The View From 1776

-------------------
Reader John DeMassa emailed the following commentary on one aspect of Steve Kellmeyer’s recent article, referenced above. 

As Mr. DeMassa notes, “We might say, as others have suggested in “View from 1776” that without respecting the original intent of the founders, the Constitution becomes a kind of rubber band where it may be stretched to mean anything…”

A challenge to orthodoxy, such as the Reformation, can either undermine good social and political order, or it can call people back to basic principles of order.

Another such challenge to orthodoxy was the French Revolution’s destruction of European social order oriented toward individual, personal morality and responsibility, and its transferring that responsibility to the secular, atheistic political state.  The North German wars of the 16th century Reformation period, and the 17th century’s Thirty Years War were brutal events.  But even they fade into relative insignificance compared to the world-wide dissolution of morality and political order engendered by the secular religion of socialism in the 20th century: two world wars, with the loss of millions of lives; Hitler’s Holocaust; and the Soviet Union’s liquidation of as many as 20 million Russians in the name of perfecting humanity.

Today, Catholic and Protestant Christians need to stand shoulder to shoulder with each other and with religious Jews.  We must post modern-day versions of Luther’s 95 theses on every door in the land to protest the corruption of our hedonistic, self-centered liberal-socialist society.  Destruction at the hands of Islamic jihadists is headed our way, if the liberal-socialists don’t finish us off first.

**********

In a recent posting Catholic author Steve Kellmeyer commented, “while Luther and Voltaire fought each other bitterly, they did unite against their common enemy: the Catholic Church…Catholic Christianity has uniquely challenged all competing philosophies and theologies to an extent that few commentators seem willing to consider…(and) non Catholic theology has lost a grip on these non-catholic concepts, it has degenerated into secular licentiousness.”

Mr. Kellmeyer raises a number of interesting points, but perhaps a few historical comments regarding Martin Luther are in order.  Luther’s position against the Catholic Church may at first glance appear to be simply adversarial (as an “enemy” presenting a “competing theology”) but in light of history this claim grossly oversimplifies and makes a caricature of Luther’s jealous concern for practice of purity and right theology in the church. Indeed, it is appropriate that we examine Martin Luther here (the “View from 1776”) recognizing, if you like, in his service to Christendom, concern for mother church as the founding fathers had concern for mother country.  Also Luther should not be lifted as a kind of protestant venerated saint, quite the contrary, in Biblical terms he was an imperfect sinner in need of redemption like all men in the most humble position.  Yet his contribution is much more than an “enemy of the church” presenting a “competing theology.” We should also recognize that Luther was not the first dissenter (or in Catholic Church parlance “heretic”) who tried to point out error to the Catholic Church. 

Who were these non-orthodox “heretics” and what part did they play in the role of the church?

The service of these “non-orthodox heretics”, often ended in great personal loss and loss of life, but resulted in redirecting Christendom, causing it to inspect its theological, social and political understandings. Were there problems within the church? Had the church lost its original mission, and spirit? Was more of the world within the church than the church in the world? Where did ultimate authority lay? These heretics sought to answer these and other questions advising that the body of Christ must get back to the original intent of the faith.

“Original Intent”
A book published some years ago by David Barton entitled “Original Intent” offered a very profound message. Barton’s position holds that many who interpret the U.S. Constitution forget the original intent of the countries founders. Barton’s portrait reveals that we have ignored the founder’s notions, intentions, and practices regarding the Constitution. We might say, as others have suggested in “View from 1776” that without respecting the original intent of the founders, the Constitution becomes a kind of rubber band where it may be stretched to mean anything (my words).  Restrictions on prayer in school and Bible reading for example, are the product of a confused notion of separation of church and state and greatly misrepresents the teachings of the Constitution. Barton, according to many judges, may well be called a dissenter or more strongly a kind of heretic–spewing notions unacceptable to the orthodox legal establishment today. Yet, Barton’s position is that correct interpretation of our constitution begins with understanding the original intent of our founding fathers expressed in their foundational documents.  Likewise, some throughout the history of the church have attempted to call the church back to proper Biblical practice drawn from the authoritative scriptures. 

“Heretic” was a name given, by the church establishment, to those believers who resisted or protested or dissented from the convention of the day. Rosell (Church History, lecture series, #12) explains that we may interchangeably use the terms protesters, dissenters, or as the Orthodox Church called them heretics. In the present discussion, we will see that these dissenters are men of deep convictions who desired a restoration of the original faith. They desired to know, and to practice the original form of the faith. In fact, there is a long line of dissenters stretching back to the early days of the church.  Some might point out that there actually were heretics or dissenters who degraded the faith of Jesus Christ and they would be correct in that assertion, but our point is that not all heretics negatively contributed to the discussion of the faith and some as we shall see most productively contributed, if only part of their overall work.

In general, dissenters shared the common feature of renewal: wanting people to come back to Christ. Further, these dissenters or “heretics” shared five common beliefs. 1) Church membership should be voluntary not born into, 2) Adult baptism upon profession of faith not infant baptism, 3) Separation from the world with an emphasis on holy living, 4) Separation of church and state where the church has not relationship with political authorities avoiding a subordinate or coordinate position, and 5) Simplicity of church organization. Again, it is also worth mentioning that some of these dissenters brought messages destructive to the church yet still bringing issues needing address.

