John Wycliffe (1328-1384) : First Light of the Reformation by Chris White

John Wycliffe

In 1302, pope Boniface VIII issued a papal decree known as Unam Sanctum [one holy church] to all of Europe.  This official message declared that there was one true church composed only of those who were baptized and obedient to the Roman pontiff because as the vicar of Christ, he is the supreme ruler over the inhabitants of the earth.   This assertion of supreme authority came at a time when the papacy and church hierarchy was receiving pushback from many quarters throughout Europe including branches of the church and different monarchs.  Although the statement is the epitome of superbia and was considered so by many at the time, it reflected an overall view of the nature of the Christian church that was so deeply seated, it truly was considered heresy to think otherwise.  In many regards the idea of papal supremacy is the debate that led to the Catholic-Protestant division two centuries later.  In looking at the life and career of John Wycliffe, it is important to understand this conflict because he was a devoted clergyman and theologian who in his public life and pastoral practice both implicitly and explicitly challenged this idea.

Read "Unam Sanctum" in modern English here 

Pope Boniface VIII

Wycliffe’s life intersected with what was one of the darkest centuries in Western Europe.  Born in 1328 in the county of Yorkshire England, Wycliffe would witness in his lifetime the Black Death which took as much as 50% of the populace in some places, the bloody conflict of the Hundred Years War with France (which actually lasted well beyond 100 years), and finally the Western Schism of the Church where rival claimants to the papacy divided Christians for nearly 40 years.  Christ promised his disciples that as long as they were in this world there would be tribulation (Jn. 16:33) but it seems that the life and times of John Wycliffe received an extra portion of trouble somehow.

The Black Death took 50% of the populace in places

Of John Wycliffe’s early life not much is known.  The Wycliffe family raised sheep and lived in a village some 200 miles outside of London.  What early education he received probably came from his local priest.  In 1342 Wycliffe’s village comes under the leadership of the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, the second son of King Edward III.  Later in life there would be strong ties between the Duke of Lancaster and Wycliffe but it is not likely the two knew each other prior to Wycliffe’s rise to national prominence.  In 1345, when Wycliffe is 17 years old, he begins to attend Oxford University starting what would be a long and distinguished academic career.  Like most students in his socio-economic status paying for college was a struggle, but he was able to work his way through college living very modestly in a residence near his school.

Oxford today

Wycliffe was to be associated with the colleges of Oxford as a student, academic, and teacher for almost the remainder of his life.  In 1361 he received his Master of Arts degree and in 1372 was made a doctor of theology.  If this seems like a long time to be in school it should be remembered that the length of training to teach and be ordained for ministry was much longer in this period of history.  Once Wycliffe received the Master of Arts, he worked as a minister and a professor while continuing his studies towards his doctorate.  When he received his doctorate he was also made the rector of Lutterworth church, a position he held for the remainder of his life.

In terms of biography, speaking of Wycliffe’s education is a bit more important than just explaining that he had credentials he could put on a resume.  He was a man of humble beginnings who was able to attain expert status in interpreting and understanding the Bible.  He had equal interest in law and philosophy and studied them quite deeply as well.  The sum of this prepared him to be an able spokesman for the English crown to the papacy as well as made him one of the most well-known and trusted theologians in all of Europe.  In essence, Wycliffe’s greater influence was that he was truly learned and intellectually honest.  This would bring both fame and controversy as time went on, but it is why he is important as a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation.

Wycliffe the preacher

Between 1374-76 Wycliffe develops and publishes what has been called his “Dominion Theory.”  This is the idea that all resources in the world are God’s and He alone gives them to men.  If anyone misuses these in some way, God is quite justified in removing them and giving them to another as an act of discipline or punishment.  No one possesses anything by “divine right” but at the pleasure of God.

As this idea played out in historical context, England was at the time facing a possible war with France.  Strapped for cash, England was also facing great demands from the Catholic Church for more and more support.  Wycliffe goes against the church and urges parliament not to comply with their demands.  He argued the church already had enough wealth and Christ urged his disciples to poverty not aggrandizement.  This certainly made him popular with the state (at least for the moment) but earned him the attention of Pope Gregory XI who issued five papal bulls against Wycliffe on this theory calling it error from the master of errors.

