Reforming the Reformation

The Reformation has been caricatured as a carrier of three viruses, nominalism, secularism, and individualism, which many blame for the downfall of the West.

-          R. Scott Clark

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

I know I have been guilty of this in the past.  I recently came across this book by Barrett, and I think it will help bring some balance to the often uncritically accepted narrative.

Barrett has done extensive work.  The book comprises 888 pages, which include footnotes at the bottom of most pages.  Beyond this, he includes a bibliography of fifty pages, with each page listing about twenty-five items.  One is free to disagree with his conclusions, but to do so you better bring a lunch…and a sleeping bag.

The cite at the beginning of this post, by Clark, is one of a few dozen such remarks from others who have reviewed the work.  In this opening post regarding this book, I will offer several of these, to give some idea of the field of play.  Most of these, as you would expect, are individuals affiliated with a protestant institution.  That doesn’t make their comments any less true.

For a long time, the Reformation has been misrepresented by polemical scholarship.

-          Michael Horton

Far too long Protestants have imbibed from the fountain of pop history of the Reformation…

-          J.V. Fesko

It is this that Barrett aims to rectify.  Apparently, much work has been done by others over the last sixty years on the same issue, albeit the stereotypes remain. 

…central theological contributions of Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin were in broad continuity with Augustine and the Augustinian tradition as it was refracted through the writings of various scholastic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas.

-          Scott Manetsch

[Barrett] defends the Augustinian-Thomistic theology that was advocated by a number of first- and second-generation Reformers.

-          Matthew Levering

I have also contrasted Luther to Aquinas in the past, labeling Luther a nominalist.  Dr. Jordan Cooper (a Lutheran) has argued that this is a false picture of Luther.  It seems Barrett will do the same.  I have since come to learn that the scholasticism that Luther wrote against was the later scholasticism of those such as Scotus…which is reflected in the following comment:

…this book helps us to see [the Reformation] as the rejection of late medieval scholasticism, the via moderna, and the recovery of an older Augustinian-Thomistic tradition.  Radical philosophical ideas central to the via moderna such as univocity, voluntarism, and nominalism, were advocated by thinkers such as Scotus, Ockham, and Biel in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries.

-          Craig A. Carter

Even the staunchest Catholic apologist must recognize the change from Aquinas to Scotus, and must recognize the significant corruptions in the Roman Church that motivated Luther and others at the time.

Barrett successfully demonstrates that the Reformation was a catholic enterprise, over and against the claims of the church of Rome, as well as the shallow, dehistoricized tendencies of many contemporary Protestant circles.

-          Gavin Ortlund

…to be Protestant is to be catholic, but not Roman.

-          Mark Mattes

Lower case “catholic,” meaning universal.

Finally, from the Foreword, by Carl Trueman:

Protestantism long labored under the accusation from Catholics that it represents a set of deviant innovations.  Now we know – and can prove – that this is not the case.

No doubt some of Barrett’s claims will prove hard to swallow for those unfamiliar with the vast and compelling scholarship of the last sixty years.

Conclusion

Just in case some of you aren’t spun up enough already… Scott Manetsch, citing Martin Luther:

“We are the true ancient church and…you have fallen away from us.”

I know, I know.  The Orthodox among us are screaming – “No, that’s us.  We are the only true and ancient church.”  To my understanding, this book will not really address anything of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Barrett’s task is complex enough as it stands. 

In any case, I have done enough work on the history of the early Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Church, to conclude that no Church tradition or denomination can claim an unwavering line of integrity since the time of the apostles regarding their tradition and teaching.

Finally, I don’t mean this to devolve into a food fight.  Regular readers know that I find value in most Christian traditions and denominations – including Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations.  I remain grateful that God has given different people different ways to worship Him – all with wonderful characteristics and all with a few flaws (we are, after all, only human). 

My intent, as always, is to understand the history.