Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (XII)
The First Reformation it would seem embraced theological primitivism
– unelaborated and limited doctrinal concepts. Like the Early Church they
weren't terribly worried about seeming contradictions or doctrines that seemed
to defy sense-experience or logical categories tied to it.
Election and free will could be held in tension.
Sacerdotalism as elaborated by Rome could be rejected even while the sacraments
could still be believed to be supernatural and efficacious. While Protestantism
began to pursue a scholastic trajectory resulting in rites reduced to symbols
and that which is scholastically and theologically comprehensible, the First
Reformation (along with the Early Church) was able to retain the supernaturalism
revealed in the New Testament and (based on the text) had no problem affirming sacramental
efficacy and concepts like the Real Presence.
They were Biblicists in many respects but not of the
post-Renaissance rationalistic Zwinglian and Baptist type that we commonly know
today. It would also seem they were able (at least in part) to echo the
ante-Nicene theological ethos which was (up to that time in the fourth century)
mostly able to avoid the pitfalls of Hellenistic philosophy being fused with
revelation – something that flooded the Church during Constantinian Late Antiquity,
would wane during the Dark Ages and yet would be rekindled with the High Middle
Ages and the advent of Scholasticism. The Renaissance represented both an
interlude and a shift in focus but in the century subsequent to the Protestant
Reformation many aspects of Aristotelian Scholasticism and its
philosophically-theological approach were re-embraced.
Also the First Reformation rejected the sacralist aesthetic
of Rome with its predilection for grandiose politicised architecture and for
innovative rites which communicated power, institutional stability and
standing. Robed men at high altars in grand spired cathedrals become the ideal
while the Early Church and First Reformation rejected this approach and
embraced simplistic forms, plain and unencumbered but profoundly
supernaturalist (spiritual) rites and liturgy which had nothing to do with
props, decorations or an attempt to manufacture heavenly grandiosity.
It must be said at this point, of the Reformation-era groups
it is the Lutherans and post-Elizabethan Anglicans that were able to retain
some of the aforementioned doctrinal tensions and yet both groups also retained
much in the way of high liturgy and extra-Biblical tradition. The Lutherans
also placed undue dogmatic emphasis on Justification by Faith Alone to the
point of fomenting antinomianism – even while retaining high views of the
sacraments. While Lutheranism fell into Scholasticism during the 17th
century, they never succumbed to it in the same way as what was witnessed in
the Reformed world – and its offspring, Baptistic theology – the dominant form
of theology in today's conservative Evangelical scene.
There is much to laud in reference to Anglican and Lutheran
theology and yet this is coupled with a flawed view of tradition and a great
deal of unbiblical ecclesiology.
For the adherents and professors of the First Reformation, the
awe of eternity was present in the simple New Testament rites, in the Word and
in prayer. Both the Early Church and First Reformation largely rejected the
idea of Church buildings or any notion of so-called sacred architecture, music
or art. The question of First Reformational posture in reference to the arts
and aesthetics will be dealt with elsewhere.
The Magisterial Reformation would modify but perpetuate the
Roman Catholic ideal. Under Protestantism, secular buildings were also given
great standing and the Church would retain aspects of the older sacral
understanding. The Reformed wing (for a season) would attempt to fuse New Testament
ecclesiology to the sacral order but the latter would eventually win out – as
indeed in many respects the Magisterial Reformation represented the triumph of
state over Church, the battle that had raged for centuries within Christendom.
And while many of the heirs of the Magisterial Reformation (at least on the
Reformed side of things) have maintained a degree of reformist liturgical simplicity
they have nevertheless retained no small degree of the sacral ethos in their
approach toward buildings, crosses, holidays and the like. This has only
increased with the passing of time.
With regard to these questions, Lutherans and Anglicans fully
retained the sacralist mode doing very little to modify the Roman approach
apart from purging the worst types of abuses.
The end result is that in some cases the Magisterial
Reformation produced an austere worldliness, a type of Protestantism that is
(even today) associated with Northern European character and culture.
But this austere worldliness must be contrasted with the
austere otherworldliness of the Early Church and First Reformation which from
the perspective of Scottish Calvinism or Prussian Lutheranism would seem nigh
unto a type of primitive Catholicism – even if that's not the case.
