Recovering the First Reformation - Toward a Proto-Protestant Narrative of Church History (XVII)
The time is now.
These essays have attempted to survey Church history and
re-cast it in a narrative frame at odds with the often tight, packaged, and frankly
sometimes disingenuous renderings provided by denominational partisans and the
advocates of Christendom – or the fiction that is often referred to as
Judeo-Christian civilisation. This revisiting and questioning of common
Protestant and Evangelical narratives of Church History is essential if one is
to understand and navigate the present context.
Instead these essays advocate a return to the First
Reformation, the First Protestantism. The Magisterial Reformation launched by
Luther and Zwingli was not a recovery of New Testament Christianity or even the
pure gospel. The first generation came closer to this but failed and subsequent
generations put the movement on a new trajectory – a hybrid of both Old
Catholicism and post-Renaissance Scholasticism, but still far removed from the
Sola Scriptura it professed. Many souls were saved and in some respects it
marked an improvement when compared to Catholicism, but at the same time seeds
were sown not only for future theological error but the rise of a new
Protestant Sacral order which was also destined to collapse – and doomed to do
so in a spectacular fashion.
It was but a flawed and often insincere attempt at
recapturing apostolic Christianity and righting the wrongs of Roman
Catholicism. It resulted in some good but it also fomented social upheaval, terrible
wars, and the new age it created resulted in riches and bliss for some – and
yet great misery for others. It helped to create our modern world – an
achievement that would make some proud and yet for the morally reflective, it's
enough to make them hang their heads in shame.
By way of contrast we're advocating a form of Bible
Christianity or New Covenant Brethrenism – or in light of the ever growing
tendency toward Sacralism in the Protestant sphere – what could even be called a
Neo-Waldensianism. The underground dissident aspect of this label is becoming
all the more pertinent in terms of life and ethics, relation to society at
large and this is especially so when considered vis-à-vis the mainstream
Church. There is much that these labels imply – low churchism but of a
different sort than what the Evangelical movement has produced. These terms
also involve a distinct view of ethics and consequently a definite
counter-cultural attitude in reference to the sword and the coin – in other
words non-resistance, a call to some level of poverty (especially when compared
with Western norms) and thus a categorical rejection of the economic order that
dominates modern Western society. It also marks a rejection of mainstream
Protestantism in both its Evangelical and Confessional forms.
Coming up with a moniker or naming this proposed oppositional
movement is not really paramount. What's important is to get these ideas and
this narrative out into circulation and in consideration.
At this point a kind of ideological summary is in order, a
concise re-hashing of the key points so far mentioned and some brief
elaborations. These are all points that have been touched on either in this
series or in the larger body of writings produced on the Proto-Protestant
websites.
We wish to identify and emphasize the ethos and markers of
the First Reformation over and against the Magisterial Reformation. The former
represents an older and more truly Biblicist or New Testament form of
Christianity. Though largely ignored and unexplored it does have a historical
testimony that demands consideration and reflection.
Foremost there is the greatest need to call attention to the
fact that Sola Scriptura was not born in the 16th century. It was a
view held by dissidents in the Middle Ages, centuries before Luther and Calvin,
and contrary to Magisterial Protestantism – these groups tended to follow
through on it – especially in the realm of ethics.
There have always been struggles over the relation between
Old and New Testaments but generally speaking the adherents of the First
Reformation prioritised the New Testament, its doctrine and ethics placing them
at odds with large sectors of the Confessional-Scholastic tradition which has
for the sake of its larger holistic societal project constructed a great deal
of its theology and ethics giving undue preference to Old Testament forms and
out of necessity – the Western philosophic tradition.
Sacralist theologies which emerged during The Great Schism
(1378-1415) necessarily reverted to and relied upon Old Testament paradigms and
this Judaizing method was also picked up by the Reformers. Later even this
Judaized rendering of Sola Scriptura would be obscured and indeed subsumed
under the rubric of Confessionalism.
There have been corrective movements within the Confessional
tradition that have sought to remedy this abuse of Biblically faithful
exegesis. One thinks of groups as diverse as the French movement spearheaded by
John Cameron and Moise Amyraut in the 17th century to the later 19th
and 20th century development of Biblical Theology or
Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics. First developed in Germany the method which
prioritises themes, symbols, development and (if done right) Christocentricity
over and against the coherentist philosophically-driven approach of systematics
has proven to be of great benefit in terms of understanding the Scriptures and
keeping one's doctrine wed to the text. Learning to allow the Bible to interpret
itself and to provide its own paradigms has steered many a Confessionalist onto
a more valid and God honouring exegetical path.
