Calling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First Reformation
https://churcheswithoutchests.net/2025/03/13/the-imitation-of-christ/
I am pleased to note de Bruyn also offers some praise for the Theologia Germanica, another worthy pre-Reformation work.
But as I've often argued there's a problem with this approach to orthodoxy - it's progressive. Men like de Bruyn are willing to say that à Kempis and the anonymous author (the Friend of God from the Oberland) of the Theologia were Christians.
When trying to explain how a First Reformation and non-resistance view might operate in today's world and how we might bear witness with regard to events, culture, and geopolitics - and yet not be part of it, I was reminded of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War.
https://jacobrcrouch.wordpress.com/2024/11/01/train-your-kids-to-be-christians/
There is much that is positive in this article and I do not doubt Crouch's sincerity nor do I wish to simply cast his comments in a negative light. Rather I wish to utilize them and discuss some of the tensions and inconsistencies that exist within the Reformed and Evangelical communities.
I recently finished Frederick Heymann's George of Bohemia: King of Heretics (1965, Princeton University Press). It's a weighty and laborious read but necessary for anyone seeking to understand the history of Hussitism.
Too often Protestants have fallen prey to 'successionist' thinking or rather tying the idea of succession to some kind of institutional or genealogical pedigree. The apostolic succession (if we want to call it that) is located not in a group, tribe, geographic location, or institutional/ecclesiastical continuity but in the doctrine of the apostles. Those who recognize and obey the Christ-granted oracular authority of the apostles or New Testament writers are the heirs of the apostles.
Driving home from a rather High-Church Anglican service, I reflected on the many different understandings of worship and the relationship (if any) between our service and the celestial or heavenly realm.
The non-sacral sect model views culture as something that is at best inevitably corrupt (and thus to some degree a thing indifferent), and at worst a subversive danger to the Kingdom. This must be juxtaposed with the sacral-institutional model that views culture as something to be mastered, shaped, and controlled. When I say 'indifferent', this is not to suggest that it can be used expansively or with abandon. On the contrary our interactions with it must be marked by caution and even cynicism - and yet without fear. Such wisdom and occasionalism prove difficult and thus many have (in the spirit of the Pharisees) erected the Legalist Wall as a means of protection - a move that is ultimately corrosive in that in addition to being unbiblical it has the tendency to shut down the spiritual faculties of discernment instead relying on a kind of checklist spirituality wed to a (fundamentally flawed) cultural narrative.
Over the past several years I've heard more than one statement or discussion regarding the question of the Church needing to function as an institution or fixture within society and not fall into the category of being a sect and it connotations of marginalisation, exclusivity, and even extremism. The acceleration and amplification of the culture wars and the perceived marginalisation of the Church has fueled this discussion.
Common Grace is a reality, a mercy, and restraint while the Church bears witness in the world and (this is critically important) wins by losing. We win by bearing the cross, we conquer by being sheep for the slaughter. By living as pilgrims and rejecting the world, we testify against it and to the spiritual powers that undergird it – and proclaim a way of life, a coming Kingdom, and a coming doom. This is foolishness to the world, madness, and supremely unappealing and unattractive. Only people who have lost their minds would embrace such a message and calling – or so it would seem. It's tragic that the majority of Christians think the same as the world does on these points and view such glory and victory, such testimonies to the power of the Holy Spirit as pessimism, defeat, cowardice, and offensive foolishness. One wonders if such thinking has in fact grasped even the broad strokes of the gospel message and the core principles of New Testament doctrine – let alone its ethics. No wonder Christ's words concerning mammon (and the security and power it represents) are incomprehensible to them.
I was asked to elaborate a bit on the question of proto-Protestantism's relationship to Magisterial Protestantism and the question of conservative vs. progressive movements.
In a Journal of Early Christian Studies article from the 1990's David Hunter argues contrary to Jerome and later interpreters (such as Edward Gibbon) that the late fourth century protests of Vigilantius of Calagurris were not the result of innovation on his part, nor the lone voice of an outlier, but rather represented an extant and thus older tradition in protest to a newly developing piety.
