Is Evangelical Criticism of the Medieval Church Just?

The compartmentalizing of religion, the separation of church and state, and the closet Christianity of modern America resulted from the communist and totalitarian inability to eradicate Christians by persecution. Instead, they allowed them to play religion (nicely) if they would not attempt to interfere with government affairs (Legutko 2018, 161-164). So long as it could preach John 3:16, the Church was willing to strike a deal with the Devil.

Being much more intelligent, the Devil knows for the peasants to accept John 3:16 (a tradition of men as the inspired word of God has no verse or chapters and no section was meant to be separated from the whole), they need a foundation first. The foundation is found in the rest of the Bible and the knowledge of the truthfulness of Christianity. The modern evangelical church believed it could get away with preaching only John 3:16 and people would have emotional experiences and still convert. Instead, when separated from a biblical worldview, culture, laws, and truth, people view “the Gospel” as they should, which is foolishness. If the Bible is false, why accept what John 3:16 says? Should they accept something just because someone has “shared” an inward emotion-ridden “experience” they applied to Jesus? There are plenty of lunatics making similar claims about their own very divergent experiences. Drugs and delusions produce the same, often more powerful results.

Gnosticism has always been an issue with the Church; it was our earliest heresy. It is still potent but to a lesser strength in evangelical America. They only care for the “spiritual” or heaven, but not earth. They seek only to save and rescue us from here. They consider current life, happiness, and earthly concerns or objects as of little value or even evil in themselves. The modern American Church has reduced Christianity to John 3:16 and then struggled to determine why many reject the message earlier ages accepted. I think evangelicals, in particular, are critical of a supposed sub-par and corrupt Church in the Middle Ages too focused on the saints, Mary, and the Crusades.

Unfortunately, pride is common among men, and even the Church is not exempt. We need to look at the state of the Church today. If we do so, how can we criticize a society converting a pagan world, pushing back an expanding Islamic wave, and publicly challenging opposing worldviews? How could the medieval Church maintain a population almost wholly Christian? Did they have more preachers? Perhaps. Did they have more devotionals, daily Bible reading, Christian radio stations, and multiple copies of the Bible in every home? Certainly not.

The most significant difference in their success was they implemented a Christian society and did not compartmentalize John 3:16 from the rest of the Bible. During the Middle Ages, they purposely structured laws to ensure spiritual health. In Wessex, they set up laws “considering of the health of our souls and of the stability of our realm.”(“The Avalon Project: Anglo-Saxon Law – Extracts From Early Laws of the English.”, n.d.) Magna Carta’s purpose was not only about restoring liberty but also, says King John in its preamble, “For the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his Holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm.”(“The Avalon Project: Magna Carta”, n.d.)

There was no separation of Church and state; they did not attempt to pretend a secular society is unbiased, and they understood political laws would have a spiritual impact. For example, if society accepted unlawful marriages and normalized adultery, Saint Boniface warned, a “race ignoble and scorning God must necessarily issue from such unions.”(Durant 1950, 456) A law legalizing divorce and neglecting to punish adultery would directly affect the salvation of the next generation. Unfortunately, this truth is lost on modern evangelicals who think we must only “preach the Gospel.” During the Middle Ages culture, laws, politics, education, everything was connected to eternal salvation. There was no “religious” or “secular” sphere; everything was molded to the glory of God. The goal was Christendom. No aspect of society was to be separated from Him.

A Christian society produces a culture and people who readily accept John 3:16 because it cultivated their worldview to accept what the Gospel rested on, the whole of the Bible, and a Christian worldview. The heavy lifting, the planting, the nurturing, and the growth were in place; the reaping was the easy part.

