Were the Radical Reformers, by their philosophical attitudes, the ancestors of today’s progressive/liberal Christians? Or, to put it in more Francis Schaeffer type of writing, were the Radical Reformers the continuation of a philosophical trail that led to today’s progressive/liberal hermeneutic? [Note: There is a difference between the Reformers and the Radical Reformers.]
I already commented yesterday that the Radical Reformers had, from their beginning, made the basic claim that the Early Church Fathers were not true to the apostolic teaching. But, I commented that, in effect, their claim carries with it the implicit and concurrent claim that the Twelve Apostles failed in their task to pass on the faith received from our Lord, that is, that they had failed to correctly train their successors. In fact, they trained them so badly that their immediate successors fell immediately into hierarchical leadership, liturgical worship, and an improper understanding of the atonement itself.
The Radical Reformers had to make the claim that the Early Church Fathers were not accurate successors of the Twelve Apostles, because, historically, it was the only way that they could justify their ecclesiology. That is, they had to crack the received history of the Church and claim that it was not the record of a successful early plant, but rather the record of a failure to launch. And, in claiming that, they had to claim that there was an alternate line of apostolic succession. Now, by an alternate line of apostolic succession, I do not mean succession by the laying on of hands. Rather, I mean the claiming of the mantle of the Twelve Apostles by alternate means.
There were two basic approaches taken to justify claiming the mantle. One is the simple claim that Scripture itself, that is, the New Testament, is the entire and sole apostolic deposit passed on by the Twelve Apostles. Mind you, this carries with it the concomitant claim that the way in which the Radical Reformers interpreted Scripture was the correct way. But, there was, and is, an alternate claim of a type of Christian, “Trail of Tears” which could be historically followed to show the true line of succession. It was a succession of churches rather than a succession of people. Thus, there are tales of the “Vaudois” of northern Italy, as well as the Paulicians of Armenia, etc. These are supposed to be the “true” line of the Gospel. Needless to say, they were also most unfairly persecuted and denounced as heretics by the “false” received Church. Mind you, I am in no way defending the Middle Ages or the excesses or the pogroms or the inquisitions. I am merely pointing out the conspiracy arguments that are necessary in proposing an alternate Church succession, a succession of supposed faithfulness to the Gospel outside of the “official” Church.
Now, why do I go through what, for some, is old church history? Well, in order to win their point, the Radical Reformers began to use the same techniques as you find today in among many in the progressive/liberal Christian camp. The questioning of the theological accuracy of the Early Church Fathers, arguing in favor of multiple Christianities, arguments that the recorded history is the history of winners at best, and, at worst, a deliberately fraudulent history. All of those are current coin in many progressive/liberal theologies. Thus, you can see the philosophical fatherhood of the Radical Reformers. And, you can see that their philosophical children are the progressive/liberals of today.
But, let me take one more step. Francis Schaeffer showed how a supposedly “safe” line of thinking in one area can, over time, be taken to its logical conclusion, or, even to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). The Radical Reformers would have never expected that today’s progressive/liberals would take their conclusions even farther.
The Radical Reformers never expected that their questioning of history would lead to a questioning of the apostles themselves. The Radical Reformers maintained the “purity” of the apostles and claimed that they were simply trying to preserve their teaching. But, as I commented, the underlying text to the story of the Radical Reformers was the inability of the Twelve Apostles to successfully pass the faith on. Not that the Radical Reformers ever said that, but it was a “logical” conclusion to draw from their narrative. And, that conclusion has, indeed been drawn. Today’s progressive/liberal theologians often question the accuracy of the apostles themselves. After all, if they were that incapable of passing on the faith, what makes them at all capable in recording the faith? And, so, we have doubts about St. Paul’s view of sexuality, or claim he was a misogynist. We have multiple competing Christianities in the New Testament text itself, with many of today’s progressives arguing that proto-orthodox Christianity merged various ideas to create orthodox Christianity. I could go on, but by now you are aware of what I am saying.
