Friday, July 14, 2023

Reformation Myth-Busting

“Martin Luther was the first Protestant, and yet he was more Catholic than many of his Roman Catholic opponents.”

-          Jaroslav Pelikan

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by Matthew Barrett

To be clear, the Reformers did not think of the Reformation as a return to exhaustive continuity with the past – that myth is not the claim of this book.  At the same time, the Reformers did not think of their Reformation as a radical break with the past – a caricature this book seeks to remedy.

The Reformation is enveloped in a narrative, some of it with basis in fact, some not.  It is an oppositional narrative – a narrative that presents the Reformers as merely opposing the current.  Barrett offers four such false threads in this oppositional narrative and will, through his book, examine these.  But, to summarize:

First…the Reformation was anti-tradition.  The Reformers believed sola scriptura, and that meant the Bible was the only authority for the church.

Second, the Reformation was not only anti-Catholic (Roman Catholic) but also anti-catholic (universal church), as if the true gospel and the true church had been lost since the days of the apostles…

Third, the Reformation was anti-medieval, specifically anti-Scholastic.  The Reformers thoughts Scholasticism represented everything wrong with the church, both its beliefs and practices.

Fourth, the Reformation was anti-philosophy, convinced Christianity was antithetical to Plato and Aristotle.

Evangelical academics avoid this simplistic narrative, and present the history with nuance.  However, the interested masses – even among the evangelicals – still see things this way; an oppositional narrative, and not at all accurate – certainly not complete.

Certainly, some can find something in some Reformers that would support one or another of these views.  But, per Barrett, not on the whole.  There were radicals and schismatics that came out of the Reformation – identified as such by other Reformers – that held such views, but these were on the fringes of the movement.

There were primarily two specific areas in which the Reformers disagreed with the Roman Church: soteriology, and ecclesiology.  Much of their writing focused on and around these two issues.  As Richard Muller would write:

“It is worth recognizing from the outset that the Reformation altered comparatively few of the major loci of theology: the doctrine of justification, the sacraments, and the church received the greatest emphasis – while the doctrines of God, the trinity, creation, providence, predestination, and the last things were taken over from the tradition by the magisterial Reformation virtually without alteration.”

The Reformers did not intend to start a new church; they intended to reform the only church they knew – “a catholic church they still believed possessed and practiced legitimate marks of a true church.”  Luther expressed his protest as a member of the church, as one of its doctors and professors.  It should be remembered that it was the pope who excommunicated Luther, and not Luther leaving the church.

As for authority, a better understanding of the Reformers view of sola scriptura would be that the Bible is the only infallible authority.  Tradition has its role, but it was not infallible and it remained subject to the proper interpretation of Scripture. 

Many of the so-called ancient traditions of the church were, in fact, much more recent inventions.  Such ideas could not be traced back to the early church fathers, or to practices of the early church.  Luther would identify novelties such as indulgences, private masses, the pope, and purgatory. 

Per Steinmetz:

“For Melanchthon and Calvin, though less so for Luther, the Reformation was almost as much an argument over the writings of the early Christian fathers as it was an argument over the meaning of Scripture.”

Regarding soteriology, the Reformers saws themselves as Augustinians.  Thomas Cranmer, Martin Chemnitz, and others would offer evidence from the earliest church fathers for the positions taken by the Reformers.

The shift came with the advent of the via moderna, a shift the Reformers believed betrayed the early church fathers.  When the Reformers criticized the “Schoolmen,” their criticisms were specific as to the individual and movement – and not a blanket criticism of the entire body of theology.

Conclusion

Barrett will explore and expand upon all of this in his book.  Again, he is not going to mine the depths of the early church fathers to determine if the Reformers were right.  Instead, he will consider if the Reformers themselves interpreted their reformation as a renewal of catholicity.

The Reformers did not take an axe to the tree, throw the tree in the fire, and plant a new tree.  Rather, the tree remained the same; they simply pruned its savage branches.

18 comments:

  1. I've always thought of the Reformation as an attempt to go back to the original or early beliefs and practices of the church. In that they were anti-tradition in the way that Jesus was. Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Saducees where their tradition contradicted or neglected Scripture. But there were many traditions that Jesus supported. Same with the Reformers. I always thought the Reformers didn't go far enough in the area of eschatology but that rightly was the priority. Plus John Nelson Darby took care of that many years later, right? Ha ha.

    https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-ethics-of-liberty-human-rights-as.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...but it was not infallible and it remained subject to the proper interpretation of Scripture."

    This is, it seems to me, to be the key phrase. What is the "proper" interpretation of Scripture? Does not everyone have his/her own understanding of this? Are not most people certain that they know for sure that their interpretation is correct? Who can say what is right?

    This is why I have arrived at an agnostic position of much of the argument--I simply do not know. What I do know, however, can be boiled down to one simple matter: love your neighbor as yourself. By doing so, you show your love for God...and it does not require any extraneous effort to accomplish this.