And as one must expect, even the New Testament-affected
Protestant ethics and culture of Northern Christendom would in the end be changed
and corrupted by its own success. Power and money corrupt and so the powerful
empires that grew in the north – that of Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Prussia and by descent America would in the end lose and in some cases abandon
their austerity and succumb to avarice and decadence – eventually losing much
of their old identity. And this same process can be seen at work in separatist
circles – although only recently in the political sphere.
America itself was both a blessing and a danger. On the one
hand as the 18th century dawned in Europe we see America as a haven
for a veritable multitude of Christian groups. But in that isolated context,
and one in which there was little in the way of ecclesiastical opposition,
people focused on temporal concerns. The Westward march across the continent
was conducive to building a mighty nation but it was not conducive to
godliness. This story is rarely told but a nation so geared to work, building,
clearing forests, plowing virgin lands and the like was a hive of industry to
be sure but all too often it created a social milieu that distracted and
confused the Church. Religiosity reigned but it increasingly was reduced to
empty form – a fact that was exposed in the crisis of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries and the Fundamentalist-Modernist
Controversy.
And eventually Fundamentalists became Evangelicals and we can
see Anabaptists being pulled in the same direction even now. Even Jehovah's
Witnesses and Plymouth Brethren are (from the fringes) able to build successful
businesses and in due course the more money they earn, the greater interest
they begin to take in politics, local ordinances and how society is governed
and ordered. In many cases they sought to escape the world but didn't
understand what that meant. Leaving the door open they quickly find themselves
pulled back in.
The same process is often at work in the realm of liturgy and
ecclesiology. Seeking to escape Rome many Protestants made token moves at
reform but not principled ones and within a few generations the old errors (sometimes
in different packaging) began to creep back in – demonstrating that the cancer
is not merely Rome per se but worldliness and the spirit of acculturation. The
innovations and cultural appropriations are not the spirit of Rome but the
spirit of the world. Rome simply represents a theologizing of this process – a
sanctifying of man-made religious impulse. *
The great mistake made by historians is to read the First
Reformation in light of the Second or Magisterial Reformation. This is to
downplay, discount and eventually erase the differences between the movements.
It must be admitted the longevity of the First Reformation and what I've referred
to as the Schism-related interlude (1378-1415) generates some confusion.
Additionally the fact that the testimony of the First Reformation was so
utterly eradicated in the 16th century also lends credence to its
devaluation. The Anabaptist movement carried forward certain aspects of the
First Reformational ethos – its notions of Kingdom and Kingdom ethics but at
the same time the Anabaptist theology was premised not on the Biblicism of the
First Reformation (or Early Church) but evidently in the proto-empiricist
milieu of the Renaissance and in part via the means of charismatic utterance,
as the Anabaptists came to reject the supernatural and efficacious virtue-understanding
of the sacraments as well as the various dualities in the realm of epistemology
and ecclesiology that the First Reformation largely embraced. **
In terms of historical comparison the First Reformation seems
most closely related to the testimony of the pre-Constantinian Church. At this
point it would be a mistake to argue (as some have) for some kind of line of
perfect continuity between the 4th and 11th centuries as
the evidence isn't there. But it doesn't have to be.
The truth is the data available suggests a wide diversity in
practice throughout Late Antiquity and the period rightly called the Dark Ages
(500-1000). And yet we will also admit that the period from 850-1000 presents
real challenges as there is very little testimony during this period to suggest
the presence of a Biblically-oriented dissenting movement. Apart from the
testimony of Claudius of Turin and the implications that can be deduced from
his story and the remnants of the Celtic Church which (as we've previously
discussed) is not of the same order – it was truly a time of great darkness.
While there were perhaps some glimmers of hope in the East, they were faint at
best. The testimony to the truth of Scripture had grown dim indeed.
And yet depending on one's understanding of the appearance of
'heresy' in the 11th and 12th centuries, the history can be read differently. The fact
that groups such as the Poor Lombards seemed to be clearly and widely
established by the late 12th century indicates an older presence.