And, so, the Radical Reformers, fighting for their view of Scriptures successfully created an alternate history of Christianity, a history which incorporated many of the techniques used in today’s progressive/liberal hermeneutic, techniques which opened the doors for many of today’s revisionist histories of various types. I would further argue that a fusion of Enlightenment-thinking with a Radical Reformer style of alternate historical analysis has even led, culturally, to some of the more radical secular claims about history being merely a record of the oppressor, etc., etc.
I think that the Radical Reformers were the ancestors of today's liberal/progressive Christians and also the fundamentalist Evangelical Christians as well.
They both are ultimately focused on 'the self'. They both are mired in the 'law'…what 'we do'.
I personally blame Calvin with his denial of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and his fantastical claims to trapdoors allowing the resurrected Christ entrance into a locked room, as the father of liberalism and its denial of miracles. Also one could see his preoccupation with enforcing legal standards to be in line with the bible as the father of the progressivism, and culture warriors, (there twins).
I would agree that Calvin shares part of the blame. I think the Lutherans and Anglicans retained a healthy view of Church history. I consider Calvin to be very close to being a Radical Reformer and I see Zwingli as being a Radical Reformer despite the fact that people tend to classify him as a Reformer. I actually hope to put two more posts up on this subject, one of them dealing with the Zwinglian/Calvinists.
OK, fortunately IntenseDebate had sent me e-mails of comments to moderate. The comments below are from Bror. They were lost by the now uninstalled IntenseDebate system. I think that one comment may have been lost.
“So at least we agree we don’t like Calvin. 🙂 By the way. Neither do I like this intensedebate thing.”
One reason I put heavier blame on Calvin and Zwingli than I do the radicals is for all intents and purposes the radicals dropped out of the race. The radicals margenalized themselves one way or another. Either their pacifism finally sequestered them to small amish communities in the midwest where they are completely isolated by choice from society and contribute nothing to the political sphere. Or there militarism matched them up against far better trained militaries (Thomas Muntzer, for instance). But Calvin and Zwingli were a little sharper than all that, especially Calvin. Calvin could at least read, I’m never sure that was exactly true for Zwingli who always seems to me a bumbling idiot. Calvin though I vehemently disagree with him, was a little cleverer. The upshot is they have had a lasting influence on society at large, especially in the English speaking world. Luther did not have as much sway with the English speakers as Calvin. Which is why English speakers always think of the two together. Calvin liked to praise Luther, like Romney did Reagan on the campaign trail. We’re the same! We’re the same. But they weren’t there are radical differences between the two.
Oh! how painful! You put the dread L word [ not that one silly, liberal] together with the radical reformers. Surely you sat up night wondering how to cause the most pain to the Calvinists, pairing what they most hate with what they most love.
Is Apostolic succession itself always assumed? Are we sure there were more than 12, ever?
There is no biblical claim.
The beauty of Sola Scriptura is that we can believe whole heartedly that Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to write his epistles to the Corinthians and yet still have a horrible time getting them on the right track. I Mean we all agree he had a rough time with these people, right? And were not many of the letters of the bible written to stop some Gnostic practice or belief that had already sprung up?
Calvin’s hermeneutics compared to liberal progressives. Hmmm. I don’t hear that much in my neighborhood. I must hear more of this painful post!
In Orthodox thinking there were more than twelve apostles, quite a few more. Interestingly enough, some of the Protestant groups will also agree that there were more than twelve, although the Reformers themselves limited it to twelve. However, all agree that The Twelve were especially appointed and anointed.
As to apostolic succession, on the one hand it can be argued that it was a developing doctrine. On the other hand, the argument by bishops that they were passing on what they had received is easily found. Moreover, they argue that what they were passing on was apostolic. The realization that the Holy Spirit was involved in that proces was also early. Like the Trinity, it was a matter of putting the pieces together.