A Review of Primary Confessions of Presbyterianism

Black Friday shopping has been a busy event for the last few days. Still, I usually get around to my blog posts!
 This year I read several Presbyterian statements of faith which were written during the reformation. Wherever you are theologically, these writings greatly reflect the religious worldview of the Scottish Protestants.
 
 The Scots Confession by John Knox: This one is short and to to the point. I personally preferred it to the later Westminster Confession of Faith. It no doubt heavily promotes a strong predestination view.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms are among the most important documents of Protestant theology from the Reformation era. Their criticisms and objections of Roman Catholic Theology are also important to understanding the Reformation.  

Thoughts on the Gawain Poet Part II: Patience

Some of you may remember me posting about the works Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Pearl. Both of these of course were written by an anonymous author. Well, Patience was another work by the writer that we refer to as the Pearl Poet. The story is rich with allegorical themes and references to Scripture. For this work, I read the translation by Marie Borroff.
 Patience is essentially the story of Jonah, and it has had an important place in the canon of Medieval English Literature. The story is quite short, written in the Middle English tone of the author's other works. As it has been noted by literary scholar Marie Borroff, ''Patience'' in Medieval Times meant much more than we think of today. In those days, it meant not simply being good tempered at the traffic light for instance, but also implied the ability to suffer. The story thus is about the suffering Jonah went through.
 Read Patience, especially if you like Biblical stories. The account is quite short as I mentioned earlier, but still a must read for any Medievalist.
 

Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly,
 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell  cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
 Jonah 2:1-2 A.V.

A Review of Robin Hood Men in Tights

 Satire can help us see errors in other people's religion, politics, or social life. It can also though, demonstrate a good amount of humor about a given literary work. The Comedy of Robin Hood Men in Tights {which I watched with Clear Play to remove the crude humor}, I found most amusing.

 The film gives many pokes to some other well know Robin Hood films: The Adventures of Robin Hood, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Cary Elwes played a Robin Hood much akin to Errol Flynn, but the film as a whole was mostly directed with satire toward Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Between cheap sets and exaggerated sword play, I thought this film also had a good amount of development between the characters {which we rarely see any more.}Also, it had a remarkable cast of actors including Patrick Stewart as Richard I. This has been the sixth Robin Hood film I have seen.
 If you like satire and Medieval humor, you may enjoy this film{ though, there is a lot of crudeness and content in it without a TV blocker}.  Anyhow, I was genuinely surprised that the film did not mock the Middle Ages as an ignorant and barbarous time. So for me, that was also a big brownie point for it!

How White Supremacy Gives the Middle Ages a Bad Name

 Frequently, people mock the Middle Ages as the ''Dark Ages.'' Conservative Christians are often condemned as Medieval for holding theological or socially conservative views. There is already much ignorance about the Middle Ages among modern people, and White Supremacist groups don't help enlighten may people's ignorance about the subject.
 First of all, it should be noted that many White Supremacist are actually atheist, not Christian at all. Add further to that, many of them are not even conservative. Richard Spenser is a leading White Nationalist that supports the rights of abortion and universal healthcare. Spenser also believes people's rights are not from God but from communities.  Although the mainstream media condemn these groups as ''Far Right'', that is not the entire story. Some of them even supported President Obama, and many of them are clearly left on a number of issues. For more information on this topic see Death of a Nation by Dinish D' Souza.
 Moving on, my point is not to demonstrate that racist are all left or right, but simply to demonstrate that there are many racist on both sides of the spectrum. The KKK may tend to be more religion and right leaning than Neo-Nazis, yet a racial identity they all hold too. With that as a background, I will now discuss some of the dangers White Supremacy has posed for defending the Middle Ages.

