Christology and Reformation

I finally stopped ripping him off, and I decided to just come out and co-author a paper with Peter Escalante.  We were energized to take on the recent misuse of Christology in anti-Calvinist polemics.   The paper is over at the Credenda Agenda site now.  

The paper will read like inside baseball to a lot of y’all, and I apologize.  We felt that we needed to get down and dirty with a few points for the sake of those most intrigued by modern (and postmodern) “Christology.”  The thesis is actually pretty basic though- The traditional history is actually pretty close to correct when it comes to Christological theology.   The Reformed knew about this stuff and weren’t just poking their hands in the sand.

And most importantly, Christology should be about messiah and salvation.  Whenever other interests take up the majority of your interest, you’re misusing the categories.

Some Reformation Audio

Peter will return in the near future to finish up his series, but I did want to take a moment to point you to some Sunday School classes that my church has had on the Reformation.  Of particular interest to readers of this blog will be Eric Parker’s presentation on Peter Martyr Vermigli.

You can find the audio here.

Political Progression

There’s no obvious virtue in “conserving” something, nor is there any in being “liberal” with something.  It all depends on what that something is.

Christianity has had an interesting relationship with politics over the years.  Jesus was clear that he was not a political revolutionary.  Paul said that the evil Nero was a deacon of righteousness.  The 2nd and 3rd century-Christians blissfully embraced martyrdom, making principled stands against certain political avenues (they wouldn’t join the military), yet never taking up arms against the system.  The emperor was in an odd spot.  And then there was Constantine.

He converts, truly I believe, and gives Christianity a public endorsement.  He wields a tremendous amount of power, even calling an ecumenical council, perhaps THE ecumenical council.  And he was dressed up like an angel when he made his appearance there.  Suddenly the emperor is the man.

For most of the middle ages, Christians endorsed various monarchies and empires.  Heretics were put to death, and our modern notions of “freedom” were largely eschewed.

The Protestant Reformation was progressive in many key respects.  It did appeal to an earlier order, as do all good Revolutions (with the possible exception of the French, though even there the noble savage/noble peasant view of the state of nature was endorsed; for American and English historical appeals see Rosenstock-Huessy), but it also acknowledged the long tenure of error.  Making use of text-criticism and new perspectives, the Reformers changed the world.  They were mostly authoritarians in their political views, of course.  Geneva wouldn’t let you in or out of the city without permission, and you could be jailed for skipping church.  Errant political views were dealt with, even if it wasn’t as unexpected as the Spanish way.

As the years went by, political philosophers made new proposals, and I am not opposed to the progress.  Althusius is worth checking out still.  I do tend to think that the friendship view of the state is better than the necessary-evil view of the state, but many of our modern liberties are indeed quite good.

So where am I going with all of this?  I suppose the basic point is that we have, all of us, moved with the times.  Capitalists and Communists are both species of Liberalism.  The Bible shows legitimate tribal oligarchy, monarchy, and even empire.  None of those forms can be said to be evil by nature, nor can any of them claim special endorsement.

In our own country’s history, we have seen a good deal of progression as well.  The whole business was started through revolt.  Reading some of the American founders’ arguments for why Romans 13 doesn’t restrict them from rebelling, and how King George is obviously violating the natural law, are not immediately convincing.  We hardly need to mention the “Tea Party.”  Not exactly legal…

The Articles of Confederation came up first, and despite the folklore about them, they did say “perpetual union” in their title.  The final line even said, “the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.”  For various reasons, of course, they were no such thing.

After the Constitution was received, there were several regime changes.  Jefferson and Jackson both made serious modifications to US government, and Marbury v. Madison advanced things beyond “express powers” as well.

Basically things have always been up in the air.  Presbyterians in England fell out of favor with Cromwell for supporting the king, and the Covenanters refused to approve the American Constitution for almost two-hundred years.  In many ways the Puritans were crazy liberals in the political sphere, and the Roman Catholics were complete rebels, finding themselves excluded from Locke’s criteria for citizenship.  Everyone’s ancestors have been in odd spots.  Nobody is simply towing the old standard line.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t care about politics.  It simply means that I demythologize them.  We have to ask our questions and take the time to get to the answers.  I think things are increasingly complicated, and I’m not sure that there is any one group that is obviously on the right track (maybe you can give me some suggestions).  In keeping with our long-standing tradition, I expect that the solution will be something new.