In 1377, Wycliffe is condemned at a meeting he has with church officials at St. Paul’s cathedral in London.  Later that year he is put under a house arrest when he refuses any further questioning before the bishops.  When Wycliffe is summoned to a trial at Lambeth Palace (home of the Archbishop of Canterbury) the following year, the queen mother and other prominent citizens of London show up to give their support which in turn made a conviction of heresy exceedingly impolitic in that moment.

And then, as so often happens in history, the sudden death of Pope Gregory XI that year stopped all efforts to silence Wycliffe. 

The Western Schism

The papal election that summer was to result in the division of Christendom for the next 36 years.  Gregory XI had only recently returned the papacy to Rome after a 70 year hiatus in Avignon.  Gregory and several of his predecessors were Frenchman as well as many of the cardinals.  The fear that the cardinals would elect another Frenchman and the papacy would return to Avignon caused riots in Rome and death threats against the conclave.  Under duress, the cardinals elected an Italian bishop who took the name Urban V.  Feeling bad about making such a choice under pressure and not particularly liking their choice, most of the French cardinals leave Rome and hold another election where they choose Clement VII as a rival pope and they do return to Avignon.  And so with all the confusion and division that ensued in the wake of rival papacies, John Wycliffe found himself out from all the scrutiny for at least a while.  This gave him the room to enter into even greater controversy the following year.

In 1379, Wycliffe publishes his controversial views on the Eucharist (also known as Communion or the Lord’s Supper).  In his day the idea of transubstantiation was accepted as dogma by the Church.  Transubstantiation is the belief that when an ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine used in this ceremonial meal, it actually becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ even though its external appearance is unchanged.  This idea, which has a long and deep root system in Christian history, comes from an extremely literal understanding of John 6:53 which reads: “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’”  What is being suggested in this view is that the eternal life is assured and sustained by regular participation (eating the body and blood of the Lord) in this meal.  A further entailment of this idea is that only an ordained priest under the authority of his bishop and ultimately the pope is authorized to consecrate the meal and thus confer this benefit to the Christian. 

This doctrine also became a means of enforcing the pope’s views or wishes.  On many occasions, if a prince, king, or even teacher in the church said or did something at odds with the pope, what was known as an interdict would be issued against them.  An interdict withholds some or all the sacraments until further notice.  Imagine being a king with an entire population fearing for their souls because they are being denied the Eucharist because of some choice you made.  More than once was this used to bring pressure to bear on a secular ruler.

Wycliffe saw this idea as something quite novel (it had only become the official teaching of the Church at the Lateran Council of 1215) and from his theological and philosophical perspective thought the idea to be unsound.  From a pastoral perspective, he felt the practice to be idolatrous and superstitious and putting too much emphasis on the priest.  Wycliffe came to write a treatise called De Eucharista which directly attacked transubstantiation.

"it all depends on the definition of 'is'"

When President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment during January of 1999, he famously deflected the idea that he perjured himself when he had previously denied a relationship with Monica Lewinsky with the now famous “that all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”.  Apparently John Wycliffe preceded Mr. Clinton by several centuries in his parsing of the word ‘is’ when it came to his understanding of the Eucharist.  On this topic Wycliffe gave special meaning to the word ‘is’ when it came to his understanding of Christ’s words “this is my body.”  Wycliffe believed that the consecrated host was still bread, but “is” the body of Christ in terms of its significance and effect in the believer partaking in the Eucharist.  Known as the “receptionist view”, Wycliffe emphasized the faith of the communicant over priestly consecration as to how the body and blood of Jesus are partaken in the Lord’s Supper. He believed that the bread and the wine on the altar remained bread and wine after their consecration.  Christ was present and received in the Eucharist on the basis of faith by the individual communicant.

By 1381, Oxford University was put under pressure by the church and Wycliffe was so controversial that he is officially banned from his teaching post.  Still a pastor he moves to the parish church of Lutterworth where he serves the remainder of his life.  It is in this exile of sorts, Wycliffe develops some of his most influential theology which gives shape to what a reformed Christian church will eventually look like in the next 200 years.  

Wycliffe influenced many preachers to go out in England

Wycliffe, himself a noted preacher, felt that preaching of the Word of God was the most important thing people needed and the most neglected task of the church.  He was also critical how many of the common practices of church were connected only by tradition but not by direct teaching from scripture.  Things like confession to a priest or masses to relieve the dead in purgatory he believed to be unbiblical and abominable.  Wycliffe emphasized in his teaching that the believer only needed one mediator before God and that was Christ alone.

