Letting Some of the Air Out of The Reformation Day Balloon
October 29, 2007 by iMonk
UPDATE: Josh S has a good post on different views of Reformation history.
UPDATE: Someone please turn down that “whining” sound. Is it me? Or the guy fisking me? I’m really on your side, O panic stricken fans of the Reformation.
UPDATE: ***sigh*** Pastor Gary reviews the post. So….is any sincerely motivated division of Christianity worth celebrating? We can party all year long! Let me be clear: Division may be necessary, but reform without division would be better. We can clelebrate what was good in the Reformation and we can deplore what was bad in Catholicism at the time. Then we can deplore the bad things that resulted in Protestantism/evangelicalism and recognize the good things that were and are present in Catholicism. It’s not a team sport. It’s the body of Christ. Read John 17 for Christ’s sake (literally.)
It’s fairly obvious that, at least among some Christians, “Reformation Day” is a new holiday to be celebrated with all the enthusiasm we once reserved for actual holidays. (Lutherans: Party on. You’ve earned it.) I’m waiting for the photos of the “Dress Like a Reformer” party at a reformed church near you.
I’ll admit to having donned the Luther costume and done the Reformation Day lecture for the students at our school on a number of occasions, and I don’t regret having done so. Most of what I said was true. Well….some of it.
In the past year, I’ve read a lot about the reformation and even more about Luther. I’m currently finishing off McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea- a popular history of Protestantism that’s right up to speed- and I’m almost done with Richard Marius’s Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, one of the most profitable biographies of Luther I’ve ever read and I read at least one every couple of years.
My reading on Luther and the Reformation has changed my mind about a lot of things. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but here’s the short list.
-I no longer believe the Reformation, as it’s commonly described by Protestants, is the distinct event we’ve made it out to be.
-I no longer believe Luther ever intended to slay the Catholic Church and establish the wonder of contemporary Protestantism.
-I am becoming increasingly sure that many things in the typical Reformation story are probably mythological, or most nearly so.
-I’m especially convinced that a lot of the typical “Luther story” is probably historically inaccurate. Not necessarily untrue, but plenty of mythology in the mix.
-I am very sure that the humanist and Catholic contribution to the reform of Christianity has been considerably obscured in the creation of a Protestant mythology.
-I do not believe true Christianity was restored or rediscovered in the Reformation.
-I’m convinced that it didn’t take long for Protestantism to accumulate enough problems of its own to justify another reformation or two.
-I believe that a lot of Protestants say sola scriptura when they mean solo scriptura or nuda scriptura or something I don’t believe at all.
-I now believe that tradition is a very good word.
-I believe the Reformation was very secular, political and, eventually, quite violent. To act as if it was mostly a spiritual revival movement is naive.
-I believe we ought to grieve the division of Christianity and the continuing division of Protestantism.
-I no longer believe the theology of the Reformers was the pinnacle of evangelicalism or is the standard by which Biblical truth itself is judged.
-I can see huge omissions from the work of the reformers, such as a theology of cross-cultural missions and much more.
-I believe it is embarrassing to turn the Reformers into icons. Calvin on a t-shirt should win an award for irony.
-I am a Protestant and I always will be, but I no longer take the kind of juvenile pride in Protestantism I did in the past. Much is good, and much has not been good. We have no right to stand superior to any other Christians.
-I want to understand how Catholic and EO Christians understand Protestantism, and I want to do so with a sense of humility.
-I don’t believe in ecumenism at any cost, but I can no longer imagine being a Christian without a commitment to ecumenism on some level.
-There are many sins associated with Protestantism that I need to admit and repent of.
Part of my Reformation Day will be spent contemplating what it means to say “One Lord; One Faith; One Baptism; One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.” Having a party celebrating the division of Christianity doesn’t really strike me as a something I want to do
Wow. We’re tracking pretty well except for the “I am a Protestant and always will be” point. I don’t necessarily see becoming Catholic or Orthodox as inevitable, but I’ll remain open to the possibility if that’s where I believe the truth takes me.
