To study Western culture
and history is to witness the evolution of the concept of liberty as it shifted
from the hands of a few elite into the public domain. Of all the contributing influences that
helped to steer the idea of liberty from the few to the many, Christianity is, without
question, the predominant fuel that sustained the fires of change over the
centuries. This progression was not
without its difficulties, since Christianity was also wielded as a weapon of
mass distraction by the nobility ranks of Medieval Europe who meant to twist
the message of Christ to bend the knee of all subjects to their will. One predominant example of this subjugation
was the way in which Paul’s admonition to the Romans was afforded significant (or
even histrionic) significance in what the Medieval world would call the Divine
Right of Kings.
Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation...For he is the minister of God to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger
to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.[1]
One would be hard
pressed to find a set of verses in all Christian scripture that have caused
more anxiety and debate than these few words from Paul.
For centuries they came to dominate much of
the public discourse on the question of how a “good Christian” should submit to
authority, and when “righteous rebellion” to God’s chosen leaders was
warranted.
In modern times, historians have
attempted to explain when and how the earliest advocates for what is sometimes
called “resistance theory” (the justification needed to oppose God’s chosen
leaders on earth) burst onto the scene.
Some
scholars have posited that Protestant reformers of the 16
th century deserve
credit for the creation of resistance theory.
[2] And while it is true that the generation of
the Reformation merits recognition for their contributions to the development
of resistance theory, the seeds of opposition, which quickly grew in the rich
soil of earlier centuries, is where the birth of opposition to authority, and the
beginnings of popular liberty, had their inception.
Arguably the most vocal, persuasive, and intelligent
voice of this opposition was that of John Wycliffe, a 14
th century theologian
and Oxford professor, whose teachings became well known throughout much of
Europe.
As a spokesman of opposition,
Wycliffe served to be more than a mere foreshadowing of later Protestant
expressions of resistance to authority, but instead became the founding father of
resistance theory itself, creating the very road map by which subsequent
generations would also construct their justification for dissent to God’s
supposed leaders on earth.
To better appreciate
the magnitude of Wycliffe’s contributions to resistance theory one must first
understand the tremendous authority enjoyed by kings and popes of the Medieval world. Divine Right Kingship was not some passing
fad that simply faded with time but rather was the bedrock for organizing the
whole of society. As one historian of
Divine Right Kingship put it:
That the ideal
State is the kingdom of God upon earth, and that no other can be an object of
veneration to a Christian, is the notion that lies at the heart of Medieval
Europe…the Pope, as most plainly the depositary of Divine Authority, afterwards
the Emperor, as called to his office by God’s election and appointment, claims
to be the true and supreme head of the Christian commonwealth, by Divine Right of
the Lord of the world.[3]
God’s division of responsibility between
Pope and King meant that matters both spiritual and temporal had been given
their divine sanction.
For the common Christian,
this meant that both religious and governmental superiors exercised substantial
influence on a laity now made fully dependent upon their will and pleasure.
It does not come
as a surprise to discover that this system of government was not without
its flaws.
On an almost regular basis, kings
attempted to subvert the authority of popes, while popes “were driven to minimize
the prerogatives of the Emperor and to recognize in his less instead of more authority.”
These blemishes did not go unnoticed by those
with eyes to see.
Giles of Rome, an
influential 13
th century friar and philosopher, took note of the natural
conflict that arose between popes and kings in the many inevitable battles for
supremacy that were common in the Middle Ages when he wrote, “For we can
clearly show from the order of the universe that the Church is placed above the
nations and kingdoms.”
Giles then references
the ever-present Romans 13 to demonstrate the church’s superiority to kings: “it
is clear from what the Apostle says at Romans 13, who, when he had first said
there is no power except of God, immediately afterwards added, ‘and the powers
that be are ordained of God.’”
Another 13
th century theologian
and philosopher, William of Ockham (famous for his methodological principle
known as Occam’s Razor), suggested that it was the right and the duty of both popes
and parishioners to know where their authority (or submission to authority)
ended:
Subjects also
should know what and how much power the pope has over them, because, as Gregory
says, “subjects should be urged not to be more subject than is useful.” But they cannot be on guard against excessive
subjection unless they know what and how much power their superior has over
them. Further, to neglect the right of
the community counts as a vice: for if to neglect a common possession is a
natural vise, then it is certain that to neglect common rights is a vice, since
a natural vice must be regarded as a vice.
But what is not known is neglected.
The pope’s subjects must therefore know the common rights of
subjects. But they cannot know this
unless they know how much power the pope has, and how much he does not have,
over them.
What these, and many other,
references clearly demonstrate is that an active, vocal voice of opposition was
expressing legitimate concerns on matters of authority. These early seeds of resistance theory found
fertile ground, but still needed the watering and nourishing that was soon to
come.
The
world into which John Wycliffe emerged is often misunderstood and underappreciated
by scholars.
As Wycliffe Biographer Stephen
Lahey put it, “What looked like a degenerate, inbred version of high medieval
theology to scholars as recently as the mid-twentieth century now seems a century
rich in innovation, particularly the theological arguments that raged before
the Reformation.”
Wycliffe is of particular significance because
he took the already existing concerns regarding authority of his day, and turned
them into a movement bent on opposition to that authority (the birth of
resistance theory).
