教会历史 — 第 2 部分：当世界占领教会时（公元 400-1400 年）
笔记： 这篇文章根据大卫·鲍森 教会历史 系列的第二场讲座编写（第 2 部分：公元 400–1400 年），时长约 69 分钟。正如第 1 部分一样，我不会猜测或修饰：每个主要论点都直接来自鲍森。凡是查找资料、核对历史或更正细节之处，我都会把结果作为 琥珀色边注 融入文字。由于本讲座涉及教会历史中最有争议的部分，我也阅读了其他历史学家和传教士的文章，让你听见…
这篇文章的形成过程中，AI 协助了资料搜集、事实核查、翻译和编辑；论证与结论属于作者。
论证、意义与结论均出自作者本人。哪些来源值得信任，以及如何理解这些来源，是作者的判断，而不是工具的判断。
AI 工具用于寻找资料、对照来源核查论点、广泛阅读相关主题，将文章在英语和越南语之间转换，并帮助处理语法、清晰度与句子节奏。
工具找到的是需要权衡的材料，而不是结论。作者决定文章要说什么、舍弃什么，以及它意味着什么。
文章以作者的名字发表。作者对文章所说的一切负责，包括其中后来发现的错误。
并行
笔记： 这篇文章根据大卫·鲍森 教会历史 系列的第二场讲座编写（第 2 部分：公元 400–1400 年），时长约 69 分钟。正如第 1 部分一样，我不会猜测或修饰：每个主要论点都直接来自鲍森。凡是查找资料、核对历史或更正细节之处，我都会把结果作为 琥珀色边注 融入文字。由于本讲座涉及教会历史中最有争议的部分，我也阅读了其他历史学家和传教士的文章，让你听见不止一种声音。
更不幸的故事
第 1 部分讲述了教会如何在最初四个世纪中“占领世界”：它借着受苦赢得肉身上的争战，借着反对异端赢得思想上的争战，也借着坚定抵抗其他宗教而站立得住。
鲍森说，他上周忘记提到一件重要的事：基督徒之所以胜过一切，是因为他们活得更久、思想更深、死得更好。 他们以坚忍赢得属灵的争战，以深思赢得思想的争战，也以忠心赴死赢得肉身的争战。因此，他们比其他一切都存留得更久。
但今晚，他说，主题更悲伤，也更严肃：世界如何在接下来的一千年里俘获教会。
有一幅中世纪的画，把教堂画成救生艇。在波涛汹涌的大海中，船上的基督徒伸手将落水者从海浪中救起。这是一幅关于教会的精美图画：一艘救生艇响应呼救声驶向世界。
但鲍森停顿在一件事上：
救生艇必须在海里。但如果海水进入救生艇，那就麻烦了。教会若要拯救灵魂，就必须在世上。但当世界进入教会时，它就完蛋了，它就沉没了。
接下来一千年的故事就是：海水进入救生艇。鲍森将它分为三章：世界在早期已经开始渗入（公元100—400年）；随后是黑暗时代（公元400—1000年）；最后是中世纪（约1000—1500年），直至马丁·路德出现前夕。
救生艇图景
船必须在海中，但海不能在船中
Pawson以一幅中世纪画作为开场：教会像暴风海上的救生艇，伸手把溺水者从浪中救出。
海上的救生艇
教会在世上是为要拯救灵魂。这本身就是使命。
海进入救生艇
当世界进入教会，船就会沉没。这就是一千年的故事。
“教会若要拯救灵魂，就必须在世上。但当世界进入教会时，一切就完了，船也沉了。”——David Pawson
千年时间线
主后400–1517年：从罗马陷落到路德
四股潮流交织在一千年间：衰落、教皇权力的兴起、抗议的声音，以及探索的时代。
有些日期为便于理解而作了简化；文章各处的琥珀色边注会核对精确的历史节点。
世界如何进入教会（公元 100–400 年）
当有那样的殉道者、那样的传教士时，当战争取得胜利时，世界是如何参与的呢？ 鲍森列举了四件开始削弱使徒教会的事情。
第一，地区主教。 在新约中，长老和监督（主教）指向教会中的属灵领袖；早期许多地方教会由多位长老共同牧养。后来，监督逐渐集中成一位主教，再由一位主教管辖许多教会，领导权于是集中到少数人手中。这种后来形成的结构，不能简单地当作新约明确规定的模式。
第二，把圣礼当作具有自动功效的仪式。 人们开始相信，真实的水和正确的礼仪本身就能除去罪，而不再把洗礼看作信靠基督之后的外在记号。有些人因害怕洗礼后犯罪，便把洗礼拖到临终；另一些人则因担心孩子夭折而主张婴儿洗礼。圣餐也越来越被当作实体性的祭献：饼和酒被理解为基督的身体和血，于是主持圣餐的人也被理解为祭司。鲍森的批评是：当圣礼被当成自动生效的机制时，信心和悔改就被挤到一边。
第三，国教化。 当皇帝进入教会，百姓自然会跟随；当国家扶持基督教时，加入正式教会也会变得时尚而受尊敬。鲍森直言：国教制度容易产生外表体面却未必重生的基督教，而这并不是新约所描绘的教会。
第四，名义会员。 到了二世纪末，成为教会成员越来越意味着接受洗礼、认同信经、新约正典和主教权威，而不一定意味着信靠耶稣并领受圣灵。教会于是成了一个机构。
每当教会偏离正道，就会出现抗议。在最初四百年里，两个重要的抗议运动是 蒙塔主义 和 修道主义。二者都抗议教会日益富有、世俗化，并容纳大量从未真正皈依的人。
蒙塔主义 起源于今天土耳其所在的小亚细亚。蒙塔努斯看见教会中缺少圣灵的活泼工作，于是重新寻求圣灵；随之而来的运动强调属灵恩赐、禁食、圣洁生活和基督再来。鲍森认为它与今天的五旬节运动有相似之处，但主教们强烈反对它所声称的预言权威和末世紧迫感。
悲剧在于，这场运动也可能失衡：只有属灵热情而没有教导，便会有“热而无光”；只有冷静知识而没有爱与生命，也会变得冰冷。保罗关于属灵恩赐的教导要求二者并存。在鲍森的叙述中，这场运动最终被狂热和教会权威争议压倒。 鲍森说，这是每一场五旬节复兴都应从历史中学习的功课。
第二种抗议完全不同。几年后，有些基督徒认为教会已经如此世俗、如此死气沉沉，恢复基督教的唯一希望就是离开教会，甚至离开社会。
最早的一批人选择独自退到旷野，成为隐士。安东尼 是其中最著名的人之一；他原以为离开城市就能成为真正的基督徒，却发现沙漠洞穴中的试探并不比城市里的少。另一个更极端的隐士是 叙利亚的西缅·柱头修士：他在高柱上生活多年，以极端苦修表达自己对世俗教会的抗议。
比隐士更有持续影响力的是修道团体。本笃 在罗马与那不勒斯之间的卡西诺山聚集门徒，强调共同生活、祷告、劳动与顺服。虽然“贫穷、贞洁、服从”是后来修会常用的概括，西方修道主义确实借着他的《会规》获得了长期而深远的形态。
但这种抗议也会失衡。基督没有呼召门徒过一种与所有人隔绝的生活；修道士若把自己看作更高等的基督徒，就会把婚姻和日常工作贬为次等道路。耶稣是在社会中活出圣洁，并吩咐门徒活在世界中却不属世界。
两人都说：教会并不是耶稣基督所想的那样。有人说我们会通过回到圣灵中来重新发现它。另一个说我们将通过走出世界、走出教会来重新发现它。两者都一无所获，因为他们没有完全回归新约基督教。
世界如何进入教会——主后100–400年
四道裂缝与两场抗议
即使在胜利的时代，有四件事开始稀释使徒的教会。每当它走偏，抗议的声音就会兴起。
地方主教
从每个教会有许多长老，变成一位主教管理许多教会。权力集中在少数人手中，仿照罗马的总督。
魔法式圣礼
洗礼被看作本身就能拯救人，因此被推迟到临终，或施行于婴儿。圣餐被当作字面意义上的肉和血，是需要祭司主持的祭献。
国教
皇帝去教会，所有人也都去。信仰变得时髦而体面，不再是降服。
名义上的成员
人们加入教会，不是因为相信耶稣、领受圣灵，而是出于其他理由。教会变成了一个机构。
两场抗议
蒙他主义
一场五旬节派式的抗议
它重新发现圣灵和属灵恩赐，强调基督再来和圣洁。但它“有热心而没有亮光”，拒绝教导，最终在狂热中耗尽。
修道主义
以退隐来抗议
它离开世界和教会双方，以找回真正的基督教。但它产生了“两个层次”的基督徒，而基督从未呼召我们离开所有人而生活。
两场抗议都是真诚的，但都没有结果，因为它们没有完全回到新约基督教。
黑暗时代：罗马的陷落（公元 410 年）
现在故事才真正开始。公元 410 年，一场灾难降临：北方民族长期向罗马施压，最终阿拉里克率领的西哥特人攻入并洗劫了这座城。后来才有汪达尔人、法兰克人和匈奴人的进攻；罗马的陷落成为文明终结的象征。
罗马当局后来撤出不列颠，岛上的罗马秩序随之崩溃；朱特人、盎格鲁人和撒克逊人进入不列颠，原有的罗马—不列颠基督教在英格兰和苏格兰东南部几乎消失。鲍森以此说明：帝国的崩溃也会使依附帝国的教会结构一同受创。
似乎当罗马陷落时，一切就都结束了。杰罗姆在伯利恒写信说： “人类也被纳入了废墟之中。” 人们认为这是文明的终结。这让教会感到困惑：罗马作为一个异教帝国生存了几个世纪，但作为基督教帝国却崩溃了。许多基督徒无法理解。
但有一个人经过深思熟虑，反而宣告这可能是发生过的最好的事。他的名字是 奥古斯丁。
奥古斯丁：一颗不安的心找到了安息
他的著作至今仍广为流传。你或许听过他的祷告：“我们的心不得安息，直到在你里面得着安息。” 他也曾祷告：“赐我贞洁，只是不要现在”；并说：“爱，然后做你所愿意的。”
他出生在北非。当他作为学生前往迦太基时，他陷入了错误的人群中。不久，他有了一个妾，并与她生了一个儿子，并在这种非法关系中生活了多年。他的父亲是异教徒，但他的母亲是一位敬虔的女人，每天以泪水为她任性的儿子祈祷。后来，由于他的聪明才智，他被邀请到米兰担任修辞学教授。他去那里聆听圣洁的安布罗斯主教的讲道。在这样的讲道之下，这位头脑聪明但生活挥霍的年轻人陷入了深深的罪孽之中。
有一天，他坐在花园里为自己的生活痛哭，听见墙外孩子的声音：“拿起来，读！” 他拿起身旁的卷轴，读到保罗写给罗马人的信；经文使他看见自己需要悔改并归向基督。鲍森还讲了那位旧情人追上来、他回答“那已经不是我”的故事，但这段对白属于后来的虔敬传说。
他把自己的归信经历写在《忏悔录》中。鲍森认为，除了使徒保罗以外，奥古斯丁对教会历史的影响超过任何人。
罗马衰落时，奥古斯丁已在中年，仿佛整个世界都在耳边崩溃。他经过思考写成第二部伟著《上帝之城》：罗马这座尘世之城的衰败并不等于上帝之城的失败；人的帝国会过去，而上帝的国仍然长存。这本书给许多人带来盼望，帮助他们看见人类之城消失之后，上帝之城仍在。
但这就是麻烦所在。人们开始问：这座上帝之城是什么？可见还是不可见？地上还是天上？在这一点上，奥古斯丁让许多人陷入了误解。有趣的是，几个世纪后，在宗教改革中，新教徒说“我们追随奥古斯丁”，罗马天主教徒也说“我们追随奥古斯丁”。但新教徒追随第一本书《忏悔录》；天主教徒则追随第二本书《上帝之城》。
事情于是转向危险的结论：教会说，如果上帝之城已经来到世上，那么教会本身就是新的帝国。
教会成为帝国：教皇权的崛起
第一个结果是罗马主教获得近似皇帝的地位。“教皇”一词原本是对父亲或主教的尊称；后来称呼范围逐渐收窄，罗马主教把它作为自己的特殊称号。罗马城的帝国权力消失后，教会领袖承接了越来越多的公共权威。
教皇制由此逐渐形成。教皇采用罗马皇帝式的头衔、服饰、仪式和王座，教会也被误解为新的帝国，教皇则被当作国王。
当然，许多基督徒不会有这些。法国人不会，爱尔兰人不会，威尔士人不会，苏格兰人不会。可悲的是，英国人做到了。
教会成为帝国之时
权力的阶梯与闭合的圆圈
通向“父亲”称号的阶梯
地方祭司被称为“父亲”
然后是地方主教
然后五位大牧首都声称拥有这个称号
罗马主教：“只称我为教皇”
他取得了皇帝的称号和长袍（Pontifex Maximus）
“不可称地上的人为父……”（马太福音)
410→800的圆圈
410年——罗马帝国崩溃
教会接管一切，成为新的“帝国”
800年——查理曼加冕为皇帝
帝国回归——圆圈闭合
奥古斯丁写《上帝之城》是为了安慰正在崩溃的世界；但人们误读它，以为教会就是新的帝国——而帝国必须有皇帝、宝座和长袍。
两股基督教潮流在惠特比相遇
爱尔兰的 圣科伦巴 以爱奥那岛为中心，把信仰带到苏格兰；后来 艾丹 来到诺森伯兰海岸的林迪斯法恩岛，从那里向英格兰北部传福音。这种常被称为凯尔特基督教的传统，经爱尔兰和苏格兰从北方进入英格兰。
后来罗马派出传教士 奥古斯丁。他在萨尼特岛登陆，随后前往坎特伯雷。传说教皇格列高利看到英国奴隶，因“英国人”与“天使”在拉丁语中的双关而感叹；这是故事的修辞背景，不是英格兰名称的词源。科伦巴在北方的爱奥那岛，奥古斯丁则在南方的萨尼特岛。
两种传统最终在 惠特比 相遇。公元 664 年的会议主要处理复活节日期和剃发礼等习俗；罗马一方获胜后，英格兰教会逐渐采用罗马的礼仪与组织方式。这不是一次简单的“真教会战胜假教会”，而是习俗与权威逐步统一的过程。
两股潮流在惠特比相遇
英国将走哪条路？（惠特比会议，664年）
凯尔特基督教
爱尔兰→艾奥纳（科伦巴）→林迪斯法恩（艾丹）→英格兰北部
没有教皇。简单而富有宣教性。
罗马基督教
罗马→萨森的奥古斯丁→坎特伯雷→南部
忠于教皇。
惠特比，664年
罗马基督教获胜。英伦群岛归于教皇宝座之下。Pawson称这是悲剧；今天你仍可以站在俯瞰惠特比港的废墟中。
示意图，非地理比例图。惠特比会议发生于664年（Pawson说“660年”）。
东西方划分 (1054)
另一群不愿接受罗马至高权威的教会位于东地中海：希腊、小亚细亚、叙利亚和埃及。东西方之间的紧张经过数世纪累积，通常以 1054 年的相互绝罚作为象征性分界；它并非一夜之间造成，也不是所有东方教会都在同一时刻完全断绝关系。到二十世纪，双方才重新展开正式和解对话。
这是最令人难以置信的事情之一。大约在850年，出现了一批自称来自第一世纪的文献，声称彼得任命了第一任教皇，第一任教皇又任命了第二任教皇，依此类推。今天，即使是罗马教会也知道这些文件是 赝品；它们被称为 伪伊西多教令集。然而，教皇权后来确实引用这些伪造品来支持自己的至高权。还有另一份伪造文件，《君士坦丁的捐赠》，声称整个意大利都属于教皇；这两类材料共同被用来支撑那套结构。