Good stuff.
Color me smug, but much of what you write strikes this Lutheran as stuff any reasonably attentive confirmand should know. (Which isn’t to suggest that most confirmands are necessarily “reasonably attentive”.) And while we Lutherans do like our kitch (Martin and Katie bobble heads, “wash away your sins” moist towelettes, or my personal favorite “Sin Boldly” beer glasses) we know this stuff is ironic.
-I no longer believe Luther ever intended to slay the Catholic Church and establish the wonder of contemporary Protestantism.
I’ll let the wonder of contemporary Protestantism go, but do you really not believe he intended to slay the Catholic church?
here here. (or should that be ‘hear hear’?)
Thank you for these words, and this confession. I wish more of us would have your humility.
Cool.
No ma’am. Saw himself as a catholic and prayed that a church council would correct the abuses he wrote about. If he had not been expelled, he would have stayed with it. Never intended to start “another church.”
Michael,
I appreciate your incisive critique/analysis of some misguided perceptions we may all entertain about the Reformation. There is just one thing I would want to add, however. In all our discussions about the Reformation, and the attendent controversies, I find it good and encouraging to be reminded that at it’s most basic level, that important historic moment was a “new morning” in a dark time; a moment when the same works laden theology which plagues us today was revealed and the purity of the Gospel was at least momentarily, revived.
The message that preaching the forgiveness of sins, not the deeds of our flesh, not matter how seemingly pious or religious, was the imperative of the church, and indeed of all Christendom, again rang as a clarion call to the church as our witness to a perishing world. To preach faith in the finished work, name and shed blood of Christ as the sole basis of our reconciliation to a righteous God, became the central focus. No “7 step programs”, nay, not even “giving my life, making him lord of my life, accepting him” was the message. It was simply repent and believe the gospel. Luther said “It is a golden age when brother can say to brother, thy sins be forgiven thee.”
May it be that we modern theologians not forget this simple and yet unsearchably profound message. Your sins ARE forgiven. Believe this message and you receive the greatest legacy of the reformation!!! Preach faith! Romans 10:8
Peace to you brother! Bro. Bruce
Nuda Scriptura. I should remember that one! Ironically, Protestant Hagiography is most often far removed from actual theological content. And the next time anybody dramatically anounces “Here I stand” (out of context), I will either displace my stomach contents, or pelt them with an egg or 2….
I believe that a lot of Protestants say sola scriptura when they mean solo scriptura or nuda scriptura or something I don’t believe at all.
I’m not up on Latin (even though it is my Church’s “technical language”). What is the difference between “sola”, “solo”, and “nuda”? (Judging from contemporary California Spanish, isn’t “sola/solo” just gendering the adjective to match the noun?)
Fide-o.blogspot.com is excerpting Mathison’s work on solo scriptura vs sola scriptura.
http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/10/fatal-flaw-of-solo-scriptura.html
-I am very sure that the humanist and Catholic contribution to the reform of Christianity has been considerably obscured in the creation of a Protestant mythology.
-I do not believe true Christianity was restored or rediscovered in the Reformation.
These two truths are what has stopped me cold in the past few years. As a Protestant studying church history, I thought I knew what I would find there, having been assured all my life about the evils of the Catholic church and the saintliness of the Reformers. What I found instead has changed my life, and my beliefs. Reformation was needed, but I sometimes think as much was lost as was gained.
We should all be grieving over the break, and the continuing splintering.
You neglect talking about the Catholic church at the time. Jaslov Pelikan (a Lutheran theologian) called the Reormation a tragic necessity. In a sense it is to be mourned, but for its necessity not its reality. I mourn the death of Christ because of what caused it (my sin) not for what it accomplished (that I celebrate). So I mourn the corruption of the Catholic Church in the 16th Century and its neglect of the poor, Indulgences and reactionary stance in regards to any demand for reform.
