Rebutting Simplistic Claims of Medieval Historical Theology

One does not need to venture into many books on historical theology to see the difficulty of over-generalizing the thoughts of all people in any given era. A close study of the Middle Ages, for instance, will reveal that a common thesis proposed and believed by many modern theologians is seriously in error. This thesis, which I shall challenge, asserts that the church of the Reformation disconnected on nearly all accounts from the church of the centuries preceding it. On the contrary, I wish to demonstrate that Medieval Christianity was the forerunner of the Reformation. 

The Medieval world was complex. Bernard of Clairvaux taught justification by faith alone, though Thomas Aquinas didn't. Likewise, the Council of Florence taught Papal Supremacy after the Council of Constance taught conciliarism. Additionally, many kings saw themselves as the head of the churches in their kingdoms, even as the pope saw himself above all in Christendom. 

Quite often, history is oversimplified. This is especially true for many Traditionalist Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists Evangelicals. For the former, the Medieval Times was a glorious era. It was during the Middle Ages, they believe, that everyone held to the same doctrines. Then, tragically, came that awful Reformation which taught new theology and doctrines. There was a sudden breach in 1500 between the theology of the reformers and those before them. 

The narrative of many Fundamentalist Evangelicals is similar, though opposite in one respect. Like the Traditionalist Catholics, they believe that 1500 was the deadline when church history changed. But contrary to the former group, the Fundamentalists typically believe that the church got it all wrong until 1500. Suddenly, the Reformation corrected centuries of abuse and poor theology. 

This thesis, unfortunately, has been accepted by many in both camps. They appeal to their own sects and ignore all narratives outside their agenda. In reality, the Medieval Church was so different. Yes, this was the age of growing Papal Supremacy, but significant theologians of the Medieval world such as Thomas Aquinas believed Scripture to be the final authority (an issue that I addressed in a past article on this blog). And indeed, while it is true that there was corruption in the Medieval Church, can the reader ignore the many great saints who lived and died in Medieval Times?---many of them having freely chosen to live in poverty so as to imitate the Apostles and grow closer to their Lord. 

Beginning with the eleventh century, the popes increasingly saw themselves as not only the spiritual head of Christendom but possessing the power of all kings and princes. This was certainly the outlook of Popes Gregory VII and Innocent III. It was also during the 1100s-1500s, however, that there were various oppositions to their claims from both church leaders and kings. Everyone in the Middle Ages did not have the same views on the papacy, justification, Mariology, or most other issues that would later divide Protestants and Catholics. Indeed, those with significantly different thoughts on various theological issues, all partook of the same Mass and all prayed for the new advent of Christ. 

The Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Traditionalist Catholics should look back to the Medieval Church which was not so interchangeable with later Catholicism. Rather, than believing 1500 to be the origin of a great division between the church before and after it, methinks, it would be fairer to see today's Protestants and Catholics alike as daughters of the Medieval church. There never was a major breach of thought. The reformers built on the ideas of their Medieval predecessors. 

The Medieval Church was in disarray and in serious conflict with itself over some issues that no longer hold significance in Christianity. For example, the university philosophers would debate whether or not Christ could have saved humanity had He been a cucumber instead of a man. Other issues, less direct to the far cries of Scholasticism, however, were some of the same doctrines that would later be dividing lines in the Reformation. 

In the thirteenth century, Francis of Assisi wanted him and his order to live humble lives in imitation of the apostles. Francis was concerned about the overeducation of men who lost their chief calling to serve God. According to Medieval historian, John H. Mundy, ''As in early Christianity, moreover, spontaneity and equality were lost in emphasizing the mission. Francis, for example, suspected that education created invidious distinctions between equals. His rule of 1223 therefore stated that the brethren should not busy themselves learning Latin (Mundy, 356-357).''

The reformers understood the complexity of the Medieval Church. Luther, for instance, admired Bernard, though not Aquinas. Calvin admired Augustine of Hippo and even Gregory the Great, though not the popes of the eleventh century. 

During the First Crusade, Peter the Hermit led thousands of peasants on their way to the Holy Land. Tragically, many in his crusade quickly turned to anti-Semitism. As Medieval historian Susan B. Edington notes, ''While Peter's followers at least managed to reach Constantinople, other groups failed to get even that far. Some of them, including a gang led by Count Emich, turned on the Jews in the cities of the Rhineland in what is now modern Germany (Edignton, 18).'' 

Indeed, many in Peter's crusade resorted to attacking and pillaging from Jews. However, what some critics of the Crusades fail to mention is that this was hardly the perspective of all Crusaders. The popes opposed such actions as did many of the bishops. In the Second Crusade, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux preached against Crusaders slaying Jews and saw the Jewish people as God's chosen people (another topic that I've previously addressed in another blog post). 

Naturally, many assume that Medieval Theology had the same perspectives on Mary, the Blessed Virgin, as do today's Catholicism. However, Bernard denied the Immaculate Conception when Duns Scotus later upheld it. Again, the teachings of the Catholic Church were not so nearly as organized or dogmatized as they would later be at the sixteenth-century Council of Trent. 

Finally, other issues such as the language of the Mass and the availability of the Bible for laypeople, I have already addressed in previous posts. While the Medieval Church and Reformation Church did differ in several notable ways: Papal Supremacy, the Mass, celibate orders, indulgences, relics, etc., my purpose in this post was not to claim that the Reformation didn't challenge Medieval thoughts. It certainly did. Rather, I wish to illuminate the reader to the reality that the reformers understood the complexity of the Medieval Church, and that it was diverse with theologians of various different thoughts on a number of different theological disciplines. I also hope that this post will further open others' eyes to an understanding of how the Reformation was no significant breach in church history. 

                                                                  Works Cited:

Edington, Susun B. The First Crusade: The Capture of Jerusalem in AD 1099. 

Mundy, John, H. The High Middle Ages (1973). Longman Group.