The former Irish Roman Catholic priest Richard Bennett (1938-2019) has always been a figure of sympathy and respect in my book. He was so thankful to have been released from the bondage and false Christianity represented by Rome. His sincerity was palpable and it was almost impossible not to empathize with him and his emotional response to his deliverance from that bondage.
That said, beyond a kind of basic gospel of grace message, I
didn't find his work to be all that edifying. His theology never really moved beyond
the basics and exhibited a kind of reliance on what could almost be described
as rationalism - an application of British Empiricism over and against what is
perceived as Roman mysticism.
Everything with Bennett has to be taken in the context of his
departure from Rome. He was absolutely hostile to anything that smacked of
Catholicism or even hinted of it. As such, he was hostile to anything mystic or
perceived as mystery, any demand for works, or frankly even theological
dynamics which might result in unresolved tensions – again smacking of mystery.
I was not surprised to find his site linked to some Theonomic-related outfits
and Gordon Clark's The Trinity Foundation – a bastion for Calvinist rationalism
and its close cousin hyper-Calvinism. I don't know where Bennett was on that
point but in his zeal to emphasize the Magisterial Reformation's theological
and cultural narratives he often fell into patterns that not only over-restricted
the Confessional tradition but were sub-Biblical. Even the Reformers and later
Scholastics were able to express dynamics concerning things like the sacraments
which seem beyond Bennett who in his opposition to Rome can only see empty
ordinances. Like the rationalist theologians he appreciates, means have no
place in his thinking as the Spirit alone gives life. He takes one truth of
Scripture and uses it to eliminate its wider and more comprehensive teaching –
and the notion that the Spirit just might use means in the exercise and
application of power. So zealous is Bennett to keep anyone from even turning an
eye in what is perceived as a Rome-ward direction, he actually wreaks havoc on
not just the Scripture, but theology as a whole, as well as the historical
theological and Church historical records.
On that last point, his zeal to oppose Rome (which certainly deserves
to be opposed) led him to adopt a rather dubious historiography – to the point
that I cannot recommend his works. In addition to a sloppy read of history, his
reliance on the romanticised narratives of JA Wylie (who sometimes manipulates and
exaggerates the historical record), to his embrace of John Birch-style
narratives about modern history and globalism, there was something lacking in
Bennett – maybe even something tragic. Praise God he left Rome – but to what?
That I sometimes wondered.
I was disappointed but not surprised to see that since his
death his website now spews out Right-wing Covid conspiracy theories and the
like. For these folks it's not the Freemasons per se, or the supposed Communist
cabal, but Rome – Rome über alles. Rome is behind everything. Rome is Mordor
and the Pope is the Dark Lord that manipulates global affairs as one would a
chess board.
This is where I get really frustrated. Rome is Mordor and the
Pope is 'a' Dark Lord to be sure and a major player in world affairs – on a
scale beyond what many would acknowledge. That said, he's not what the
Bennett-types make him out to be. The world is just more complicated than what they
seem able to grasp. I don't wish to grant anything to those who take a soft
approach to Rome or who would take an inclusive or ecumenical stand. Not at
all, but the Kingdom is not served by half-truths and outright lies. If the
truth is complicated then so be it. Those who are interested in it will take
the time to suss things out. Just because people are simple or intellectually
lazy, that's no justification for squeezing and trimming down doctrine or
historical truths in order to make them fit one's rather simplistic read of a
Church history narrative.
So for the most part I have ignored Bennett, but I have on occasion
listened to his interviews – he liked to focus on Catholicism and missions in
other countries. These are the radio/podcast shows I like to listen to – to
hear what others are saying.
Recently I heard an old audio file of him interviewing some
fellows from Slovakia and a couple of things stood out. Rather than celebrate
the universal heritage of Western Christendom as many are wont to do these
days, Bennett is among those that continue to condemn Catholicism in all its
aspects. I can appreciate this but only to a point. It's not that I want to
grant Catholicism a place of honour, rather I reject the narratives that Bennett
and those like him are imposing on post-Reformation history. They find the
latter to be glorious while I do not.
One narrative (still common in Ulster) is that Catholicism
produces backward, unproductive and less than prosperous societies. The Magisterial
Reformation's doctrine of Vocation went hand in hand with social progress and
ultimately capitalism. Ulstermen like Ian Paisley would point to the Irish
Republic and criticise its backwardness and poverty and contrast it with the
industry and commercial prosperity of the Protestant and British-aligned North.