Sure the Reformation was not a recovery of orthodoxy, but when the question of salvation was asked, Indulgences were not the answer. The Roman Church got it wrong, and you have to decide what to do from that moment on.
So I will mourn the necessity of the Reformation, but I WILL CELEBRATE the men who stood up and said that evil was evil. How far to fall when a person thinks they are a rebel for standing against the rebels who rebeled against everything he stands against. Seems the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
A history lesson on the Medici and their influence on the papacy would explain a great deal about what Luther was responding to.
If one thinks that Catholics believe in a works laden faith one should read about semipelagianism in the the Catholic Encyclopedia on line. Also read about the life of St. Francis de Sales and the reformation that was already going on in the catholic church. His book Introduction To The Devout Life might be a bit of a eye opener to those who think there was no personal faith going on before Luther. Sacraments arent works but life to the soul. Much like reading ones bible isnt works.
Luther was taught Ockhamism which was later condemned by the catholic church but it had already pushed Luther even further from the church.
A well balanced story is found by googling “The Roots of The Reformation”.
Internet Monk is right- It isnt so simple as the good guys verses the bad guys.
Very few think outside the box or read outside the one they grew up in.
Can you imagine life without TULIP. Wow!
I love it when you put into words what I am thinking – you have done it again.
Wait, you have given me an idea.
How about a t-shirt with Calvin’s picture on the front, and on the back “Irony.”
Or a shirt with Luther on the toilet on the front, and on the back, “Some stories are too good not to believe.”
Thank you sir for indeed deflating some air out of a day which should not be a cause for celebration.
I’m certainly not in any way complaining about Luther’s emphasis on salvation by grace alone through faith alone. I live by the solas. I just think the reformation is much less of a movie script than we tend to hear.
If the Reformation had actually been a reformation as opposed to more of a schism, then perhaps it would be more rightly to be praised… but given our Lord’s prayer in the garden for His people, that we might be one as He and the Father are one… well, I don’t see this eventual step of the Reformers’–Protestantism–as really in keeping with Christ’s (almost)last prayer for His people. Of course there may be innumerable positive aspects of it, but this one failing is truly lamentable.
I have to say: your work is only half done. You’ve said a lot about what you no longer believe, but there is a lot you would need to fill in to have claimed to actually say anything. To wit: you use the phrase “a lot” but don’t go into any detail. We left wondering what part of the whole “a lot” actually is.
The devil is in the details, eh?
Someone Lutheran commented that much of what you said comes as no surprise to us. I often think the Reformed (of whatever stripe) think more of Luther than we Lutherans, who don’t tend to read BONDAGE OF THE WILL but spend a lot of time fussing over his commentary on Galatians, John, and Genesis. The guy was no systematic theologian.
Now the Lutheran Confessions is another matter. Rather than read Luther, why not read Luther in the Confessions? That would paint a more accurate picture of what was going on in the–at least– Lutheran Reformation.
I follow the blog of a fundamentalist for the same reason people watch Jerry Springer. The blogger, a former Catholic, frequently condemns “Romanists” and is convinced that there is not a single Catholic person in heaven.
But then I wonder, would he claim that the church went 1000-1500 years with no one entering the kingdom of God, and then BAM! after the Reformation God started letting people in again?
To a large extent you are thinking like an Eastern Orthodox.
If the division in Christianity is not a cause for a party, then it really WAS a division, and not just an administrative re-organization in the invisible church, as protestants would like to characterize it.
And if it really was a division, it implies the Church is designed to be one in the way it once was. This would seem to indicate an Orthodox ecclesiology.
I think you need to jump one way or the other.
Orthodox:
One blog post and I should jump to the Orthodox?
Why? Am I not a Christian now?
Don’t answer that.
NOTE to commenters: I will not publish any comments saying that anyone should join your team. Comment on the post. DO NOT tell other people what denomination they should join.
