Reformation and Conciliar Movements

There is some discussion on the web as the Reformation being a descendant or a relative of the Conciliar Movement of the 15th century. One of the major proponents of this view is Tim Enloe whose works are worth a quick read. I have to admit these things got me thinking. However, in the end, I think this thesis has to be rejected, with regards to the Reformed branch of the Reformation anyway. I will let the Lutherans argue for themselves. I see a few major flaws in this argumentation about Conciliarism having a great effect on the Reformation.

First, I think the Conciliar movement itself was nothing more than a protest and not a true reform. The Conciliar Movement was the only answer possible to the situation the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy had created. Short of all out war between the rival popes, the Council was the only solution. I think then the movement known as Counciliarism was born more out of necessity than theology. This is born out by the fact that not all Conciliarists rejected the idea of Papal Infallibility. In fact the Council of Pisa elected a pope, which made three. And the next one the Council of Constance removed the other popes and elected a new pope, finally ending the multiple pope problem. But it should be noted that these councils elected popes. They were obviously not opposed to the idea of a pope. Later the Council of Basel tried to depose a pope and elected a new pope, but no one recognized the move. Still it shows that Conciliar Movement did not oppose the ideas of popes. They tried to limit their power and assert supremacy over popes, but the movement felt the need to have a pope. Also reforming the papacy is not the same as Reformation. Let us not forget it is the height of the Conciliar Movement that executed Jan Hus, a forerunner of the Reformation with regards to theology.

Second, the Reformers favored a Presbyterian form of government, but that is not to be confused with Conciliarism. The Reformers did believe in calling councils, or even having regular scheduled councils. This did not mean that they thought these councils infallible, and there lies the major difference. The Conciliar Movement was a movement to replace the supreme power of the pope with the supreme power of the council. The Reformers did believe that councils governed the church, that is simple Presbyterianism, not conciliarism. However, the Reformers held that these councils were only good as long as they fell in line with Scripture. Any pronouncement not in line with the Word was no authority at all. That idea was missing in the counciliarists. Note also that Luther truly became a Protestant when Eck forced him to disagree with the judgment against Hus, a judgment that was not just done by a pope, but by an entire council. Luther rejected the idea of a supreme authority in councils.

Third, which is related to the above. The supreme authority for the Protestants has always been Scripture, not the church speaking in a council. This is a point that is conceded by Enloe in his post, but is then attempted to be circumvented. The Conciliarists (not uniformly but mostly) believed the authority was still the church speaking. Even the radical Marsilius of Padua, who rejected papal infallibility, placed infallibility in the universal church and thus councils. Even then one might could argue that Marsilius was placing the civil authority as the head of the church rather than the pope, but either way this is not the doctrine of the Reformers. See Westminster Confession of Faith 31.

Fourth, the Synod of Dort. For all the talk of Coniliarism in the Reformation only once has an ecumenical council of Reformed men actually met. This was the Synod of Dort. Dort for the record used the Scripture and not previous confessions as the only rule of faith. Anyway, one could look at that Synod to see exactly how it was received. Other than Holland where the Synod was part of their regular Presbyterian form of government, only one other place adopted the Canons of Dort as official doctrine and rule. That was Geneva. Other placed debated it and agreed with the outcome, but they did not adopt it and they did not consider it a rule of law or official doctrine and canons that now had to be subscribed to or upheld at any cost. Some places, like England, did not adopt them and took rather liberal interpretations of some of the points showing that they did not believe that the Synod of Dort was any sort of binding rule that now needed to be followed. This is again the complete opposite of the Conciliar Movement that thought and taught that the declarations of the Council had to be obeyed.

I am not disagreeing that the Reformation has connections the history of the Church. Nor am I saying that the Reformers did not make use of those who opposed the pope from time to time. Cramner reprinted Marsilius to defend Henry VIII as the head of the church. However, I do not think that the Reformation stands in line of descent from the Conciliarists. The Conciliarists still believed in the doctrines of the Roman church especiallity the infallibility of the church. They simply disagreed who would wield the power of the church and fought over that power with the pope. I believe the Reformation stands in link with the early church, which I do not believe was ever successfully stamped out by the pope, the Greeks, or the Turks.

Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini

It is no surprise to long time readers of this blog that I really enjoy the Carolingian era of history. So, when an avalanche of sales, discounts, and gift cards piled high enough to make Ann Freeman’s Theodulf of Orelans: Chralemagne’s Spokesman against the Second Council of Nicaea available I jumped at the chance. I wanted this book for several reasons. One, I cannot get enough about the Carolinigian era, a time that is ignored by historians both secular and religious. Two, I want to know all I can about Theodulf. Three, the general consensus is that Alcuin must be the author of the Libri Carolini. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia claims Alcuin as the best possibility. This book argues, I believe convincingly, that Theodulf of Orleans is the author.

The book is scholarly, so if you are not interested in the subject save your money. Also, if you are limited intelligence like me be prepared to read many sections multiple times. However, the book is really a collection of essays and articles so that each chapter makes a nice breaks and some chapters recover material often in an easier to understand format before expanding your information base. The book does deal with other issues other than just authorship. It has a great chapter about the view of images and icons put forth by the Libri Carolini, as well as books that speak to the general history of the Frankish church about images and about Theodulf himself.

The main point of Ann Freeman’s contention is that the original uncorrected version (found only in this century) provides much new information. Seeing the corrections made by the correcter over the original shows us that the corrector was a person who learned Latin as a second language or book Latin and the original author was a native speaker whose Latin was already turning colloquial. In fact, one can even track the author’s Latin to Visigothic Spain. This makes Theodulf a leading candidate since he was a Visigoth from Spain. It hurts Alcuin as the candidate since he would have learned Latin as a second language in England. The thrust of her research revolves around the Liturgy in common use in Spain. She is able to show that many times in the Libri Carolini the scripture quotes are from the Liturgy. There are a few examples of the corrector not taking off the liturgical phrases like ‘and the people said Amen’ (my example, the real ones are in the book). The Spanish Liturgy at the time was not using the Vulgate, and the Scripture quotes can be shown to be from this alternate version. This evidence makes one overwhelmingly favor Theodulf as the author. When matched up with the traditional objections to Alcuin, such as it does not fit his known timeline (he is supposed to have been in England at the time) and that his earliest biographer does not include the Libri Carolini as one of his works, the evidence demands a verdict of Theodulf of Orleans as the author of the Libri Carolini.

I do admit that this evidence does not point to Theodulf directly, but rather only to a Visigoth from Spain. This is the weakness in the book. There were more than one Visigoth at Charlemagne’s court, and they cannot be ruled out from any of the arguments I read. However, it is not disputed that Theodulf was the greatest Visigoth scholar at the court and probably stood only behind Alcuin when ranking the scholars at court (an argument could be made Alcuin stood behind Theodulf). It is obvious from other actions that Charlemagne trusted Theodulf with big responsibilities. Thus, it stands to reason that Theodulf would be the author. It just needs to be noted that the arguments do not point directly to him, but rather to his region of the world and he is the top candidate from that region.

All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and I learned a great deal from it.

Wright, Chalcedon, and Nestorius

As I take on this task of N.T. Wright and his Christology, I freely admit that I have not read any books published by him on the subject. I take all my Wright quotes from his on-line articles which better fits my budget. I hope someone more familiar with his work can come and show me where N.T. Wright repudiates Nestorianism, and where he affirms a historically orthodox position, which is the Biblical position. I do think that with the amount of his stuff on the web, there is enough here to raise the legitimate question of whether or not Bishop Wright is orthodox in his Christology.

We should begin by defining quickly the major points of Nestorianism. Nestorianism is the doctrine that states the human being, Jesus, is morally related to the Divine Son of God or Logos, but Jesus is not united to the Second Person of the Trinity as one person. Thus, they are two persons, not one. The orthodox position, called the Chalcedonian position, is that Jesus is one person who has both a complete human nature and a complete divine nature. The two natures are hypostatically unified into one person.