Who were these dissenters or heretics?

Rosell offers perhaps some of the better known dissenting movements. A sampling follows.

A. Montanism (2nd Century, Phrygia in Asia Minor). In the middle of the second century, Montanus, who was a pagan priest but converted in 155 A.D., began prophesying, through possession by the Holy Spirit, with two women Priscilla and Maximilla (Gonzalez, p.76). They claimed that a new age had come characterized by a more rigorous moral life and that the last days were here. They demanded among their followers purity, withdrawal from the world. They also desired persecution believing purity would follow. Some claimed direct revelation from God and they widely held that lay people could be priests and could administer the sacraments. They challenged the rigid hierarchical structure of the church believing in a more primitive simpler structure. The local church reacted by considering them false prophets and by 230 A.D. at the Synod of Iconium excommunicated Montanists. Yet Montanism grew in popularity reaching North Africa, and Rome, and even winning as a convert Tertullian, though in later years he grew away from the movement (Gonzolez, p.76).

B. Novatians (250 A.D.)The Novatians represented a group that grew dissatisfied with the mainline church’s handling of those who fell away from the faith through persecution. Novatian a Bishop of Rome had the answer, keep the “lapsed” out. Novatian was excommunicated and lost his position to Cornelius who stressed leniency for the lapsed. Novatian went on to from a group known as the “Pure” which was similar to orthodox but held to a standard of purity within the church body.

C. Donatists (Early 4th Century). Like the Novatians , the Donatists thought the lapsed should be ejected from the church. The lapsed as described here did more than deny the faith, some of them even worked as collaborators with authorities to hand over scripture, church objects. Thus, there was great anger with the lapsed and the Donatist reaction was another attempt to answer the question. The Donatists also held that the church should be free, not involved with the state, and made up of the regenerate only - a “Wheat only church (Rosell, Lecture 12).” Also the movement grew in popularity more as a political breakout against Roman taxation, culture and politics. The movement was considered as a way to overthrow the state burden and church. Constantine came down hard on the Donatists, seizing land, and forbidding rebaptism. Thus, as Gonzalez explains, the Donatists simply broke with the church, which was an ally of the Empire (under Constantine). (Although much of the Donatist Schism was more about the politics of North Africa) They raised questions about the nature of the church and the sacraments, which would force other Christians to deal with these issues (Gonzalez, p.157).

D. Waldenses (c.a. 10th and early 11th Century) This group was started by its founder Peter Waldo who was so impressed by the story of the rich young ruler, that he too must sell off all of his belongings to be a true Christian (Shelley p.208). He emphasized poverty and preaching in his mission to the poor and attracted followers that were called “the Poor in Spirit.” They would be known in time as the Waldenses. Waldo stressed two important ideas 1) the Bible is the only source of authority for Christians and 2) the Bible should be translated into common language. Eventually Waldo and his followers were excommunicated by Pope Lucius III.

Perhaps the best known dissenter was Martin Luther.  Who was Luther and how did he change the church in his time?

Luther was a German, ordained Catholic priest who lectured at Wittenberg, obtaining a TH.D. by 1512. In 1515, Luther discovered, though much wrestling with the scripture and his own sense of sinfulness, a key teaching in scripture in Romans chapter 1. Here Luther would learn the long forgotten doctrine of the righteousness of God. What Luther came to realize was that a man’s righteousness was not acquired through works, or actively, but “passively,” by faith in Jesus Christ (Rosell, Lecture 14). This discovery would be the foundation from which a new social and spiritual order in Western Christendom would arise. A kind of paradigm shift followed in how four basic questions of the faith would be answered, A) How is a person saved? B) What is religious authority based upon? C) What is the church? and D) What is the essence of Christian living? In fact it is exactly the answer to these questions that marked the practical changes affected by Luther.

Each will be shortly answered following a treatment of the titanic events that reshaped the Western church.

Martin Luther’s’ public life began 31, October 1517, (Shelley p.240), after posting his 95 propositions (or Theses) to the Castle door at Wittenberg, expressing his great concern for abusive church practices especially related to indulgences. Shelley explains that Luther was “not pleased” with the Dominican Monk, Tetzel, who was raising funds throughout Germany by way of selling forgiveness of sin for contributions. The system of penance was organized around the notion that a sinner’s contribution could secure from the so-called “treasury of merit” fewer days in purgatory, a place for souls not fit for heaven. The treasury was full of “good works credits” left over after one passed into heaven. Priests could draw from the work of the saints or Christ himself to credit the “paying” sinner. The applied merits reduce the number of days one spends in purgatory. Thus, more contributions bought fewer days in purgatory. A church member may also purchase merits for the deceased. Tetzel taught, “as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul in purgatory springs (Shelley, p.240).” This was far to much for Luther to take prompting him, especially illuminated by the teachings in the letter to the Romans related to “passive righteousness” (Rosell), to post the 95 points. Luther did not make local clergy (German Dominicans), or Papal authorities or Charles V (Emperor) happy. Through public debates (1517 with John Eck), distributed pamphlets and preaching, Luther’s actions brought in time action from each. Pope Leo declares Luther a heretic (1520), and Charles arranged for the Diet of Worms, who though listening to Luther’s arguments, outlawed Luther.