MS
“One blog post and I should jump to the Orthodox?”
I was just commenting that a lot of your posts are quite un-protestant and Orthodox-ish in direction.
And I didn’t say “join our team”. What I said was, you are looking inconsistent to me. You are on your side of the fence, but sounding more like our side. That’s a tricky place to be.
Given different circumstances – different political circumstances, perhaps a slightly different cultural context – who knows if Luther might have become nothing more than the founder of another religious order. Perhaps not, but given that “reformation” is a constant dynamic in Catholic Church history, one that is often resolved and then promoted in the formation of new religious orders and movements…maybe. Just maybe.
And when I say “political circumstances,” I’m speaking of the problems on all sides, but one that comes down, essentially, to the temporal power of the Pope. A hard, hard, tragic lesson.
(And I say that as a Catholic who always will be. Back at ‘ya!)
Thanks Michael,
Having toured some of the sights of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland this year and hearing it retold by a lot of different local guides it became obvious to me that like many “movements” the Reformation was many things to many people.
While Luther’s work was certainly the “spark” – the whole movement of the reformation and its long term outcomes certainly wasn’t something he could have foreseen or planned.
His actions and those of his contemporaries was a reaction -based on the gospel – to what existed at the time in terms of church and the worlds culture.
It would make very little sense for us to seek to recapture and duplicate the theology of the Reformers since that was created by and expressed through the prevalent culture – instead we need to read submit to the same authority of the Bible and protest at where we see ourselves, our churches and the world falling short of what we find there.
Orthodox : I think some reflection on ones own traditions “weakness” or blind spots is healthy….but I don’t think you can read more into it than that.
PS…worst/best souvenir available in Wittenberg – “Here I stand I can do no other” on a pair of socks.
“Some of the air” you say? It’s going to take Dollar General (and other such clearance outlets) a long time to rid themselves of the Reformation Day balloons that didn’t get sold because of this post. As they say down under, “good on you!” Love your stuff, Michael!
Most of us who believe in Jesus are believers in spite of the denominations to which we belong and not because of them. Nevertheless, how can one who believes that Salvation is by grace through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ alone at the same time confess that anyone who says that one can be saved by grace through faith alone is anathema?
I agree with every single thing you’ve written. The division of the Church grieves me to no end, and the holier-than-thou attitude of some (if not many) evangelicals who believe that “they have the [capital-T] Truth” who reject anything that sounds remotely Catholic or Orthodox without understanding anything about it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that all of us Christians are on the same side; we all have the same enemy in Satan, and that’s who we should be fighting, not among ourselves. I’m sure that the enemy is peased to no end by our squabbles and even hatred of each other, all of whom love Christ.
How can we preach “love” to the world and hate each other?????? Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, and I’m committed to do the same. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer contains some beautiful prayers for Christian unity — and these I pray.
Orthodox:
that is a tricky place to be only if one accepts the “fences” as being somehow God-given and corralling comprehensive truth.
What if “the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth” is not found either in the Roman-Catholic corral or in the Orthodox corral or in any of the many Protestant corrals?
I have no doubt that if the iMonk lived inside your fence a lot of his posts would be quite un-Orthodox, and if he lived the other side of the Tiber a lot of his posts would be quite un-Roman. Because he’d be as intimately acquainted with the quirks and foibles and weaknesses which exist within Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism as he is now acquainted with the more bizarre features of evangelical Protestantism, and being the person he is he would not be able to just keep quiet about them.
Orthodox,
Some of us do find ourselves living on the fence. It does provide some very interesting views, views that the cradle believers never see.
It also helps us to claim as brothers those on the other side.
Amen! As I read somewhere, having Christians celebrate Reformation Day is like a formerly married couple celebrating Divorce Day (not that that doesn’t happen in today’s mixed-up world).