During this period Wycliffe and several aides translated the Bible from Latin to English. Technically this would be a translation of a translation but it is the first English Bible and sets a tone for future reformers such as Tyndale and Luther to produce vernacular scriptures.  What is important to know is that the audience for this Bible was the common person.  Latin was the language of educated clergy and French the language of the educated Englishman.  In Wycliffe’s time more and more ordinary people were learning to read and Wycliffe believed it was God’s will that the common man could have greater access to the Bible by hearing it preached in his own language.  Both Wycliffe and Luther strategically published their books in the common language to give their ideas a broader reach.  Wycliffe, unfortunately lived prior to the mass-production of books and so his audience was obviously more restricted than Luther’s but it still had a wider reach than it would have if it were only written in Latin.

Wycliffe the Bible translator

The detractors of Wycliffe had great criticism of his Bible translating activities.  For the Church, Latin was the language of the learned.   Something as important as the Bible should not be available to the unlearned and untrained to read on their own, but should be interpreted for them by the clergy.  In this sense, it was said that Wycliffe had “thrown pearls before the swine.”  In one sense, this criticism is not entirely unjust.  People who attempt to interpret the Bible without proper understanding can and do make a mockery of its contents all the time.  However, on the other side of the equation, the general message of the Bible is relatively clear and accessible to all who read it, even those without a faith commitment.  Thus, a lay person who reads the Bible, although they may require some guidance at times, can certainly read it to his or her own edification without much problem. 

An interesting unintended consequence of Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible was that it unified the form of English that was spoken in Britain because of the Bible’s popularity.

Wycliffe actually died in the pulpit

Probably one of Wycliffe’s more influential writings was his treatise known as De Ecclesia.  In it he explains the nature of the Church is not the visible organization (with its pope, cardinals, bishops) but the congregation of the predestined.  The only head of the church then is not the pope, but Jesus himself.  Wycliffe, not one to fear controversy, pointed out that it was quite possible that even the pope may not be of the elect.  While the church on earth will always be a mixture of wheat and tares as Jesus said it would, the true church will always be composed of those whom the Lord has called to himself and who live by faith.  Even as the Medieval church emphasized the external structures and the use of sacraments as the guarantee of eternal life, Wycliffe pointed to the ancient path of the prophets and apostles who taught that the just shall live by faith.  This too would be an idea picked up and carried forward by the later Reformers.

Even as the Roman Catholic church has a long memory of those it considers saints and martyrs, it has an equally long memory of those it considers heretics.  John Wycliffe had the good fortune of dying and going to heaven in 1384 after a second stroke and a life wearied by conflict with the church hierarchy and the burden of many labors on behalf of its people.  In 1418, some 34 years after his death, 260 separate charges of heresy were brought against him at the ecumenical council of Constance and the conclusion of the council, which also condemned to the flames John Huss a popular preacher also influenced by Wycliffe, was that he was to be posthumously condemned, executed and deprived of Christian burial.  The job of carrying out the sentence fell to the newly elected Pope Martin V who didn’t get around to carrying out this sentence for another 11 years.  In 1429, the pope had the bones of John Wycliffe disinterred from the church yard where he was buried, and then burned to dust (as would be done if he were burned at the stake) and the ashes cast into the nearby river Swift.  He was considered an ‘obstinate heretic’ by the Church but later generations would look upon his influence and contributions and call him “the Morningstar of the Reformation.”  His light was the Scripture alone and his call was for the church to consider them the true voice of the Lord on earth.

Wycliffe's macabre posthumous execution

 Watch an outstanding film on Wycliffe here

Joan of Arc (1412-1431) : God's Heroic Prophetess by Chris White

A romantic depiction of Joan

 This story happens in the context of the Hundred Years War which was in essence an ongoing conflict between England and France that lasted more than 100 years.   England had owned part of Northern France for centuries and wanted to stay and expand their rule.  The Kings of France wanted them out but were not strong enough to dislodge them.  Eventually France did prevail but it took a heavy toll on the nation in terms of destruction of life and property.  However, given the historic English penchant for hanging on the every inch of property they can, even if it serves no real purpose, the French probably should consider themselves lucky it wasn’t a 400 year war!   As this touches Joan of Arc, the battles that she participates in are essentially wars of liberation from an outside oppressor.  This is why she is highly regarded as a French heroine.  As the story unfolds you will see the English regarded her as something quite different.