Luther was rescued from physical harm by Frederick the Wise of Saxony for a time, which allowed Luther opportunity to translate the New Testament into German. Meanwhile Germany began to split over these new ideas. Some princes began to line up behind the teachings of Luther, allowing them to throw off Catholic oversight by bishops and authority while controlling territories better (Shelley, p.243). A peasant revolt also followed, where peasants questioned the authority over them, wondering what teaching from scripture allowed it. The rebellion was crushed, killing nearly 100,000 (1525).

Luther commented that the peasants should be crushed since he did not believe his teachings extended to the secular. By 1530, at Augsburg a confession among the princes of Germany was drafted (by Philip Melanchthon). Importantly the Confession of Augsburg stated that “...Christians are subject to civil authorities...the Gospel does not overthrow civil authority (Rosell).” Luther argued that peasants were not justified in overthrowing the state and in fact a church state alignment is beneficial to each.

The Diet of Spire at the end of the decade (1530) reinforced the Princes’ strength, allowing them to “answer to God,” or act as they saw fit, which further brought power to princes in their own jurisdiction. Subsequent Diets of Spire (1542, 1544) evidenced Charles’s further softening to protestant princes, as they came to be known by 1) granting each prince choice of religion in his providence, 2) Extended protection of empire to each prince, 3) applied to Lutherans (who followed Augsburg Confession) and Catholics, though not other protestant denominations such as Anabaptists. The following century saw The Thirty-year war.

This entirely brief sketch begins to show that Luther was hardly a mere disruptor bringing heretical (or hysterical) claims into the church, as a common enemy, but rather he was a Biblical strict constructionist, if you like, attempting to challenge existing abuses perpetrated by corrupt men misusing their authority.  It would be most correct to say that Luther was an enemy of corruption, bad theology, robbing poor people as Tetzel did, buying and trading offices, hypocrisy, lying and many other things but he was at heart not an enemy of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

In any event, what were the changes that Luther brought? As noted earlier, Rosell answers through a series of questions. A) How is a person saved? A person is saved by faith not by works as the Roman system taught. B) What is religious authority based upon? The Bible. C) What is the church? The whole community of believers, a priesthood before God. D) What is the essence of Christian living? Serving God in any useful calling ordained or lay.

Rosell observes three great principles were established 1) Justification by faith, 2) Authority of the scriptures, 3) priesthood of believers (See Rosell).

Conclusions
The dissenters addressed above brought new or at least forgotten ideas to the attention of church authorities and the church body, such as the Montanist claim that lay people could be priests and could administer the sacraments and they challenged the rigid hierarchical structure of the church believing in a more primitive simpler structure, the Novatian and Donatist idea of purity in the church body and questioning the sacraments, and the Waldenses concept of the authority of the Bible and its availability to Christians everywhere.

In time, the church would have to answer these claims. Inquisition, excommunication, and violence simply could not hold back the dissenters, those heretics who would bring reformation to the church. Their effort, in light of the original intent, was to express forgotten foundational ideas of the faith, which eventually would triumph, albeit outside the church, despite orthodoxy’s best efforts to crush them.

Indeed, the dissenters offered ideas most offensive to the orthodox establishment of the day.  Yet we see in these impassioned men a common theme.  They wanted a return to Biblical Christian concepts-though admittedly to different extents and conveying them perhaps most imperfectly.  However, Luther, though bound by many 16th century prejudices and medieval beliefs, wanted a return to right Biblical theology, which had become so papered over by manipulative man-made traditions and motivations that any man who is bound by the inspired writings could direct the words of Paul to the ruling authorities,

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Colossians 2:8).”

Certainly, Luther railed against deceptive philosophies and human tradition, painfully obvious in the church of his day that nearly substituted, or were equal in authority, with Biblical teachings.  Moreover, the dissenters according to scriptures’ own standards were correct to inspect church orthodoxy and teachings as Luke taught in the Book of Acts (17:11):

“11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

That is, the Bereans did not passively accept what Paul said as correct, but checked his words in light of scripture, and they were commended by Luke the author of Acts! 

Some may dismiss the work of the dissenters as “competing theologies,” or negatively call them heretics (such as Luther) or charge that such views are hostile to the Catholic Church, but such critics would do well to historically contextualize their claims.  Certainly, as this all too brief treatment shows, Martin Luther was not without cause in condemning a most corrupt church, calling them back to faith! And that faith is found in the Bible alone (Solo Scriptura) for it is the rule and standard of the Christian faith.  Simply put, the original intent of the Biblical authors was to call men to recognize the primacy of the saving work of Jesus Christ whose words, works, deeds and established church were recorded in the Bible. 

Visit MoveOff Network Members