As previously mentioned, the pre-Reformational groups are
often attacked as holding a less than orthodox view of Sola Fide or
Justification by Faith Alone.
Emulation should not motivate us. We should never try to
'match' or approximate our views just to line up with some particular
historical group. We should be willing to admit they were wrong but more
importantly we always need to ask – what do the Scriptures say?
Interestingly the Biblicism of these groups drove them to
embrace Justification by Faith but not the Justification by Faith Alone as elaborated by Luther and the
other Reformers. As many historians and theologians have pointed out there is
no precedent for the Lutheran view prior to the 16th century. There
were some individuals and groups that approached the doctrine but no one
asserted it or formulated it in the manner seen by the Lutherans and
Calvinists. Sola Fide is not found in the Early Church or the advocates of the
First Reformation and as such it cannot be the 'article by which the Church
stands or falls'.
While the doctrine has some Scriptural basis, a closer study
reveals the question not so much in terms of Sola Fide being in error but
rather an error in framing or prioritisation. The Lutherans and some of the
Reformed made this the Centraldogma
of their soteriological and ecclesiological system (and despite the dearth of
historical support), the sine qua non
of ecclesiastical viability – again, the mark by which the Church stands or
falls. This was done through some sleight-of-hand historical theology, the
granting of authority to certain extra-scriptural metanarratives, and often by
utilisation of canon-within-canon readings of the New Testament text – in other
words certain chapters of Romans trumping all other New Testament texts and as
such are granted not just rational and deductive priority, but mastery. Those
that frame the larger question in such terms have actually strayed from the
text and have chosen to read the history of the Church through a myopic lens
that grants validity to their movement's narrative and conveniently indicts all
who would disagree with him.
Consequently great harm was done not just to the myriad
Scriptures which contradict their formula but to the fuller orb of New
Testament soteriology. Interestingly later theologians have explored these
questions and have recovered not only the centrality of Soteriological Union
but also equally ultimate concepts to Justification as are found in
Sanctification and yes, even the Sacraments. Some have managed to explore these
corridors of New Testament doctrine while staying within the boundaries of
Confessional orthodoxy and some have limited their exegetical conclusions to
only what can be fit within the Confessional framework. And thus the
discussions surrounding these issues have been hindered – often by
denominational politics.
Others have come into conflict with the Confessional
framework – itself something of a contextually interpreted (or culturally
fluid) dynamic and even while insisting on Scriptural fidelity – have subsequently
been accused of denying Sola Fide.
It's fascinating that a strict Scriptural study as opposed to
one done under the aegis of Confessional restriction has led not a few
theologians to a place that falls out with the Sola Fide (or more properly
Hyper-Sola Fide) formulations of Confessionalism and yet is still at complete
odds with the Roman Catholic 'gospel' laden with extra-Scriptural additions,
heretical innovations and superstition.
Their views happen to resonate with much that is found in the
writings of the Early Church Fathers and the First Reformation. The strict
advocates of a narrow reading of Justification by Faith Alone accuse such
detractors of being Roman Catholic but this is fundamentally dishonest. Their
way of framing the question is little more than a trap, again a fallacious case
of sleight-of-hand.
While the First Reformation finds little resonance with
Anglican ecclesiology, the Church of the Elizabethan Settlement developed
distinctly Protestant doctrines while at the same time avoiding some of the
extremes found in orthodox Calvinism. Justification by Faith Alone is affirmed
but in weak terms and a high view of the sacraments was retained as was the
call to faithfulness and a holy life. The Establishment nature of this body
meant that the force of the doctrines would never really be pressed as it could
never emphasize a doctrine to the point of cutting off significant sections of
the population. Thus to no one's surprise today, Latitudinarianism arose and
came to dominate soon after the Glorious Revolution and its settlements.
Lutheranism also (at least initially) retained a more
Biblicist approach to things like sacramental efficacy but scholasticism and
the driving centrality of Sola Fide always canceled out the full import of New
Testament calls to holiness and sanctification. And yet because the Lutheran's
rightly denied the Eternal Security view that later emerged in Calvinist circles
(which also needs to be contrasted with the older Perseverance view) the Germanic
body still (at times) exhibits more in the way of Biblical dynamics than the
descendants of the Swiss Reformer who (generally speaking) have for the past
two hundred years moved ever more in a Baptistic direction.
This touches on the nature of the holy rites, ordinances or
sacraments. A strict Biblicist view (as opposed to most modern claims of Biblicism
which function within an Enlightenment rationalist framework) demands a belief
in their supernatural virtue and efficaciousness and this too was believed by
members of the Early Church and First Reformation.