The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin

From the 13th cent. pen of Bonaventure (allegedly):

HYMN AFTER THE MODEL OF THE “TE DEUM” We praise thee, O Mother of God: we confess thee, Mary, ever Virgin. Thou art the Spouse of the Eternal Father: the whole earth venerates thee. Thee all angels and archangels, thrones and principalities serve. Thee all powers and all virtues of Heaven: and all dominations obey. Before thee all the angelic choirs: the Cherubim and Seraphim exulting stand. With unceasing voice every angelic creature proclaims thee: Holy, holy, holy: Mary, Mother of God and Virgin ! Full are the heavens and the earth: of the majesty and glory of the fruit of thy womb. Thee the glorious choir of Apostles: praise as the Mother of their Creator. Thee the white-robed multitude of blessed martyrs: glorify as the Mother of Christ. Thee the glorious army of Confessors: style the Temple of the Trinity. Thee the amiable choir of holy virgins: preaches as the example of virginity and humility. Thee the whole heavenly court: honoureth as Queen. The Church, invoking thee, calls thee throughout the whole world: Mother of the Divine Majesty. Venerating thee as the true Mother of the heavenly King: holy, sweet, and loving. Thou art the Lady of Angels: thou art the gate of Paradise. Thou art the ladder of glory: and of the heavenly kingdom. Thou art the bridal chamber: thou art the ark of piety and grace. Thou art the vein of mercy: thou art the Spouse and the Mother of the Eternal King. Thou art the temple of the treasury of the Holy Ghost: thou art the noble throne of the whole blessed Trinity. Thou art the Mediatrix of God, and the lover of men: the heavenly Illuminatrix of mortal men. Thou art the inspirer of the warriors, the advocate of the poor: the compassionate refuge of sinners. Thou art the distributrix of gifts: the barrier against demons and the proud, and their fear. Thou art the Lady of the world, the Queen of Heaven: after God our only hope. Thou art the salvation of them that call upon thee: the harbor of the shipwrecked, the solace of the wretched, the refuge of those who perish. Thou art the Mother of all the blessed, full of joy after God: the comfort of all the dwellers in Heaven. Thou art the promotrix of the just, the one who gathers together those who stray: the promise of the patriarchs. Thou art the truth of the prophets, the herald and teacher of the Apostles: the Mistress of the Evangelists. Thou art the strength of martyrs, the example of confessors: the honor and the festivity of virgins. Thou hast received into thy womb the Son of God: to deliver exiled man. By thee is driven out the ancient enemy: and the kingdoms of Heaven are opened to believers. Thou sittest together with thy Son: at the right hand of the Father. Do thou intercede for us, O Virgin Mary: with Him who we believe will come to judge us. We beseech thee, therefore, help us, thy servants: who have been redeemed with the Precious Blood of Thy Son. Save thy people, O Lady: that we may be partakers of the inheritance of Thy Son. And rule us: and keep us forever. Day by day, O loving one: we salute thee. And we desire to praise thee forever: with both mind and voice. Deign, O sweet Mary, now and forever: to keep us without sin. Have mercy on us, O loving one: have mercy on us. Let thy great mercy be upon us: because we trust in thee, O Virgin Mary. In thee, O sweet Mary, we hope: do thou defend us forever. Praise becometh thee; empire is thine: to thee be power and glory forever. Amen.

So once again, we see that it really was that bad.

HT: Josh and Iohannes

More on Frankfurt

Thomas Noble’s Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians looks quite good.  A significant portion of it is available on googlebooks, and I’ve looked over as much of it as is available.  His treatment of Frankfurt is very helpful.  He notes that Frankfurt was:

1) A long time coming.  Alcuin and then Theodulf composed lengthy theological writings on the issue of images.  It was seen as authoritative for the churches within the Frankish empire.

2) Not wholly dependent on the faulty translation of Nicaea II.  Though they did use the portion on “adoration,” this was not all there was to their case.  It merely seemed the most outrageous statement among many bad statements, and the translation they were working with was the official one for the West.

3) Inconclusive for the West’s future.  The Pope was pro-icons, but, in the words of Noble, he “agreed to disagree” with the Franks.  He knew that they had very different views, and he knew better than to directly rebuke them.  The Franks, likewise, did not wish to wage war against the papacy at this time.  This compromise did, however, effectively state that Nicaea II was neither “universal” nor “ecumenical” in the Western mind.

A Few Patristic Sources Against Icons

The early church is a complicated place.  The Reformers all claimed an antique heritage, truly believing that the original Christian doctrine was their own.  Now of course, anyone who reads deeply into the fathers knows that this claim is easier said than done.  Many times the record is mixed, but the Reformers used that very point to show that the controverted doctrine was not truly catholic.

The liturgical use of icons is one of the disputed points which has a mixed foundation in the early church.  Most people are familiar with the 2nd Council of Nicaea, which demanded the veneration of icons, citing it as apostolic.  Not as many people, however, know the opposing patristic voices.  To help counter-balance this, I have given just a few below.

Tertullian explains how the bronze serpent and the decoration on the ark of the covenant do not violate the 2nd commandment.

History and Apologetics

Some of the contributing factors to “conversionitis” come from a false view of history.

Many fundamentalists have a skewed narrative, assuming some sort of “great apostasy of the Church” after the death of the last apostle.  The true religion was, according to this story, recovered at the time of the Reformation.  The presupposition here is that what “really counts” is a correct systematic formulation or perhaps purity of morals among the Church’s ministers.

RC and EO traditionalists have their own narrative, of course.  They presuppose that there has been a drastic falling away at some point in history, but the first five to eight centuries (depending on who you are talking to) indeed represent the apostolic Church.  The assumption of correct systematic formulation is about the same as the first group.