For one, they taught the Bible as an accurate historical record. They were “Creationists,” believing God created the world in the recent past, and the events recorded, such as Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel, were historical events.  So, each nation could trace its ancestors back to Noah and his sons and before them to Adam and Eve (Ross and McLaughlin 1977, 233) (J. A. Giles Giles, J. A. (John Allen, n.d., History Of The Britons (Historia Brittonum) by Nennius). In the early history of the world, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle focuses primarily on Israel and later the apostles and the Church. It records significant dates such as the miracles done by various saints, the installation of popes, and when kings were baptized and converted. When these are your major historical events, it becomes history, not faith. The faithful were surrounded by stories of wonders and miracles following living saints, the demonic activity of witches and pagans, and divine intervention granting the Holy City back to Christians. There was no reason to doubt, God was ever-present. In other words, followers did not have to jump through mental hoops to accept Christianity; it was self-evidently true. Since the Bible is an accurate historical record of God’s dealing with man, why not accept John 3:16 as God’s accurate salvation message? If He got it right in the Old Testament, he probably got it correct in the New.

The early and medieval Church produced many works defending the truth of Christianity. Whether to communicate, argue and debate with Muslims, Jews, atheists, or heretics, the Church was prepared to defend the faith and show the falsehood of other belief systems. After observing heretics who were getting the better of Catholic monks in public debates, Saint Dominic began a group, later becoming the Dominicans, to engage in public debates with them. He and his followers “debated the Cathars whenever and wherever they could” (Daileader, n.d. Heretics And Heresy). The Church did not teach relativism and tolerance; instead, they forced Jews, pagans, and Muslims to debate in public and defend their views against Christian apologists. They started apologetic schools to defend Christianity and to debate opposing worldviews, which according to Professor Warren H. Carroll allowed them to “meet and vanquish every opponent, at least intellectually” Carroll 1993, 161-162). You did not have to guess at the truth; many would point you there.

Unlike the modern church, which allows secularists to educate, the medieval Church understood this would lead people from Christ. Part of the purpose of education was to prepare the student for “spiritual warfare” or apologetics (Jarrett 2007, 31-32). So, they prevented our modern situation from arising by intellectually confronting and refuting opposing views. The early 14th-century Dominican author Robert Holcot complained about the French being unprepared to defend the faith, stating that when a “new interpretation of Scripture challenged traditional Christianity,” would say, “seek not the things that are too high for thee and search not into things above thy ability.” According to Holcot, it was “not because they really mean it but because they are ashamed of their own ignorance”(Jarrett 2007, 32). Any modern Christian who has dabbled in apologetics today and attempted to discuss issues with nominal Christians will find this attitude that Holcot encountered is prevalent today, as is secularism.

While the Dominicans were considered the intellectual apologists, and the Franciscans were better known for acts of service and preaching the Gospel, nonetheless Professor Daileader described their method of preaching as “you would know when a group of Franciscans had come to your town because they would go to the town square or someplace where there was certain to be some group of people, and they would begin to argue with them. They would walk up to you and engage you in debate. They would ask you questions and when you responded to their questions, they would ask you more questions, they almost tried to pick fights.” He goes on “Whether you wanted to debate or not, they would follow you around town pestering you until you would finally argue with them” (Daileader, n.d. Francis of Assisi-Franciscan). Saint Francis went to great lengths to start debates with Muslims when he traveled to Egypt. While demonstrating a deep knowledge of the Koran and the person of Muhammad, he was able to best multiple of the king’s top Imams simultaneously.

When a church leader encountered heresy or a new doctrine among the faithful, they would call a council where disagreements could be debated and tested against Scripture and earlier declarations from the authoritative councils. Christianity was not a custom, a choice, or a personal opinion; it was a revealed truth shaping society. Medieval Christianity was not our modern playful, feel-good, self-help tame religion; they believed it, and it changed their actions and held an authoritative impact over every aspect of society. They lived as if eternity was more important than this life.

Daileader said the “hallmark” of education taught at universities was medieval scholasticism which was “based on argument… scholastic authors love conflict, they actively search out for conflict” (Daileader, n.d. Origins of Scholasticism). The typical teaching method was to have the entire class pick a subject and then debate it using authorities like the Bible, Church Fathers, philosophers, etc.; each side would be heard and contested with counter-arguments. You were expected to know and present the best arguments counter to your own position.(Jarrett 2007, 34) Historian Will Durant described the effects of the scholastic debate-centered method of learning: “Such debates, formal or informal, sharpened the Medieval mind, and gave scope for much freedom of thought and speech” (Durant 1950, 921). Well-known intellectuals like Peter Abelard would pick fights with the leading professors across France, just to show he could defeat them in debate.

