The Scottish Reformer and the ladies

John Knox is remembered as the major force in the Scottish Reformation. The course of the Reformation in that country is preceded by a few crucial political events. Henry VII, the Tudor king had a daughter named Margaret. She married James IV of Scotland, providing a closer relationship between Scotland and England. Traditionally, Scotland loved to ally herself with France against the English, but not in this instance. It did, however, foster that relationship again when the son of James IV and Margaret, James V, married Mary of Guise rather than agree to a betrothal with the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, Mary. Scotland became linked then, with two countries with competing interests and who produced some influential women.

Henry's daughter Mary, who would become "Bloody Mary" took the throne when Henry's son Edward died. When Mary died, another woman took the throne, Elizabeth I. The daughter of James V and Mary of Guise was Mary Stuart. She married the French Dauphin at the age of 18 and became Queen of France, Scotland and she claimed she was the English Queen as well, due to her relationship with Henry through his sister Margaret. The intensity of this rivalry was made worse due to the fact that the Stuarts were Catholic, Spain was Catholic, France was Catholic, and Elizabeth I was Protestant.

Along came John Knox, a Scottish Protestant. Reformation thought had made its to Scotland through individuals who had been abroad and then returned having been influenced by Lollards, Hussites and Lutherans. The Scottish Parliament forbade any Reforming initiatives, and persecution broke out. Knox fled the country, and in the process, found himself prisoner on a French galley for 19 months. After his release from the French, with the assistance of the young Edward, Henry's son, Knox became a chaplain at the English court. This was not to last long, because Mary Tudor succeeded her half-brother upon his death. Knox then went to Geneva where his Reformation theology was further developed. After his time in Geneva, he returned to Scotland.

While in exile, Knox wrote a book called The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. This was an attack against ruling women in Europe. In his book, he says:

“Divine law and natural law opposes the rule of women over men. Therefore men in England and Scotland are obeying women rulers against God. Wherefore I judge them not only subjects to women but slaves to Satan and servants of iniquity.”

He spoke against not only Mary Stuart, but her mother, the regent, and he spoke of Mary Tudor of England. While his views certainly indicated his position with regard to women rulers, his work also spoke out against the Roman church. He had seen the progress of Protestantism in Geneva; he longed to have his own country able to proceed along a similar path, and he saw these ruling women as an impediment to that process. Unfortunately, the book alienated Elizabeth I who found it quite offensive, and hindered an alliance which could have been valuable to Knox. Perhaps this is one of the contributing factors to the fact that English reform was more episcopal in nature than it was in Scotland.

Mary Stuart took the throne of Scotland around the same time as Knox returned there. Knox had five meetings with the Queen. He was convinced that if she saw the error of the Catholic Church and converted, progress for Protestantism would follow. She resisted. She had mass served privately in her quarters. There is a famous confrontation between the two of them where Mary demanded of Knox: "What are you in this commonwealth?" Knox answered:

"A subject born within the same, and although I am neither earl, lord or baron in it, yet God has made me a profitable member in the same, and both my vocation and conscience require plainness of me."

That was quite a democratic-sounding response in an age of monarchy. Ultimately, however, Mary's downfall was largely at her own making. Her cousin Elizabeth had her executed eventually, and Scottish reform continued in the Protestant direction.

I found it quite interesting the effect women had on the course reform despite the fact that women were not powerful within the Church. Women do influence things for good and for bad, even if it is in subtle ways. I continue to find it interesting how very important political alliances were for the Church at this point in history. We here in 2009 squirm at the prospect of our governments stalling religious reform. And yet, it seems as if they are getting involved in such things again, although indirectly, through "hate crime" legislation and the protection of "civil rights." It's kind of daunting to think about.

The politics of English Protestantism

One of the things that becomes evident as we read through Church history is that the spread of Protestantism varies from country to country. The course of reform in Germany was different from the experience of Switzerland, and of course, things in England were quite different.

The political issues surrounding the beginning of reform in England are seen in the person of Henry VIII (1509-1547). Henry was no particular lover of reform. He was not a Lutheran. But neither was he a fan of being under the thumb of the pope. Henry's motives for allowing any kind of church reform had more to do with giving more control to the monarchy and less control to the pope. In short, Henry wanted to control the church, and not for any spiritual reasons.