Liberals also tell their story.  They find discontinuity all around, and thus they assume that there is no united Church, or at least no such thing as “orthodoxy.”  Again, the assumption of correct systematic formulation is retained, only its absence serves as conclusive proof.

All of these historical narratives are false. 

Richard Field on the Development of Purgatory

In explaining how many of the medieval Roman errors came into being, Richard Field relies on men like Jean Gerson and William of Ockam.  He also displays a strong grasp of the patristics in his own right.

Regarding the subject of purgatory, Field states that the idea that the Pope, or anyone else for that matter, could dispense extra merit to advance the soul from purgatory to heaven was a totally unheard of notion.  Tied as it is to the larger Roman soteriological system, Field is confident in his assertions of Rome’s fraudulent claims to antiquity.

But regarding the actual history of purgatory, Field admits the story is more complicated.  This is where many evangelicals are easily confused, by the way.  They have certain assumptions about “the early church,” and in the event that something appears in the early church, in “seed form” as Newman would say, they assume that the later development is thus vindicated.  In this instance of purgatory, however, this cannot be the case.  Field explains:

But if we speak of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian faith, it is certain it began long ago, even in the first ages of the Church.  Of this sort was the error that the souls of the just are in some part of hell till the last day, as Tertullian (De Anime, c. 55) , Irenaeus (Contra Haereses v.31), and sundry other of the ancient did imagine (Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. lib. vi. annot. 345); and that they see not God nor enjoy heaven’s happiness, till the general resurrection, which was the opinion of many of the fathers.

That all catholic Christians, how wickedly soever they live, yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession, shall in the end, after great torments endured in the world to come, be saved “as it were by fire.”  This was the error of sundry of the ancient, who durst not say as Origen, that the angels that fell shall in the end be restored: nor, as some other, mollifying the hardness of Origen’s opinion, that all men, whether Christians or infidels: nor, as a third sort, that all Christians, how damnably soever erring in matter of faith, shall in the end be saved: but thought it most reasonable, that all right believing Christians should find mercy, whatsoever their wickedness were (Hieron. in comment. in Esaiae lxvi.; Aug. de civitate Dei, li. 21, cap. 24, 25, 26, 27)

~Of the Church, Bk. III Chpt. 9 p 176

Purgatory used to be Hell, from which men were eventually redeemed.  Though some teachers could maintain universalism (Gregory of Nyssa comes to mind), many could not, and the doctrine “developed” fairly drastically.

This sort of reading of Church history is not of much comfort to the recent ex-fundamentalist.  In rejecting the “great apostasy” theory of their forefathers, they earnestly hoped to find some sort of respectable pristine “early church” upon which they could base their theology.  What they will actually find is much messier.

Of course, in rudiments and genealogy, we all come from the “early church.”  However, when it comes to systematic theology, there is an awful lot of water under everyone’s bridge.

You can read all of Field’s Of the Church here.

Calvin on the Tradition of the Fathers

In his preface to the Institutes, addressed to the king of France, John Calvin gives his own view of the patristic tradition and how it relates to the situation prior to the Reformation.  Both admiration and critique can be seen in Calvin’s outlook.  He writes:

4. It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours.  While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavoured to remember (1 Cor. 3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we are Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will not have any fixed principles in religion; for those holy men were ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance with themselves.

It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus warned by Solomon, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not to the measuring of fields and the obedience of faith. The rule applicable to the latter is, “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Ps. 45:10). But if they are so fond of allegory, why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any other class of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful to remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the passage, if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they, whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap them?

Pope Gregory XIII on Queen Elizabeth I

Basilica, though moving slowly, is attempting to address the various positions on Church and State that existed in the Reformation times.  One thing that many people do not realize is just how radical the Roman Catholic position was regarding civil authority.  They taught that all civil authority (every “human creature” as Unam Sanctam says) must submit to the bishop of Rome.  In the event that this did not occur, the civil authority was considered to be null.  Pius V declared this of Queen Elizabeth of England.

This position became more extreme as powerful monarchs left the Roman church.  Assassinations were ordered and carried out (Henry of Navarre comes to mind, as well as the Gunpowder plot in England), and this was a consistent product of the Roman doctrine.  It is important to note that this was not some accidental phenomena carried out by confused followers, but rather it was the Roman position on civil authority.  Here is a quote from the Cardinal of Como, speaking on behalf of Gregory XIII’s papacy, written to the papal ambassador in Spain and meant to inspire Spanish hostilities against England:

Since that guilty woman (Elizabeth) … is the cause of so much injury to the Catholic faith… There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit, especially having regard to the sentence pronounced against her by Pius V of holy memory.  And so, if those English gentlemen decide actually to undertake so glorious a work, your lordship can assure them that they do not commit any sin.

This is a breathtaking quote, but quite understandable within the Roman system.  This also shows you something of how the Reformation actually occurred and definitely explains why King James thought that the militant Presbyterians were Romanizers.

This Gregory was the same pope who celebrated the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre by ordering a Te Deum to be sung in its commemoration.