Joan of Arc was born in January of 1412 in a sleepy little village called Domremy la Pucelle.  It was a typical village in eastern France.  People made their living from the land and were very religious.  Joan’s father was a successful farmer and believed to have been one of the town fathers.  Her mother was known as God fearing and quite affectionate to her children teaching them most of their religious beliefs.  Joan shepherded her father’s sheep and learned to spin wool and lived like most young girls did in the late Middle Ages.  She was well-liked in her town, active in Church and participated in charitable activities.

Joan's birthplace

Joan had grown up with the war between the French and English and according to historian Will Durant, would have believed like most folk in their area that the English really were devils who were able to hide their tails under their coats.  There was also a prophecy floating around the countryside at the time that someday God would send a young virgin who would deliver France from this long siege of Satan.  It is very possible that Joan heard this prophecy as a young girl.


In 1424, When Joan is about 13 she has her first experience.  She sees a bright light over her head and hears a voice speak to her telling her to be an obedient child and to go often to Church.  To be honest, I don’t know how much more obedient a child could be since she had by this time a reputation of being very pious and stopping to kneel and pray every time the bells at the town Church were rang.

Joan received visions several times

Over the next couple of years, Joan claims further visitations by Michael the Archangel, St. Catherine of Alexandria, and St. Margaret of Antioch.  There are some interesting connections here:  Margaret was a virgin who was martyred because of false accusations made against her, Catherine was a virtuous woman who came to faith in Christ because of visions she saw, and Michael the Archangel led the battle against the forces of Lucifer when he rebelled against God.   It seems hardly coincidental that all three of these persons were represented by statuary in Joan’s church and that they reflect in their life story aspects of what played out in her own life.  According to Joan’s testimony at her later trial she saw a full image of Michael and only the faces of Catherine and Margaret.  They spoke perfect French to her and were beautiful in appearance but also smelled beautiful.  Originally these voices only spoke to her about her piety and maintaining her virginity but eventually they spoke to her about her mission to save France.

By the summer of 1428, Joan is now around 18 years old.  She was described as a handsome and healthy girl with dark hair and smiling face with a quiet if not silent disposition.  By this point in the story, France is in deep trouble.  Paris is controlled by the English, and the key city of Orleans is under siege.  If this city falls, it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the country does.

Joan hears from Michael the Archangel

It is at this time that the voices become quite insistent with her.  Michael himself tells her to go to the aid of the King.  At another time she is told to take the King to Rheims, which was the spiritual capital of the country at the time, and have him properly crowned and anointed by the clergy so that the French would unite behind him and fight for freedom.  Joan is given a specific plan by her divine voices.  She is to present herself to the King’s commander and he will bring her to the King.  She is immediately dismissed by him as a girl who needs to go home and get a good spanking by her father.  But she persists by staying in town and when the French are defeated in another battle, she finally gets a hearing and is sent with a military escort to the King.  This is where she dons the male military attire and cuts her hair short (believed to be the origins of the popular french "bob" hairdo by some).  This is most likely for her protection but possibly a response to her voices to prepare to be a warrior.

After traveling for 11 days through enemy territory, in March of 1429 she is able to speak with the Dauphin or the Kings heir-apparent Charles VII.    Wanting to check her out, the Dauphin disguised himself as a servant but when she came into the room she immediately identified him and shared her message with him.  Many in the King’s court thought she was mentally disturbed and Charles was not thoroughly sold either.  He sends Joan to be further examined by the clergy regarding her authenticity.  But after several weeks they send her back to the King with their blessing and he decides to make use of her.

Joan meets Charles VII the Dauphine

Over the next year and a half, Joan leads and rallies the French in a series of battles which successfully push back the English.  Her banners of white with the fleur- de- lis, the name of God and Mary, her sword, and her conviction that she is on God’s mission for the King, strengthens the troops and encourages them to great risk and great achievement.  She eventually leads the King to his coronation and seemingly her mission is complete.


King Charles VII, however, convinces her to continue with the army and she does even though she no longer hears any of the voices and has great misgivings about it.  She is shot with an arrow in one skirmish and eventually in another taken captive by French forces loyal to the English crown.  The English are so angry with her that they purchase her for the sum of $80,000 in today’s money so they can try her as a witch.