大分裂，1054年
一个教会分裂为两个，近一千年之久
五大牧首区（五牧首制）
西方（拉丁）
罗马——一位教皇统治整个教会
• 教皇至上
• 在信经中加入“和子”（filioque）
• 无酵饼
拉丁传统
东方（希腊）
君士坦丁堡和众牧首——地位平等，没有唯一的“教皇”
• 五位地位平等的牧首
• 信经保持不变
• 有酵饼
希腊传统
1054年的互相绝罚，直到1965年才由教皇保禄六世和牧首雅典纳哥拉共同解除——这接近Pawson在20世纪60年代讲道时所说的“过去十年”。
查理曼大帝和神圣罗马帝国（公元 800）
这种力量不断蔓延。约 742 年出生的 查理曼 怀有恢复西方帝国秩序的梦想：他作皇帝，教皇在世俗秩序中处于其下。
查理曼曾帮助教皇摆脱外部威胁和罗马内部的敌意。公元 800 年圣诞节，教皇利奥三世在罗马圣彼得大教堂为法兰克国王查理曼加冕为皇帝。这一加冕后来成为“神圣罗马帝国”传统的重要象征，但并非一个完整帝国从那天起连续存在一千年。
你看，我们已经回到原点了。罗马帝国于 410 崩溃。教会接管了帝国。然后在 800 皇帝回来并从教会手中夺走了帝国。整个事情似乎又回到了起点。
查理曼推动教育、学校和教会纪律，也以强制手段扩张统治。他加强了对神职人员婚姻和行为的规管，但普遍的强制独身是十一世纪改革及其后拉特兰会议逐步确立的。他把皇帝统治下的基督教世界这一理念具体化；这个词本身并非由他创造。
伊斯兰教的兴起
由于教会现在变得富有和强大，它变得腐败。抗议活动再次到来，这次来自东部和北部。从东方来看，抗议来自两件事。第一个是伊斯兰教。
鲍森称之为 基督教会遭受有史以来最严重的审判。他曾在阿拉伯生活过，见过一些这种宗教的东西。穆罕默德于571年出生在麦加，这里是阿拉伯偶像崇拜和迷信的中心。麦加中央有一座披着黑色外衣的巨大方形建筑——天房；其中有一块据传自天而降的神圣石头。穆罕默德在阿拉伯人的偶像崇拜和迷信中长大，他对此感到厌恶。
然后他首先转向犹太人，然后转向基督徒，问道：你们有真正的宗教信仰吗？悲剧在于穆罕默德从未遇到过皈依基督教的人。悲剧的是他从未见过新约中真正的基督教。他所看到的只是牧师的法衣、图像和十字架。他说：这和阿拉伯人的宗教一样是偶像崇拜。要是穆罕默德在六世纪末遇到一位真正的基督徒就好了。但他没有。
所以他说：自己要寻求一种纯洁的新宗教。他娶了一位富有的寡妇，在沙漠中度过多年，后来宣称听见启示：“除安拉外没有神，穆罕默德是他的使者。”他开始宣讲，并把这些启示记录为 《古兰经》。受迫害后，他在 622 年迁往麦地那（这成为伊斯兰历纪年的起点），随后率军返回麦加。伊斯兰教要求向麦加祈祷、禁食、每日五次礼拜、守斋月、朝觐和施舍；鲍森则批评其早期扩张与武力相连。
伊斯兰势力使北非许多古老教会衰退，也夺取了圣地和耶路撒冷；它进入伊比利亚半岛，并在公元 732 年推进到法国。后来奥斯曼军队又在 1529 和 1683 年两度围攻维也纳。鲍森把这些事件连成一幅基督教受压的图景，但它们属于不同世纪、不同政治力量，并不是一次协调的夹击。
这是神曾经允许临到基督教会的最严重的审判。这是应得的。但到目前为止，没有进一步的。上帝不会让基督教完全消失。
查理·马特尔在732年的图尔—普瓦捷战役阻挡了向西推进的穆斯林军队；奥斯曼帝国则在1529年和1683年两度围攻维也纳。伊斯兰世界与基督教世界的边界此后经历了多次变化，不能简单概括为一条固定界线。
黑暗时代地图
两股潮流席卷基督教世界（主后410–732年）
橙色箭头：蛮族向南涌向罗马。绿色箭头：伊斯兰从阿拉伯出发，横扫地中海，经北非和西班牙，直到图尔。
底图：罗马帝国（Wikimedia Commons，公共领域）。箭头是推进方向的示意，并非确切路线。维也纳标示后来奥斯曼帝国的边界——Pawson把近千年的边疆压缩成一个钳形攻势。
黑暗中隐藏的证人
因为就在那个时候，整个欧洲都有一小群基督徒围绕着上帝的话语聚集在一起。他们看到官方教会腐败，所以他们只是三五成群地聚会，读这本书，并说：我们要以简单的方式敬拜上帝。我们不需要祭司，因为我们有耶稣我们的大祭司。我们不需要教皇，因为我们有一位天父。我们只需要神的话和圣灵。
我们对他们几乎一无所知，因为他们遭受了严重迫害，连许多历史记录也被毁掉了。鲍森问听众是否听说过鲍格米尔派：他们主要在保加利亚和波斯尼亚聚集，强调围绕上帝的话语生活；这个名称在保加利亚语中意为“上帝的朋友”。还有保禄派，活动于亚美尼亚、色雷斯和小亚细亚；以及卡特里派，其名称意为“纯洁者”，活动范围遍及巴尔干和西欧。
鲍森承认，自己曾简单地以为一千年来只有罗马教会和东方教会；事实并非如此。许多世纪中，一直有小群基督徒在地方聚会，围绕上帝的话语生活。他们为此付上生命代价，却把信仰的火焰传给后代。
中世纪：希尔德布兰德将教皇置于一切之上
现在我们来到最后一章，从 1000 到 1500 年，称为中世纪，因为它位于黑暗时代和现代时代之间。
第一个谈到的人是 希尔德布兰德，也就是教皇格列高利七世。这位修道士成为教皇后，不甘于只居于皇帝之下。他反对买卖圣职，推动神职人员纪律改革；但他也主张教皇应当凌驾于国王之上。
希尔德布兰德与皇帝 亨利四世 的冲突以戏剧性的方式展开。亨利挑战教皇权威，教皇则将他逐出教会。公元 1077 年，亨利在卡诺莎城堡外忏悔求赦，等待三天后才获准觐见；这件事后来被视为教皇权高过皇帝的象征。
从那时起，在接下来的500年里，教皇是最有影响力的人物，教皇权是控制西方世界的权力。教会再次成为帝国。正是在这一时期，教皇权把彼得的两把钥匙作为象征；传统上，两把钥匙都指向属灵权柄——“捆绑和释放”，并不分别代表一把属灵权力和一把世俗权力。希尔德布兰德的主张是让教皇凌驾于教会和国家之上，而不是创造这一图像。
十字军东征：当教会拿起剑时
这使得军队的力量可供教会使用。因为希尔德布兰德这样想，他开始使用武力建立基督的国度。 从来没有犯过更大的错误。 教会可以使用武力的想法的第一个成果是对圣地的八次十字军东征。
到目前为止，耶路撒冷和其他圣地都掌握在穆斯林、撒拉逊人和土耳其人的手中。教皇决定教会将杀出一条血路，为基督夺取圣地。第一次十字军东征在 1095 年发动；这是希尔德布兰德的想法，但他在实现之前就去世了。参加者把十字架挂在肩上，因此被称为“十字军”；拉丁词 crux（十字架）也由此成为 crusade（十字军东征）一词的词源。
第一次十字军东征由传教士 隐士彼得 等人动员。人民十字军在进入安纳托利亚后遭到塞尔柱土耳其人击溃；真正攻占耶路撒冷的是后来由贵族率领的军队。耶路撒冷在 1099 年 被攻陷后确实发生了屠杀，但参与者远非 600,000 人；许多人却把这种以武力建立尘世帝国的行为误当成基督的事业。
当然有激励措施。如果人们为基督而战，就会得到赦免；他们还被许诺获得赎罪券，以减免炼狱中的多年刑罚；法律会取消他们的债务；离开监狱参战的罪犯也会得到赦免。你可以想象得到的结果是一群杂七杂八的人。法国国王菲利普也被卷入其中，英国狮心王理查也被卷入其中。传统上所说的八次十字军东征中，还包括约1212年的所谓儿童十字军：一群主要由青少年和贫民组成的队伍穿越欧洲，试图前往圣地；人数和细节存在争议，队伍没有到达圣地，也没有发生天使提供食物的奇迹。
后来在哈丁之角，萨拉丁于1187年7月4日击败耶路撒冷王国军队；那不是最后一次十字军东征，而是导致耶路撒冷失守并引发第三次十字军东征的关键战役。1270年，法国国王路易九世在突尼斯病逝，远征失败；阿卡于1291年陷落后，十字军国家才告终结。
这是教会历史上最悲伤的故事之一。它什么也没做。没有什么。事实上，它确实比什么都不做更糟糕。
八次十字军东征
当教会用剑代替爱（1095–1291年）
希尔德布兰德相信武力能够建立基督的国。“从未犯过如此大的错误，”Pawson说。
人民十字军 · 1096
隐士彼得带领一群暴民；大多数人在小亚细亚的山中丧生。
第一次十字军东征 · 1095–99
攻占耶路撒冷（1099年）并屠杀居民。唯一的“成功”。
第二次十字军东征 · 1147–49
伯尔纳铎宣讲；失败。
第三次十字军东征 · 1189–92
狮心理查对阵萨拉丁；耶路撒冷没有被夺回。
第四次十字军东征 · 1202–04
转向洗劫君士坦丁堡——基督徒对基督徒。
儿童十字军东征 · 1212
儿童的行军；没有一个到达圣地。
后来的十字军东征 · 1217–54
一次又一次失败，包括法王路易九世的两次战役。
哈丁与崩溃 · 1187 / 1291
在哈丁角战败（1187年）；最后的据点阿克在1291年陷落。
出征的诱因
到1270年，教皇叫停了它。“它什么也没做。什么也没有。而且确实比什么也不做更糟。”——David Pawson
宗教裁判所、两三位教皇和腐败
教皇从在教会外使用武力，现在决定在教会内部使用武力，开启了另一个可怕的章节，称为“宗教裁判所”。鲍森说他不敢描述以基督的名义所做的事情。主教们拒绝操纵这台充满残忍、恶意和猜疑的机器，但多米尼加人接受了。多年来，无数人因那件可怕的事情而生活在对生命的恐惧之中。
自始至终，错误在于：教会把自己当成地上帝国，认为可以用强制力建立基督的事业。教会 只能使用爱，不能使用任何武力；人不能被强迫接受基督，福音只能借着见证、爱与宣讲传开。
这种腐败很快就会自生自灭。 权力容易腐败， 阿克顿勋爵说， 绝对的权力往往导致绝对的腐败。 很快就有两位教皇争夺王位，然后是三位。阿维尼翁有一位教皇，罗马也有一位教皇。现在谁是教皇？他们设法让教皇重新团结起来，但随后腐败进一步蔓延：修道院变得腐败且太富有，主教太强大，教区腐败。
普通基督教的习俗也不断叠加：向玛利亚和圣徒祈求、为死者祈祷、炼狱观念、把弥撒理解为祭献、向神父告解、出售赎罪券、朝圣、敬奉遗物和敬拜图像。鲍森认为，新约没有以这种方式把这些习俗当作得救的必要条件。
中世纪的附加物
“新约里连一丁点都没有”
这些做法在几个世纪中一次添加一项。右栏给出每项成为正式做法或被正式定义的大致日期。
日期是近似的：许多做法起初只是习俗，后来才由会议正式定义（例如1215年的第四次拉特朗会议、1439年的佛罗伦萨会议）。这是Pawson对它们的新教解读；天主教和东正教的观点见“其他声音”框。
基本错误：教会认为她是基督
那么这一切背后的根本错误是什么？如果你忘记了我今晚所说的大部分内容，这很重要。我用一句话告诉你哪里出了问题：
教会开始认为她是基督。现在她仍然这样做。
鲍森回忆道，他询问一位牧师：这仍然是真的吗？他回答：是的，而且不会改变。鲍森说：我的一个问题是我不相信教会就是基督，我也不相信她是先知、牧师和国王。我相信耶稣是。教会不是我们的先知、牧师或国王。神父坦率地回答：我们不会讨论这个，因为它永远不会改变。
这是基本的错误。如果教会把自己当作世界的先知，就会宣称自己能无误决定真理；如果把自己当作世界的祭司，就会说人必须接受它的圣礼并向它告解才能得救；如果把自己当作世界的王，就会尽可能扩张自己的权威。
这是把教会的元首与身体混为一谈。元首是神圣的，身体却由人组成；基督才是先知、祭司和君王，教会不是。基督说：“我要建造我的教会。” 他是教会唯一的元首，没有任何人可以取代他。
基本错误
教会开始以为自己就是基督
Pawson说，如果你忘记这篇文章的其他一切，就记住这一点。每一种扭曲都源于一个混淆：把头和身体混为一谈。
头——神圣
基督
只有他是先知、祭司和君王
身体——人性
教会
顺服头、却永不取代头的身体
先知
向世人宣告真理的人
祭司
把人带到上帝面前的人
君王
统治并建立权柄的人
当身体以为自己是头
“如果我是世界的先知，我就可以告诉世界该相信什么。如果我是世界的祭司，你们就必须来到我的圣礼前。如果我是世界的君王，我就要尽可能广泛地建立我的权柄。”这就是一切的根源。
“政权必担在他的肩头上。”（以赛亚书) 基督是头，任何其他人都不能成为头。
中世纪的抗议之声
但鲍森也指出，整个中世纪（约1000—1500年）始终有人抗议：这不是真的，这不是基督教，也不是耶稣的意思。小团体在各地出现，名称各不相同。
有来自荷兰的 共同生活弟兄会，聚集读经并宣告基督是教会的头；还有 瓦勒度派，他们相信圣经说明了耶稣对教会的心意，并请求罗马承认他们在圣经原则下生活。罗马拒绝后，他们在迫害中从一个山谷逃到另一个山谷。
下一组是法国南部的 阿尔比派。他们的二元论信仰与主流基督教不同，却常被描述为认真追求圣洁的群体；教皇随后发动了针对他们的阿尔比十字军，造成大规模屠杀。多米尼克试图以传道和贫穷生活回应他们，后来形成 多明我会；讽刺的是，该修会后来也参与宗教裁判所。鲍森的结论是：真正的教会常常处在受逼迫的位置。
教会内部也有人看见问题，退出世俗生活并坚持信仰。其中一位是 克莱尔沃的伯纳德。他的早年常被讲成戏剧性的悔改故事：一位法国贵族放弃财富，带着朋友进入修道院，在克莱尔沃建立团体，以祷告、劳动和极端节制生活。
伯纳德后来成为欧洲最有影响力的基督徒之一，虽没有世俗官职或财富，却被称为“教皇制造者”。路德也高度尊敬他。但伯纳德在公开场合支持教皇权，这使他既成为改革前的重要属灵人物，也成为后来改革者批评的对象。
几乎同时代的 弗朗西斯 出生于阿西西。他曾避开麻风病人，后来却回头亲吻他；这个行动成为他悔改和委身的象征。他聚集朋友，以贫穷和传道为生活方式，成双成对出去传福音。