Bishop Wright makes clear that he is no fan of Chalcedonian formulations. " Chalcedon, I think, always smelled a bit like a confidence trick, celebrating in Tertullian-like fashion the absurdity of what is believed, and gave hostages to fortune which post-Enlightenment fortune has been using well."(Jesus and the Identity of God). Bishop Wright’s main point is that Jesus had a vocational understanding of being God. What that means is that Jesus felt called to do and accomplish what the Scripture said only YHWH would do. But that is a long way from saying that Jesus is God incarnate, or that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright himself is willing to admit:

‘If I am anything like on target this creates a context not only for understanding Jesus within his historical framework, not only for discerning the real roots of New Testament Christology (the reason, for instance, why Paul so quickly took to using the LXX [56] kyrios-passages for Jesus), but also for rethinking traditional systematic debates. What would it do, for instance, to questions about hypostatic union? How might it affect the use of words like nature, person, substance, and so forth? I think it might open up a flood of new possibilities; it might even slice through the denser thickets of theological definitions and enable us to talk more crisply, dare I say more Jewishly, and for that matter more intelligibly, about Jesus and about God.’(Jesus' Self Understanding).

So I do not think the claim that Bishop Wright is not a believer in Chalcedonian Christology should cause a great stir. It seems to be something he is very willing to reconsider by his own admission. That Wright is not comfortable in the formula of Chalcedon then is some what obvious.

It still remains then for us to look at how well he fits in a Nestorian view, and I am the first to say it is not a perfect fit. However, it is not unfitting either. The Right Reverend Wright asks these questions:

‘First, in what sense, if any, can we meaningfully use the word “god” to talk about the human Jesus, Jesus as he lived, walked, taught, healed, and died in first century Palestine? In what sense might Jesus conceivably have thought in these terms about himself? Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview?’(Jesus and the Identity of God).

Wright likes to focus on the ‘human Jesus’, and what this First Century Jew knew about being divine. This ascribes full personhood to the ‘human Jesus’ by ascribing to him self-consciousness. In effect, Wright is asking what the human person Jesus knew about being the divine person of the Trinity. The answer that Wright produces is that Jesus knew he was vocationally related to YHWH of Israel. But Wright never says Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright prefers the language that Jesus embodied the return of YHWH, or that Jesus was ‘God-at-work-in-the-world.’ This is language accepted by Nestorius. The ancient Bishop of Constantinople states:

"If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born of the bosom of the Father, . . .and does not rather confess that he has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father . . . let him be anathema."(Nestorius’s Counter Anathema 7).

Wright and Nestorius here drive home the same point. Jesus is in connection with the Divine Person, but is in union with Him. They have a conjunction, but not a hypostatic union. Jesus does the work of YHWH because he is God With Us, but Jesus is not necessarily YHWH. Jesus can be identified with YHWH because of their connection, but not because Jesus the human is YHWH.

I can see that this is going to take much more than one blog post. So I think I will break it up into multiple posts. What is Wright saying about Person and Nature? Critique of Wright’s Methodology. Scriptural examination of Wright’s claims.

Again, this is my impressions from his online articles. I welcome feedback, discussion, and comments.

John Gerstner, Church History, and Matthew 16

I recently was given some video tapes from the video tape library of a dear departed friend, Rev. Norman Jones. I had a few spare moments and had been intrigued by the John Gerstner Church History series that was made by Ligoner ministries. I only watched one full lecture and parts of two others, and I thought I would make a comment on one or two things that struck me, specifically the third point.

First, I did skip straight to the Middle Ages. I have a peculiar interest in Charlemagne and the church as a whole during the 8th and 9th century. It is very hard to find good material on them. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a church history book that actually covers them at all. John Gerstner mentioned Charlemagne one time in a sentence about the power of the pope to crown emperors. Never mind that this was a highly debatable historical point (there is some evidence to suggest that the pope crowned Charlemagne during a prayer to give the appearance of papal authority). That was the only time Charlemagne or anyone from the 8th century was mentioned. That was it. Gerstner did just what everyone else does and that is skip from the 5th Century to the 13th. That is a large gap. I found it frustrating.

Second, the whole course seemed to be history as an apologetic against the abuses of Rome. There is nothing wrong with using that as a unifying theme, and it did provide for some interesting comments and discussion. Gerstner was excellent at pointing out paradoxes in Roman papal history and thought. He was particularly good at ridiculing the Unam Sanctum, which proclaimed all have to be in submission to the pope to receive salvation. This of course was given by Pope Boniface VIII who was in captivity and complete submission to King Philip the Fair of France. The Unam Sanctum is still the law of the Roman church.