Dear Michael
I like your blog, I like your honesty, but I must say that I am absolutely puzzled about the authority of the church in interpreting the Scripture. I read even the article at Fide-o.blogspot.com on solo scripture vs sola scriptura but I am not any wiser.
I think that I understand that our interpretation of the Scripture should be in line with the interpretation of the church, but each denomination will claim their interpretation is the right one. So shall we consider only the writings before the split of the church and read only the church fathers or what are you proposing, if I may ask?
Or put slightly differently who today when the church is totally fragmented will define what true biblical orthodoxy is?
Very good post. Thanks! What part of Luther’s motivation do you think rested on his notion of “two kingdoms”? If the reformation was not a purely spiritual movement, certainly the church from which is sprang was not a purely spiritual institution (maybe that’s laughably obvious). I’m genuinely interested in what people think about that.
To me, the reformation was much like the second world war. Neither side had a monopoly of truth and righteousness. Actually, quite the opposite is true. Many of the so called heroes of the war were sadistic villains. Nevertheless, because of it, a mighty spiritual and physical murder machine was wounded.
Likewise, the reformation did not divide the church, but the institution called the church. The True Church has continued to exist both before, during and after the reformation, both within and outside of denominations/the institutional church. As in the days of Elijah;
1Ki 19:18
“…I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”
While I do not revel in the atrocities of either side before, during and after the reformation, I thank God that because of the reformation, the all pervading shroud of darkness THAT HAD EXISTED was torn.
I’m with Jared Nelson: That the Reformation had to happen is tragic. That it happened is a reason to celebrate, for if it didn’t happen I might be purchasing indulgences in the vain hope of being sprung out of purgatory, rather than relying on Jesus’ blood and righteousness imputed to me.
I’m reading Bainton’s “Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther” right now. Another excellent Luther biography.
Michael, I’ve gotten a big kick out of the discussions of Lutheranism (Is that a word?) and Martin Luther. I found myself reading down your list and going “yep… Right… That’s true… You got it” as I went down the list. Richard was right on, as well, when he mentioned that this is rather basic Lutheran knowledge to those who pay attention. But, who pays attention?
As an ex-RC, now Lutheran, it was quite a revelation to me when I converted, though. My RC background taught me the evil ways of the reformation and I was surprised at the big fact (to me) that Luther didn’t want to leave, just make it right. This helps me as I fight to try to get Lutherans to know that we CAN join hands with Catholics and work for a better world. I am surprised how many Lutherans don’t believe that’s really possible.
Christ didn’t want us to split, either. Just do the right thing. We all need a little reformation in our lives… God Bless…
How true, Anna A!
Thanks for this one, iMonk.
And, sorry, but I can’t help but remind one commenter above that theologian J.Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy years ago. (I just read his commentary on the Book of Acts. Good stuff.)
Color me smug, but much of what you write strikes this Lutheran as stuff any reasonably attentive confirmand should know.
Agreed. I would hope that most confirmands would know the role of the Reformation as a reforming movement, not a clean break. Luther’s movement is probably somewhat unique among other reformation movements in that Luther’s group (mainly Melanchthon) laid out the conditions for reunion with the Roman church.
Anyone want to filk “Dress Like a Re-Form-Er” to the tune of “Walk Like an E-Gyp-Tian”?
Once again, I’ve read none of the previous comments. I didn’t want to get into some debate.
I just want to say after reading this, that I deeply appreciate this post, it’s tone and it’s honesty – your tone and your honesty Michael.
It makes me want to write a Reformation Day post from one Catholic’s perspective. I think, among other things, I’d say things like:
- It needed to happen, perhaps not like it did, but things were bad and some crap needed to hit the fan.
- The “Counter Reformation” was too reactionary and didn’t go far enough in actually taking to heart some of the reforms that needed to happen.
- I don’t hang with how some Catholic interpret the Reformation, as only the disobedience and heresy of some men and that the leadership of the Church was not at fault in any way. That’s just nonsense.
Anyway, just wanted to say that. Peace to you my brother.