The challenge to different worldviews was not the only intense debate within Christendom. Historian Will Durant wrote, “the divergence and conflicts within orthodoxy were almost as intense as between faith and unbelief” (Durant 1950, 960). In response to some faculty members at the University of Paris, Thomas Aquinas declared “If, then, there be anyone who, boastfully taking pride in his supposed wisdom, wishes to challenge what we have written, let him not do it in some corner, nor before children who are powerless to decide on such difficult matters. Let him reply openly if he dare. He shall find me here confronting him… we shall do battle with his errors, and bring the cure to his ignorance” (Durant 1950, 960).

During that time, Christians engaged in intellectual debates with their friends and foes. Their involvement in apologetics and studying made them stronger-minded and more dedicated Christians ready to take on all opposition. As Peter Abelard stated in the 12th century, “By doubting, we come to inquiry, and by inquiry, we arrive at the truth.” Their perspective is why believe something if it is false, when if you test and debate all things, you will arrive at the truth (Proverbs 18:17, I Thessalonians 5:21). However, modern Christians often take Christianity solely on faith, turning it into a personal and emotional experience reflecting their own truth. As a result, few Christians today follow the intellectual belief and defense of the medieval mold and have far less impact on our world, their faith is often weak and hidden. Being raised by secular education, most modern Christians cannot provide a logical defense of their worldview. Yet they expect logical-thinking people to accept their “faith” when they share it with them. Asking logical people to accept ungrounded “faith” is not only illogical but unbiblical.

Give me a society ruled by biblical law and morality, believing and eager to defend the Bible as an accurate historical account of life on earth, and I will show you a people ripe for evangelism. And when your family, village, and society are Christian, it becomes easy to accept; you don’t want to be the oddball. Modern Protestant pastor Matthew J. Trewhella wrote, “It is important to understand that the Gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the backdrop of the cultural milieu in which one lives. If one lives in a culture or nation where good laws prevail that mirror the law and justice of God, one can more readily understand the claims of the Gospel than in a culture or nation where the laws contradict the law and justice of God” (Trewhella 2013, 88).

Further, lacking modern democratic sensibilities, the medieval social structure did not hinder evangelization. In kingship, the hierarchy starts at the top, with God as the king; the law and rulers are his agents, reflecting his character, purpose, and design. A society designed and structured after this pattern produces people who are readily willing to submit to the lord of lords. A Christian king at the head of a hierarchy directs people upward to God. It shows society should be governed and molded by that higher power. Kings are a reflection of the divine image and his law; the people look to and honor the king, so it becomes easy to honor what he imperfectly represents. The “prayer pose” still used today of two hands together is a feudal pose a vassal makes when accepting his lord; Jesus is your eternal lord who happens to be above your temporal one. He is not just your lord but your lord’s lord.

Kingship makes it easy to accept God who works through Christian kings who are his reflection. On the other hand, a leveling democracy is man and secular-centered. Thus, its citizens are much less likely to “look up,” and if they do, it is likely with hostility at the very thought of inequality and hierarchy that “looking up” entails. It is hard to see God at the top of our structure of squabbling politicians lying, manipulating, abusing power and money. When society is structured to follow the King of Kings, it becomes easy to fall in line and accept him as a given, just as democracy makes relativism, infighting, theft and abuse readily accepted today. The leaders’ actions and beliefs affect all of society.

When Christians converted nations from paganism, they often first went after the kings knowing if you could convert them and the nation would follow those they honored. The same thing occurs today: kids honor politicians, sports stars, actors, and musicians they copy and idolize. Convert the lord; you convert his people. Thus, moral decay often stems from the powerful and filters down to the peasants.