Third, Gerstner made some interesting comments on Matthew 16:18. Of course Rome reads this as Peter being the rock, and upon Peter the church is built. Traditional Protestants read this as the Confession of Faith (as exemplified by Peter) is the rock upon which the church is built. Now there are several alternate readings that I am familiar with. Edmond Clowney read the passage as Peter and ALL the Apostles are the rock upon which the church is built. Augustine (the reading I favor) held that Christ is the rock and he builds the church upon himself. Dr. Gerstner introduced me to a new alternate reading. Gerstner claimed Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, but that did not imply authority rather we are all rocks upon which the church is built. He did make some caveats about it was faithful Peter, not Peter regardless of faithfulness. Still, Gerstner claimed that this passage was virtually the same as I Peter 2:5 where he calls all believers living stones. That Jesus was really only referring to Peter as a stone that builds the church, and that all believers are stones that build the church. Gerstner referenced Matthew 18 (I assume verse 18) and John (no reference was given) to support his view. Gerstner did not explain how ‘building upon the rock’ fits into his view more than to say we are all living stones being built into the church. I wish he would have gone into greater depth of this view, but alas it was a church history tape. If anyone out there knows more about this position, let me know. I am also interested to hear what anyone has to say about this verse in general.

Charlemagne and Reforming the Clergy

Protestants by definition must be protesting something. Religiously we speak of Protestants protesting against the church or something within the church. Thus, Protestants usually are protesting against the clergy and something wrong or deficient in them. A reform of the clergy is a Protestant act. Charlemagne did great things to reform the clergy. He required and promoted a stricter morality and a greater education. Such acts are part of Protestantism. In his efforts is the idea that the clergy of the church are uneducated and loose morally. Thus, his work is a protest on the state of the clergy. It is a sign of the felt desire and need to reform the church to a higher standard than that of the pope or popes. His work in this area was an uphill battle, but he accomplished so much that many historians admit that there was a mini-renaissance sometimes called the Carolingian Renaissance. One must also conclude that the Dark Ages are officially over when Charlemagne is in power.

Charlemagne made sure he was surrounded with the greatest scholars on the planet. He went out and gathered men of renown. Because of the sorry state of the church most of the scholars he gathered to his royal academy were not Frankish, but foreigners. He gathered Italian Lombards like Peter of Pisa, the grammarian, Paul the Deacon, the historian, and Paulinus, the poet. Other prominent men like Theodulf and Agobard were foreigners as well. Yet, the most famous was Alcuin. Alcuin was from York, England, and he was a master of education. He wrote works of logic, grammar, rhetoric, and orthography. He kept pupils and ran schools. Alcuin was given five abbeys to run as reward for his excellent work and so he could make the monasteries improve education for the kingdom. This is true for many of those who surrounded Charlemange. Theodulf was made bishop of Orleans, and Paulinus of Aquileia as well as Agobard, who became bishop of Lyons. These men all took their great learning to their bishoprics. Charlemagne gathered them so he would be surrounded by great intellects, but also let them go because the church needed them more than he did.
More proof about his views can be found in his letters to the bishops in his domain. He called on them to have a good command of the languages in which Scripture is written to avoid gross errors, and he quoted Matthew 12:37, “For by they words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned”, as backing for this command. In 789, the orders went out for the priests to observe the canons of the church and the bishops were personally responsible for the intellectual training and schools should be run in every dioceses. Priests were required to teach all boys Latin and elementary education. Bishops were required to run schools and another school was run out of the Imperial palace. Books were regularly published by Alcuin and others explaining the liturgy step by step. The liturgy was standardized, mainly by Alcuin, and then put in place throughout the land. Book production was increased all across the land. Not only copies of the Bible, but ancient church fathers and even new books written by the educated were in circulation at that time. There is no doubt that one of the highest priorities of the church during the time of Charlemagne was education.

The moral standards of the priests also had to be raised. Boniface described the situation in France in 742, one year after Charlemagne’s father took the throne.

They have no archbishops. Most of the episcopal sees are occupied by avaricious laymen or adulterous, licentious and worldly clerics. Bishops make no claim not to be fornicators and adulterers, and they drink, neglect their duties, and spend their time hunting.