The 1218 Conference at Bergamo demonstrates sharp differences between the
Lyonist and Lombard camps of the 'Waldensians' – deeply seated differences
which belie the claims that both groups found their origin in Peter of Lyons or
Peter Waldo as he is sometimes called.
What brought the First Reformation more or less in line with
the Early (pre-Constantinian) Church was a study of the Scriptures. We needn't
pretend there was perfect harmony in their views as indeed both camps or categories
were not monolithic. Again, we are painting with a broad brush here for it's
all that we can do. The evidence is paltry and polluted and we also know that
much evidence has been lost – and not a little of it deliberately and by
design. Whole libraries and even chapters of history have been lost to Roman
flames.
At this point it is reasonable to ask that if the First
Reformation and Magisterial Reformation were so different, then why did the
ideology of the First Reformation disappear? Does this not testify to the fact
that these groups were in fact proto-Magisterial Reformers?
It could but I would argue the history provides the answer.
The First Constantinian Shift of the early 4th century found its
sequel in the aftermath of 1517. Weariness of persecution and the promise of
comfort and even power are the makings of Constantinian defection. It happened
before and it would happen again.
Just as 313 marked the beginning of the Shift, the year 325
galvanised the transition as Constantine called and symbolically presided over
the First Ecumenical Council. And after a generation of tumult the emperor
Theodosius would complete the process in 380-381 when he made Christianity the
state religion (Cunctos Populos)and
called the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople.
Likewise 1517 inaugurated the Magisterial Reformation as
Luther was in subsequent years protected and promoted by the Electors of
Saxony. In 1529, the Protestant princes lodged their 'protest' at the Diet of
Speyer and bound themselves to use the law and sword to defend their cause, an
ethos echoed in places like Geneva, Scotland, the Netherlands, parts of France,
Germany, Scandinavia, Bohemia, Hungary and England. After decades of war,
Counter-Reformation violence and social upheaval, the devastated and nearly
undone Continent would settle the contest at Westphalia in 1648. France would negate
the Edict of Nantes in 1685 (effectively ending its Catholic-Protestant
conflict) while Britain would not settle its struggles until 1688. There were
exceptions of course but this lays out the general framework of the struggle.
By the time you reach the 17th century politico-ecclesiastical settlements,
European culture, Christendom and Protestantism had been forever changed. Apart
from the partial testimony of the Anabaptists and Czech Brethren (the
Moravians), the testimony, ethics, and legacy of the First Reformation was
almost completely gone. Politicking and logistical pragmatics had destroyed its
testimony and almost destroyed its legacy.***
It follows then that the Magisterial Reformation in fact
represents a Second Constantinian Shift, not a glory but a tragedy, another
epic downfall and compromise of the Church.
The Magisterial Reformation did much to counter the
pernicious influence of Roman Catholicism and to break its power but at what
cost? So much was lost and the ideas and ideals that survived did not emerge
intact nor unscathed. The Protestant Church was thereafter wed to cultural
constructs and political blocks. In addition to the embrace of the sword and
coin, most Protestants emerged from this era having embraced some form of the
epistemological shifts that were generated by the crisis of the 16th
century. In order to counter the long and threatening legacy of one form of
Constantinianism, the heirs of the First Reformation embraced a new
Constantinianism and lost their soul in the process. Worn down by persecution
and faced with the practical realities of political geography they were swept
up and swept away by the Magisterial Protestant cause. They lost their way and
their identity and while history sometimes pays them homage, primarily they are
ignored and forgotten.
----
* Not
a few have noted with fascination the parallels between Tibetan Buddhism and
Roman Catholicism. Their doctrines may be different but their practice, structures and even piety
(when considered superficially) can at times prove remarkably similar. The
congruence is so overwhelming in some instances that historians and thinkers
have attempted to determine if one influenced the other. I think not. Rather,
they both demonstrate natural (fallen) proclivities in men, they both are
testimony to the nature of idolatry, how it works in a sacralist framework and
the tensions it produces – between raw political and secular power and
monasticism for example.