Under Christendom, democratic societal hurdles are removed, and being a Christian becomes natural. You don’t “believe” John 3:16 because it is what your “religion” or culture is; you accept it because it is the revealed truth of God and has shaped society. In the same way you plant a seed in the soil, water it, and care for it, you accept Jesus as your savior because it is how God, similarly caring, designed you to function. It becomes a given; of course, Jesus is Lord. It becomes natural, and any deviation from God’s design is abnormal. This led to large sections of society giving their lives to how they could best serve God. There was no shortage of such people in the Middle Ages.

Modern evangelical preachers seem to think of evangelization like bingo, play enough times, and eventually, you will get the correct numbers and “win” a convert. They wholly ignore the impact of contemporary worldviews. They get so excited at any chance to “share the Gospel” with a secular world but never consider why the audience is not very receptive. They can blame it on sin and feel comfort in the truth “Jesus is coming back soon,” enabling them not to do what the medievals did, contest a secular society, defend truth and stand like men. Instead, they can keep thumping away at John 3:16 and contort the Bible to claim this is the Church’s only duty.

If you were to preach the Gospel to a village in England in 1100 A.D., I can assure you they would be receptive to the message; if you preach that same message at a university or government school today, they might remove you for hate speech. Due to the differences in law, customs, and worldview, the eleventh-century preacher would expect different results in Persia than in Paris. Further, like the apostle Paul in Acts, they would drastically alter their approach to evangelization based on the audience. Evangelicals pretend modern Americans are first-century Jews.

Brazil is known for its outstanding soccer teams and players. There have only been a few NBA players from Brazil. The reason is not due to a lack of population or athletes; it is because Brazilians are in love with soccer!!! If their society suddenly “converted” to basketball, you would discover they would be producing top-level players in just a few years. And while you will find the rare basketball player from Brazil, most great athletes will be soccer players. In modern America, we are attempting to create Christians in a secular culture. Still, we can’t figure out why it’s not working, why churches are being demolished and replaced and why each generation is more secular.

In a world being taught truth is false, like Aquinas said, we must use our mind and apologetics to convey the truth (Rutler 2020, 24). When the New Testament Church preached to Jews who already accepted the Bible as revealed truth from God, they focused on Jesus being the promised messiah. But when they went beyond the borders of Israel (or of the Church) to pagan societies, their methods changed drastically. As did the early Church, which converted diverse pagan societies. They were on the offensive because they argued from the mind. In comparison, we are emotion-based and thus in retreat. By trying to convert our pagan world by emotion, we ask them to do something the Bible says not to do, accept a lie. To them, the Bible is demonstrably false, and any logical-thinking person whose education has only been from the secular state would agree. As Fr. George Rutler says, we need a personal relationship with Jesus, but it isn’t “A feeling of sentiment within me. It is my contact with the true God” (Rutler 2020). When God revealed himself in a burning bush, Moses did not just get a warm feeling; no, he encountered the true and living God and, following God’s command, took off his sandals, recognizing his feebleness next to the God of eternity. He did not know about Calvary, but he did encounter the truth.

Some American evangelical pastors treat evangelism like a con game. They attempt to trick people into coming to church by entertainment. They play horrible music as loud as they can and shout at people hoping to garner an emotional response to the Gospel. As a result, they create “converts” (and statistics to justify their methods) but not disciples. Numerous newly “saved” people leave in significant numbers shortly after because they never really encountered God or truth. They only had an emotional experience. This is also why a large percentage of “deathbed converts” who recover return to non-belief. They were in a heightened emotional state and reacted; this is what evangelical churches seek to replicate. So many of their new converts stray because their “faith” was based on emotion. If they encountered the true and living God, I think most would run and never come back, while a few would dedicate their lives to truth and willingly defend it.