Boniface listed more problem including the bishops had not met in council together for at least 80 years. Charlemagne completed the reform of the morality of the church. Within a few years of his taking the throne, every metropolitan had an archbishop and every see had a proper bishop. The sinners were forced out or forced to do penance. The bishops were required to meet annually to discuss matters of both political and ecclesiastical significance. In addition at least 18 major Synods were called in 46 years of Charlemagne’s reign. The pope held only three in the same time frame, and one of those was called by Charlemagne to have a trial for the pope. He held inquests into the morality of the clergy in 802 and 811 to purge out those who had become to ‘worldly’ from office.

These facts tell us a great deal about the church under Charlemagne, and they also tell us a great deal about the church in general. Charlemagne’s desire to raise the morality and education of the clergy can only be seen as a protest against the standard level of both morality and education allowed by the church.

Charlemagne and the Pope

The first question that must be asked to see if Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant one, is did the church submit to the Pope, or did they reject his authority? This is one that can be seen better in acts than words. Most everyone mouthed the words that the Pope was the supreme head of the church and sat in St. Peter’s chair. However, did they follow that up with action, or were those words mere flattery?

First, the Seventh Ecumenical Council or Council of Nicaea II serves as an appropriate illustration. Nicaea was attended by Papal legates, and approved by Charlemagne’s close friend, Pope Adrian. This council allowed the use of images and accounted for them to be venerated, but not worshiped. The church of Charlemagne, by this I mean France and parts of Spain and Germany, rejected this Pope approved General Synod of the church. They rejected veneration of the images, denied they served any useful purpose at all, and repudiated the authority of the council. These things were published under the title, Libiri Carolini. Pope Adrian pleaded with Charlemagne, but at the Council of Frankfurt (794), Nicaea was denounced. At least 300 bishops from France, England, Spain, Italy, and Germany signed on to the rejection of the Council of Nicaea II, which had already received papal approval. This was not just the influence of Charlemagne. The church continued this position under Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, by denouncing the use of images at the Council of Paris in 825. The Council of Paris also openly rebuked the pope for supporting such a council. Hardly the actions of a church submitting to papal authority.

Second, the Filoque controversy shows the rejection of papal authority. The Filoque controversy is about adding the phrase “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed. Thus, the revised version reads that that Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This was in use by the 6th century in Spain, but it was Charlemagne’s church that made it official. Alcuin, Theodulf, and Paulinus, the greatest scholars of the Carolingian church, and later Ratramnus of Corbie all argued heavily for the inclusion of the phrase ‘and the Son’. They viewed it essential to understand the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Again, Pope Adrian pleaded against such an idea, and later Pope Leo would not accept it either, although he treaded much lighter. In 809, at the Council of Aix-la-Chappelle the phrase was included in the Nicene Creed officially, and always used that way in the areas controlled by Charlemagne. Since even the Pope now recognizes that phrase, we can see which side gave in.

Third, an incident involving Pope Leo III is also telling for it shows how the church under Charlemagne viewed the Pope. Leo had been accussed of some sins, including adultery if I remember correctly, and the people of Rome were in an uproar. Arno, archbishop of Salzburg, led a delegation of two archbishops and five bishops to investigate the charges. This act in and of itself is unheard of. Archbishops and bishops were investigating the Head of the Church. The Pope sitting under judgment of fellow bishops runs counter to everything claimed by the Pope. Yet, Arno not only led this delegation, they found Leo guilty. They would not reinstall Leo as the bishop of Rome. Charlemagne did reinstall Leo for political reasons, but the very idea that the church under the dominion of Charlemagne would try the pope and find him guilty is astounding and says quite a lot about the view of the papacy held by the bishops of the Carolingian Kingdom.

Fourth, the constant use of Councils and Synods. I have already mentioned at least three. Charlemagne required yearly synods of his church. They bishops met together and discussed affairs of the church and kingdom. This practice is not in keeping with the Roman practice. It speaks volumes about where the church turned for judicial and theological matters. It was to itself and not toward Rome.