Joan was a symbol more than a warrior

At the start of the next year Joan endures a 4 month trial where she is charged with heresy and witchcraft by the English Clergy.  She is interrogated about her visions and in the end they were found to be “false and diabolical”.  They threatened her with burning at the stake unless she made a full retraction.  Under great pressure Joan eventually signed a statement retracting her visions and promising allegiance back to the Church.  Unfortunately,  there were those who wanted her dead no matter what. 

Part of her agreement was to stop wearing her military clothing and wear only women’s clothing in prison.  Within a few days she was wearing the men’s clothing again as many believe to protect her chastity.  This was taken by several bishops that she was a relapsed heretic and this time she would be burned at the stake.  She was quite frightened by this but was strengthened in the moment and even forgave her accusers and executors.  Many left the scene realizing they had probably killed a saint and were going to be damned for it.

Burned alive like a witch

Several years after Joan’s death, the English were completely driven from France and King Charles ordered a new trial for Joan of Arc.  An official trial of the Church was held and her surviving mother and brothers attended seeking to have their family name and sister restored to the Church.  A six year investigation followed and eventually Joan of Arc was declared innocent of heresy and wrongly executed therefore she was a martyr.  In the 19^th century the Pope put her name up for beatification and in the 20^th Century, Joan of Arc was officially canonized.

So, there it is—the  story of one of the greatest heroines of the Church and of Western Civilization.  She was faithful to God and if anything her main mistake was taking things too far.  But we are left with a question: did she really receive her orders from heaven as she claimed?  There seems to be three basic trains of thought on this: 

1.  Joan had a psychological disorder—in 2002 a court in Maryland held a mock retrial for Joan of Arc with defense and prosecution lawyers and found her innocent by reason of suffering from a delusional disorder that caused her to hear audible voices in her head.  She could not be held criminally responsible was the conclusion because her actions were consistent with her delusions.  What is striking to me about this is that I have spoken on several occasions with delusional people and what they believe is generally not true and in fact is sometimes way out there.  What Joan of Arc heard and acted upon came to pass.  It did hold true.

 2.  Joan had some connection to the Devil ---She had been accused in her trial by the English of practicing divination and that the visions and information she received was the result of  conjuring demonic spirits.  However, the testimony of her life for piety and devotion to the Lord Jesus that was given at her retrial would hardly suggest someone involved with the Kingdom of darkness.  It is also strikes me that the realm of the demonic does not have future knowledge.  They certainly have a thorough understanding of human nature but no understanding of the end of a matter before it begins.  Only God holds the species of knowledge that Joan was operating within. 

 3.  Joan was appointed by God and exercised an authentic form of prophecy—Jean Brehal who acted as the Inquisitor General for the Church retrial of Joan points out that the type of messages Joan received are consistent with  Christian doctrine.  Scripturally speaking, messages from God can be impressed upon the  mind.  A person has a strong sense of God’s will and God speaking into their lives.  Sometimes messages can come symbolically in a state of meditative prayer  or in a dream.  There were plenty of these cases in the Bible.  A third way is when God chooses to reveal messages in a tangible outward form.  This was true of  Daniel and of John the Apostle.   This final way seems to be the mode in which Joan of Arc received her revelation.  She was hesitant to act upon them and was not self-promoting as is the hallmark of false prophets, and the methods she used promoted godly actions.  Finally, what was spoken by her as revelation from God did come to pass which is the acid-test of a true prophecy (see Deuteronomy 18:22).

Joan at her heresy trial

So what do I think about Joan?  There is a built-in skepticism in all modern people, even people of faith such as myself.  Our society’s pre-commitment to reason is in the air we breathe making the story of Joan of Arc seem odd and probably not true.  My guess is most Christians probably wouldn’t expect something like what happened to Joan to happen to them today.  But if there is a God (which I believe to be true) what would preclude Him from speaking into a national emergency in the lives of a specific people and place?  And why wouldn’t the same God who sent his own Son 1400 years before Joan’s time into the humblest of circumstances, speak to those in power in a later time through a humble young woman of simple faith?  The story of Joan of Arc is inconsistent with philosophical naturalism, but very consistent with a Biblical worldview.  God raises up specific persons to speak for him in specific situations and specific places.  This is the spirit of prophecy.  In our own nation, threatened by enemies from without and moral rot from within, would that God raise another Joan of Arc in our midst.

A "useful" story for other causes too!