Many of the doctrinal points Melia wishes to make (which he does by means of collating numerous quotations and references) are troublesome to the type of Protestant history one encounters with someone like JA Wylie. Melia wants to show how Catholic the Waldenses were and thus drive a wedge betwixt the group as they appeared in history and the romanticised narratives of later historians.
And yet for someone like myself who argues the First
Reformation was essentially different on many key points than the Magisterial
Reformation, these claims made by Melia are not troubling in the least.
The Origin, Persecutions, and Doctrines of The Waldenses by Pius Melia. The original was published in 1870. The copy I read was a 1978 AMS re-print of James Toovey's 1870 edition published in London.
It's a short book but packed with useful information. The
Jesuit theologian pulls no punches. It is his intention to dismantle and
deconstruct many of the popular narratives surrounding The Waldenses. The book
despite its significant flaws is not without value.
Through the efforts of my son I was able to read Peter Brock's The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1957).
Copies can be found but it's a somewhat rare
and expensive book. This is one of Brock's early works and probably not his
best known. Recognized as an authority on pacifism, he specialised by focusing
on many of the groups in Eastern Europe such as the Unity of the Brethren or
Unitas Fratrum.
One could say (given all that has been argued here) that I might be a prime candidate for swimming the Tiber (or Crossing the Bosphorus) and I have been forced to acknowledge the weight of such arguments and to a degree I can understand why many have abandoned the Reformation (and especially Evangelicalism) for Rome or Constantinople. But this is folly of an even greater magnitude as Rome and Constantinople are false systems – false and counterfeit manifestations of Christianity. This doesn't mean that every last thing Rome holds to or proclaims is wrong – as even the heirs of the sixteenth century Reformation will acknowledge, though there is little agreement as to what that all means. Those who defect to Rome have already embraced erroneous assumptions and then when the weight of everything is else is factored in – they make the perilous move and thinking they do Christ service, they join with His enemies. Unlike most contemporary Evangelicals, I still argue that Roman Catholicism is antichrist and at least a manifestation or a component of the Whore-Beast imagery of New Testament prophecy.
While the aforementioned councils of Late Antiquity were not 'ecumenical' councils – a point some make to argue their canon proclamations weren't considered universally authoritative – such an argument or appeal proves too much.
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/12/gems-from-shepherd-of-hermas.html
In light of recent statements regarding the Early Church
Fathers I was asked to elaborate and perhaps defend some issues regarding the
Old Testament Apocrypha. This issue has gnawed at me for years and as I have
worked through the narratives and claims of the Magisterial Reformation I finally
came to a conclusion that its positions and arguments concerning these books are
highly problematic. As I have repeatedly stated, this does not grant anything
to Rome. That's not really the issue here.
It's been quite a few years since I read The Shepherd of Hermas. Reading it anew I was reminded of how alien it is to Evangelical sensibilities. For my part, I found the second century work refreshing if a bit of a slog. But some of that perception is merely cultural. We are certainly impatient in our day and so many of the older works can seem tedious.
Once again my thoughts drifted back to Catholic claims
regarding the Fathers – ones echoed by nineteenth century figures like Cardinal
JH Newman and John Nevin. While I will once again grant that the Magisterial
Reformation and its Evangelical progeny may find the waters of Hermas strange,
I still contend they are something other than Roman Catholic.
https://issuesetc.org/2022/07/29/2101-christian-crusaders-raymond-ibrahim-7-29-22/
This was but another ridiculous interview I found on Issues
Etc., yet another case at the attempted rehabilitation of The Crusades. Ibrahim
inadvertently all but confesses that his work is not just revisionism but
hagiography focusing on the 'heroes' of The Crusades.
For the Bohemian Brethren, the contacts with the Magisterial Reformation produced mostly negative results. Swept up into the political struggle, the theology and ethics of the Reformation produced worldliness and compromise in their lives. The net sum was that their movement was forced to pay a vicious price in the aftermath of the Schmalkaldic War. Though attempting to keep their distance at times, they were now part of the larger Protestant movement and (willingly or not) they were caught up in the catastrophe and bloodletting known as The Thirty Years War.