Were Medieval Peasants Ignorant of the Scriptures? Part One

 

One does not have to venture far into the writings of some fundamentalist leaders to see their historical, literary, and theological ignorance of Medieval Christianity. These fundamentalists often uphold a view of the Middle Ages contrary to that of historians, scholars, and theologians in essentially all other denominations. As a moderate Protestant, I find myself much more in unity with the views exposed by the leaders of the Reformation than of these groups. For example, the mainstream sixteenth-century reformers never claimed that the gospel was somehow lost during Medieval times. Likewise, the reformers never claimed that the Catholic Church ceased to be a true church. For these reasons, I do not consider many people today who claim to be ''Protestant,'' to be truly following the teachings of Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Cranmer, Calvin, and the many other sixteenth-century reformers.  

Of all the false criticisms made of Medieval Christianity, a popular one among fundamentalist Christians is that the peasants were ignorant of the scriptures until the reformers suddenly came around in the sixteenth century. This view ultimately portrays the reformers as not reformers only-- but also as saviors of Christianity. It makes the Protestant Reformation out to be some restorationist movement that somehow saved the Roman Church from an alleged false gospel. This narrative from fundamentalists portrays Medieval Christianity to have been a false Christianity from at least the eleventh century (though many go much earlier). Ultimately, this claim fits the agenda of such religious groups as they conveniently use it to ignore both the church fathers and the medieval saints who lived and died within the fifteen hundred years before Luther's Ninety-Five Thesis. 

A significant historical fact to mention here is that papyrus largely disappeared from Europe after the gradual decline of the Western Roman Empire. This fact is nothing short of significant. The reason for this is that access to paper became much rare to many throughout the Medieval world. On the contrary, Parchment, which was much more expensive and rare, was used essentially only by the clergy and wealthy. It was not until the fifteenth century (shortly before the Protestant Reformation) that paper, having come from Spain, became largely accessible to all of Christendom. Of course, I am not bringing attention to these facts to defend those clergy who I do believe wanted the scriptures withheld from the common man. What I am doing, however, is to illustrate that access to the scriptures among the laity was a much more complicated issue than many fundamentalists like to portray it. 

 Indeed, many of the peasants who followed the reformers were also literary ignorant. Certainly, most of Europe did not become literate until the nineteenth century. If one is to be consistent in criticizing the Catholic Church for keeping the peasants illiterate, then one would also have to say the same about the Protestant Reformers. I'm not saying this to discredit the reformers. In fact, literacy spread faster across the Protestant countries than the Catholic ones. All I am saying is that many who followed either Rome or the reformers were literary ignorant. While we should be grateful for the appeal of the reformers for all people to be able to read, we ought not to exaggerate the literacy abilities of their contemporaries as well as those who proceeded them. 

Anyone who knows me probably knows by now that I call out both Catholics and Protestants when they claim theological positions for their agenda that conflicts with history. For example, I have praised the works of Catholic historian, Brian Tierney, as he has challenged the claims of many Catholic apologists concerning their false claims that papal infallibility originated in the first-century church. Likewise, I have praised Protestant church historians who have challenged the historicity of Evangelical apologists when the latter make claims contrary to historical facts. As a historian, I am far more interested in the facts than in the religious agenda of certain groups. I've seen people throughout my life in various different denominations make contrary claims to historical documents to fit their precious theology. However, many forget that theology is objective, while history is factual. 

*While the clergy were arguably the dominant force behind Medieval theology, the nobility often had more to do with this than either Roman Catholic apologists or fundamentalists typically admit. For example, many bishops throughout Europe were appointed by their respected monarchs instead of the pope before the eleventh century. Likewise, the promotion of the nobility's literacy did more or less often depend on the king's willingness for his people to be educated. 

References: 

Pernoud, Regine. Those Terrible Middle Ages. Ignatius Press. 2000.