 



  White Supremacist have a long history in America, and some trace the early roots of White Supremacy to the Spanish Conquistadors that came to America centuries ago. While the roots of White Supremacy, would make an interesting post all it's own, for now I just to want to address the given topic.
 White Supremacist quite often use Medieval Symbols on their flags, outfits, and groups. Of course, the anger of White Nationalist groups only enrages the current racial tensions in this country, and not only that, but gives the mainstream media another opportunity to criticize The Crusades and Medieval World all over again. And sadly, many modern people don't think for themselves, nor do their own research. Whatever is popular, whatever is socially acceptable, the culture goes for, and if culture went left or right tomorrow, so would the majority of people.
 There is a significance difference between The Medieval Church's stand against heresy and paganism, and what the rising trend of White Supremacy promotes. Contrary to liberal lies, The Crusades were initiated out of an act of love,   as I have written about elsewhere, White Supremacy is out of hatred for minorities. The Medieval World based it's worldview upon The Scriptures and Tradition, White Supremacist only use these when they are convenient for them. In fact, White Supremacist admire the power of a White controlled Western Medieval Europe and admire it, but all the while not imitating it's religious worldview. White Supremacy is not rigid Orthodoxy that attempts the world of heresy and paganism, but rather to make an all powerful White race akin to the worldview of Adolph Hitler. The Catholic Church has never promoted racism in all of it's history. In reality, racism, which has always existed, has been more promoted by Charles Darwin and Social Darwinism than it has ever been by the Middle Ages.
 In short, I pray and hope that many will stopping blame Medieval Culture for the sins of the present growth of White Supremacy in the West. 

Roman Catholics and The Crusades

                                                         Saint Bernard pictured above
 In a post from last week, I discussed some of the major views Protestants had towards The Medieval Crusades. Today, I will touch briefly on how Roman Catholics understood this subject.
 First of all, The Crusades were usually called upon by the Catholic Church, so it's no surprise that Roman Catholics historically supported the Crusades. In fact, Roman Catholics almost universally supported The Crusades even centuries after the Middle Ages.
 There was some criticism towards events that occurred during The Crusades. Pope Innocent III did not approve of the Fourth Crusade's Sack of Constantinople is one such example. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was proclaimed ''as the greatest preacher of the gospel,'' by Martin Luther. Saint Bernard preached against killings of Jews during the Second Crusade, and later Saint Francis of Assisi was against the immorality of Crusaders in Egypt. That said, Pope Innocent III, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Saint Bernard all supported The Crusades.
 All Crusaders were Latin Christians { Medieval Christians did not use the term Roman Catholic}.
 During the Reformation era, the Saracens tried to invade Southern Europe but were stopped at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.  This victory has often been attributed to the help of the Virgin Mary. Today, many Roman Catholics are unaware of the origins of ''Our Lady of the Rosary.'' In reality, this came from The Battle of Lepanto, which gave the Crusaders a great victory over the Saracens.  Roman Catholics historically called it ''Our Lady of Victory'' though. 
 Though The Crusades are the subject of heat in the modern world and continue to face backlash by the hatred promoted by White Supremacist, The Crusades were actually supported largely by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

                                         Saint Bernard drinking milk from Mary's breast.



Further Sources: Encyclopedia of the Crusades by Alfred J. Andrea.

A Catechism Defending The Crusades, and other Aspects of Medieval Western Culture Part One

This catechism has been written primarily for misunderstandings of The Middle Ages and The Crusades in particular, by Evangelical Christians, though it can certainly be used for all. It is written in a typical objection response format, so that I respond to those objections raised by the criticisms made of Medieval Times. I felt that form of writing was needed, to best explain this subject to readers. 
 Before I proceed to the catechism, it should be noted that entire volumes of books could be written on this subject. History is very complicated, and more complicated than hecklers on street corners or politicians often present it. The most glorious events of history are usually imperfect, due to man's sin. But mistakes or abuse don't illigintimize a Holy Cause, what matters was if something was a Holy Cause from the start or not, more than how it was abused or later exaggerated.  For this very reason also, unfair generalizations of cultures, religions, or people groups should always be avoided. I have said it many times, those that criticize The Medieval Crusades will regret the day that the Islamic armies invade the West for the kill, capture, and slaughter of all Christians and Jews. Apologizing to Muslims for the Crusades, in an attempt to convert them to Christianity is an act of conformity to the Jihad the Muslims brought on against the Christians from the start this. Let me add further, we don't apologize for truth to ''convert'' people. Also, no matter how well the intent of these same Christians are, they are actually be foolish by apologizing for wars that were clearly acts of self defense against an aggressive Islamic invasion on the West.
 This paper has included works from various historians and theologians.