鲍森还希望人们记住弗朗西斯向穆斯林传道的尝试。他冒险会见苏丹，传讲耶稣，而不是带着十字军军队征战。其追随者穿灰袍，被称为 方济各会士；多明我会士穿黑白会服，被称为“黑衣修士”。两个修会原本都想把简朴的基督徒生活带回教会，后来却分别卷入乞讨制度化和宗教裁判所等问题。
整个时代都在等待有人清楚说出真相。布雷西亚的阿诺德 约在 1150 年反对教会拥有财富和世俗权力，却遭到压制。后来 帕多瓦的马西利乌斯 主张圣经是教会的标准，主教和教皇的世俗权力是人的制度；奥卡姆的威廉 也批评教皇权。可他们的声音同样被压下去。
直到一位约克郡人成为所谓的“宗教改革的晨星”。约翰·威克利夫 是牛津学者和教授，后来因批评教皇权与教会财富而闻名；鲍森称他为“福音博士”。
威克利夫重新强调圣经的权威，反对教皇的滥权。教皇发布了针对他的诏书，他被带到坎特伯雷受审；他坚持圣经是教会的最高标准，并推动把拉丁文《圣经》译成英文。以他为中心的传道人走遍乡村和集市宣讲福音，人们称他们为 罗拉德派。
在英格兰阿默舍姆仍可见纪念殉道者的碑；有人因在树林中读英文圣经而被捕，他们的孩子甚至被迫点燃火堆，烧死自己的父母。这是罗拉德派遭迫害的残酷记忆。威克利夫本人后来以拉特沃斯教区长的身份去世。
威克利夫与布拉格大学关系密切。布拉格的 约翰·胡斯 读到威克利夫的著作，并在波希米亚宣讲类似的改革主张。胡斯后来被捕，在康斯坦茨会议上被判处火刑；他的追随者也遭到迫害。
后来教会当局前往拉特沃斯，挖出约翰·威克利夫的遗骨并焚烧，再把骨灰撒入斯威夫特河。但有人这样说：
正如斯威夫特河将把这些灰烬带入埃文河，埃文河带入塞文河，塞文河带入我们海岸周围的河道，最后流入海洋，约翰·威克利夫的教义也将传播到全世界。
这是一个令人惊奇的预言。
见证人的河流
信仰的火焰从未完全熄灭
Pawson承认，他曾以为一千年来只有罗马教会存在。事实并非如此。一直有一条由平凡基督徒组成的连续链条，他们以生命为代价，却把火炬留给下一代。
蒙他主义——圣灵在弗吕吉亚被重新发现
隐士与修道团体——反对世俗化
亚美尼亚和小亚细亚的保罗派
保加利亚和波斯尼亚的波格米勒派
阿纳尔多·达·布雷西亚——“让财富离开教会的手”
瓦勒度派——“里昂的穷人”
法国南部的卡特里派／阿尔比派
阿西西的方济各——贫穷与使命
贝居安会与共同生活弟兄会
马尔西利乌斯——“圣经是标准，没有别的标准”
奥卡姆的威廉——被噤声
约翰·威克里夫——晨星，英文圣经
扬·胡斯——在康斯坦茨被烧死
马丁·路德——黎明破晓
注：一些群体（保罗派、波格米勒派、卡特里派）事实上是二元论者，比起路德所描绘的样子，他们更接近诺斯底主义，而不是新约基督教——见该部分的琥珀色边注。
黎明：地理大发现和宗教改革的时代
我们正处于令人兴奋的事情的边缘。你可以看到，这种对基督教会的虐待不可能永远持续下去。人们开始看到，而让他们看到的一件事就是他们开始用自己的语言阅读这本书。这本书无论走到哪里，都会把事情纠正过来。
但引发宗教改革的还有另一件事，不仅仅是对教会的滥用。人类正在进入一个发现的时代。在物质领域：哥伦布在1492年发现了美洲；哥白尼提出地球绕着太阳转，而不是相反。伽利略用望远镜观察星空，晚年才失明。那是科学时代的黎明，人们开始质疑事物。
在精神领域，人们重新发现希腊文学和艺术。在拉斐尔的画作中，你可以看到古代文化重新兴起；君士坦丁堡落入土耳其人手中后，希腊艺术珍宝被带到罗马和意大利。印刷术刚刚发明，也使新的学问得以传播。新时代最重要的学者之一是 伊拉斯谟，他校订并出版了希腊文新约和新的拉丁文译本，推动人们回到更早的文本。与把“悔改”误作单纯外在惩罚相比，他强调经文中 metanoia 所包含的悔改与心意转变。
但这正是鲍森想说的最后一点：在艺术、音乐、雕塑和学问复兴的时代，人们发现智力进步并不会自动带来道德进步。教皇宫廷可以充满艺术珍品，博吉亚家族却以腐败闻名；人们研究文学和天空，仍然可能没有圣洁的生命。
文艺复兴纯粹是精神和文化的事情。它不能满足罪的需要。全世界都在等待一个人重新发现救赎。
全世界都在等待一个人重新发现救赎：一个愿意读圣经、又从自己的罪与救赎经历出发，重新发现福音改变世界力量的人。这个人是 马丁·路德，一名修士。就在 450 年前的那个十月，他公开了自己的发现。文艺复兴是文化上的，而宗教改革触及道德与救赎。 第 3 部分将讲述他的故事。
文艺复兴与宗教改革
文艺复兴关乎头脑；宗教改革关乎道德
文艺复兴——头脑
• 哥伦布抵达美洲（1492年）
• 哥白尼和伽利略仰望苍穹
• 君士坦丁堡陷落（1453年）→希腊珍宝涌向西方
• 印刷术被发明
• 伊拉斯谟重新发现希腊文新约
• 拉斐尔的艺术盛放
但更聪明并不等于更圣洁：这是博尔贾教皇的时代。
宗教改革——道德
世界所缺少的不是知识、科学、艺术或文化。世界所缺少的是耶稣基督和救恩的福音。
全世界都在等待一个重新发现救恩、与罪搏斗的人。那个人就是修士马丁·路德。
“文艺复兴触及头脑；宗教改革触及内心。”本系列第3部分将讲述路德的故事。
不止一个声音
其他历史学家和讲道者如何解读这千年
Pawson以强烈的新教立场讲述历史。为了公平起见，也为了让你听见不止一方的声音，下面呈现其他人如何讲述同一个故事：有些人赞同，有些人提出反驳。
历史学家与综述
Justo L. González ·《基督教故事》，第1卷（1984年）
他把这千年读成一个悖论：“君士坦丁转向”把“窄门”拓宽成大道，群众涌入其中，而修道主义兴起成为抗议。然而，他拒绝把这个时代一概写成背道。
“当教会与世上的权势联合……人怎能抵挡时代巨大的诱惑？”
与Pawson的不同： 他赞同Pawson所说“世界俘获了教会”，但加以缓和：当时确有真实的虔诚，修士们也保存了学问。
Bruce L. Shelley ·《用平实语言讲教会史》（1982年）
一部通俗的福音派综述：君士坦丁转向带来了真正的权力，但“代价很高”；修道者、异议者和改革者是教会的良心，呼召教会回到更纯正的使徒生活。
“那些为将来的世界最虔诚地生活的人，往往最有能力改变现在。”
与Pawson的不同： 他大体赞同Pawson，但更公平、更温和，把更新看作内部的改革，而不只是抗议。
Diarmaid MacCulloch ·《基督教史》（2009年）
他警告不要把中世纪读成单纯的“衰落”：那是一个丰富而复杂的世界，其中的“异端”高度多样，多数与后来的新教格格不入，而不是新教的先驱。
“……一个更有趣也更复杂的叙事，在其中宗教与怀疑、亵渎与虔诚始终保持对话。”
与Pawson的不同： 他对Pawson作了缓和：强调中世纪基督教的丰富与成就，也指出不应把其中的异议者据为宗教改革的祖先。
Kenneth Scott Latourette ·《基督教史》（1953年）
他把这千年看作“前进与后退”的节奏：尽管有腐败和黯淡，信仰仍在欧洲的“蛮族”中推进，从未熄灭。他把这个时代称为“充满不确定性的千年”。
“纵观基督教历史，它通过巨大的脉动向前推进。每一次前进都把它带得比上一次更远。”
与Pawson的不同： 他用历史学家的长远视野缓和Pawson的判词：即使在腐败中，信仰仍扎根并扩展。
Robert Louis Wilken ·《最初的一千年》（2012年）
他展示基督教从来不只是罗马的或西方的：波斯、亚美尼亚、埃塞俄比亚、中亚、印度和中国的群体积极塑造了它的进程。
“亚美尼亚人、希腊人和埃塞俄比亚人有许多共同点：他们由主教治理；他们培育修道生活；他们承认尼西亚信经。”
与Pawson的不同： 他把Pawson的框架扩展为全球性的基督教，而只面向西方的叙事往往会漏掉这一点。
Tom Holland ·《统治》（2019年）
一位信仰之外的历史学家认为，中世纪改革本身——尤其是格里高利七世十一世纪的“革命”——塑造了西方的道德良知：把“世俗”与“神圣”分开，并成为人权的温床。
“［改革者］确实使［神圣与世俗的区分］成为西方未来的根本，‘这是第一次，而且永久如此’。”
与Pawson的不同： 他反驳Pawson：中世纪教会——甚至教皇权力——播下了西方道德的种子，重塑世界，而不是仅仅被世界俘获。
福音派讲道者
John Piper ·《至高喜乐的遗产》（2000年）
他把奥古斯丁（5世纪初）看作恩典的礼物：使人脱离罪的不是意志力，而是上帝里的“至高喜乐”，从根源上制服罪的享乐。
“不可抗拒的恩典……会以更高喜乐的至高权能释放我们。”
与Pawson的不同： 他补充Pawson的叙述：在这段时期开始时，从奥古斯丁那里挖掘恩典活水的源头，而不只看到制度的衰落。
Michael Reeves ·《不灭的火焰》（2009年）
他把这千年读作宗教改革必须回应的“背景”：中世纪晚期教会把恩典教为使自己变得足够圣洁的力量，使信徒没有确据。然而福音的火焰从未完全熄灭（威克里夫、胡斯）。
“中世纪的恩典‘像一罐属灵的红牛’，使人‘没有确据’；被重新发现的是作为‘给罪人的礼物’的义。”
与Pawson的不同： 他同意Pawson认为福音的核心已经失落，但语气更温和：强调“重新发现”和连续性，把宗教改革描述为回到上帝的话语。
W. Robert Godfrey ·《教会史概览》（Ligonier）
这是一种改革宗的解读：奥古斯丁关于恩典的福音是明亮的线索，但在整个中世纪逐渐被迷信和教皇制度“遮蔽”。然而教会从未完全死亡——忠心的余民使福音保持活力。
“我们在中世纪看到的确实是迷信不断增长、混乱不断增长，以及福音被遮蔽的时期。”
与Pawson的不同： 他大体赞同Pawson，但缓和“世界俘获教会”的说法：坚持整个千年始终有“一颗明亮的星”守护真理。
天主教与东正教的声音
Eamon Duffy ·《圣徒与罪人：教皇史》（1997年）
他认为这千年比赞美或论战所允许的更具人性、也更混乱：腐败和买卖圣职是真实的，但他拒绝把教会史归结为控诉；持续存在的是职分，而不是担任者的美德。
“尽管有它的一切罪……教皇制度在总体上似乎是促进人类自由和宽广精神的力量。”
与Pawson的不同： 他缓和Pawson的新教立场：承认腐败，但拒绝把一切归结为单一原因的论战，把教皇制度看作纠结复杂的人类机构。
Kallistos Ware ·《东正教会》（1963年）
对Ware而言，1054年的分裂不是某一天发生的事件，而是“漫长而复杂的过程”；使裂痕成为定局的，尤其是十字军，特别是1204年洗劫君士坦丁堡。从东方看，真正的“创新”是罗马把荣誉上的首席地位变成管辖权上的至高权。
“罗马的错误——正如东正教徒所信——是把这种首席地位，或‘爱的主席’，变成外在权力和管辖权上的至高权。”
与Pawson的不同： 他从东正教一方而非新教一方看待同一问题，强调分裂是逐渐发生的，而不是某个戏剧性时刻突然发生。
Henri Daniel-Rops ·《大教堂与十字军》（1957年）
一位天主教历史学家不把这千年看作“世界俘获教会”，而看作教会使欧洲基督教化并文明化——在混乱中保存文字和学问。他并不粉饰衰败（称14世纪为“惨败”），却坚持教会不断在内部产生圣徒和改革者。
“从最低层到最高层，社会都相信——教会是‘确保文明得救的最有效手段’。”
与Pawson的不同： 他既缓和又反驳Pawson：承认腐败，却认为即使在衰败中，教会仍拯救了文明，并从内部改革自己。
这些观点取自标准的教会史综述，以及当代教师的信息和著作。目的不是反驳Pawson，而是在众声合唱中听见他。
结束祈祷
鲍森的结尾不是总结，而是在漫长岁月之后献上的祷告：
「天父，愿我们成为你所要的教会。愿我们从过去的错误和历史的教训中学习。感谢你在每个时代都留下见证人；他们常为真理付上生命的代价，却把信仰的火炬传给后代。教会腐败的地方，求你洁净；教会错误的地方，求你引向真理；教会分裂的地方，求你使她合一。愿耶稣基督成为教会的元首，并且是唯一的元首。」
一千年的海水渗入船内，但 火焰从未完全熄灭。长隧道尽头，黎明将要破晓。第 3 部分将讲述一位修士如何看见问题，并借着一本书重新指出道路。
Note: This post is compiled from the second lecture in David Pawson's History of the Church series (Part 2: AD 400–1400), about 69 minutes long. As in Part 1, I do not guess or embellish: every major argument comes straight from Pawson. Wherever I looked something up, checked it against the sources, or corrected a detail, I left it as an amber margin note woven into the text. For this part especially, because the lecture touches the most contested stretches of church history, I also read other historians and preachers, so that you hear more than one voice.
The unhappier story
Part 1 told how the Church captured the world in the first four centuries: it won the physical battle by suffering, the mental battle by confronting heresy, and the spiritual battle by standing firm against other religions.
