Tyndale was a 16th century scholar and one of
the first to translate the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments into the
English language. He had an advantage
over his predecessors such as John Wycliffe, in that there was a new technology
available -- the printing press.
But William Tyndale was an outlaw -- a wanted
man who would eventually pay with his life for his "crimes." He was a smuggler. His English Bibles were outlawed in his
native country. He had to have them
printed in continental Europe and taken by whatever means available into
England where they were received as contraband, almost as illegal drugs would
be received today.
Some background: The Roman Catholic Church in England, as in
most of Europe, had held absolute control over everyone for 1,000 years. It was in league with the government and did
not allow for dissent. The Bible of the
Church was the Latin Vulgate -- a translation a thousand years old -- and
unreadable not only by the illiterate masses, but even by many in the
priesthood. And apparently the Church
hierarchy liked it that way. The Church
of the middle ages had developed into a complex hierarchy, a priestly system
that controlled the people and kept them in ignorance of the simplicity of the
gospel of Christ and bound to a complex religious scheme. Very few knew or understood what the New Testament
actually taught.
However, a few in England, as well as in
other parts of Europe, had begun to dissent from standard Church teaching and
practice and recognized there was something better. Before Tyndale's day, John Wycliffe and
others had opened up minds to the Scripture.
In Bohemia, John Huss had followed Wycliffe and brought the Bible to the
people of his nation. And, of course, by
the time Tyndale appeared on the scene, Germany had split over the teachings of
Martin Luther.
These revolutionary events occurred because
people -- common people -- were reading the Bible for themselves. And the disagreements were not over minor
points. What people were discovering was
that salvation was not through a church system but through simple faith in
Jesus Christ and His death on the cross.
But Tyndale's Bible not only showed the
people of England the simplicity of salvation, it posed a threat to the
powers-that-be. Even the words that he
used were revolutionary. For instance:
He translated the Greek EKKLESIA as "congregation" rather than "church,"
in a sense transferring authority from the hierarchy to the people.
PRESBUTEROS
became
"elder" or "senior," instead of "priest," again
striking at the hierarchy.
METANOEĊ
became
simply "repent," rather than "do penance" threatening what
Moynahan refers to as the "huge vested interest in the lucrative penitential
industry of pardons and indulgences" (page 72).
I believe that the great threat that the
reading of the Bible had toward the church of Tyndale's day was not only or
even necessarily doctrinal -- a disagreement over how one could be saved -- but
a threat to the very power structures of the church. If the Church did not hold sway over the
people by being dispensers of salvation, it lost its base of power. The personal powers and wealth of priests,
bishops, even the pope, were threatened.
So Church and state united to suppress the English Bible.
But the gospel spread in Roman Catholic
England, as it had in the pagan Roman Empire in the first centuries, as it has
in Atheist China in the last 75 years, as it often does when the authorities
attempt to stifle it.
Within a few decades, the power of the Roman
Catholic Church in England was broken.
However, the "Church" was still in power, united with the
state; only now it was the Church of England.
Later English history records the back and forth movements of the
church, depending on the religious background or preference of whoever was in
power. Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans,
all took their turns at power, with wars and slaughters following. And, of course, all of this spilled over into
the New World.
Though I can rejoice over the
"triumph" of Tyndale's gospel in England, is this what it's all
about? There are those in America today
who claim to be followers of Christ who seem to think so. They bemoan America's "slide into
Sodom"'; they fear the "secularization" of America. They want to see America "return to its
Christian values." They attach
themselves to political dreams and would outlaw, or at least restrict (their
ideas of) improper behavior. But history
has demonstrated over and over that the closer the church's well being is tied
to political power -- secular or religious -- the weaker its spiritual power.
I am not concerned that the American church
of today will ever attempt to bring back the tactics of the English church of
Tyndale's day. We've come a bit far
since then. And I have little fear that
my faith and practice will become against the law. I do fear, however, that there are those in the
church who would exchange the gospel and its practice for power and control.
Jesus told his disciples, "The kings of
the nations lord it over them, and those in authority are called
benefactors. But it's not so with you
..." (Luke 22:25, 26a). When will
we understand this? When will we get
back to the radical Christianity of Tyndale?
Or of Jesus?