Michael,
Hopefully you are still reading the comments to this post. I’ve been reading your blog for about 3 years now but this is my first comment. I have a question actually. You mention the secular side of the Reformation. I have heard hints about this, mostly on the internet. But has there ever been a full-length book or scholarly journal article on the subject? I’d be really interested to hear a full account of what went on.
Thanks,
Alex:
Diarmaid McCulloch: http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-History-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/0670032964/ref=sr_1_6/103-7921172-3175017?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193767659&sr=8-6
To the good brother reading Bainton: A good standard piece, but it does not have the advantages of the contemporary Lutheran biographer. try Oberman: Luther Man between God and the Devil. Bainton, imo, is far too uncritical and passes on a lot that needed to be sorted out, including some glaring contradicitions in Luther’s accounts of his theological development.
I second the recommendation of the Diarmaid McCulloch book. It is an excellent one volume (albeit a big volume) treatment of the subject. McCulloch is very good at providing context and seems to be grinding no axes. It hits that sweet spot of being written for educated adults not afraid of footnotes, but not written in High Academic Gibberish.
Thanks Michael & Richard! Added to my wish list.
A few weeks ago I was attending mass at a conference where about a third of the participants were RC . A priest in attendance said mass each day over the lunch break. I’m not RC but enjoy the liturgy. On one day the saint for the day (whose name escapes me) was, according to the book we followed, a martyr. He was left in prison to starve until he recanted his faith or died, which ever came first. It took forty-one days for him to go to be with the Lord. Interestingly, the faith he died for was the Christian faith as practiced by the church of Rome. The people who sentenced him were English protestants during their reformation. No doubt for every Ridley and Latimer there was a martyred Roman Catholic counterpart. I think of that as I stop to “celebrate” the Reformation this year.
I’m interested, first, because I only ever hear the “justification by faith” side of the reformation. Secondly, I’m interested because of my denominational background. I was Catholic till I was 10, nondenominational till I was 17, Presbyterian (PCA) till I was 22, and for the past 3 years I’ve been going to various churches here and there.
Let the blessings and curses begin.
| -I no longer believe the Reformation,
| as it’s commonly described by
| Protestants, is the distinct event we’ve
| made it out to be.
That’s an interesting way to say it. My experience is that most “evangelicals” aren’t really “protestants”, and most people who are all geeked up about the “reformation” are really just sassy – unwilling to admit, for example, that there’s a doctrine of the church in the NT which extends past the personal experience of salvation to a commitment to a local called-out body which gives us responsibilities and rights before God.
| -I no longer believe Luther ever
| intended to slay the Catholic Church
| and establish the wonder of
| contemporary Protestantism.
I think this is an essential truth of the Reformation – and the Augsburg confession speaks pretty broadly to the fact that if the “Romanists” were willing to live in peace with the German churches, the Germans were (completely out of character) willing to live in peace with Rome.
| -I am becoming increasingly sure that
| many things in the typical
| Reformation story are probably
| mythological, or most nearly so.
Well, take it or leave it I say. Most history is told from a point of view and you have to accept that only Scripture is really told from the point of omniscience. Most people start with the 95 theses and not with Wycliff, Tyndale or even Francis of Assisi (which, I think is a stretcher), and that’s a pretty bad flaw.
| -I’m especially convinced that a lot of
| the typical “Luther story” is probably
| historically inaccurate. Not
| necessarily untrue, but plenty of
| mythology in the mix.
If that’s true – and I’d check with Jim Swan on this as he’s the house TR on Luther, so don’t bet the farm – most Luther mythology is actually biased against the guy. If you read any Luther at all, (that’s you-generic, not “you, you lousy iMonk”) you find out pretty quickly he was both passionate and fearful, brilliant and common-hearted, and most of all he was human (as in: even Luther misquoted Scripture).
