Does This Post Even Need Text?

The Roman Church Started Right

I believe that the Roman Church started in the right place and that, contrary to some overly strong and frightened Protestant opinions, many of the Roman leaders through the middle-ages and into the Reformation were saved. Now that doesn't mean that I think all of them were saved and that I think the Pope was a good guy. For the most part, He wasn't a good and godly guy at all and the Church (yes I capitalized that for a reason) fell into decay under his leadership and HAD to be reformed.

Now that's a statement that is going to make people mad, especially those of us who are so Protestant that the name "Roman Church" makes hackles raise and shouts of "dirty Ecumenical!" begin ringing throughout the land as happens when any Protestant dares to sympathize. Now hang on just a minute and bear with me because I'm not the only one in on this opinion. In fact I'm in good company with none other than John Calvin!

In a chapter titled, "The Condition of the Ancient Church, and the Kind of Government in Use Before the Papacy" Calvin notes some interesting figures in Church history who usually take a little more flack than they should saying things which I don't know if we all realize they said. He also notes that the ancient Church's primary goal between Paul the Apostle and around Gregory the Great was the preaching of the gospel and the distribution of money to and care for the poor.

For instance you have Gregory the Great (Pope 589-604) saying such wonderful things as,

"A bishop dies if no sound is heard from him; for he calls upon himself the wrath of the hidden Judge, if he goes without the sound of preaching."

Indeed, Gregory knew that the Church was in trouble around his time because he also says that,

"When Paul testifies that he is clean of the blood of all [Acts 20:26], by this statement we are convicted, we are constrained, we are shown guilty - we who are called bishops, we who (besides possessing our own evils) add also the deaths of others. For we kill many as we, lukewarm and silent, see going to their death each day."

Do you know what amazes me so much about that statement? Gregory was not just some fat pope "drinking wine out of a bowl and sitting on lush cushions" and totally ignoring the needs of the people both spiritually and physically. Gregory KNEW there was a problem and last I checked KNOWING the problem is a major part of the battle. The Church had forgotten what it meant to be the Church in spiritual and physical testimony and he knew it. Calvin, of all people, in immediate confirmation of these statements says,

"He calls himself and others 'silent,' for they were less constant in their work than they should have been. Since he spares not even those who half fulfilled their office, what do you think he would have done if anyone had ceased entirely? Therefore, it was a principle of a long standing in the church that the primary duties of the bishop were to feed his people with the Word of God, or to build up the church publicly or privately with sound doctrine."

Even Calvin realizes it. The Church was doing what is supposed to be doing and was, in fact, the Church prior to the Reformation. Ford Lewis Battles, English translator of Calvin's "Institutes" says it obviously,

"Note that Calvin views the age of Gregory as between the ancient purity of the church and its medieval decay."

Some people are far too quick to dismiss anything that happened between Constantine and Luther as "Just the Roman Catholics," and figures that none of them were saved or had anything to contribute. In my humble historical understanding this seems a terrible and completely illiterate historical naivete. We should be very careful not to just dump everything that happened in the years prior to the Reformation as useless in our understanding of the Church as she is.

Not that there weren't problems, but what age of the Church hasn't had problems? I think if you consider it closely we are in much the same position as they were with corrupt and overly dominant leaders who are in it for money or fame. But what people fail to understand is that there were holy God fearing people (the Albert Mohlers and Paul Washers of today) who understood these problems and spoke against them. Calvin again,

"And so this song is often sung there to bishops and deacons, that they should remember that they are not handling their own goods but those appointed for the need of the poor; and if in bad faith they suppress or waste them, they shall be guilty of blood. Accordingly, they are admonished to distribute these goods to whom they are owed, with the greatest awe and reverence, as if in God's presence, without partiality. Hence arise those grave protestations in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and other bishops like them, by which they affirm their uprightness among the people."

What did these guys who called the Church out to holiness say?

"Cyril, when famine seized the province of Jerusalem and the distress could not otherwise be relieved, sold vessels and vestments, and spent the money on poor relief. Similarly, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of Persians was well nigh dying from famine, calling together his clergy, delivered this famous speech: 'Our God needs neither plates nor cups, for he neither eats nor drinks." Then he melted the vessels to obtain both food and the price of ransom for the pitiable folk. . .Experius, bishop of Toulouse in his day. . .carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glass vessel, but suffered no poor man to hunger."

Wow. It would be amazing if we had more leaders whose belief and strong and wonderful doctrine actually led them to the place where these guys lived who, supposedly, ruined the Church! You're not even ready for the next bit. Calvin nails iy by saying,

"What I just now said about Acacius, Ambrose states about himself, for the Arians reproached him for having broken the sacred vessels to ransom prisoners, he used this wonderful excuse, "He who sent out the apostles without gold also gathered churches without gold. The church has gold not to keep but to pay out, and to relieve distress. What need to keep what helps not? Or are we ignorant of how much gold and silver the Assyrians carted off from the Temple of the Lord [II Kings 18:15-19]? Would it not be better for the priest to melt it to sustain the poor, if other aid is lacking, than for a sacrilegious enemy to bear it away? Will not the Lord say, 'Why you allowed so many needy to die of hunger? Surely you had gold with which to minister sustenance. Why were so many prisoners carried off and not ransomed? Why were so many killed by the enemy? It were better for you to preserve the vessels men than of metals.' To these you cannot give reply, for what would you say? 'I was afraid lest the temple of God lack ornament.' He would reply: 'The sacraments do not require gold, nor do those things please with gold that are not bought with gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the ransom of prisoners.'"

Why on earth do we just skip out on stuff like this? We shortchange ourselves historically if we ignore the greats of the past with stupid phrases like, "Augustine wasn't saved."

The ancient church and, believe it or not, some of the Roman church got some things right friends; let's not be too quick to dismiss them. I had always had a hunch that this was the case but it didn't really click until I read some of this stuff. Calvin one last time, "To sum up, what the same man [Ambrose] said in another place we see to be very true: 'Whatever, then, the church had was for the support of the needy.' Likewise: 'The bishop had nothing that did not belong to the poor.'"

I do not excuse the tragedies of the Roman church. I do not excuse the corruption of the papacy. I do not deny that justification is by faith alone and that one is not saved without being justified before the totally holy and totally righteous God. I do, however, think that we should stop committing the Protestant naivete, and it is driven by fear really, of ignoring what was said between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

This would be very unwise and I caution you against it. Go read Bernard, or Francis of Assisi, or Gregory the Great, or Ambrose, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or Anselm, or any of the other numerous wonderful Christians in the medieval ages and I think you will find far more of the gospel than you realize.

Loving our wonderful holy God with you brethren (and sistren!),

R.D. Thompson

In order to preach to pop culture you need to know pop culture

Driscoll does it all the time. How involved should we be?