Likewise
the study of Scholastic theology reveals remarkable parallels with both Ancient
Greek and Indian philosophy. Reading through these works one is amazed to find
many of the same debates are at work – not the Christian terms of course but the
underlying concepts. The issues have all been debated before and in
specifically non- and pre-Christian (or Pagan) contexts. This fact should also
strike one as problematic. Is it a case of Natural Law or is it testimony to the
compromised and worldly nature of Rome's cultural, ecclesiastical, and
theological legacy? It's probably a bit of both but such an acknowledgement
should provide no comfort to Rome or its philosophical and theological heirs.
** Again, this testimony is somewhat
mixed. There is much in Lollardy to suggest a kind of early common sense
empiricism at work in the intuitions and sensibilities expressed in Lollard
statements about Roman Catholicism and its practices. Undoubtedly these were
vocalisations of what in other contexts would be hermeneutical principle – and
yet the Lollards would blend into English Puritanism which while more
rationally oriented than say the theology of the Waldensians or Petr Chelčický, they nevertheless were not Baptists or
Anabaptists.
With
the Waldensians, in addition to their carrying about miniaturised copies of
Augustine, there are hints in their writings of discussions over questions such
as traducianism. In other words those that think they were theologically
ignorant would be mistaken. In many cases they would have approached these
questions differently but it doesn't mean they were all unlettered and ignorant
rustics – for clearly they were not.
***This
represents a tragedy in terms of New Testament doctrine but it's a double
tragedy in terms of geography.
Places
once heavily populated by First Reformation groups (who joined with the
Magisterial Reformation) were decimated by the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
These proto-Protestant dissenters and non-conformists had signed on with the
new movement and while they had been persecuted in the past, the backlash of
the Counter Reformation would forever eliminate their testimony as there are
proportionately fewer Protestants today than there would have been prior to the
Reformation.
In Northern
and Southern Italy their testimony was effectively eliminated. The Lyonist
group in the famous Cottian valleys would survive but the large populations of
dissent that inhabited Lombardy, Veneto, Calabria and Apulia would disappear –
crushed by the Counter-Reformation.
Their
presence in nations like Poland was (along with Magisterial Protestantism) eliminated
as was their presence in portions of the Northern Balkans. The actual identity
of these locales is sometimes confused due to the fact that lines have been
re-drawn on the map – for example parts of Slovenia were historically Austrian
(Styria) and Croatia was for centuries part of the Kingdom of Hungary.
These
areas that once had a strong if dissident and minority Christian testimony were
lost. But the real tragedy and loss is found in Austria and Bohemia, regions
that were once First Reformation heartlands but would become spiritual deserts.
Traveling through Styria, Carinthia, Salzburgerland, Upper Austria and Tyrol
one is struck by the lack of Protestant testimony and the abundance of baroque
domes on parish church buildings. Every such dome marks a Counter-Reformation
victory and though few seem them in such a fashion – they are the reminder of a
spiritual war, a purge which took place in the 17th century as the
Papacy, Jesuits, Inquisition and the Habsburgs conspired to eliminate all
traces of Biblical Christianity.
Bohemia
was ravaged and destroyed during the Thirty Years War losing a higher
percentage of its population (around 50%) than would be lost during the World
Wars. The schemes of the Utraquists and Magisterial Protestants would result
not just in the destruction of Protestant Christianity in the Czech lands –
they would lose their very nation as it would effectively become a Habsburg
fief until the end of World War I and the creation of Czechoslovakia.
Christianity
hung on by a thread but for the most part it never recovered from this episode.
The culture at large embraced cynicism and hostility to Habsburg rule motivated
a considerable degree of Anti-Catholicism as well. Today the Czechs are one of the
least religious people in Europe but it would be a mistake to blame this solely
on the Communists who ruled the country for four decades after World War II.
The seeds had been sown long before during the anti-Christian barbarism of the
Thirty Years War – a religious war turned abomination, a contest of beasts and
monsters as all sides succumbed to barbarism and butchery. Bohemia was undone
and with it the centuries long legacy of dissenting Christianity.
Many
of the surviving dissident groups of both Reformations found haven in places
like Pennsylvania where in the 18th and 19th centuries
they would face new challenges to their faith – more subtle adversaries that tragically
would (in the end) prove even more successful than all the Habsburg swords,
Inquisitorial fires, and Jesuitical intrigues.