Up to this time most attempts at reconstituting primitivist
Christianity or any attempt to emulate the proto-Protestant ethos has been
constructed around Baptistic theological frameworks rooted (at least in part)
in a misunderstanding of the questions surrounding paedobaptism and the
Constantinian Shift. A careful study of both the New Testament and the salient
history reveals this to be an error in judgment of both historical and Biblical
interpretation. This call toward the constitution of a new First Reformation movement
is not a call for a new type of Baptist church – built on a theology of
decisionistic conversion experience followed by believer's baptism by immersion.
Those that are seeking such have plenty of available options. On the contrary,
these essays argue for something quite different – a theology which on the one
hand seems rather High Church and sacramental but on the other hand is about as
far from Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism as you can get.
The questions over sacraments, debates over infusion and
imputation, and even the proverbial battles of Arminianism and Calvinism are
able to be transcended by the Biblicist approach advocated here. In terms of
eschatology while the position advocated here is not premillennial it is
apocalyptic. Functionally speaking, historical Premillennialism and the variety
of non-dominionistic apocalyptic Amillennialism advocated here result in the
same life ethos and agree in terms of the course of the Church for this present
evil age. Both focus on the imminence of Christ's coming and the transitory
doomed nature of this world. Both views were widespread in the early Church and
there are hints that suggest both views had standing within the First Reformational
framework.
In terms of Church and culture, the First Reformation ethos
is protestant but not part of the Magisterial Reformation and its Confessional
legacy. To embrace the Biblicist epistemology being called for, the worldviews
born of the Renaissance, the precursors to modernity (and their contemporary
progenies) must also be rejected. Rejecting all progress narratives we
necessarily reject Dominionism and the various social constructs and hybrids
that have emerged in the post-Renaissance (and by implication) the
post-Enlightenment period. Obviously we have to live in this context and
interact with these ideas but the epistemology that is rooted in and results in
Biblicism must necessarily reject them. We are citizens of the heavenly Kingdom
and we bring a message that defies all man-made paradigms and hopes. Likewise
we must categorically reject any claims of a 'Christian' order, society,
economics, statecraft or even the notion of sacred arts. These are all
foundationally flawed paradigms that fail to properly appreciate the nature and
profundity of the Fall and the curse that is upon this Satan-ruled present evil
age. Taking up the cross we embrace the near (or seeming) nihilistic futility
of Ecclesiastes, the epistemological impotency revealed in 1 Corinthians, and the
anti-historiographical lessons of Job.*
In other words we are wholly dependent on revelation from on
high in order to make any sense of this fallen world and to find any hope
within its context. We groan with Paul desiring to be clothed upon, which
involves the shedding of this bodily tent as Peter put it. Life in this cursed
present evil age has little to offer in terms of progress. It beauties and
glories (which are abundant and astonishing enough) are reductions, but shadows
of what was and what will be. This world is vanity but despite its perishing we
by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have faith and hope in what is to come. We
are celestial pilgrims – emissaries sent to bear witness and suffer to the
glory of God. We have no hope of progress in this age. The very notion is but a
pipe dream, a vapour. And these factors certainly affect how we think, live,
and interact with the world around us and what it produces.
----
* As Christians we understand that history is linear, moving
toward the apocalypse/consummation. History therefore has meaning, purpose, and
design. By means of Scripture we're granted the big picture. But along the way
we realise by means of Scriptural lessons from the New Testament (1
Corinthians, Romans) and Old Testament wisdom literature (Job and Ecclesiastes)
that due to the curse of sin there is a circularity and futility to this
present order and as far as interpreting history – we are wholly incapable. We
cannot honestly hope to be able to interpret why in God's Providence things
happen as they do, nor do we have the ability to relate them. In Job's case
we're given a window – itself instructive, but it also teaches us that we
cannot hope to understand the true nature of events and how they relate, this
side of glory.
History certainly has value and lessons can be learned from it but as with all areas of human inquiry – we are limited. And given that the lessons are spiritual in nature they are not easily quantified or explained by means of scientific formula or patterns amenable to the academy. There are patterns but we (let alone the lost) are just as likely to interpret them wrongly. The abundance of what can only be described as bad and unbiblical Church History that's out there testifies to this. When it comes to something as subjective as historical interpretation, the limitations can become severe. We can see patterns, learn much, and see the end but attempts to weave meaningful narratives are subjective and highly subject to contextual and personal bias.