The first perspective on Church history I wish to discuss is
the view that all Christians were pretty much in grave error for over a
millennium. I have in mind certain Protestant groups that are vitriolically
anti-Catholic (and anti-Orthodox if Orthodoxy is brought up). I also have in
mind hardcore liberal Christians who hold disdain for traditional Christian
ethics. It is a view that requires cynicism, as one has to be pretty cynical
about God’s revelation to the human race throughout history. Apparently, He
stopped making people into new creations in Christ for over 1,000 years. Of all
the people who spent their lives in fasting, prayer, and reading the
scriptures, none of them were sincere enough for God to enlighten them with
true Christianity- one’s specific Protestant doctrines which one believes are
absolutely necessary.
This historical narrative teaches that the original, true
faith that Christ taught was lost, but then reobtained by humanity centuries
later. One criticism I have is that if the true faith really was lost and then
found by someone after centuries, the event would be like Pentecost in the book
of Acts. That person would have been like the Holy Apostles, working miracles
and such. Yet none of the Reformers were holy people. Interesting thinkers,
yes, but is it not strange that they were not anointed with charismatic gifts?
When St. Peter walked the streets, people were healed when his shadow passed
over them. When St. Stephen was martyred, his face appeared to be like that of
an angel. People touched St. Paul with rags and then brought these rags to
heal the sick (relics). People prophesied and St. Paul mentions speaking
angelic tongues. And if these things are not incredible enough, the Book of
Acts records St. Philip being carried up into the heavens after evangelizing
the Ethiopian. Is not the Reformation, and the modern liberal reformation,
oddly dry compared to this? Certain people who took note of this started
another reformation for these charismatic gifts to manifest. For the most part,
the attempts of the Pentecostals have either been unimpressive, or the
spiritual power behind them gives one a disturbingly dark feeling.
One thing no one denies is that Medieval Catholicism had
serious errors in its doctrines and practices. No one today believes that the
blood in the Eucharist should be withheld from the laity, as was mandated then.
Hardly anyone today believes that the liturgy and the Scriptures must be in
Latin, as was mandated. I doubt anyone today seriously holds to the crazy
medieval doctrine of the treasury of merits- that Christ and the saints had amassed
a surplus of merits and the Pope could transmit these merits to people’s
spiritual accounts at his arbitration. For example, granting 10,000 years off
of purgatory for visiting a particular relic. The first perspective of Church
history responds to this by saying that no one in this time had the true
Christian faith, but it was found again by certain reformers.
The second perspective I want to mention acknowledges the
historical cynicism of the first perspective and approaches the historical
Christians with greater humility. Its response to historical problems is to
lower the bar of the definition of what acceptable Christian faith is. The
Christians of the past had problems with their beliefs and how they practiced
their faith, but we probably do too, and that’s ok. Different Christian
confessions, past and present, have their blind spots and strong points.
Catholics have consistency, Baptists are great at Bible studies, Anglicans have
some beautiful music, and so on. The sad part is that when it gets down to
important and specific doctrines and practices of the Christian faith, those
who adhere to the second perspective sort of consent that getting all these
important things right is probably impossible. It is a more humble cynicism
than that of the first perspective, but it is still sadly cynical.