This argument is filled with flaws and easily refuted both in
terms of Scripture and history. One need only to point to the prosperity of
Northern Italy alongside Catholic Austria and Bavaria – even while the old
Protestant region of Prussia has suffered and struggled. There are many other
examples that could be appealed to. It's a deeply flawed reckoning even if it
contains a hint of truth – but a truth that is nevertheless unbiblical in its
perspective. Catholicism may be deeply flawed but that doesn't mean the
Magisterial Reformation's teaching on Vocation is right nor is its mammonism to
be celebrated.
Further, Bennett in the interview invoked the Vaudois or
Waldensians and like JA Wylie attempts to make them (and the Hussites) into the
equivalent of the later Magisterial Reformers – not just proto-Protestants but
Magisterial Protestants before the Magisterial Reformation. In addition to
being anachronistic it just isn't true. The Five Solas trumpeted by the
sixteenth century Magisterial Reformers were not adhered to by the
late-medieval dissenters. They upheld the authority of Scripture but in a
different way than the Magisterial Reformers, and they must be described in
some cases as Biblicist especially when compared with the Confessional heritage
and the way it treats Scripture. They magnified the grace of God and the
idolatrous errors of Rome but they did not teach the Sola Fide paradigm of
Luther – salvation by faith yes, but not the Lutheran paradigm which did not exist
until he taught it – though some desperately try to find hints of it in the
early and medieval Church. Bennett misleads on these points and others.
He suggests the late medieval Waldenses were good businessmen
and excelled in agriculture – more of the Whiggish Protestant-prosperity
narrative versus supposed Catholic indolence and backwardness. We also see this
in Wylie's History of Protestantism – a strong emphasis on how hardworking and
prosperous these pre- and post-Reformation folks were. I don't doubt it, but to
frame it thus is completely misleading.
The Waldensians sometimes used business as a vehicle for
travel and evangelism. One repeatedly reads of how heresy infected the wool
trade and the weaving occupation. Underground Christians looked for professions
that enabled them to move about and to have people calling at odd hours. In
medieval histories the question of vagabondage often comes up and was a major
problem at times. People were wandering about, homeless, and looking for work.
Laws were passed to curtail movement and draconian attempts were made to stop
the practice – all the more in the chaos following the Black Death. In the face
of anti-vagrancy laws merchants could still move about and stories are told of
Waldenses using this mechanism to travel safely and reach people and sometimes
to evangelise. This doesn't mean they were 'good businessman'. Bennett misses a
critical point – the two Waldensian factions of note were the Poor Lyonists and
the Poor Lombards – note the emphasis on poverty which also included a
rejection of power. These were not good bourgeois Magisterial Protestants.
These groups along with the antecedent Humiliati and Arnoldists were committed
to poverty and protested the riches of Christendom and the Church. Unlike the
Magisterial Reformers, these Biblicist folks took the teachings of the New
Testament on such questions with great seriousness, and living under Rome's
totalitarian system they were not 'successful' but marginalised, living what is
effectively an underground dissident lifestyle. He's simply wrong.
That said, they weren't always faithful and some did become
wealthy and one reads of tensions and the constant need for reform due to the
corruptions of money and its many temptations toward a worldly life.
Regardless, this is not the piety, Vocation, or Christian living of the
Magisterial Reformation. Their Christianity was of a different kind.
Some Waldenses made a lot of money and had to deal with the
problems associated with it. To call them 'good businessmen' is to read their
history through the distortion of a Whig-capitalist lens.
Again, I'm glad for Bennett's deliverance from Rome but I
cannot endorse his work and while I don't doubt he was used by God to bring
others from the Catholic fold, his legacy is mixed.
Rome is guilty of lies and great manipulations of history and
has a theology to justify this practice. Sadly, some Protestants have fallen
into similar errors – meaning well, they mistakenly justify manipulation and
dishonesty in service of the greater good. The Waldensians opposed Rome and yet
they were not Magisterial Reformers. They did not teach a Lutheran soteriology.
They were not Calvinists nor could they simply be described as Arminians. These
later binaries often fail to provide proper analysis. They were not Baptists
either – they baptised infants and by many accounts believed in sacramental
efficacy. They were not what Bennett wants them to be – and yet were far more
Biblical than his limited vision was able to realize. Anti-Romanism is proper
but in the case of Bennett, it blinded him to both Scriptural and historical
truths.
Bennett has misunderstood the Waldensians and if he relied on Wylie to understand the Hussites, then it's no wonder he missed the mark on them as well, as Wylie plays rather fast and loose with their history – ignoring inconvenient realities and smoothing over great differences in order to facilitate his narrative. Wylie's history has great illustrations and some helpful information which can be used for further exploration but the serious student of Church history will need to look elsewhere. One wishes Bennett had as well.