People who make Luther into more than that are probably not Luther-readers. They are often Luther-cut-and-pasters.
| -I am very sure that the humanist and
| Catholic contribution to the reform of
| Christianity has been considerably
| obscured in the creation of a
| Protestant mythology.
Eh. In the spirit of not fisking you today, I’ll let that one go with a simple “name three” challenge that asks “what three examples after 1563 would you give to substantiate that?”
| -I do not believe true Christianity was
| restored or rediscovered in the
| Reformation.
Well, they didn’t have you, after all, iMonk.
Big hug!
| -I’m convinced that it didn’t take long
| for Protestantism to accumulate
| enough problems of its own to justify
| another reformation or two.
Well, that’s sort of the point of being confessional Christians in the first place – that reform ought to be possible and accessible. But then we’re back to the question of the doctrine of the church …
| -I believe that a lot of Protestants say
| sola scriptura when they mean solo
| scriptura or nuda scriptura or
| something I don’t believe at all.
Well, whatever. I’m sure a lot of emergents wouldn’t be caught dead saying “in loco scripturae” (”in the neighborhood of Scripture”), but that doesn’t really mean anything, either.
| -I now believe that tradition is a very
| good word.
Well, there’s no English language without it, dude. Good on ya.
| -I believe the Reformation was very
| secular, political and, eventually,
| quite violent. To act as if it was
| mostly a spiritual revival movement is
| naive.
Spirit of the age, Michael. A major consequence of the reformation was the eventual separation of church and state. In spite of Dave Armstrong’s recommendation of the book, you should read James Davison Hunter’s Culture Wars.
| -I believe we ought to grieve the
| division of Christianity and the
| continuing division of Protestantism.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “grieve” and by “division” and by “Protestantism”.
| -I no longer believe the theology of
| the Reformers was the pinnacle of
| evangelicalism or is the standard by
| which Biblical truth itself is judged.
Wow. Was that what it was supposed to be?
| -I can see huge omissions from the
| work of the reformers, such as a
| theology of cross-cultural missions
| and much more.
Double-wow. I guess that’s because they didn’t fly in enough airplanes or read enough information superhighway-disseminated news. Again, spirit of the age: they were probably more worried that the Muslims were going to kill them than whether they had a strategy to engage Islamic culture. There’s also that pesky problem of church and state again.
| -I believe it is embarrassing to turn
| the Reformers into icons. Calvin on a
| t-shirt should win an award for irony.
Which, of course, you can have for only about $20 bucks. Think about that: you can buy irony today. It’s a beautiful world.
| -I am a Protestant and I always will
| be, but I no longer take the kind of
| juvenile pride in Protestantism I did in
| the past. Much is good, and much has
| not been good. We have no right to
| stand superior to any other Christians.
That’s an interesting perspective on you, I think, Michael. I’ll not unpack it in order to refrain from fisking today.
| -I want to understand how Catholic
| and EO Christians understand
| Protestantism, and I want to do so
| with a sense of humility.
I’m not really interested in what they think about Protestantism — because if somehow Protestantism thinks it is “superior”, what do we say about an organization that won’t even recognize most protestant groups as “churches”?
| -I don’t believe in ecumenism at any
| cost, but I can no longer imagine
| being a Christian without a
| commitment to ecumenism on some
| level.
I’d go back again to the Augsburg confession and point out that the most important thing extant from the reformation proper standing between a broader ecumenism and what we have today are the anathemas of Trent. Even Vatican I rides on the back of that document. You have to compare those anathemas to the pleas of the Augsburg Confession to really get the impact and the statement that Rome was making with the Trent canons.
| -There are many sins associated with
| Protestantism that I need to admit and
| repent of.
Again, no fisking today.
And all of God’s people said, “Amen.”
On Michael’s recommendation, I’ve added Oberman’s “Luther: Man Between God and the Devil” to my Amazon shopping cart to read after I finish Bainton’s biography.
This has been very educational.
Now, I want iMonk to go over to Steve Camp’s place.