Pawson says there is one thing he forgot to mention last week, and it matters: the Christians won because they out-lived, they out-thought, and they out-died everyone else. They out-lived, and so won the spiritual battle. They out-thought, and so won the mental battle. They out-died, and so won the physical battle. And therefore they out-survived everything else.
But tonight, he says, the subject is far sadder and far more serious. The subject is: how the world captured the Church over the next thousand years.
There is a medieval painting of the Church as a lifeboat. In a tossing sea, the Christians in the boat reach out to pluck the drowning from the waves. It is a fine picture of the Church: a lifeboat gone out into the world in answer to the cry for help.
But Pawson pauses on one thing:
The lifeboat must be in the sea. But if the sea gets into the lifeboat, then there is real trouble. The church must be in the world if it is going to save souls. But when the world gets into the church, then it is finished and it sinks.
The next thousand years is the story of the sea getting into the boat. Pawson takes it in three chapters: the world began to get in even in the early ages (AD 100–400); then the Dark Ages (AD 400–1000); then the Middle Ages (roughly 1000–1500), which bring us to within a year or two of Martin Luther.
The Lifeboat Picture
The boat must be in the sea, but the sea must not be in the boat
Pawson opens with a medieval painting: the Church as a lifeboat in a tossing sea, reaching out to pluck the drowning from the waves.
The lifeboat in the sea
The Church is in the world to save souls. This is the mission itself.
The sea inside the lifeboat
When the world gets into the Church, the boat sinks. That is the story of a thousand years.
"The church must be in the world if it is going to save souls. But when the world gets into the church, then it is finished and it sinks." — David Pawson
A Thousand-Year Timeline
AD 400–1517: from the fall of Rome to Luther
Four currents braid through a thousand years: decline, the rise of papal power, voices of protest, and an age of discovery.
Some dates are simplified for clarity; precise milestones are checked in the amber margin notes throughout the essay.
How the World Got Into the Church (AD 100–400)
When there were martyrs like that, preachers like that, when the battle was being won, how did the world get in? Pawson names four things that began to water down the apostles' Church.
First, regional bishops. In the New Testament every church had a number of bishops, called elders or bishops or presbyters, all the same office: spiritual leaders. Then came a stage where each church reduced its bishops to one. Then a stage where one bishop ruled many churches. Leadership was concentrated in fewer hands. You cannot find this in the New Testament; it did not happen for the first hundred years; but in the second century there emerged men of considerable power and influence. Not many bishops to one church, but many churches to one bishop.
Second, a magic view of the sacraments. Take baptism. Instead of being an outward sign of the spiritual washing away of sins that comes when a man believes in Jesus, people began to believe that the actual water and the right formula saved a person from sin, whatever their age; and that if you sinned after baptism, you undid it. So people put off baptism until the deathbed: they waited until the doctor said there was no hope, then rushed for the minister. But others worried: what if our baby dies, we would rather have its sins washed away at once. Both views were superstitious. Sadly, infant baptism prevailed. The Lord's Supper too was treated magically: people began to think the bread actually was Christ's flesh and the wine his blood; since real flesh and blood were being offered, it was a sacrifice; and since it was a sacrifice, the one handling it must be a priest.
Third, established religion. When the emperor went to church, you can imagine everyone did. When the state declared Christianity the official religion, everyone climbed on the bandwagon. Going to the established church became fashionable and respectable. Pawson says plainly: an established religion is bound to produce fashionable, respectable Christianity, and he cannot find that in the New Testament.
Kit's note
One thing I'll return here: it was not Constantine who made Christianity the official religion. The Edict of Milan (313, Constantine with Licinius) granted only toleration — freedom of worship and the return of property, ending persecution. It was Theodosius I who, by the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, made Nicene Christianity the state religion. Pawson's larger point — that once faith becomes 'fashionable and respectable' the world seeps in — stands; only the milestone belongs to Theodosius, not Constantine.
Fourth, nominal membership. A writer at the end of the second century observed: around the year 50, to belong to the Church meant a person had received baptism and the Holy Spirit and called Jesus Lord; but by around 180, it meant a person acknowledged the rule of faith (the creed), the New Testament canon, and the authority of the bishops. In other words, people were joining for reasons other than believing in Jesus and receiving his Spirit. It was now an institution.
And whenever the Church went wrong, there were protests. In the first 400 years there were two movements: Montanism and monasticism. Both protested against a Church growing wealthy, worldly, and filled with people who had never even been converted.