Henry's older brother, Arthur, was married to Catherine of Aragon, a Spainard and a Catholic. When Arthur died, Henry married Catherine with the hopes of producing an heir. After 17 years of marriage, Henry's union with Catherine had not produced the heir he desired, so he wanted to divorce her. This proved to be problematic because Church law did not allow divorce. Henry had already gained a special dispensation from the pope to marry Catherine in the first place because she had been married to Henry's brother. To get a dispensation for a divorce was unlikely. To muddy the waters further, Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. To alienate him, and Spain along with him, could have been devastating for England.

For six years, Henry attempted to wade through the mire that constituted canon law, trying to find a way to divorce Catherine. Eventually, with the young Anne Boleyn waiting in the wings, he took a drastic step: he broke ties with Rome. This did not mean that Henry was voting against Catholicism as such; he just wanted what he wanted. As Dr. Calhoun says:

He named himself the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England. Thus he did not have to worry about the pope anymore. Whatever Henry said would be fine. So Henry VIII gave Henry VIII permission to divorce.

This did not mean that Henry was beginning what we know today as the Anglican Church. That would come later. All it meant was that Henry found a way to get what he wanted. There was still strong Roman Catholic sentiment in England. Thomas More, diligent Catholic that he was, for example, refused to give allegiance to the Act of Supremacy which installed Henry as the religious leader of the Church of England. He lost his head for that stand.

Edward was the son of Henry and Jane Seymour. He had actually came to the throne when he was only 10 years old, so he didn't really rule as such, but his protectors were of a Protestant and Reformed bent, as opposed to Lutheran, and the trend of reform took that direction. However, when Mary came to the throne, things changed once again. Mary was a staunch Catholic, married to Phillip of Spain. She was called "Bloody" because of the persecution against Protestants that took place under her rule. Mary had the Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant contender for the throne, executed prior to her taking power.

That the course of reform occurred with such pendulum-like action between Catholic and Protestant positions, undoubtedly affected the nature of its ultimate form. Had Henry been given a divorce from Catherine when he wanted it, things could very well have turned out differently. Had Edward lived longer, again things could have turned out differently. And most definitely had Mary not ruled when she did, things would have been different. Political alliances often depended on religious alliances at this point, and even a very short reign could give a ruler plenty of time to either squash reform or feed it. It was a dangerous time, as well. One had to be careful on which side he stood when a monarch took the throne or when a monarch died or perhaps was executed. Even when Elizabeth I came to power after Mary died, there were many Catholic sympathizers who would have liked to see her dead and a Catholic Stuart put on the throne. Of course, that is what eventually happened, but not until Elizabeth ruled successfully for 45 years, and by then, England was not only growing in political and military power, the tide had turned in the Protestant direction, thanks to Elizabeth's efforts in that direction.

Studying theology according to Luther

One of the struggles Martin Luther had was over the meaning of Romans 1:17:

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Once Luther came to a clearer understanding of this verse, his theology grew by leaps and bounds. His began to look at theology not from the scholastic view, a view which he called the "theology of glory" to a view of theology with grace and the cross at its centre. In that vein, he had three principles for studying theology. These are valuable for us today.

First, there was prayer. A theologian, no matter who he or she is, needs to be before God in prayer to be a theologian of any value. Secondly, study and meditation. That's a pretty obvious step. We cannot learn without study and meditation. His third element is testing. Dr. Calhoun puts it this way:

What Luther meant by that was that everything that happens to us teaches us to be a good theologian. All the doubts, turmoil, pangs, terror, panic, despair, desolation, and desperation that invade our lives help us to exegete the Bible. They help us to understand what God is saying. It is those experiences that enable us to become real theologians. Luther’s famous saying was, “It is living, dying, and even being condemned that makes a theologian, not reading, speculating, and understanding.” He said, “It is no wonder David was such a good theologian because of all he went through. He suffered so much that he could write the psalms.”

I think this shows us the proper place of knowledge and experience. It is true that simple study and meditation devoid of any personal experience or testing of faith produces nothing but a dry intellectual assent. Our lives of faith were meant to be experienced, but at their foundation is the prayer and study of Scripture that inform our experience. I thought this was an interesting element to Luther, and one I had not heard of before.

Progress

I finished with Ancient and Medieval Church History, and now will begin the second course, Reformation and Modern Church History. I'll be beginning the second volume of The Story of Chistianity, by Justo Gonzalez. One book I would like to get is Mark Noll's book The History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. There are very few books about church history that mention Canada outside of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had a huge impact. At one time, our public library had this book, but the last time I checked, it was no longer there. Likely, some "well-meaning" individual saw how little it was checked out and got rid of it to make room for something else.