    Nothing wrong with tradition. Nothing wrong with interpretation of Scripture. However, both pale with the admonition to love your neighbor as you do yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interpretation should flow out of observation. The definition of words, the grammar, the syntax, the context, etc. Most disagreements are mistakes in observation, meaning ignoring one part of scripture or another. There a gray areas where things aren't clear, but a large majority of the bible is obvious

      Delete
    2. This is probably true. However, what part does preconceived belief play in this interpretation? We all may observe the same thing, but based on one's own subjective interpretation, much of it biased by former belief and prejudice, we come up with different conclusions. A large majority of the bible may be obvious, but that doesn't mean we will draw the same conclusions.

      Delete
    3. Roger: "What I do know, however, can be boiled down to one simple matter: love your neighbor as yourself."

      It is a great point. Until I (or we as a Christian community) find ourselves truly successful at this, how important are some of the many (even trivial or unknowable) details over which we divide?

      Delete
    4. Bionic,

      It is a great question and deserving of the best answer I can give you today. Tomorrow will probably be different...and more informed.

      Details? Differences? Divisions? If we truly loved our neighbor (whomever he or she may be) as we love ourselves, none of this would matter as we pursued and gained greater understanding of the truth. We would only be consumed by this question: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I tell you?" -- Luke 6:46

      Since we are not there yet (some are further along than others), it is incumbent on those who are more advanced to show the way, to model the paradigm, to practice the preaching. In other words, to live consistently with what one professes to believe, regardless of the cost. This requires that one also be willing to admit error and to correct course whenever necessary.

      Learning to overlook (overcome) the "many (even trivial or unknowable) details over which we divide..."
      is the hallmark of a person who is intent on gaining understanding of the truth. This does not mean that we gloss over, pooh-pooh, or excuse the "details", but that we do not allow them to keep us from the primary command we have been given--"Love your neighbor..." In fact, loving my neighbor might very well mean that I remonstrate with him at times, even as I might wish that someone would come to me in admonishment. "WTF are you doing? Get a grip!"

      Perhaps not quite that forcefully, but...you get the idea.

      I have always said that when you know the truth about yourself, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. This can, under the right circumstances, be an arrogant and uncaring attitude. I am coming to the realization that the more proper stance is that when you know the truth about yourself, then (perhaps only then) can you love your neighbor because you see in him a reflection of yourself--an imperfect someone who only wants to be loved in spite of the warts, pimples, and cancers.

      Details? Differences? Divisions? We just need to raise our vision. It begins with one--me--and spreads to my neighbor--you. Where it goes from there is your responsibility.



      Delete
    5. True love for one's neighbor can not be accomplished via collective or institutional means. It can only be exercised through the individual acting at his behest, by himself, out of the goodness of his own heart,

      To be sure, there are a lot of "good" things which are done by groups, but the base impulse driving them forward is something other than love, i.e., desire for money, power, public recognition, etc. It might even spring from a false sense and understanding of what love really is, and a satisfaction which comes from "jumping through the right hoops."

      It is important to remember that whenever two or more people, individuals with differing views and opinions, collaborate on anything, someone is going to be required to give in to deeply held beliefs about the best way to enact the "love" shown. Policies will be enacted which are divisive and which cause strife, thereby watering down the message. Politics will enter the picture, ensuring that stronger parties will dominate weaker ones.

      Institutions create rules and means to enforce them. Members are encouraged to comply with those rules and to work within the structure. They are discouraged from individual effort. The institution becomes more important than the individual, ensuring that "love" grows into a program which is controlled by The Powers That Be, rather than a heartfelt act which is inspired by the Spirit.

      There will always be differences. As long as those differences are institutionalized, they will never be overcome.


      Delete
    6. Thank you for this, Roger. A very worthwhile comment for my Sunday morning read. Actually, an inspired sermon.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, Bionic. I think I might be catching on...finally.

      Delete
  3. It has come down to Love the Lord My God with all my heart mind and strength and love my neighbor as myself.
    ALL other stuff comes from that base.
    Anything based on anything else is shifting sand.

    "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

    When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
    Kid's love making noise, pots n pans and a wooden spoon and they are off to the races.
    Jesus made things very plain to see and hear for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear.
    And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roger your statement " Myself simply does not know" was very encouraging.
    It has come to this also for me ...simply Love God and Love my neighbor.
    Trouble with this is , it is not easy to do.
    It is easy to say and even convince myself that I do.
    But I do not love as I have been loved.
    I do not even think I have the capacity to have that kind of love for others.
    Maybe it is easy if there is one whom i have agreement with or just get along well together.
    But love them that despitefully use you? OOO man not so easy for me.
    Have to battle to get to that.
    Or how about , even a thought of lust for another wombman have already committed adultery? ouch!!
    If you want to be perfect sell everything you have and give it to the poor then go follow him.
    We have mostly today talk and debate .
    From the book of acts we meet a man named Stephen.
    He was chosen because he was full of Gods grace and power and did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
    His last words were ,do not hold this sin against them.
    What is that like to be undergoing a painful death by stone throwers?
    This is the kind of Man who gets 2 kinds of responses, violent anger or conversions.
    He got both from Saul. Later renamed Paul
    Stephens short but powerful life led the the spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
    Why is Obedience so hard?
    It is an infringement on freedom.
    Since we are free in Christ obedience seems contrary to that freedom.
    Obedience is works we who are justified by faith oppose works and in turn oppose obedience.
    Having tried to obey and fail frequently and miserably, the only solution seems to disobey then confess to receive forgiveness.
    Confusing obedience to men with obedience to God Sometimes they are the same some times not.
    Romans 13:1, 1 Peter 2-3 Ephesians 5-6 Colossians 3 and Titus 2.
    IF these statements were accurate obedience would be hard.
    But in each of my statements hides a subtle lie.