Montanism arose in what we now call Turkey, Asia Minor. A man called Montanus saw that in scores of members there was no trace of the Holy Spirit, so he sought the Spirit of God afresh. A revival broke out. The gifts of the Spirit came back into the Church; life, vigour, and reality came back into worship. Pawson says if you want to know who they were most like today, they were Pentecostals. There was a tremendous emphasis on Christ's return, an insistence that no one be a member without a real faith, with holiness and fasting. But the bishops opposed it severely, and you can guess why.
The tragedy is that, as so often, this first Pentecostal movement went wrong. It went wrong because these people would not have teaching. They wanted the heat without the light. Pawson says: light without heat is cold; heat without light is too hot; you must have both. They would not listen to the Scriptures on how to exercise spiritual gifts. And the movement fizzled out in fanaticism. "That is a word every Pentecostal revival needs to know," Pawson says. "We can learn from history."
Kit's note
I'll gently push back on 'the women spoilt it.' The pastoral caution — heat without light — is fair, and the ecstatic, trance-like prophecy was indeed what the mainstream church attacked most. But pinning it on 'the women,' Priscilla and Maximilla, isn't fair: Montanus himself prophesied passively ('I am as a lyre, and the Spirit sweeps over me like a plectrum'). Modern study (Christine Trevett) shows what was really condemned was their claim to a new authority over the church — not the fact that the prophets were women.
The second protest came in a very different way. Some years later certain Christians said: this Church is so worldly, so dead, that the only hope of recovering Christianity is to get out of the Church and out of the world.
The first of them did it alone. They were hermits. It is the strangest tale. Anthony was the first: he decided he would never be a real Christian until he got into the middle of the desert. The trouble was that when he got there, other Christians wanted to join him, and he did not want that; and above all, he found his temptations in a desert cave just as worldly as they had been in the Church. There was an even stranger hermit, Simeon Stylites: he built a pillar some sixty feet high, a yard across at the top, and lived up there for decades. He even stood on one leg for a year, as a protest declaring that Christianity is something hard and tough. And there he was, up the pole, covered in ulcers and worms, in a frightful state.
More successful than the hermits were those who started communities. The man who began this movement was Benedict. On Monte Cassino, halfway between Rome and Naples, he gathered a group of real Christians who saw the Church was too worldly to do anything with, and said: we will come and live together. We will not be wealthy but poor. We will not be lustful but celibate. We will not be rebellious but obedient. They took the threefold vow: poverty, chastity, obedience. And the monastery was run like a Roman soldier's garrison.
Kit's note
A small but real correction: Benedict (c. 480–547) did not start communal monasticism. Pachomius founded cenobitic communities in Egypt around 318–323, nearly two centuries earlier. Benedict is the father of Western monasticism and wrote its most influential Rule — but not its founder. And his Rule's vows are really stabilitas (staying in one house), conversatio morum (conversion of life) and obedience; the familiar 'poverty, chastity, obedience' formula belongs to later orders.
The tragedy is that this protest went wrong just as surely as the other. Christ never meant us to live the Christian life away from everybody else. Later these monks, who began with a good intention, became so wrapped up in their own salvation, so introverted, that they were isolated from the world and the Church. Worse, monasticism produced the idea that there are two kinds of Christians: second-class ones who marry and first-class ones who do not; second-class ones who live in the world and first-class ones who live out of it. But that is not the teaching of Jesus. Our Lord was not a monk. He did not withdraw from society; he lived a pure life in society, and told his disciples to be in the world without being of it.
Both said: the Church is not what Jesus Christ meant it to be. One said we will rediscover it by getting back into the Spirit. The other said we will rediscover it by getting out of the world and out of the Church. Both came to nothing, because they did not return fully to New Testament Christianity.
How the World Got In — AD 100–400
Four cracks and two protests
Even in the age of victory, four things began to water down the apostles' Church. And whenever it went wrong, voices of protest rose up.
Regional bishops
From many elders per church to one bishop over many churches. Power concentrated in few hands, copying Rome's governors.
Magic sacraments
Baptism seen as saving in itself, so delayed to the deathbed or given to infants. The Lord's Supper taken as literal flesh and blood, a sacrifice needing a priest.
Established religion
When the emperor went to church, everyone went. Faith became fashionable and respectable instead of a surrender.
Nominal membership
People joined for reasons other than believing in Jesus and receiving the Spirit. The Church became an institution.
Two protests
Montanism
A Pentecostal protest
Rediscovered the Spirit and the gifts, stressing Christ's return and holiness. But it had "heat without light," refused teaching, and burned out in fanaticism.
Monasticism
A protest by withdrawal
Left both the world and the Church to recover real Christianity. But it produced "two-tier" Christians, and Christ never called us to live apart from everyone.
Both protests were sincere, yet both came to nothing because they did not return fully to New Testament Christianity.
The Dark Ages: The Fall of Rome (AD 410)
Now the story truly begins. In 410, a catastrophe came. Barbarians from the north pressed down on the city of Rome. The Vandals came (from their name we get the word "vandalism"). The Franks came, the Huns came, the Goths came. These barbarians pressed into Rome and took it. The Rome of that day fell.
Kit's note
Let me check this one: the sack of Rome on 24 August 410 was carried out by one people — Alaric's Visigoths — not a combined army of Vandals, Franks, Huns and Goths. The Vandals were then pushing into Spain (they would sack Rome only in 455), and Attila's Huns struck the West only in 451–452. Pawson's larger picture — a whole wave of 'barbarian' peoples pressing on the Empire — holds; but the army that breached Rome in 410 was Alaric's Goths alone.
The Romans left Britain that year to defend Rome, but could not save it. And as soon as the Romans withdrew, the Jutes, the Angles, and the Saxons charged into Britain and destroyed Christianity in England and south-east Scotland. The Christianity that Roman soldiers had brought here in the first 400 years vanished.
It seemed that when Rome fell, it was the end of everything. Jerome, writing in Jerusalem, said: "the human race is included in the ruins." People thought it was the end of civilization. And it puzzled the Church: Rome had survived for centuries as a pagan empire, yet as a Christian one it collapsed. Many Christians could not understand it.
Kit's note
A small geographic note (the Part-1 kind): Jerome was not in Jerusalem but in Bethlehem (very near it), where he lived in a monastery from 386 until his death in 420. His most famous line is from the Preface to his Commentary on Ezekiel (c. 410–414): 'when the bright light of all the world was put out... the whole world perished in one city' (in una urbe totus orbis interiit). Pawson's 'the human race is included in the ruins' faithfully catches Jerome's grief.
But one man thought it through and made an incredible statement. He said: it is the best thing that ever happened. His name was Augustine.
Augustine: A Restless Heart That Found Its Rest
You can buy his books at the railway bookstall today. And if I tell you some of the things this great man said, you would recognize them. He said: "Our hearts are restless, and they can find no rest until they find their rest in thee." Perhaps the most quoted prayer in history. It was Augustine who prayed: "Give me chastity, but not just yet." And it was Augustine who said: "Love, and do what you like."
He was born in North Africa. When he went as a student to Carthage, he fell in with the wrong crowd. Soon he had a concubine and a son by her, and lived in that illegal relationship for years. His father was pagan, but his mother was a godly woman who prayed for her wayward son with tears every day. Later, because of his brilliant mind, he was invited to be a professor of rhetoric in Milan. There he went to hear the saintly Bishop Ambrose preach. Under that preaching, the young man with the brilliant mind but the profligate life was brought into a deep conviction of sin.
Then one day, sitting in a garden weeping over the mess he had made of his life, he heard a child's voice over the garden wall: "Tolle lege, tolle lege" — "take up and read." He never knew who the child was. But he saw a scroll on the seat beside him, took it up, and read. It was Paul's letter to the Romans. Augustine read it through, and the light dawned. When he walked into the street afterward, the woman he had lived with saw him, and he ran from her. She ran after him crying: "Augustine, it is I, it is I." He answered over his shoulder: "But it is not I, it is not I."
Kit's note
The exchange — 'It is I, Augustine!' / 'But it is not I' — is a lovely pious anecdote, but it is not in the Confessions or any early source. By Augustine's own account (Confessions 6.15), the woman had already been sent away before his conversion (c. 385); she returned to Africa vowing to remain unmarried. The clever retort appears only in much later retellings — a moving tradition rather than history.
He wrote the whole story of his conversion in a book called Confessions. Pawson says Augustine has had more influence on church history than any man after the apostle Paul.
When Rome fell, Augustine being in middle age, the whole world seemed to collapse about his ears. He thought it through, then wrote the second great book we remember: City of God. In it he says: it is a good thing this pagan city of Rome has collapsed, because now the city of God can replace it; it is a good thing an earthly empire has ended, because the heavenly empire can now be established. The book brought hope and new life to many, helping them see that a city of God still survived when the city of men had gone.
But that was the trouble. People began to ask: what is this city of God? Visible or invisible? Earthly or heavenly? And at this point Augustine led many into a misunderstanding. The funny thing is that centuries later, in the Reformation, the Protestants said "we follow Augustine," and the Roman Catholics said "we follow Augustine." But the Protestants were following the first book, Confessions; and the Catholics were following the second book, City of God.
For what happened was this: the Church said, if that is so, then the Church is now the new empire.
The Church Becomes an Empire: The Rise of the Papacy
One of the first results was the rise of the bishop of Rome to the position of an emperor. In those days there was a great debate about the word "pope," which means essentially "father." Although Jesus had said never to call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father in heaven, people began to call the local priest "father." Then they called the regional bishop "father." Then finally the five great patriarchs said: if anyone is to be called father, it ought to be us five. And at last, the bishop of Rome said: the city of Rome is gone, but I am the emperor now; I am the chief bishop, and from now on you call only me pope, you call only me father.
And the papacy, as we know it, came into being. The striking thing is that the pope adopted the very titles and even the robes of the Roman emperor. He took the title Pontifex Maximus, known today as the pontiff — the Roman emperor's title. Augustine was misunderstood, and people thought the Church was the new empire. And an empire must have its emperor, its robes, its ceremonies, its throne. So the Church became an empire, and the pope became a king.
Of course, many Christians would have none of it. The French would not, the Irish would not, the Welsh would not, the Scots would not. Sadly, the English did.
When the Church Became an Empire
The ladder of power and the closing circle
The ladder to "father"
The local priest is called "father"
Then the regional bishop
Then the five great patriarchs claim the title
The bishop of Rome: "call only ME pope"
Takes the emperor's titles & robes (Pontifex Maximus)
"Call no man on earth your father…" (Matthew’s Gospel)
The circle 410 → 800
410 — The Roman Empire collapses
The Church takes over, becomes the new "empire"
800 — Charlemagne crowned Emperor
The empire returns — full circle
Augustine wrote City of God to console a collapsing world; but people misread it to mean the Church was the new empire — and an empire must have its emperor, its throne, its robes.
Two Streams of Christianity Meet at Whitby
Ireland, through St. Columba, brought the faith into Iona and Scotland, leading Scotland to Christ. Then Aidan came down to the island of Lindisfarne off Northumberland. Pawson recalls standing on Lindisfarne a few months earlier, by the ruins of Aidan's church, the little island from which he evangelized Northumberland. This non-papal Christianity, Celtic Christianity, came into England from the north through Ireland and Scotland.
But later the pope said: we must get England, we must get those Angles. He made the famous pun: they are not Angles but angels. And he sent a missionary also named Augustine. This Augustine landed on the island of Thanet, then went to Canterbury. Columba on the island of Iona in the north; Augustine on the island of Thanet in the south.
The two streams of Christianity met at Whitby. You can still see the ruins above Whitby harbour where they met. There, papal Christianity met Celtic Christianity, to see which would win. The tragedy is that papal Christianity won. The British Isles came under the papal throne. Scotland even changed its patron saint to St. Andrew. The whole situation was changed.
Kit's note
Let me clarify one thing: the two streams in the British Isles were real, but saying Celtic Christianity 'rejected the pope' overstates it. They didn't oppose Rome on doctrine; they kept older customs — the dating of Easter and the style of tonsure — because they'd been cut off from the continent during the Anglo-Saxon period. The Synod of Whitby (664) was a dispute over custom and calendar, not a schism; Pawson is right that Rome's side prevailed.
Two Streams Meet at Whitby
Which way would Britain go? (Synod of Whitby, 664)
Celtic Christianity
Ireland → Iona (Columba) → Lindisfarne (Aidan) → northern England
No pope. Simple, missionary.
