in a quaint fashion and move on. The former move treats them as
essentially a deviation of Catholicism and no genuine Protestants. The latter
treats them as sub-Protestants worthy of pity and respect but basically views
them as having contributed nothing. For while Waldensians were being burned and
martyred for the faith in the 12th and 13th centuries,
the later Magisterial-Confessionalist Protestants were far more interested in
and keen to identify with Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas and others of
their ilk.
This isn't just a question of later Protestants going soft
with regard to Rome but rather we need to understand that the contrast is due
to fundamental differences in the nature of the First and Second Reformations.
Schaff is right in one sense. The First Reformation was
ultimately pre-modern in its sensibilities which today would be viewed as an insult
but such a posture can and should be understood differently and as such can be
viewed as not only positive but Biblical.
Magisterial Protestantism's view of nature quickly strayed
into the mechanistic with an emphasis on normative operations. Natural laws
could be used to explain things. The Scholastic method which took over by the
latter portions of the 16th century finds no small amount of
resonance with later Enlightenment categories and in fact helped to lay the
groundwork for them. Magisterial Protestants were forerunners in the realms of
modern science, economics, statecraft and the like and they remain rather proud
of this heritage even if they don't like to consider the full implication and
import of these ideas and concepts and what they would later unleash.
While the First Reformation tended toward Biblicism, the
Magisterial-Confessional Protestants tended toward a scholastic reading of the
Scriptures and of the world. Rationality, systems, normative observations, the
hallmarks of the Age of Reason were already at work (in seed form) within their
circles. And while the Confessionalists were unlikely to find common ground
with the mechanistic approach of Cartesianism, they nevertheless were part of
the epistemological revolution which was in the process of re-casting the
world. Dismissive (in most cases) of medieval thought and its perceived
superstitions, the Magisterial-Confessionalist thinkers were increasingly men
cut from the cloth of pre-modernity. While Luther called Aristotle 'wretched',
his theological descendants would revive the philosopher and stand on his
shoulders.
The First Reformation retained the medieval supernaturalist
worldview – a world of wonder, living folklore and spiritual activity. Their
general intellectual posture was more in keeping with the world that would pass
away in the Renaissance revolution – of which the Magisterial Reformation was a
part.
Their Biblicism marked an adherence to and reliance upon the
revelatory and seemingly expressed little confidence in the functionality of
natural laws or a mechanistic-type cosmology.
Surely this is one aspect of their thinking that is outdated
and obsolete – or is it? Strong arguments can be made for the fact that
Protestant Scholasticism opened the doors to the Age of Reason and
Enlightenment. Not only was Christendom shattered by the Second Reformation –
its epistemology was also broken. Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Confessionalism
sought to arrest the chaos and solidify the Church and society but Pandora's
Box had already been opened and a progression had begun which was not easy to
arrest. Things fell apart and terrible religious and quasi-religious wars broke
out which would tear European culture apart. It would generate the secularism
that began to emerge in earnest in the 18th century, leading up to
the world we know today.
Obviously the story is more complicated but the point is that
a recapturing of Biblicism returns us not to the Reformation and
post-Reformational period but to the Middle Ages and Antiquity – and yet not to
Roman Catholicism. The Bible presents a world of clashing angelic entities, spiritual
activity in the world, an age governed by God's sovereignty but also subject to
genuine spiritual conflict – a war in which there are traps and deceptions and
indeed souls are at stake. Our post-Enlightenment materialist order has
rejected the spiritual-metaphysical realities which undergird the world and
like it or not on a functional level, much of the Church, even the professedly
conservative Bible-believing Church has been affected by this – in many cases
far more than they realise.
Fools we will be in the eyes of the modern world and church,
but the cosmology of Scripture is far more complex and wondrous than either the
empty shell that is materialism or even the stripped down monistic model found
in Calvinism and much of the Evangelical world. This is not to say that there
wasn't overlap between the Medieval and post-Reformation intellectual spheres.
Many early Reformed and Calvinists retained the earlier supernaturalistic view
(as seen in their approaches to questions concerning things like magic and
witchcraft) but the Scholastic approach with its Aristotelian-influenced
rationality and empiricism would leave this way of thinking behind and view it
with embarrassment – leading us to later and contemporary forms of Confessional
orthodoxy that are (when compared to the earlier supernaturalism) functionally
deistic and secular by comparison.
While I'm not suggesting we re-embrace medieval superstition
I have argued elsewhere that as time goes on I am more inclined to believe the
core of ancient testimonies regarding the world that seem fantastical by
today's standards. Indeed there are more
things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in men's philosophy – or even
their philosophically driven theology.
If by superstition is meant charms, amulets and folk
practices about how you set the broom down and throwing salt over the shoulder,
then no, I'm not talking about those things at all. But if by superstition you
mean believing in a world in which elders anoint the sick with oil, a realm of
angels and demons, monsters and dark designs, supernatural events and
wickedness in high places then in that case I am happy to embrace (along with
the people of the First Reformation and the Ancient Church) the label of being
superstitious.
These are but some of the aspects which must be considered when contrasting the First Reformation with the Magisterial heritage.