Is Evangelical Criticism of the Medieval Church Just?

I presume you know who Constantine and Charlemagne were fighting?

The German and Sarmatian campaigns of Constantine were fought by the Roman Emperor Constantine I against the neighbouring Germanic peoples, including the Franks, Alemanni and Goths, as well as the Sarmatian Iazyges, along the whole Roman northern defensive system to protect the empire's borders, between 306 and 336.

Click to expand...

It's one thing to sit in a 21st century armchair and bemoan the violence of ancient emperors. It's another thing to have to confront ruthless enemies who are bent on your destruction.

I assume you're American? Your own nation has probably been involved in more wars during and after it's formation than almost any other Western nation.

There are currently 123 military conflicts on this list, 5 of which are ongoing. These include major conflicts like the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Gulf War. It also includes US involvement in widespread periods of conflict like the Indian Wars, the Cold War (including the Korean War and the Vietnam War), and the War on Terror (including the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, and others).

Click to expand...

I am talking, about the medieval church, and its abandonment of the mission of Christ in favor of the purposes of Constantine and Charlemagne. There is also the basis of all church-leadership upon the swearing of vows. There are quite a few churches who are doing similarly today, Roman and not.

JEBofChristTheLord said:

I am talking, about the medieval church, and its abandonment of the mission of Christ in favor of the purposes of Constantine and Charlemagne. There is also the basis of all church-leadership upon the swearing of vows. There are quite a few churches who are doing similarly today, Roman and not.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are referring to ancient/modern babylon, which for thousands of years has fostered skirmishes, battles, conflicts, and wars , as often as possible.

When you swear a vow, you make a commitment. It's a bit like swearing on the Bible in a court and committing to state "The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth". That's a vow. But I presume you can find fault with it.

I remember my old Presbyterian pastor commenting that when he graduated from seminary, he undertook a vow to serve God and the church.

As he did so, he said he could feel this thrill running up and down his spine. In my opinion God was pleased with his commitment as he served God very well his entire life.

I don't know if you're married, but I take it you took a vow during your wedding ceremony. If so, did you mean what you said or was it just a passing fad?

This period had a number of flaws. First, they kept the scriptures out of the hands of the common man, which allowed absolute church dominance. It was your lawful duty to believe what you were told to believe. If you expressed a difference of opinion, the punishment could often be death for heresy. The period is also rife with forged documents. And the absolute church dominance eventually led to the church selling sin for profit (indulgences). I have every confidence that many good things were accomplished during that era. But many wicked things were also done in the name of God. It was hardly the golden age of Christianity.

JEBofChristTheLord said:

Right. The educated classes: the very tiny minority, only after swearing various vows, which Christ the Lord says are of the evil one. Everyone else, denied, to the point of many deaths as the Father weakened the magisteria and their vow-swearing puppet states. Eventually the death-dealing stopped, but it was far too late to prevent the exposure of much unpleasant reality.

Click to expand...

You've got a hang-up about vows. I don't know if you are married or not, but if you are and you took a vow to honour your wife, I assume you meant it and didn't see it as giving in to the evil one. Your wife would have disagreed.

On the matter of the minority of the educated classes, way back then the majority of people worked on the land. There was hardly any machinery, and work was by hand or beasts of burden. They didn't have the resources or time to educate the great majority of the people.

Rest assured the only reason we can afford wide spread education today is due to the development of machinery, which does most of the work.

As for being focused on the very tiny minority, the Catholic Church assists millions with education and health.

What of Catholic schools and hospitals?​

The Catholic Church operates more than 221,000 schools worldwide, serving over 62 million students in 38 countries, saving taxpayers $63 billion dollars each year (in the U.S., the Church operates 6,429 schools, serves nearly 2 million students, and saves American taxpayers over $20 billion annually). While naïve critics sometimes try to portray Catholic education as a moneymaker for the Church, it’s actually the other way around: parishes subsidize schools. In fact, almost 9 in 10 Catholic schools in the U.S. provide some form of tuition assistance to students, and their teacher salaries are far lower than public school teacher salaries. Despite these massive financial disadvantages, Catholic school students continue to outperform their public school peers.

Click to expand...

Tolkien R.R.J said:

My thought is that the Medieval Church was far more productive then modern.

Is Evangelical Criticism of the Medieval Church Just? – The Postil Magazine

www.thepostil.com

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the further we go back the more the worldview was biblical. As the article says societies and nations worldview was centered on Gods law and order for the world and this was the basis for reality as well.

There was no Enlightenment or science that rationalised different philosophies and metaphysics. It was assumed that God was the creator and Lord over all His creation. Though this may seem strange and alien and even some sort of theocracy today it wasn't seen that way because that kind of philosophy was not in peoples minds.

People assumed Gods metaphysics and the debates and arguements were about how this applied to the world and defending this against the emerging worldly and secular ideologies.

Though I think even this was seen as a spiritual warfare where heretics were conspiring to replace Gods truth with other forms of spirits and as the article points out 'emotion' which can be mistaken for spirituality. But also politics as I think this was around very early.