    Obedience is freedom. It is a voluntary act of my will that only takes place if my will is free.
    Then Will know the truth and the truth will make me free.
    Obedience is not related to works it is related to faith.
    “By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.” (Heb. 11:7-8)

    “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.” (Rom. 1:5)

    “…but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him.” (Rom. 16:26)

    When we obey, we are acting by faith, not works.

    3) Trying to obey is the opposite of trusting to obey. When we try, we are self-centered, not God-centered. When we trust God to do His will, God provides the strength to obey, a much better alternative than depending on ourselves for obedience.

    4) Confusion is avoidable when we know the Scripture well enough to differentiate between the commands of men and the commands of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin, you have identified many areas in which I fail at the practice of "loving my neighbor", especially if she is young and beautiful.

      Wow! How do you handle that? And the immediate answer is, I'd like to, which is why so many "hands-on" practitioners of religion fail so spectacularly.

      Nevertheless, the admonition remains even though we fall short.

      One positive thing I can say is that I have a full lifetime, however short or extended that may be, to perfect the practice of loving my neighbor--in a Christ-like manner and not as I might wish to. I do not have to remain where I am and there is always room for improvement.

      I am coming to the realization that to truly love one's neighbor as you do yourself and God Himself is the only way to actually live. Everything else is a dead-end street.

      Delete
  5. second part....
    Here are positive reasons why obedience is easy:

    1) The Scriptures were given to us in order to prevent sin (1 John 2:1).

    2) God provides a way in every situation so that we need not sin (1 Cor. 10:13).

    3) We are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:22-23. Obedience is the natural quality for the life controlled by God’s Spirit.

    4) Jesus died that we might be dead to sin.

    “By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?... Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.... The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” (Romans 6:2, 8, 10)

    “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)

    God commands us to obey. But He also provides for our obedience via His death and resurrection, and His gifts of faith, grace, the indwelling Holy Spirit and a new and glorious nature.

    Sin is based on two things: a lie and rebellion. Many Christians, like Eve, believe a lie. Once we buy the lie, rebellion is the consequence.

    “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:3)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "First…the Reformation was anti-tradition. The Reformers believed sola scriptura, and that meant the Bible was the only authority for the church."

    ... and yet we maintain nearly the same liturgy, both churches conduct the service in the language of the people, (post Vatican II), and we read from a widely available Bible in the same language.

    I would say that we (Lutherans) have as our Primary authority the Bible, and respect tradition when appropriate. It seems also that the RC church has modified its traditions after contact with the Reformation. (Simony, indulgences, etc...) .

    As you said: "As for authority, a better understanding of the Reformers view of sola scriptura would be that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Tradition has its role, but it was not infallible and it remained subject to the proper interpretation of Scripture."

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Reformation and the whole Protestant-Catholic conflict is wholly a phenomenon of Western Christianity. When one incorporates the history and perspectives of the East and all that it has contributed to and experienced for advancing the Gospel you can only come away with a holistic perspective on the Church. Many Christians (part. the low-church/mainline "Evangelical") feel as if they're falling into a ravine and don't know what to do, not realizing that above them was several people all holding onto each other and reaching out for them. I think treating the Reformation as the root of all evil is definitely incorrect (I owe much to the Reformation for my own religious identity after all) but it wasn't a proper rejuvenation (as you say, Barrett "is not going to mine the depths of the early church fathers to determine if the Reformers were right," he's just trying to understand what they believed) and was another spasm in Western Christianity in the tradition began by Rome's schism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am interested to see where this leads. I am currently of the mindset, along with Karl von Haller, that the Reformation led directly to the French Revolution, and that all Christians should return to the Roman Catholic Church, and abandon the revolutionary model of temporal government.

    Looking forward to seeing Bionic's new opinions on this, because I remember it was this blog that first alerted me to some of the unfavorable consequences of the Reformation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL, this will "lead" very slowly. The book is about 345 pounds long! As for my earlier comments, yes - some unfavorable consequences. But I always fell on the side that it had to happen given the corruption in the Church.

      Delete
    2. Yes, as Lord Acton stated in his History of Freedom in Christianity, "The tide [of absolutism] was running fast when the Reformation began at Wittenberg..."

      Delete