The modern evangelical Church puts the cart before the horse. I was converted only after failing in every way I knew how to disprove Christianity in front of a learned apologist. He showed me Christianity has nothing to do with culture, or internal “beliefs,” experiences, or emotions, but, at its core, is true. It was not from man but from God. In my mind, I recognized it was true and prayed to God if He was real to show me. And then came a feeling I had never experienced. Beginning in my heart, I felt like it was on fire; it then spread through the rest of my body, but it was not a destructive fire. It was a cleansing renewal, almost a good burn if I had to explain it. The personal experience of encountering the divine came after the transformation of the mind when it encountered truth, not before. Our modern Church’s mode of evangelization treating people as first-century Bible-believing Jews and ignoring educational and, therefore, political influences, has directly led to its ineffectuality in influencing the culture and converting souls. Evangelical criticism of a much more productive Medieval Church seems to me to be the height of absurdity and pride.

In his book Why Men Hate Going to Church (revised and updated), author David Murrow shows how feminism has slowly intruded on the Church, leading to a massive gender gap, with far more women than men regularly attending services. Feminism’s intrusion into the Church leads to poor theology, distorts messages, significantly affects men’s participation in the Church and has contributed to a drastic overall decline in Church attendance in America.

For example, in older forms of hymn singing, men were called to a battlefield to fight for the kingdom of God on earth, but modern praise-worship songs “seem to summon men to the bedroom.” Modern praise and worship songs (also affected by the Christian music industry aiming at their target audience, middle-aged Christian mothers) focus on an intimate, personal relationship that borders on erotic in the male mind and focuses on intimacy and love in a female-to-male context, turning men away. Men follow and love a Lord, not a male lover.

Male fellowship and companionship derive from admiration and respect. They follow a leader. They love their Lord, but not in the same manner that middle-aged modern women do men, and they express it differently. Further, the Bible never says to have an intimate personal relationship with Jesus; Jesus did not call me to it. Christ called men to him as Lord. Friendship, admiration, respect, love, and a bond between brothers similar to warriors who go to war together follow, but these are not the modern Gospel message call.

Music and Church have become emotional feelings of “experience,” “spirit-filled,” and “spirit-led,” centered on a personal relationship with Jesus, who has also undergone a feminization as we ignore His male traits and focus on the feminine. Murrow writes, “The old worship was formal, corporate, and emotionless. The new worship is informal, individualistic, and touchy-feely. The old worship was about coming together to extol God; the new worship is about coming together to experience God.” The focus is now on the heart and not the head. We used to sing up towards God, but now we sing to him in a less hierarchical, more equality-based, horizontal way.

As women and feminism began to dominate churches, they began outlawing alcohol, gambling, and other things men engaged in. Once the Church began marketing to its largest consumer group, and discovered it was middle-aged women, it morphed into its current form. The Church used to be the kingdom of God focused hierarchically upwards, but has now become about equality, relationships, and preserving the family, as well as the “Church family” (as it is now referred to) being elevated above preserving God’s kingdom on earth. The Church has become one big welcoming and loving family to all, and this has replaced Kingdom mission work as the most vital component, to love others (in a feminine way).

The family replaced God as the essential object to uphold even though Jesus never spoke of domestic concerns and, in fact, split families apart by asking people to put the Kingdom of God first. In the modern Church, the family became more vital to uphold than God’s kingdom on earth.

In the Bible, the family is more about jurisdiction, law, inheritance, a local form of government, and how society ought to be structured. It was not the primary focus it has become since feminism has taken over. While the Bible endorsed sex between one man and one woman who are to produce offspring, it is not radically “pro-family” as modern feminist churches are. For example, Deuteronomy 24 allows divorce in certain circumstances. God divorced unfaithful Israel after having “married them” in Jeremiah 3:8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce.”

While feminist influence on the Church has been slowly ongoing for centuries, it was accelerated by the Industrial Revolution (and the women’s rights movement). Money-making now became the male’s most vital role in society, and he was overworked. This left him exhausted, so women would handle everything on Sundays, the day of rest. He only had to pay his dues in the collection box, matching his Church function to that of his place in an industrial society. It is not surprising that over the decades since so many men have stopped attending church altogether.