Fifth, the views of individuals should also say large amounts. In addition to the men mentioned above such as Arno of Salzburg, we can add the thoughts of many others. People like Theodulf who thought the Pope was not over Charlemagne and at least rejected the idea that the pope had temporal authority at all. Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt rejected the idea of the Pope as a universal bishop and the idea that Peter founded the seat in Rome! However, Claudius bishop of Turin speaks the loudest. This man was given his bishopric by Louis the Pious and was never removed from his seat. He states concerning Matthew 16,

‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church: and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ under pretence of which words the stupid and ignorant common people, destitute of all spiritual knowledge, betake themselves to Rome in hope of acquiring eternal life. . . . Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostle’s doctrine, and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle.(J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, Vol. 1. pg.22)

Hardly the word of a man upholding the authority of the Pope. Hopefully this brief look at the history of the Carolingian church will show that the Pope held no real power in the church, and was regularly disobeyed in matters of doctrine and faith. I believe this requires one to view the Carolingian church as a church ‘protesting’ the authority of the bishop of Rome, and finding its own way without him.

Charlemange’s Protestant Church

Too often Reformed Theologians neglect the church of the Middle Ages. It is not all bad, and even if it was it would still deserve our attention. There is one period, I particularly enjoy, the time of Charlemagne. Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor, crowned on Christmas Day 800 by Pope Leo III. He is an interesting figure over all, but the church under him and his son Louis the Pious is an interesting study. In fact, I believe I will here advance the idea that the church under Charlemagne was indeed a Protestant church rather than a Roman Catholic one.

Let me begin with qualifications. By Protestant church I mean, the church protesting against or refusing to follow the Roman leadership and the Eastern Orthodox leadership. I am not trying to say that Charlemagne or his church was reformed or anything of that nature. I am saying that it did not follow Rome, and was attempting to follow the Bible as its rule, not Rome. The other qualification is that the church under Charlemagne had many failing as well. For example, to a limited extent Charlemagne spread his religion with the sword, the church and the state were too intertwined, and the bishop system stayed in place. Just a few examples. However, in a series of posts to come I would like to show that Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant church in the following ways.

• Rejection of the Pope and Caesaropapism


• Reforming the clergy


• Worship


• Eucharist


• Predestination


• Scripture

Charlemagne

I am on a mission to read as many biographies as I can this year. So far, I am at a total of one. Yeah slow start. However, Charlemagne, Father of a Continent, by Alessando Barbero translated by Allan Cameron, was an excellent book. I would have preferred a little more focus on Charlemagne’s theology and church life, but this book was not by a Christian scholar and the author was more focused on Charlemagne’s political impact on the world. So, overall I enjoyed it.

If you all do not know much about Charlemagne, shame on you. He was King of the Franks, became Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day 800, and conquered Europe as far as the Ebro river in Spain, the Papal lands in Italy, half way up Denmark, and to the Oder river on the Eastern front, making him ruler over all of what we now know as Western Europe save England and part of Spain. Not too bad.

Yet, he did much more than just conquered lands. He standardized the weights and measures as well as the making of coins in his lands. He traded a great deal with other kingdoms helping grow the economy of Europe, he had begun naval reforms that may have prevented the Viking invasions if they had been followed and kept up. He showed mastery over warfare and tactics, crushing his opponents and rarely losing battles. Yet, he showed great mercy, usually making rival leaders join monasteries rather than execute them.

One thing the biography shows well is Charlemagne’s love of his family. He cherished his children, especially his daughters, which was not common for rulers of his time. He took care of all of his children, even the one who tried to start a rebellion against him. He canceled a marriage for one of his daughters to the heir to the Eastern Empire because he did not trust the moral character of him nor his mother, Empress Irene. It turned out to be an astute judgment, as Irene later butchers her own son to make herself queen. Charlemagne loved his daughter more than the political ramifications of his actions. An excellent example.

In the church he was clearly more powerful than the pope, since Charlemagne instituted the ‘filioque’ clause into the Nicene Creed against the objections of Pope Leo. He over ruled the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, declaring that images are not to be worshiped and have no profit at all. He surrounded himself with great thinkers and men such as Alcuin of England and Theodulf of Orleans. Yet, perhaps his most amazing feat is his acceptance of change when the Bible speaks. In the 700’s the church did not have a clear teaching on marriage. Thus, several types of marriages existed. There was a legal arrangement, which could easily be undone, and then the marriage done by the church. Early in his life Charlemagne had one of those legal arrangement marriages and had a son from it. Yet, during the reign of Charlemagne the church began to look down on this sort of marriage, and thus, he never entered into another one, even though Charlemagne himself had been born to one of the legal only marriages. Most telling is that Charlemagne’s children do not follow the practice and soon the church has rid the world of the legal (read try it for a while and see) marriages. It takes a great man to stare his own roots, and his own actions in the face and raise his children differently.