 Objection I: Pope Urban II said every Crusader was guaranteed a place in Heaven, and he got involved in a Conflict, in which church leaders have no right to be involved. 
 Response: To the first part, I will respond first. Actually no, Pope Urban II did not say this. What he said is actually more clear in the several accounts written of his speech by his contemporaries including Fulcher of Charteres. First of all,  The pope promised a Plenary Indulgence to those that repented, which is quite different than him promising salvation also to the unrepentant. Second the pope didn't even promise salvation to the repentant, though he did promise them if they were repentant free of debt, both monetarily , and spiritually. What this meant, was that any Crusader did not have to pay debts of money he now owed, and second, no knight had to pay restitution for certain sins he had previously committed, so long as he repented. Whether or not one agrees with Indulgences is another discussion. For now, however, let me affirmed that the pope did not promise a free ticket to Heaven to anyone who went on Crusade, and if the pope had, he would have contracted both the Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of justification, but Urban is not guilty of this on either account. Those that have accused the pope of this, should not only correct their error, but inform others of the actual truth.
 To the second part of the above objection, much of this can go back to historical context, the pope was not only a spiritual leader, but a political one. Some criticize the Crusades because the pope called for it, and say that wars should be fought by kings rather than by popes. They that make these assumptions and hold to these views forget or ignore several important facts, Medieval Culture was much different than our own, the concept of Separation of church and state did not really come about until the Enlightenment. Also, in many cases, it was the church that granted kings the authority to preside over local kingdoms. But last and most important, Emperor Alexius asked the pope to help them against the Islamic Invasion on the East. That too, is quite different than Pope Urban II just suddenly asking for a Crusade with no employment made toward him of the wars already existing between Muslims and Christians.  The pope had a responsibility to do, and that was not simply to preach the Gospel, but to protect Christendom from heresy, which would have arisen from the abominable sect of Mohammed in the West if the pope had not made this move. In reality then, The Crusades were protecting the flock from heresy, and church leaders always have the responsibility to protect their flock, just as Urban did here. 


Further Sources: The First Crusade by Edward Peters.

Protestants and the Crusades

How did Protestants historically view the Crusades? This topic will be covered in this article. Next week, I will discuss how Roman Catholics historically saw these Medieval movements.
  

                                                             A picture of the Lollards

  John Wycliffe was a late Medieval reformer, who saw himself as a student of Saint Augustine. He faced opposition from within the Roman Church and would be sent into exile for his commitment to his beliefs. Wycliffe's followers were known as the Lollards. Their name etymology is unclear, though some believe it was named after a Franciscan. Their theology was also quite broad, though poverty was a big part of their movement. Some of them were involved in the Peasants Revolt against King Richard II, for which Wycliffe was blamed, though he had never condoned this.
 The Lollards later revolted against King Henry V of England and were subsequently defeated. By the reformation, they seemed to have still existed, however, and they have always been honored as forerunners of the English Reformation.
 In 1394, 10 years after Wycliffe's death, The Lollard Conclusions were written. These documents criticize the Roman Church in several areas, including ''manslaughter'' in the tenth article. The document does not clearly refer to the Medieval Crusades, though it does criticize those who invade Christian lands and conquer them only for land, and for those who kill heathens to give themselves a better name. After a careful reading of this document, in contrast to my previous conclusions, however, I am not convinced that the Lollards were not criticizing the entire crusades movement. It seems more likely that they opposed those who in the crusades man-slaughtered all in their way. Regardless, Wycliffe's influence was beyond them and unto the great Chaucer. 
 Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales is one of the most important works of Medieval Literature, and certainly one of my favorites. Of the traveling pilgrims, we have the knight, from whom we are told The Knight's Tale. Chaucer speaks of this knight having fought in crusades, wars, and many battles, and is likewise praiseworthy of the knight's character. This is all relevant, as we are unclear where Chaucer was theological. He was a student of Wycliffe, and there are strong arguments that he was a Lollard himself. On the theological side of Chaucer, he purposely intended to teach doctrine from his book. Perhaps Chaucer's own desire to teach theology through his writings can be one indicator that he was a Lollard.  Below, I have given a passage from a book to indicate this evidence.