Roman Christianity
Rome → Augustine on Thanet → Canterbury → the south
Loyal to the pope.
Whitby, 664
Roman Christianity won. The British Isles came under the papal throne. Pawson calls it a tragedy; you can still stand among the ruins above Whitby harbour today.
Schematic, not to geographic scale. Whitby took place in 664 (Pawson says "660").
East and West Divide (1054)
The other great group of Christians who would have none of this were the churches of the eastern Mediterranean: Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt. They said: we are not acknowledging this. That there should be one "papa," one father of the whole Church, is not in Scripture, not in the New Testament. And they began a split, finally completed by the year 1054. That division kept the eastern and western churches apart for a thousand years, and only in recent years have the two begun to talk again.
Kit's note
A detail worth marking: Pawson saying the two sides 'have only in recent years begun to talk again' is exactly right for a sermon around 1967. On 7 December 1965, in simultaneous ceremonies in Rome and Constantinople, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054, after their historic meeting in Jerusalem in January 1964. So his 'recent years' was, for him, fresh news.
And here is one of the most incredible things. Around the year 850, the pope said: I have discovered documents from the first century, proving that Peter appointed the first pope, who appointed the second, and so on down the line. Today even the Roman Church knows those documents were forgeries; they are called the forged decretals. And yet the papacy was built on a forgery. There was another forged document, the Donation of Constantine, claiming that all of Italy belonged to the pope. The pope "discovered" this forgery and said: there, all Italy belongs to me. That is the kind of foundation on which the whole structure was based, and even Rome knows it today.
Kit's note
Let me return a detail on 'the pope produced these documents': Pawson's date, 'around 850,' is very close — the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (False Decretals), under the pen-name 'Isidorus Mercator,' were forged around 847–852. But the forgers were Frankish clergy near Reims, not the pope himself, and the first aim was to protect ordinary bishops from being deposed. Still, Pawson's larger point holds: those forgeries were later cited by Rome to buttress papal supremacy.
The Great Schism, 1054
One Church split in two for nearly a thousand years
The five patriarchates (the Pentarchy)
The West (Latin)
Rome — one pope over the whole Church
• Supremacy of the pope
• Added "and the Son" (filioque) to the Creed
• Unleavened bread
Latin tradition
The East (Greek)
Constantinople + the patriarchs — equals, no single "papa"
• Five equal patriarchs
• The Creed left unchanged
• Leavened bread
Greek tradition
The mutual excommunications of 1054 were only lifted together by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 — close to Pawson's "the last ten years" when he preached in the 1960s.
Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire (AD 800)
The power kept spreading, until the year 742, when a man was born with a dream: to restore the empire of Rome, put it back on the map, with himself as emperor and the pope beneath him. His name was Charlemagne. A ruthless man who said: we will have a Roman empire again, and its head will not be the pope but an emperor.
Charlemagne twice saved the pope's life: once from the barbarians, once from the crowds in Rome who were angry with him. The pope said: you have saved my life twice, what would you have me do for you? The emperor answered: on Christmas Day, crown me emperor. And in the year 800, on Christmas Day, in the largest church in Rome, at the Christmas morning service, the pope crowned the king of the Franks, Charlemagne, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. A thousand years later, the Holy Roman Empire still existed.
You see, we have come full circle. The empire of Rome collapsed in 410. The Church took over the empire. Then in 800 the emperor came back and took the empire from the Church. The whole thing seemed back to where it started.
Charlemagne did some good things and some bad. Among the good: he forbade the clergy to keep concubines, frequent taverns, and go hunting; he started many schools. Among the bad: he forbade the clergy ever to marry, and it is to Charlemagne that we owe the celibate priesthood. He also coined the word Christendom — the kingdom that would be Christian under the emperor. And the idea of Christendom persists to this day.
Kit's note
Two small fixes. First — the celibate priesthood isn't owed to Charlemagne: he tightened clerical discipline, but the ban on clergy marrying became universal law only with the eleventh-century Gregorian reform and the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139 — three centuries after him. Second — 'Christendom' is a native Old English word (cristen + -dom); a Latin-speaking Frankish king could hardly coin it. If Pawson means he crystallized the idea of Christendom, that holds — the 800 coronation is its emblem.
The Rise of Islam
Because the Church was now wealthy and powerful, it became corrupt. And once again protests came, this time from the east and the north. From the east, the protest came from two things. The first was Islam.
Pawson calls this the greatest judgment ever to fall on the Christian Church. He had lived in Arabia and seen something of this religion. Mohammed was born in 571 in Mecca, the centre of Arab idolatry and superstition. In the middle of Mecca was a great square building draped in black, and inside it a sacred stone, the Kaaba, a meteorite fallen from the sky. Mohammed grew up amid the idolatry and superstition of the Arabs, and he was revolted by it.
Then he turned first to the Jews, then to the Christians, and asked: have you the true religion? The tragedy is that Mohammed never met a converted Christian. The tragedy is that he never saw the real Christianity of the New Testament. All he saw was the vestments of priests, images, and crucifixes. And he said: this is as idolatrous as the Arabs' religion. If only Mohammed had met one true Christian at the end of the sixth century. But he did not.
So he said: right, I will seek a new religion that is pure. He married a wealthy widow, spent years in the desert, and there he said he was spoken to: there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. He began to preach this, writing down what he heard in his visions in a book, the Quran (Al-Quran). He was persecuted and had to flee to Medina in 622. That is the date from which the Arabs reckon their calendar. He returned to Mecca with an army and imposed the new religion. From then on everyone had to pray toward Mecca, and by a religion of good works — fasting, praying five times a day, keeping Ramadan, making the pilgrimage to Mecca, giving alms — one could get to heaven. And that religion was imposed by force of arms.
Islam swept Christianity out of the Mediterranean. It swept Christianity off the North African coast, where there was no church for centuries. It swept Christianity out of the Holy Land itself, out of Jerusalem, out of the place where Jesus died. It swept up through Spain, up through Asia Minor, into France as far as the gates of Lyon, into Eastern Europe as far as Vienna. It seemed Islam would crush Christianity in a gigantic pincer movement.
Kit's note
An important geographic and chronological note: the Muslim advance into the West was halted at Tours/Poitiers in 732 (Charles Martel over the Umayyads), in western France — about 360 km from Lyon, not 'the gates of Lyon.' And the two sieges of Vienna were Ottoman Turkish, in 1529 and 1683 — roughly 800–950 years after the 8th-century Arab advance. These are two powers and two eras, not one coordinated 'pincer.' Pawson's theological instinct — that God stopped the tide — can still stand.
It is the greatest judgment God has ever allowed to come on the Christian Church. And it was deserved. But so far and no further. God was not going to have Christianity wiped out altogether.
He stopped them at Lyon and Vienna, and they withdrew to their present boundaries: the North African coast and up to Turkey.
Map of the Dark Ages
Two tides break over the Christian world (AD 410–732)
Orange arrows: barbarians pour south onto Rome. Green arrows: Islam sweeps the Mediterranean from Arabia, across North Africa and Spain, as far as Tours.
Base map: the Roman Empire (Wikimedia Commons, public domain). Arrows are schematic directions of advance, not exact routes. Vienna marks the later Ottoman limit — Pawson telescopes nearly a thousand years of frontier into one pincer.
Hidden Witnesses in the Dark
For at that very time, all over Europe there were little groups of Christians meeting around the word of God. They saw that the official church was corrupt, so they simply met in tiny groups, read this book, and said: we will worship God in simplicity. We do not need priests, for we have Jesus our high priest. We do not need a pope, for we have a Father in heaven. We just need the word of God and the Holy Spirit.
We know hardly anything about them, because they were so persecuted that even the records of their history were destroyed. Pawson asks his hearers whether any have ever heard of a group called the Bogomils. They were a group meeting around the word of God, chiefly in Bulgaria and Bosnia; the word "Bogomil," Pawson says, is Bulgarian for "friends of God." There were the Paulicians, who met in Armenia, Thrace, and Asia Minor. There were the Cathars, a name meaning "the pure ones," the same root as the later word "Puritan"; they met in the Balkans and across Europe.
Pawson confesses: in his simplicity he used to think that for a thousand years there was only the Roman church and the eastern churches. That is not true. He was thrilled to discover that all through those centuries there was a continuous train of simple Christians meeting around the word of God in local churches. They paid for it with their lives, but they met, and the flame of faith was kept alight for the generations to come.
Kit's note
Let me return something, in fairness to Pawson and to history. What he says is true and moving: the Bogomils, Paulicians and Cathars rejected the clergy and the pope, were savagely persecuted, and had their writings nearly all destroyed. But modern scholarship classes them as dualist movements — holding the material world to be the work of an evil power — shaped by Mani and the Gnostics; this is not the later Protestant faith. They witness to protest, but they weren't quite 'simple New-Testament Christians.'
The Middle Ages: Hildebrand Sets the Pope Above All
Now we come to the final chapter, from the year 1000 to 1500, called the Middle Ages because it lies between the Dark Ages and the Modern Age.
The first man to speak of is Hildebrand. This monk became pope, and he did not like being number two. By now there was a restored Roman Empire with a new emperor, but the pope was number two. Hildebrand decided the pope should be number one, and he achieved it. He did many good things: he cut out the simony in the church, the buying of priesthoods. But he did it because he believed the pope should control everything, including kings.
The clash between Hildebrand and Emperor Henry IV was settled in a most dramatic and terrible way. Henry IV defied Hildebrand, saying: I am number one. Hildebrand answered: you are not. Let the people decide. And the people decided that Hildebrand was. Up in the Alps, the pope met Emperor Henry IV, who came from the north. The pope was in a mountain house, and he kept Emperor Henry IV waiting outside in the snow, barefoot, for three days, before he would speak to him. In this way Hildebrand put the emperor decisively in a secondary place.
From then on, for the next 500 years, the pope was the most influential figure, and the papacy was the power that controlled the Western world. The Church was the empire again. It was this pope who began the symbol of the crossed keys of St. Peter: one key is the authority of sacred power over the Church, the other the authority of secular power over the state. Those crossed keys are Hildebrand's claim: to be top dog, over both the Church and the state.
Kit's note
Let me return two points. First, Hildebrand (Gregory VII, 11th c.) did not create the 'crossed keys' emblem: the device appears only in the 14th–15th c. — the oldest belongs to Pope Martin V (1417–1431), over 300 years later. Second, the keys traditionally do not mean 'one sacred, one secular'; both belong to spiritual authority (the power to 'bind and loose'). What Pawson has right is Hildebrand's ambition: to set the pope over both Church and state.
The Crusades: When the Church Took Up the Sword
This put the force of armies at the Church's disposal. And because Hildebrand thought that way, he began to use force to establish the kingdom of Christ. Never was a greater mistake made. The first outcome of the idea that force is valid for the Church to use was eight crusades to the Holy Land.
By now the holy places, Jerusalem and others, were in the hands of the Muslims, the Saracens, the Turks. The pope decided the Church would fight its way in and capture the Holy Land for Christ. The First Crusade was born in 1095. It was Hildebrand's idea, but he died before it could be done. People wore a cross on the shoulder, called a crux, and from that we get the word crusade.
The First Crusade was pulled together by an unkempt, fanatical preacher called Peter the Hermit. He set off with 600,000 men, and only a tenth arrived; most died in the high mountains of Turkey. But they got there, and they took Jerusalem. They pillaged it, raped the women, and established the so-called rule of Christ in Jerusalem by slaughtering all the Saracens of that city. Is that Christian? You say at once: of course not. But bear in mind, they were misled. Thousands thought this was what the Church was meant to be: an earthly empire establishing itself by force.
Kit's note
Two corrections. One — 600,000 is wildly inflated: historians put Peter the Hermit's 'People's Crusade' at roughly 20,000–40,000 (the whole First Crusade together was only about 60,000–100,000). Two — Peter's band did not take Jerusalem: arriving in Anatolia, it was annihilated by the Seljuk Turks at Civetot (21 Oct 1096). Jerusalem fell nearly three years later — 15 July 1099 — to the nobles' armies. The bloody massacre is real, but it was 1099, not the work of Peter's poor.
Of course there were incentives. People were promised absolution if they went to fight for Christ; promised indulgences, so many years off purgatory; promised their debts cancelled by law; promised pardon for criminals who would leave prison to go and fight. You can imagine the motley crew that resulted. King Philip of France was caught up in it. King Richard the Lionheart of England was caught up in it. Eight times they set off. One was a children's crusade: 2,000 little ones set off across Europe to try to get Palestine back for Jesus. Not one of them arrived. The pope said angels would miraculously provide food; but the food never came and the angels never appeared.