Not sure why I felt I needed to make this announcement; perhaps to alert my three readers that the content will continue to be fairly dry here.

Morning stars

While the Reformation is seen as beginning formally with Martin Luther, there were other men who paved the way for reform. John Wycliffe is known as the "morning star" of the Reformation, but two others of note could perhaps share that honour, John Huss and Jerome Savonarola.

Wycliffe was from England, and is said to have been born sometime in the 1320's. He was an excellent scholar and ended up at Oxford, called the "jewel" of Oxford because of his intellectual ability. Wycliffe, as he studied, became convinced that authority came from Scripture, not the Church. He attacked the right of the Pope to collect money from the King and divert that money to Rome. Thus, he found favour with the monarchy for a time. The King may have liked him, but the monks did not. Wycliffe criticized their indolence and their habit of begging. He further denounced the worship of idols and relics and masses for the dead. He denounced the pope as an anti-Christ. Clearly, this did not win him any prizes and it alarmed the bishops of England. No doubt, they feared how the pope could possibly retaliate against the English church if Wycliffe kept up his criticism.

It was a time of corruption. During Wycliffe's time, there were two popes, one in Avignon and one in Rome, both claiming to be Christ's representative on earth. This simply divided the loyalty of the Church, as people gave allegiance to the pope of their choice. It was no wonder that Wycliffe criticized the Church. Eventually, when he attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation, he aroused even more anger. If a priest was able to turn bread into the literal body and blood of Christ, then he had great power. To criticize that doctrine was to divest that priest of power. The common people liked him, however, and authorities were afraid to harm him.

His greatest contribution was, of course, the translation of the bible into English. Because he saw the reality that Scripture, not the Church, held authority, he knew the common people needed to have that Scripture in their own language. While he did not know the languages of the Bible, he was a Latin scholar and he translated from the Vulgate. He was never captured and seized as other men were, but when he was asked to go before the Pope, and he refused, he retired to Lutterworth, where he spend the remainder of his life. The Church however, did dig up his bones after condemning his teaching at the Council of Constance in 1415. The bones were denied re-burial.

John Huss was a follower of Wycliffe. He came from Bohemia. At this time, King Richard II of England was married to Anne of Bohemia, so there was a lot of travel and communication between these two countries. Huss heard of Wycliffe's teachings through students returning to Prague, where he lived. Huss became the Rector of Prague University, but his study of the Word of God directed his future. Eventually, he found himself preaching at Bethlehem Chapel. There, he preached the Bible to the people in their own language instead of Latin. He had embraced Wycliffe's teaching, but not because it was Wycliffe's, but because they were from Christ. The Archbishop denounced Wycliffe's teachings and when Huss refused to abandon those teachings, he was excommunicated. Huss was later invited to the Council of Constance, and was promised safe passage, but this was a ruse, and upon arrival he was put on trial and condemned to death. He was stripped of his priesthood, and the Archbishops committed his soul to the devil. However, Huss cried out, "And I commit it to the Lord Jesus Christ."

Jerome Savonarola came from Italy, born in 1452, after both Huss and Wycliffe were dead. While he did not attack the corrupt doctrine of the Church, he did speak out against the immorality which was prevalent among the clergy of the time. Savonarola lived in Florence during the time of the Medici family, and for a while, enjoyed their favour. However, as he continued to speak out against vice and corruption, his popularity faded. Pope Alexander Borgia, a notoriously evil pope, took the lead in dealing with Savonarola. Alexander tried to bribe Savonarola by offering to make him a Cardinal, something which was soundly refused. Savonarola was reputed as saying, "I desire no other crown than the crown of a martyr." Eventually, he was excommunicated and put to death in May 1498, burned at the stake.

While Wycliffe and Huss attacked the Church along the lines of authority, Savonarola spoke out against its corruption. However, the two are clearly related. The lack of proper authority resulted in corrupt behaviour. Without the proper adherence to Scripture, there was bound to be immoral behaviour. That is one of the many lessons we can learn from the events of the Reformation. Corruption is not simply a matter of bad behaviour; it is an issue of recognizing the authority of Scripture and allowing it to direct our lives. This is something that continues to haunt the church even if it doesn't produce earth-shattering results such as it did in the 13th and 14th centuries.