The Protestant Reformation - good news?
The study
of Reformation Europe makes many Christians wish that they had lived in the
16th century. Name 1) Some good reasons for not living in the sixteenth century
and
2) Some
ways in which we can live more deliberately as Christians today because of the
events of that century. How should it and how should it not make a difference?
Some good
reasons for not living in the 16th century include the climate of religious
intolerance and violence. Religious
affiliation and observance were compulsory and imposed on the people by the
state, especially it seems, in Protestant countries. There was no freedom of conscience, except perhaps
in England during the reign of Elizabeth, where the windows to people’s souls
remained shut to the state, so long as they publicly conformed to the monarch’s
religion (as enforced by parliament).
One may have thought that Luther’s appeal to conscience at the Diet of
Worms would have inspired a broader and more sensitive approach, like that of
Melanchthon who, for example, permitted a community of nuns to remain in their
convent and live according to their rule.
Alas, most Reformed thinkers seem to have taken Luther’s theology and
left his sensibilities, leading to the suffering and death of many Catholics,
Anabaptists, and unorthodox persons such as Servetus (a kind of unitarian).
My personal
experience, having grown up as an evangelical in Quebec and having studied in
several evangelical Bible colleges has left me with the impression that all
that most evangelicals have retained from their exposure to 16th-century
history is the Protestant critique of Catholic abuses, which serves to confirm
them in their pre-existing anti-Catholic bias.
However, what seems to be lacking is an awareness of and an appreciation
of the Reformers' concern to restore genuine catholicity to the Church, à la
Cranmer, Calvin, Luther, etc. The
Magisterial Reformers were seeking to reform the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church of the Creeds; they were not throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. It is interesting to note
that the term “evangelical” in the 16th century was synonymous with
“Protestant”. Today in North America,
“evangelical” seems to denote a particular kind of Protestant - one who believes in credobaptism, the
imperative to evangelize, the need for personal conversion and the centrality
of Scripture. An “evangelical”
Archbishop who presides over an established church which practices paedobaptism
and sits in the House of Lords (à la Cranmer) is an oxymoron for today’s
evangelicals. Though Luther is hailed as
the “evangelical” hero of the 16th century, I have often wondered how Luther
would be received if ever he was to appear in a 21st-century North American
evangelical context – what with his views of baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the
“two-kingdom” approach to politics. I
tend to think that if only evangelicals were more familiar with Luther’s
theology – as opposed to the simple fact that he dared to rebel against the
Pope – they would abandon their allegiance to him. Most evangelicals that I know are oblivious
to the existence of the Creeds of the ancient Church and how the 16th-century
Reformers attempted to interpret Scripture in light of the (early)
Tradition. Few Reformed evangelicals
that I know are aware of how much they owe to 16th-century interpretations of
the thought of Augustine, for instance.
All this to say that I believe that a study of the Reformation should
lead contemporary evangelicals to have a greater appreciation of Tradition, or
at least to become aware of the historical contingency of their particular
denomination, whose roots are to be found, chances are, not in the Magisterial
traditions, but rather in the Dutch Anabaptist and English nonconformist,
Puritan traditions. One might dare to hope that such
awareness could just possibly lead to something that failed to happen in the 16th century – a
pan-evangelical (if not pan-Protestant) ecumenism. “May they be one…” as our Lord prayed. “They will know that you are my disciples by
your love for each other”. May it be so.
You skipped the elephant in the room: 16th century Europe was a cesspool of filth, lack of plumbing and hygiene, and even the rich were disgusting. They had no modern medicine, largely lived under tyrants, and if we brought 1/10th of our knowledge into that context we'd probably be burned as witches. No, I have zero desire to time travel the more I learn about living in the past. Farthest back id go is the early 20th century and then only if I had my shots up to date...
ReplyDeletegood point.
DeleteHi Sam
DeleteGood to hear from you again!
As we prepare for Lent, I found an interesting reply to the Catholic vs Reformers debate so to speak and I attach it here.
https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/why-lenten-penance-two-reasons-5998
JFH • 5 years ago
This all sounds good but is not supported by the Bible. Where are the references to scripture? Man-made ordinances for a man-made religion. Where is God in this? Each man is responsible to God and God alone, not a man who we confess our sins to for absolution. Without the Bible it is worshipping man and idolatry.
Hi JFH, to better understand the Catholic Church and the doctrines you are arguing against, we recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church: https://www.catholiccompany.... With that resource you will find many references to Sacred Scripture, including for the doctrines on penance mentioned in this post. If you have an interest in theology, you will certainly find it fascinating and worth the read. However, first you must understand a foundation difference between Catholicism and a "Bible only" view which you espouse: the Bible itself does not teach a "Bible only" view, rather it encourages the faithful to hold on to the traditions they have been taught (2 Thess. 2) and that the visible Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim. 3). A Bible only view would have been foreign in all those years of Church history before the Bible was completely written, before the canon of scripture was officially determined, before the Bible was affordable in print, and before lay people were widely literate. In fact, the Bible only view was a sinister doctrine invented about 500 years ago by the Protestant Reformers in order to justify their rejection of the Church. The Bible is a divinely inspired book of the Church and it belongs to the Church, but it does not replace the Church. It is to people that Christ gave his doctrine and authority (the Apostles); if Christianity were a Bible-only religion, then Jesus would have written it himself and just handed that to his Apostles. Instead, he wrote nothing and promised them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Some of this God-inspired truth was recorded in the Bible, some was handed down orally and through the liturgy. The teaching on penance mentioned in this post is part of the truth taught by the Apostles and handed down through the Church. That does not mean it is not supported in Scripture, it just means it is not clear as such from the conditioned lenses with which you currently view it. Keep in mind that Jesus founded a visible Church with visible people in authority over it, which still continues uninterrupted to this day. To call this institution and her doctrines man-made is ultimately a rejection of the promise of Jesus Christ that he would sustain it until the end of time.