Wycliffe’s studies
of the Christian scriptures, along with his assessment of the church in his day,
convinced him that the “powerful and wealthy Church over which the bishops and
Pope presided” was a flawed institution, undeserving of allegiance but rather a
mere “institution that should be tested rigorously against the record of God’s
purposes in the scriptures.”
Wycliffe’s attack
on the Church was not merely a critique of its institutions or practices but
was a direct assault at the authority figures who dominated its ranks.
In Wycliffe’s mind, these bishops, priests,
monks and even popes performed all their works “merely for outward show; and
because of the hidden malice within their hearts, they not only hurt themselves
to a considerable extent, bit also other people.”
Wycliffe pulled no punches, labeling church
leaders as “heretics” who “sacrifice into idols…even more than the sacrifices of
the priests of Baal” whose form of worship “give their attention to ritual,
flattery, detraction and falsehood, rejecting scripture and neglecting to
rebuke sin.”
Wycliffe’s critique
of authority was not reserved exclusively for the church.
In his letter to King Richard, II, Wycliffe
asserted the rights of all Christians to follow the dictates of their conscience
on matters of religion, even if it meant leaving the Church “without hinderance
or bodily pain” because “The rule of Christ…is most perfect, to be kept for
state of living in this world; and each rule, of what kin, private sect, or
singular religion, made of sinful men, is less perfect, than the rule of
Christ, of his endless wisdom, and his endless charity, to mankind; therefore,
it is lawful to each man or person of this singular religion and profession, to
leave it cleave fast to the rule of Jesus Christ, as more perfect.”
It is worthy to note that instead of supporting
the Apostle Paul’s command to “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,”
Wycliffe suggests that it is a Christian’s first duty to shake off “sinful” and
“less perfect” men and institutions in favor of allegiance to Jesus Christ’s “more
perfect” way.
Or as Wycliffe himself put
it:
Also friars say,
that if a man be once professed to their religion, he may never leave it, and
be saved; though he be never so unable thereto, for all the time of his life;
and they will need him to live in such a state ever more, to which God makes
him ever unable; and so need him to be damned. Alas! out on such heresy, that
man’s ordinance is holden to be stronger than is the ordinance of God. For if a
man enter into the new religion against man’s ordinance, he may lawfully
forsake it; but if he enter against God’s ordinance, when God makes him unable
thereto, he shall not be suffered by Antichrist’s power to leave it.
In Wycliffe’s mind, a Christian’s
first devotion was to his own conscience, linked to God, therein creating a new
soul, saved by God’s grace and fully capable of making his own way in life,
free from the weapons of mass distraction that were the church, its practices and
its priests.
Wycliffe’s message
resonated deeply and spread quickly.
His
followers, known as Lollards, became every bit as convinced as Wycliffe himself,
effectively becoming missionaries for the new gospel of liberation.
The message became increasingly popular and
eventually “brought a new and dangerous edges to this sort of charismatic
religious culture” that was sweeping across England.
The message carried by Lollards presented a clear
opposition to the authority of the Church, which quickly sought to suppress the
heresy.
The result was the trial and
execution of Lollard sympathizers who left valuable accounts of their fierce
opposition to the church and its leadership.
Contrary to what
many notable historians have suggested, the Lollard movement and message did
not die off with the death of Wycliffe or the many executions for heresy. Dr. Fiona Somerset’s excellent work on the
matter of Lollard influence post-Wycliffe demonstrates that the movement
continued far into the decades leading up to the Protestant Reformation. She writes:
The corpus of
extant manuscripts produced somewhere between roughly 1375 and 1530 and
containing materials translated, composed, or adapted by Lollard writers is
very large. After an initial phase of
rapid and apparently highly coordinated production, Lollard writings continued
to be copied, recopied, adapted, and further developed in a wide range of manuscript
contexts, and for a variety of readers, across the fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries…No religious movement persecuted as a heresy anywhere else
in the history of Christianity has left behind a textual recording of anything
like this in order of magnitude.
In addition, the fact that England
already seemed to embrace a spirit of reform before the Reformation indicates
that the fires of popular dissent were already spreading before Luther or
Calvin ever came on the scene.
As one
historian has noted, “The ingredients of early Protestantism proved already
numerous in the reign of Henry VIII, yet among them Lutheranism may scarcely be
regarded as predominant and Calvinism as yet remained almost negligible…we may
now confidently ascribe a role of some importance on the popular level to the
still vital force of Lollardy.”
The life and works
of John Wycliffe are too often limited by modern historians. He may receive praise for his work in
translating the Bible into Middle English or given kudos for being a
foreshadowing of Luther and other Reformers, but rarely is he given credit for
his greatest accomplishment: father of resistance theory. Wycliffe and his fellow Lollards were not some
opening act for the later Protestant Reformer’s main stage show, nor did they
simply plant seeds that Calvin and others would later grow and harvest. Wycliffe and the Lollards literally built the
foundations, walls, and roof of the resistance theory house. Calvin and his followers certainly deserve recognition
for adding drapes and interior decorating, but they did not construct the house
that so many wish to deed to the Reformers.
Through his bold and vocal opposition to the authority figures of his
day, John Wycliffe provided the very first template for resistance theory,
which gave succeeding generations all the guidance needed to help place the
idea of liberty into the hands of the people instead of the hands of the
elite.