We see the Gnostics for example with this kind of worldview of some mystical and spiritual state of being which was more in tune with appealing to feelings and politicising other beliefs. Or how the different Jewish sects that developed at the time of Jesus and afterwards philosophising about which was the true way.

But the power of Christs example on the church was enough to sustain the it through all the paganism, persecutions and philosophising because it stood on Gods truth in Christ that was a reality in their recent history and the transformations were all around them. No matter what was thrown at the Christian church it never compromised and this example impacted on others. Seeing many giving their lives in practical terms penetrated through the pagan and worldly ideologies.

This same example and power within the church lasted for some time. We see the first generations after the disciples in the later part of the 1st century and into the 2nd still fresh with the examples of the disciples and eye witnesses to the events. They are seperating themselves as a unique community constantly reminded and standing on the same simple example of Christ and His disciples.

The evidence was in the real lived examples that did not make sense to the pagan world but meant everything to the Christians which made their experiences real in the world.

We hear of the church leaders reminding the church of these examples of the saints and this fueled a new generation which then kept the flame alive for some time. Church leaders right up until the 3rd century were dying for Christ. Not compromising the truth until death and being apart from the world around them.

Then after the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire seems to be the beginning of the end of a church that served and died for Christ. Though there has always ben these Christians. This is when the church was immeshed in the State and had to start compromising. The basis for its status and existence changed to one of compromise in world politics and power.

There have been revivals like the Monks of the 15th century who took things back to the early times of service and sacrifice. But the church was slowly being relegated to the sidelines once secular power took over when the two beliefs conflicted. Then with the Reformation and Enlightenment this further strengthens the world over the church and Gods worldview is being replaced with a secular one.

Until today where I think the reverse has happened. Now the dominant worldview is secular and Christianity and Gods truth and worldview is pushed to the fringes and even regarded as hateful. Thats why its really a spiritual battle for truth and not political or ideological. If Gods is not your God then the State or some other ideology like money or self becomes god.

But this is the type of culture that Christianity works best under persecution when its a shinning light in a dark world. I think as we have come full circle and flipped the script so to speak. I think as a natural response there will be a rising up of bold and couragious Christians and church. Things will come back to the basics and standing on Gods truth and laws no matter what. Even if that means persecution and death.

But in todays cultural climate no amount of good arguing is going to win out. In fact as with the early church its not even going to be about arguements and apologetics but rather the quiet and humble Christ like examples the early church fathers and Christians displayed.

If this was enough to sustain and grow the church to rise up as a shinning light back then then it will be the same again. This not only speaking or argueing Gods truth but giving a practical example which speaks much louder than words.

RileyG said:

It's my understanding the first English Bible was by a Augustinian friar (Catholic to Anglican) in the 1500s. It was a translation from German and Latin into English by friar Myles Coverdale.

Click to expand...

Realize that before the printing press just copying an entire Bible was a long tedious, and expensive process. Translating the entire Bible into various languages was done when felt necessary, but it was a major undertaking. It was much more common to translate particular text. As to English, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English.

Tolkien R.R.J said:

My thought is that the Medieval Church was far more productive then modern.

Is Evangelical Criticism of the Medieval Church Just? – The Postil Magazine

www.thepostil.com

Click to expand...

Thanks for this article and its very interesting and adds further to my understanding of how the church existed throughout the ages. I have been mainly looking at the first 3 centuries or so but especially the first 200 years in when we begin to see Gnosticism and other heresay rising up.

Sort of makes sense in that the further the church moved away from Christ and the disciples and early church fathers the more the church was forgetting the reality of Christ.

I think it was after Constantine and the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman empire which began a sort of church and state. I think before this and especially in the early church establishing itself around the empire it was quite seperate from the State. In fact the State under Roman dictators like Nero and Domician persecuted Christians so they had to hide and keep seperated from the secular pagan culture.

Paul was constantly telling the church to remember the truth of the teachings and like your article mentions they beleved God and Christ was real because many in their society were witnesses or knew of the stories from recent witnesses who passed on. This would have lasted well into the 2nd century.

But when Christainity became a State religion this is when it became political and delved into the secular space. Whereas I think the church community is in the world but seperate from it.

The Medievil church is an example of how the gospel had spread and became the social norm and worldview. It had begun as a small group who had to hide and were persecuted to becoming the religion of the persecutors. That was the power of the gospel.

This social norm and worldview lasted really until around the time of the end of the Medievil period around 1500 leading into the Reformation. But still the social norm was God and the bible. Even up to the mid 20th entury we seill seen laws and norms based on the bible. As the article said this was still a time when generally peoples wordview was God as creator and His natural laws that ordered the world.

Today its hard to tell the church from the social norms of the State. The State alone is the power even as to belief because no power can rule without some philosophical ideology about how the world is ordered. For the Romans it was the pagan Gods and sheer power and economy.

Its pretty well becoming that way again. The only question is will there be a revival of some sort as a response by Christs church.