The last one was an utter failure. At the flat-topped mountain of the Horns of Hattin, the last crusader army died of thirst, besieged by the Saracen. And in 1270, Europe breathed a sigh of relief when the pope called the whole thing off.
Kit's note
Pawson's picture of the Horns of Hattin is right (4 July 1187, Saladin luring King Guy's army into waterless ground and breaking it through thirst) — but it was not 'the last crusade'; it was a battle of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the loss of Jerusalem that followed is precisely what sparked the Third Crusade (Richard and Philip). As for 1270: the campaign collapsed not because the pope 'called it off' but because its leader, King Louis IX of France, died of disease before Tunis (25 Aug 1270). The crusader presence ended only when Acre fell in 1291.
It is one of the saddest stories in the history of the Church. It did nothing. Nothing. And indeed it did worse than nothing.
The Eight Crusades
When the Church used the sword instead of love (1095–1291)
Hildebrand believed force could establish the kingdom of Christ. "Never was a greater mistake made," says Pawson.
People's Crusade · 1096
Peter the Hermit leads a mob; most die in the mountains of Asia Minor.
First Crusade · 1095–99
Takes Jerusalem (1099) and massacres its people. The only "success."
Second Crusade · 1147–49
Preached by Bernard of Clairvaux; fails.
Third Crusade · 1189–92
Richard the Lionheart vs Saladin; Jerusalem not retaken.
Fourth Crusade · 1202–04
Diverts to sack Constantinople — Christians against Christians.
Children's Crusade · 1212
A march of children; not one reaches the Holy Land.
Later Crusades · 1217–54
Failure after failure, including the two campaigns of King Louis IX.
Hattin & the collapse · 1187 / 1291
Routed at the Horns of Hattin (1187); Acre, the last stronghold, falls in 1291.
The incentives to go
By 1270 the pope called it off. "It did nothing. Nothing. And indeed it did worse than nothing." — David Pawson
The Inquisition, Two or Three Popes, and the Corruption
From using force outside the Church, the pope now decided to use force inside the Church, opening another dreadful chapter called the Inquisition. Pawson says he dare not describe the things done in the name of Christ. The bishops refused to run this machine of cruelty, malice, and suspicion; but the Dominicans took it up. And for many years, countless people lived in fear of their lives through that dreadful thing.
All the way through, what was wrong was this: the Church thought of itself as an earthly empire allowed to use force to establish the cause of Christ. We now know this is not the way. The Church must use no force but love, and must never force anyone, except through love and through preaching the gospel, to accept Christ.
And this kind of corruption soon turns in on itself. Power tends to corrupt, said Lord Acton, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Soon there were two popes fighting for the throne, then three. There was a pope at Avignon, a pope at Rome. Who was pope now? They managed to pull the papacy back together, but then the corruption spread further down: the monasteries became corrupt and too wealthy, the bishops too powerful, the parishes corrupt.
Kit's note
For accuracy (and Pawson quotes it rightly here): Lord Acton's line is 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' — without the 'All' the popular version often adds. He wrote it in a letter of 5 April 1887 to Bishop Mandell Creighton, and the very next sentence is 'Great men are almost always bad men...'. Tellingly, Acton wrote it while arguing that even popes must be judged by the same moral standard — exactly the context Pawson is in.
And the practices of ordinary Christian religion became corrupt. There were prayers to Mary, though we were never told to pray to Mary; she is a human being like the rest of us. There were prayers for the dead, prayers to the saints. There was the doctrine that caused the greatest fear: purgatory, how many years of suffering after you die. There was the doctrine of the mass as a sacrifice. There was confession to a priest. There were indulgences, so that for a sum of money you could buy so many years off purgatory. There were pilgrimages. There was the worship of relics. There were images in worship. Not a scrap of this is in the New Testament.
The Medieval Accretions
"Not a scrap of this is in the New Testament"
One practice at a time, added across the centuries. The right column gives the (approximate) date each became official or was formally defined.
Dates are approximate: many began as customs and were only later defined at councils (e.g. Lateran IV 1215, Florence 1439). This is Pawson's Protestant reading of them; see the "other voices" box for Catholic & Orthodox perspectives.
The Basic Fault: The Church Thought She Was Christ
So what was the basic fault behind all this? If you forget most of what I have said tonight, this is important. I will tell you what was wrong in one sentence:
The Church had begun to think she was Christ. And she still does.
Pawson recounts asking a leading priest: is this still true? He answered: yes, and it will not change. Pawson said: my one problem is that I do not believe the Church is Christ, and I do not believe she is prophet, priest, and king. I believe Jesus is. The Church is not our prophet, or our priest, or our king. And the priest answered frankly: we will not discuss that, because it will never change.
That is the basic fault. If I believe I am the prophet to the world, I can tell the world what to believe, and declare infallibly what is true. If I am the world's priest, I can say: you must come to my sacraments, you must confess to me if you are ever to be saved. And if I think I am the king of the world, I will establish my authority as widely as I can.
It is a confusion between the head and the body of the Church. The head is divine; the body is human. It is Christ who is the head, and he who is prophet, priest, and king. The Church is not. That is the fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, and it is as big today as it ever was. Christ said: I will build my church. He did not say: you build it. And Christ is the head of the church; no one else is the head, and no one else may be.
The Basic Fault
The Church began to think she was Christ
If you forget everything else in this essay, Pawson says, remember this. Every distortion flows from one confusion: between the head and the body.
The Head — divine
Christ
He alone is Prophet, Priest, and King
The Body — human
The Church
A body that obeys the head, never replaces it
Prophet
the one who declares truth to the world
Priest
the one who joins people to God
King
the one who rules and establishes authority
When the body thinks it is the head
"If I am the world's prophet, I can tell the world what to believe. If I am its priest, you must come to my sacraments. If I am its king, I will establish my authority as widely as I can." That is the root of it all.
"The government shall be upon his shoulder." (the book of Isaiah) Christ is the head, and no one else may be.
The Voices of Protest in the Middle Ages
But Pawson is glad to say that all through the Middle Ages, from 1000 to 1500, there were always people who said: this is not true, this is not Christianity, this is not what Jesus meant. Little groups appeared again, bearing all sorts of names from the places they lived.
There were the Beghards of the Netherlands, just people who met around the book and said: Christ is the head of our church. There were the Waldenses, named after the Waldensian valley; they believed this book told them what Jesus meant the Church to be. To their credit, they went to the pope and asked: this is what we see, could we be recognized as a valid part of the Church if we practise this book? Could they have done more? They wanted to stay in the Roman church but follow the book. The pope said: no, if you do what you intend, we will persecute you. And they were persecuted, fleeing from one valley to another.
Kit's note
Let me check the name's origin. The Waldenses are actually named after Peter Waldo (Valdes), a wealthy merchant of Lyon in southern France, who gave away his goods around 1173 and formed the 'Poor of Lyon.' The Alpine valleys Pawson mentions are where they fled and hid under persecution, not where the movement was born. His main point — a lay movement living by the Bible, asking to be recognized and refused by Rome — stands intact.
The next group were the Albigenses of southern France; they too read the book and saw what the Church was meant to be. Sadly, the most bloody campaign ever launched from the papacy was against these people. The pope sent two Spanish noblemen to put them to death. But they came back and told the pope: these are good Christians, not criminals, not fighting you, they only want to be in the Church and practise their understanding of Scripture. And one of them, named Dominic, said: we will bring this within the Church. And they founded the Dominicans, a copy of the Albigenses but inside the church. The tragedy is that later the Dominican order so corrupted itself that it was willing to run the Inquisition. There were also the Brethren of the Common Life in Germany. All were independent of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, based everything on the Bible in the people's language, and all were persecuted to the death. The true Church has always been persecuted.
Among those inside the church who also saw this were people who withdrew and held the faith privately. One was Bernard of Clairvaux. A very serious young man, though in his youth he had led a real gang of thieves. After two years as a prisoner of war in Italy, he came to himself and realized he was wasting his life. The son of a French baron, he gave up his riches and withdrew with twelve friends into a valley full of robbers. There he lived on cooked beech leaves and herbs, a terribly poor life; he got his friends up at two every morning for prayer, did not let them stop work until eight at night, and they built a community in the valley of Clairvaux.
Kit's note
Let me return something on Bernard's youth. The most reliable sources (Britannica, and the Vita prima by his contemporary William of St-Thierry) do not record him leading a gang of thieves or spending two years as a prisoner of war; they describe a noble youth fond of letters who, after his mother's death (c. 1112–1113), freely entered the monastery. This is likely Pawson recalling a touch too vividly. Even so, his point — a young man giving his whole life to God — holds.
Bernard became one of the most powerful Christians in Europe, without office, without money, without any material or psychological force. He was called the "pope maker." In private, he loved Jesus; Martin Luther said that of all the monks and priests of history, he held Bernard of Clairvaux in the highest esteem. But in public, he felt bound to support the papacy. Someone has wisely said he set back the Reformation by at least two centuries.
The other man, almost contemporary, was Francis, born in the little town of Assisi. Francis was brought to face life by meeting a leper in the street. He walked past the leper on the other side. But as he passed, he asked himself: what kind of man am I to turn away from a fellow man? He went back and kissed the leper. From then Francis began to be serious about life. He sought Christ, and he found him. He gathered around him a group of friends who went out two by two, in utter poverty, preaching the gospel, winning people for Christ.
Though he is remembered more for his way with animals and birds and his unique love of nature, Pawson says Francis ought to be remembered for something else: he was the first missionary to the Muslims. Risking his life, he went to the Sultan himself to preach the gospel of Jesus to the head of the Muslims. Instead of going with 600,000 soldiers to fight them, Francis went alone in poverty to preach the love of Jesus. And he was the first and last missionary to the Arab Muslims for many a century, until Raymond Lull. Francis's followers wore grey robes, so they were called Greyfriars; the Dominicans wore black, so they were called Blackfriars. Both tried to bring the simple Christian life back into the church, but both failed and became corrupt: the Franciscans became professional beggars, and the Dominicans ran the Inquisition.
The whole situation was crying out for a man to speak the truth, and to speak it so well that everyone would hear and understand. Arnold of Brescia, in 1150, began it when he said: wealth and worldly power should not be in the Church's hands. But Bernard of Clairvaux opposed him and got him silenced. Then came Marsilius, a medical doctor, who read his Bible and said: the Bible is the standard of the Church, and no other; bishops and popes are human inventions. But he was silenced. An Englishman who was a professor at the University of Paris, William of Ockham, also spoke up and was silenced.
Until it fell to the lot of a Yorkshireman to be what is called the morning star of the Reformation. The morning star is the star you can still see when the sun is coming up. And the morning star of the Reformation was a Yorkshireman who came to Oxford as a brilliant student, became a professor at Oxford, travelled widely, and was nicknamed Doctor Evangelicus. His name: John Wycliffe.
That man rediscovered the Bible, perhaps more than anyone else until Martin Luther. He protested against papal abuse. Five decrees (called bulls in those days) were issued against him. He was taken to trial at Canterbury. But he turned to the Scriptures, the only law of the Church, and said: I am going to put this Bible from Latin into English; I will cause the plowboys to know this book. And Wycliffe laboured at the translation, knowing that if you put the Bible into ordinary people's hands, you have given them the answer to all corruption in the church. He gathered around him a band of preachers who walked the villages, preaching and singing the gospel in the market square. People mocked them as singers of lullabies, calling them Lollards.
Kit's note
A small note on a famous line: 'I will cause a plowboy to know the Scriptures better than...' is actually William Tyndale's (1520s, reported by John Foxe in 1563), not Wycliffe's — Pawson has shifted it back a century and a half. Also the Wycliffe Bible was a team effort (Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey did much of it), translated from the Latin Vulgate. But Pawson's spirit is right: the Lollards really did mean to put an English Bible into ordinary hands.
Go to Amersham. Up Station Road, turn left through the houses, out into the field. There is a monument to people burned alive by their own children, who were forced to light the bonfires and burn their parents to death. Why? Because their parents were caught in Amersham woods reading their Bibles. That was the result of Wycliffe and the Lollards. And Wycliffe himself died peacefully as the rector of Lutterworth.
Wycliffe was at Oxford, and there was another university in Europe closely linked with Oxford: the University of Prague. The rector of Prague was a poor peasant boy who had risen by sheer hard work. His name was also John: John Huss. Huss heard of Wycliffe, began to read Wycliffe's books, and began to preach the same thing in Prague. Finally John Huss was arrested, and the pope condemned him to be burned to death; the Hussites too were put to death.
When word reached England that the pope had burned John Huss, what did they do? Church authorities went to Lutterworth, dug up the body of John Wycliffe, burned it on a bonfire, and threw the ashes into the River Swift at Lutterworth. But someone said of that:
As the River Swift will bear those ashes into the Avon, and the Avon into the Severn, and the Severn into the channels round our shores, and the channels into the oceans, so will the teaching of John Wycliffe spread throughout the world.
And that was an amazing prophecy.
Kit's note
This lovely image is real, but a few details. The order to exhume and burn Wycliffe's remains was carried out in 1428 — 44 years after his death — and the ashes were cast into the River Swift at Lutterworth. The 'prophecy' Swift → Avon → Severn → the seas → the world is actually a reflection written by the historian Thomas Fuller in his Church History of Britain (1655), not something said at the time. The meaning Pawson draws is beautiful and true; only the saying's origin needs noting.
The River of Witnesses
The flame of faith was never quite put out
Pawson admits he once thought that for a thousand years there was only the Roman church. Not true. There was always a continuous train of simple Christians who paid with their lives but kept the torch for the next generation.
Montanism — the Spirit rediscovered in Phrygia
Hermits & monastic communities — protest against worldliness
Paulicians in Armenia & Asia Minor
Bogomils in Bulgaria & Bosnia
Arnold of Brescia — "wealth out of the Church's hands"
Waldensians — the "Poor of Lyon"
Cathars / Albigensians in southern France
Francis of Assisi — poverty & mission
Beghards & the Brethren of the Common Life
Marsilius — "the Bible is the standard, no other"
William of Ockham — silenced
John Wycliffe — morning star, the English Bible
Jan Hus — burned at Constance
Martin Luther — the dawn breaks
Note: some groups (Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars) were in fact dualist, closer to Gnosticism than to New Testament Christianity as Pawson paints them — see the amber note in that section.
The Dawn: The Age of Discovery and the Reformation
We are on the brink of something exciting. You can see that such abuse of the Church of Christ could not go on forever. People were beginning to see, and the one thing enabling them to see was that they were beginning to read this book in their own language. This book, wherever it goes, will put things right.
But there was another thing that caused the Reformation, not just the abuse of the church. It was that men were entering an age of discovery. In the material realm: Columbus discovered America in 1492; Copernicus discovered that the earth goes round the sun and not the other way; Galileo put the telescope to his failing eyes and looked at the stars. It was the dawn of the age of science, when men began to question things.
In the mental realm, men were rediscovering Greek literature and art. In Raphael's paintings you see ancient culture rising again, because Constantinople had fallen to the Turks and the Greek art treasures had been swept into Rome and Italy. The new learning was spread because the printing press had just been invented. One of the great scholars of the new age was Erasmus. He began to rediscover the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament. Erasmus said: I will make a New Testament so accurate that even the humblest will get the message. And he produced an accurate New Testament in which, instead of the word "penance," the word "repentance" appeared. Many things wrong in the Bibles they had were put right.
Kit's note
A small correction: Erasmus did not produce a Hebrew Old Testament — he printed only the Greek New Testament with a fresh Latin translation (1516), and admitted his own Hebrew was weak. The recovery of the Hebrew OT was the Complutensian Polyglot, directed by Cardinal Cisneros in Spain (printed 1514–1517). Pawson merges the two; but his larger point — that the age was returning to the original texts — is exactly right. (It was Erasmus's Greek metanoeite, 'repent / change of mind,' that underwrote Luther's first theses.)
But this is the final thing Pawson wants to say. In all that great discovery of mental things, of art, music, and sculpture, the whole great movement we call the Renaissance, men discovered one thing: that if people are intellectually better, they are not therefore morally better. It was the age when the popes filled their palaces with art treasures, the age of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia, the most immoral papal family there has been. An age when men studied art, music, and literature, studied the heavens, and were still immoral.
The Renaissance was a purely mental and cultural thing. It did not meet the need of sin. The whole world was waiting for a man to rediscover salvation.
Waiting for a man to grapple with the moral problem of the human race, of the church and the world; a man who would go to this book and, out of his own experience of sin and salvation, rediscover the secret of Christian power to change the world. And that man was Martin Luther, a monk. This very month 450 years ago, he made his discovery public. The Renaissance was mental, but the Reformation was moral. It tackled the real problem, which is not our lack of knowledge, science, or culture, but our lack of Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation. His story is Part 3 of this series.
Kit's note
A nice detail that dates the sermon: Luther's 95 Theses are dated 31 October 1517, so 'this very month 450 years ago' places Pawson's sermon in October 1967. One small scholarly footnote: it is still debated whether Luther physically nailed the theses to the Wittenberg door that day or simply sent them to Archbishop Albert — but the date, and the spark to the indulgences controversy, are not in doubt.
Renaissance & Reformation
The Renaissance was mental; the Reformation was moral
Renaissance — mental
• Columbus reaches the Americas (1492)
• Copernicus & Galileo look to the heavens
• Constantinople falls (1453) → Greek treasures flood west
• The printing press is invented
• Erasmus recovers the Greek New Testament
• The art of Raphael flowers
But cleverer is not holier: this was the age of the Borgia popes.
Reformation — moral
What the world lacked was not knowledge, science, art or culture. What the world lacked was Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation.
The whole world waited for a man to rediscover salvation, to grapple with sin. That man was Martin Luther — a monk.
"The Renaissance addressed the head; the Reformation addressed the heart." Part 3 of this series will tell Luther's story.
More Than One Voice
How other historians and preachers read this millennium
Pawson preaches from a strongly Protestant stance. For fairness, and so you hear more than one side, here is how others tell the same story, some agreeing, some pushing back.
Historians & surveys
Justo L. González · The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (1984)
Reads the millennium as a paradox: the "Constantinian shift" widened the "narrow gate" into an avenue and the crowds poured in, with monasticism rising as a protest. Yet he refuses to write the era off as apostasy.
“When the church joins the powers of the world… how is one to resist the enormous temptations of the times?”
Vs. Pawson: Agrees with Pawson's "the world captured the Church," but tempers it: there was real devotion, and the monks preserved learning.
Bruce L. Shelley · Church History in Plain Language (1982)
A popular evangelical survey: the Constantinian shift brought real power but "at a price to pay"; monastics, dissenters and reformers were the church's conscience, calling it back to a purer apostolic life.
“Those who live most devoutly for the world to come are often in the best position to change the present.”
Vs. Pawson: Largely agrees with Pawson, but is fairer and gentler, treating renewal as reform from within rather than only protest.
Diarmaid MacCulloch · A History of Christianity (2009)
Warns against reading the Middle Ages as mere "decline": it was a rich, complex world, and its "heretics" were highly diverse, mostly alien to later Protestantism rather than proto-Protestants.
“…a more interestingly complex narrative in which religion and doubt, blasphemy and devotion remained in dialogue.”
Vs. Pawson: Tempers Pawson: stresses the richness and achievements of medieval Christianity, and that its dissenters shouldn't be claimed as ancestors of the Reformation.
Kenneth Scott Latourette · A History of Christianity (1953)
Reads the millennium as a rhythm of "advance and recession": despite corruption and eclipse, the faith pressed on among Europe's "barbarian" peoples and was never extinguished. He titled the era "The Thousand Years of Uncertainty."
“Throughout its history Christianity has gone forward by major pulsations. Each advance has carried it further than the one before.”
Vs. Pawson: Tempers Pawson's verdict with a historian's long view: even amid corruption the faith took root and expanded.
Robert Louis Wilken · The First Thousand Years (2012)
Shows Christianity was never merely Roman or Western: communities in Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China actively shaped its course.
“The Armenians, Greeks, and Ethiopians had much in common: they were governed by bishops; they fostered monastic life; they confessed the Creed of Nicaea.”
Vs. Pawson: Broadens Pawson's frame to a global Christianity that a Western-only narrative tends to miss.
Tom Holland · Dominion (2019)
A historian from outside the faith argues that the medieval reforms themselves — above all Gregory VII's eleventh-century "revolution" — forged the West's moral conscience: the split of "secular" from "sacred," and the seedbed of human rights.
“[The reformers] did render [the distinction between the sacred and the profane] something fundamental to the future of the West, 'for the first time and permanently.'”
Vs. Pawson: Pushes back on Pawson: the medieval church — even papal power — planted the West's moral seedbed, remaking the world rather than only being captured by it.
Evangelical preachers
John Piper · The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (2000)
Reads Augustine (early 5th c.) as a gift of grace: what frees a person from sin is not willpower but "sovereign joy" in God, mastering sinful pleasures at the root.
“Irresistible grace… will set us free by the sovereign power of superior delights.”
Vs. Pawson: Complements Pawson: mines Augustine at the start of the period as a living headwater of grace, rather than only institutional decline.
Michael Reeves · The Unquenchable Flame (2009)
Reads the millennium as the "backdrop" the Reformation had to answer: the late-medieval church taught grace as power to make yourself holy enough — leaving believers no assurance. Yet the gospel flame was never fully quenched (Wycliffe, Hus).
“Medieval grace worked 'like a spiritual can of Red Bull,' leaving people 'with no assurance'; what was recovered was righteousness as 'a gift to sinners.'”
Vs. Pawson: Agrees with Pawson that the gospel's center was lost, but is gentler: stresses "recovery" and continuity, framing the Reformation as a return to God's Word.
W. Robert Godfrey · A Survey of Church History (Ligonier)
A Reformed reading: Augustine's gospel of grace is the bright thread, but across the Middle Ages it is progressively "clouded" by superstition and the papacy. Yet the church never wholly died — a faithful remnant kept the gospel alive.
“What we see in the Middle Ages is indeed a time of growing superstition, of growing confusion, of a clouding of the gospel.”
Vs. Pawson: Largely agrees with Pawson, but tempers "the world captured the church": insists there was always "one bright star" keeping the truth across the millennium.
Catholic & Orthodox voices
Eamon Duffy · Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (1997)
Reads the millennium as more human and messier than praise or polemic allows: corruption and simony were real, but he refuses to reduce church history to an indictment; it was the office, not the holder's virtue, that endured.
“For all its sins… the papacy does seem to me to have been on balance a force for human freedom, and largeness of spirit.”
Vs. Pawson: Tempers Pawson's Protestant stance: concedes the corruption but resists single-cause polemic, seeing the papacy as a tangled human institution.
Kallistos Ware · The Orthodox Church (1963)
For Ware, the 1054 schism was no single-day event but "a long and complicated process"; it was the Crusades, above all the 1204 sack of Constantinople, that made the breach definitive. From the East, the real "innovation" was Rome turning a primacy of honour into a supremacy of jurisdiction.
“Rome's mistake — so Orthodox believe — has been to turn this primacy or 'presidency of love' into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction.”
Vs. Pawson: Views the same problem from the Orthodox side rather than the Protestant one, stressing the schism came gradually, not at one dramatic moment.
Henri Daniel-Rops · Cathedral and Crusade (1957)
A Catholic historian reads the millennium not as "the world capturing the Church" but as the Church Christianizing and civilizing Europe — preserving letters and learning amid chaos. Without whitewashing the decay (he calls the 14th century a "debacle"), he insists the Church kept producing saints and reformers from within.
“From the lowest to the highest, society believed — the Church being "the most effective means of ensuring the salvation of civilization."”
Vs. Pawson: Both tempers and pushes back on Pawson: concedes the corruption, yet argues that even amid decay the Church rescued civilization and reformed itself from within.
Drawn from standard church-history surveys and the messages and books of contemporary teachers. The aim is not to rebut Pawson, but to hear him within a chorus.
A Closing Prayer
Pawson ends not with a summary, but with a prayer, after so many years and centuries have rolled by before his hearers' eyes:
"Father, may we be the sort of church you want us to be. May we learn from the mistakes of the past, the lessons of history. We thank you that through all those ages you were never without witness, never without those who knew the truth, who often paid for it with their lives, but kept alight that flaming torch of faith which we inherit to pass on to succeeding generations. Where the church is corrupt, cleanse it. Where it is in error, lead her to the truth. Where she is divided, unite her. And above all, may Jesus Christ be seen to be the head of the church, and the only head of the church."
A thousand years of the sea seeping into the boat. But the flame was never quite put out. And at the end of that long tunnel, the dawn is breaking. Part 3 will tell the story of the monk who saw what had gone wrong, and who, with one book, set it all right again.