Christianity and Historic Norms

Matt has an interesting blog discussing the attacks upon Christmas. I must say that I agree with most of his thoughts. I do disagree with the off hand idea that we should let the pagans have Christmas. It seems to be against the principle of being salt in the world, but that is not the main point of Matt’s thoughts. He is saying that we should make sure Christ is our savior and lord before getting caught up in making sure people say Merry Christmas. Good advice.

However, I will be quibbling with his opening lines. Again, it is not the main point at all, but it is a point that caught my attention. He states that America is returning the historical norm, and becoming antagonistic to Christianity. I disagree that the historical norm is countries being antagonistic to Christianity.

Yes, the first 3 centuries were persecution after persecution. However after Constantine there are at least 3 more of peace and a government protective of Christianity. In fact, during this time the Church received great creeds and weeded out heresy from among her own boarders. Then in the 7th century Mohammed and Islam begin to persecute those who live under their rule. Yet, this is hardly the majority of the Christian world. America is also not reverting to Islam, so I think that example does not fit into the idea of historical norms.

Even during the Middle Ages when the Pope put to death Jan Huss and others for proclaiming the gospel, it hardly qualifies as countries being hostile to the gospel. At best a few centuries could be added to list of times of persecution. Even during this time, John Wycliff survived under a country that did not care to persecute those who preached the gospel. The Reformation broke out and many places were protective of Christianity. Luther was added by the local lords. So were many Swiss cities. Heidelberg Germany and the Elector Fredrick III protected true Christianity. England and Scotland went through brief persecutions, but came to embrace the gospel. America, as admitted, was founded on Christian principles. Even when examining Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (admittedly I have an abridged edition) the martyrs go from Rome in the 400’s to the Spanish Inquisition of the 1200’s. It seems that at best the historical norm is 50-50. Persecution is by no means necessary. Yes, Christ promises us that. We should not be surprised by it. Yet, he also promises us that the gospel preached will not return void. Countries have often been made receptive to Christianity by the pure proclamation of it. While, I agree that America is turning its back on Christianity, I do not think we need see it as inevitable, nor as a historical norm. If the church does her job, the culture will follow.

Leo III and Christmas

Emperor Leo III always seems to get bad press in the history books. I am not sure I have found one yet that treated him even fairly. Leo III was the emperor of Constantinople in A.D. 717-740 followed by his son, Constantine V (740-775). In 726, Leo III began a propaganda campaign against images of Christ. He seems to have been motivated by the 2nd Commandment, although it appears hard to deny that he was also an orthodox Chalcedonian (many historians do try to deny this). The propaganda did not really work, so Leo ordered that the image of Christ on top of the palace be thrown down and broken. Of course riots ensued.

I think about Leo III a lot during Christmas. Never will one see more icons of Christ than at Christmas. Every yard becomes a place for statues of the baby Jesus. Stamps in the mail have pictures of our Lord, and this year many will receive a DVD of Mel Gibson’s The Passion. I truly believe that if someone were to smash all the icons, riots would ensue. Protestants forget their faith during the Christmas season an bring out statues of Christ, not only to decorate their lawn, but to set up inside their house on their mantle like the old household gods of old. Sadly many churches put on nativity plays, and Christ is either the cutest recently born child in the church or a stuffed doll. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with Christmas as a feast day for the church or as a holiday, but I do have a problem with images of Christ.

The Council of Hieria, A.D. 754, included 338 bishops, and they declared that only legitimate representation of Christ is “the bread and wine in the holy supper.” The reason, Christology. If Christ is one person in two natures, and the natures are not to be united or divided, mixed or separated as all Reformed Creeds suggest following the Council of Chalcedon, then any picture of the person of Jesus Christ is a picture of both divine and human natures. It is that simply. Every nativity scene and play is a representation of God, God made flesh yes, but God nonetheless. That is strictly forbidden in the second commandment. Thus, every nativity scene reminds me of Leo III because he took a stand. When we don’t take a stand every Christmas it shows our ignorance, or worse our unfaithfulness, or worse our indifference.