When we think about the Middle Ages, we must not "throw the baby out with the bathwater"... It is without doubt (whatever Schaeffer thinks) that Aquinas was a great Christian thinker and is responsible for much great writing in theology and apologetics. Yet, I agree with Schaeffer (S.) on this point: the Middle Ages were NOT, as some think, the dark ages. Amazing theological, philosophical and political writings continue today to be important. Schaeffer states that Aquinas believed that though the will was fallen, the mind was not. One's understanding of the Fall becomes very important when deciding what to do with this statement. Schaeffer's point (as a Reformed thinker) is that the whole human being was fallen. Thus, man's need for God is total. S. is driving home the point that man cannot reach God alone. It is God who enables man to reach God. This is clear Reformed thinking, based on a world view that looks to the Bible as the sole authority.
Additionally, Schaeffer points out that, during the middle ages, a general corruptness was seen in the mistreatment of people: especially the poor... compare that to what we saw with the values of the early church who went out of their way to value all people as exemplified in their care for abandoned children. This is not to say that no one served people. As S. pointed out in the hospital, care for the sick and aged saw development in the Middle Ages. These people who served were individuals of means and willingness and certain orders of the church devoted themselves to the care of people and evangelism (I think of St. Gellert who, when the newly crowned Hungarian King Istvan called for missionaries to convert the pagan tribes to Christianity, gave his life while seeking to spread the Gospel). There were changes happening which were problematic, but as I said before, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
As we consider the Renaissance, Schaeffer is right that the great renaissance city was Florence - a city that has great art and culture. Renaissance means a rebirth of the 'greatness of man.' This greatness was seen in art. There are two works of art that I want to remind us of. These works of art are illustrative to Schaeffer's point and provide the basic things I want us to take away from this. The first is what I consider a clear and shocking step in Fouquet's Red Virgin (This is what Schaeffer called for our reference, The actual work is: Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels (c.1450)) in which the artist mocks (my word, not S.'s) the Virgin Mary by using the mistress of the king as model, until now, Mary has been revered. I think Fouquet takes far too much liberty thus showing his world view.[1]
What was clearly intended to be the final point of his argument (as one could tell by the use of light and the background music) was Michelangelo's David. In this amazing work of art, the statue displays the greatness of man in a realistic form but in a very unrealistic projection of a David who would have been a teenage boy. Michelangelo, thus exemplifies the greatness of man with this breathtaking statue. S. argues that these and other works of art show the rise of Humanism, a philosophy that, without God, without universal values, places man at the center of the universe.
I contend that, while we must be warned about getting on a slippery slope and placing man at the center of the universe, we must also give credit to the Renaissance for the great revival in the arts which show the genius of the creativity of humans. With a world view that is based on following Jesus, one can understand this genius is possible since humans have within their very being the image of God. I prefer to look at the Renaissance as a place to see how God can be glorified through His supreme creation: man. Let's keep in mind that when we fail to give God the credit we may be on a philosophical slippery slope of giving man more credit than he deserves. Man is fallible, God is not. Man is created, God is the Creator. It is from God that humans receive their genius. The failure to recognize this is found in evidence from the Revolutionary Age, our next era of examination.
------------------------------
[1] Some have doubted that Fouquet knew who the model was. But another work by Fouquet himself painting of Agnes Sorel makes it very clear to me that when we look at these two paintings, Fouquet knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think not.