Chaucer is theologically correct when he incorporates the same quote from Saint Paul that he used in ''The Nun's Priest Tale'': All that is written is written for our doctrine'' {X, I, 1083, VII, 3441-3442, Romans 15: 4}. The purpose of all literature is to teach ''doctrine,'' lessons conducive to salvation. Composing such works, Chaucer says was his ''intent.''
 -A Companion to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales by Margaret Hallissy, p. 92.

Of course, one may argue for Chaucer having been a Catholic rather a Lollard. Indeed, I think there are strong arguments to be used on both sides of this debate which I do intend to address here. Assuming that Chaucer may have been Lollard however, is important considering that would make him among the pre-Protestant English writers. 

                                       
                                                            Geoffrey Chaucer in the above pic.


The views of Protestants and the Crusades went on for much longer than Wycliffe and his followers. During the fifteenth century, many pre-Reformation movements helped to change ideas about the church and the world. For example, the Hussite Wars of 1419-1436 were fought between Crusaders and the followers of Jan Huss. The Radical Hussites would be defeated, and for the next century, there would not be major threats to the Roman hierarchy.
 1517 marked an important year of great change for the Medieval/Renaissance West. A German Reformation followed Martin Luther in opposition to what they perceived as the works-based salvation that was taught by Rome.  Luther's position hardened as his life went on and he eventually denounced the papacy as well as the Crusades in his 1529 treatise, On War Against the Turk. His attacks on the Crusades were mostly aimed at the papacy, and the fact that Luther believed just wars should have nothing to do with church clergy. He also believed that Church clergy should only preach the gospel and that it was the greatest of sins to force a person into one's religion. Luther's despise of the pope can above all be seen in the track. Indeed, wrote about the pope being worked than the Turk while wishing the latter's damnation. His views on the Medieval Crusades helped to shape the view of many in the Protestant Reformation after him. 
In England, John Foxe's Voice of the Martyrs was quite notorious for its criticism if not demonizing of the Roman Catholic Church. The book also criticized the Crusades, though it did speak well of Richard the Lionheart.
 Other Protestants, however, pressed on with the concept of ''Holy War''. The Puritans were not at all short of burning witches and killing heretics in the name of God. To them, there was a Holy War against Roman Catholics. Indeed, some have called the conquest of Oliver Cromwell of Ireland to be a Protestant Crusade.
 The Protestant Reformation brought many changes to the Western World of the Middle Ages.: Religiously, theologically, politically, socially, and much more. For many centuries afterward, Medieval Times was seen as a dark ignorant time, full of inquisitions and bloodshed. While the Renaissance wanted to bring about a return to the Classical Golden Age of Rome, the Enlightenment wanted to distance itself entirely from Medieval Times, which it saw as superstitious.  All of this changed with the Romantic era.
  It was during The Romantic era (early nineteenth century), that many writers and poets began to appreciate the Medieval world again. Ballads were popular during this time as they had been in the so-called ''Dark Ages (a term which most historians now reject).'' It is no surprise that one finds such Medieval values of courtship in Jane Austin's novels, and in Sir Walter Scott's writings. Scott himself was a Calvinist Presbyterian elder, who took a generally positive view of the Crusades. He wrote important works of literature that have glorified Medieval life and culture including Ivanhoe and The Talisman.
 During the Modern Age, The Crusades became a subject of hot debate. But that will be discussed in another post.

For more on the English Reformation's view of the crusades see

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-crusades-in-english-reformational.html




Further Sources: Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades by Jonathan Phillips, The Hussite Wars 1419-36 by Stephen Turnball, Crusades edited by Thomas F. Madden, Documents of the Christian Church Fourth Edition by Henry Bettinson and Chris Maunder, England and the Crusades 1095-1588 by Christopher Tyerman, Ireland 1649-1652: Cromwell's Protestant Crusade by Michael McNally, Richard Coeur de Lion: Kingship, Chivalry and War in the Twelfth Century by John Gillingham, English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith.