Finding the Middle Way: The Utraquists' Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther (review)

Hussite religion (1500-1621) has often been ignored. This book changes that. Ten years of dedicated research have yielded this impressive study adding considerably to knowledge of Central European religious history. The achievements of Bohemian Christianity are vigorously underscored. Utilizing the comparative paradigm of the post-Reformation Church of England, a thorough revisionist study emerges. Attempting to forge a path between Roman and Reformation Churches, David argues that Jan Hus and Hussitism were not Protestant. The corollary—Hussite religion eventually became Roman Catholic—is likewise challenged. I find those arguments refreshing. The book expertly charts the unique development of Utraquist Christianity.

Some assertions are problematic. Claiming virtually all Bohemia was Hussite is exaggeration. Distinctions between Táborites as heretics and "Utraquists" (David's term of choice) as mere schismatics is artificial. I do not accept that the term "Hussite" is improper. Jan Hus was a heretic. It is misleading to suggest that Paul De Vooght virtually vindicated Hus. Whatever De Vooght's conclusions entailed, he regarded Hus as heretical. Francis Oakley's suggestion that Hus was almost orthodox is meaningless. A theological hair's breadth separated Francis of Assisi and Valdes, yet the former is a saint, the latter an arch-heretic. Being a little heretical is like being a little pregnant. John Paul II did not recently—and rightly so—lift the stigma of heresy from Hus. David seems undisturbed that his select group of Hussites desired episcopal consecration for their priests but only from bishops in communion with Rome despite the fact that the Roman Churchconsidered Hussites heretical and the Hussite movement going back to Jakoubek of Stríbro regarded Rome similarly. Bishops ordaining Hussites were themselves suspect. David suggests the ambiguity is not problematic.

Considerable space is devoted to Luther without any clear understanding of what Luther meant by faith (sola fide) either on the part of the Utraquist theologians David champions or of David himself. The same might be said for the red herring of sola scriptura. In my opinion, the theological acumen of Bílejovsky´and Bydzovsky´, David's heros, put together would scarcely fill a cup when set next to Martin Luther. David argues that papal judgment cannot be admitted in governance while papal sacerdotal power remained indispensable. While theologically popes were necessary, they could not be trusted with administrative and judicial powers. This does not prevent the conclusion that Utraquists needed no authentication from Rome. Curiously, they sought it diligently nonetheless. This clashes with David's repeated declarations that Utraquists were secure in their own identity.

Early modern Utraquist religion lacked sufficient inner vitality—unlike either Luther or the Roman Church—to ultimately flourish. Táborite religion in the hands of David falls well outside the purview of the Bohemian Reformation properly speaking. The assumption is fatal. Introducing ideas like "orthodox Utraquism," "sound Utraquist tradition," "traditional Bohemian piety," and "traditional Bohemian Utraquism" and the assumption that good Utraquists must believe in apostolic succession not only create false distinctions, they reveal more about authorial perspective than realities of Czech religious practice. This restricts David from fulfilling his intention of investigating the subject "in a manner as free as much as possible from preconceived notions." Further, Tridentine theology is rejected as authentic Catholicism.

Playing the liturgical card, David argues liturgy indicates the iceberg tip of faith. The claim is ambitious. Contrary evidence abounds indicating popular religion in this period was often much removed from official religion. Ecclesiastical practice sometimes had little relevance for popular beliefs structures. Lutheran pastors engaging in magical rituals to stimulate crop growth is one example. Later, the argument emerges that grassroots reality did not correspond with official declarations. It appears that David argues absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In handling evidentiary material, David reads between the lines and even against the grain which he openly advocates. It...