The Broken Church: Reformation Part 2
Read Part 1 here.
This past week was the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, when Martin Luther famously posted his 95 theses, a list of topics of debate that had been bothering him. He was not expecting to start a new denomination of churches, he just wanted to start a conversation about some problematic aspects of the Medieval Catholic Church. I wonder if he would have still posted them if he knew that this one act would splinter the Church and result in the loss of millions* of lives?
Luther posted those theses because he saw a need for reform in the Catholic church, and he was not alone--other contemporaries of his, such as Erasmus, were also calling for reformation within the Church. Eventually even the leadership of the Catholic church recognized a need for reform, and initiated a Counter-Reformation, beginning with the Council of Trent in 1545.
But it was too late. The Church had already splintered. Pandora's Box had been opened.
The documentary series we watched suggested that, perhaps if the Catholic church had called a council to discuss Luther's theses, perhaps the splintering of the Church could have been avoided. After all, this was how the Church had dealt with theological disagreements in the past, as with the Council of Nicaea.
I think this splintering into thousands of denominations is something to be deeply mourned. One of the last things that Jesus prayed for before He died was the unity of the Church.
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)
The Reformation saw some problems with the Church, and tried to fix them, but in the process the unity of the Church was broken. And it did not just split in two--it splintered.
The glass screen protector on my phone got a tiny chip on the edge a while back, from my keys. It was no big deal, but it weakened the whole thing. Before long, a crack emerged, stretching from the chip to the opposite corner, and soon after that, the screen protector was splintered into a mosaic of tiny pieces.
In the same way, one split in the Church leads to more.
Luther was perhaps a little naive when he put the interpretation of Scriptures into everyone's hands. I think he was right about the priesthood of every believer, but that does not mean that every believer is equally adept at Biblical interpretation. Soon, there were multiple different ideas about how to interpret the Bible--and also disagreement over which ideas were the most important.
This splintering of the Church was foreseen by one aristocrat who attempted to forestall it. He arranged a meeting between Luther and Zwingli, the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland. They were able to agree on almost all points of doctrine, except the nature of the Eucharist (also known as Communion or the Lord's Supper). Eucharist is the Christian sacrament where we eat bread and wine together in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, as Jesus instructed to do the night before He died (Matthew 26:26-29). Luther believed that the bread and wine literally contained the presence of Christ, where Zwingli believed that they were only symbolic. They could not come to a consensus, and instead things got heated. They apparently alternated between calling each other names and asking for each other's forgiveness. Then they each went their own separate ways, theologically.
This was perhaps the second big mistake in the Reformation. From this point on, a new pattern emerged in the resolution of disputes. Now, instead of a dialogue leading to reconciliation, church leaders began to go off on their own when they disagreed.
I've seen this for myself. The church I grew up in split when I was a kid. The pastor left and started another church a 10 minute drive away. It was not pretty. Two decades later, the church is still working through it.
The biggest thing that was lost in the Reformation, in my opinion, was the ability of the Church to be reconciled to itself.
So how can I believe in the God of a broken church?
Although I wholeheartedly believe that God is perfect, I also emphatically know that His people are not. In fact, that is kind of why we are His people in the first place. The Church is broken because it is made up of broken people.
"But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." (2 Corinthians 4:7)
It kind of amazes me that after all this time, even as the church continues to splinter, different churches are actually also converging in many ways. For example, my church partners with a nearby Presbyterian church for a lot of ministries. In fact, it was at that very church where I attended the seminar about the Reformation.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay for a class defending the theoretical framework my research is based in. I argued that disagreements were not a problem for the scientific method. When two scientists disagree, both will continue to test and refine their hypotheses, and, over time, they begin to converge. Maybe not quickly. Maybe it will be their students' students who find the common ground, but the scientific method will work it out, even if we take the scenic route.
Is it the same here? Are ideas of theology converging? If so, I don't think it's because of methodology. I think it could only be because of God.
*The Thirty Years' War, the Inquisition, and the Troubles in Ireland could all be considered to be a direct result of the Reformation, and Mary I of England martyred so many Protestants that she got the nickname "Bloody Mary," and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
This past week was the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, when Martin Luther famously posted his 95 theses, a list of topics of debate that had been bothering him. He was not expecting to start a new denomination of churches, he just wanted to start a conversation about some problematic aspects of the Medieval Catholic Church. I wonder if he would have still posted them if he knew that this one act would splinter the Church and result in the loss of millions* of lives?
Luther posted those theses because he saw a need for reform in the Catholic church, and he was not alone--other contemporaries of his, such as Erasmus, were also calling for reformation within the Church. Eventually even the leadership of the Catholic church recognized a need for reform, and initiated a Counter-Reformation, beginning with the Council of Trent in 1545.
But it was too late. The Church had already splintered. Pandora's Box had been opened.
The documentary series we watched suggested that, perhaps if the Catholic church had called a council to discuss Luther's theses, perhaps the splintering of the Church could have been avoided. After all, this was how the Church had dealt with theological disagreements in the past, as with the Council of Nicaea.
I think this splintering into thousands of denominations is something to be deeply mourned. One of the last things that Jesus prayed for before He died was the unity of the Church.
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)
The Reformation saw some problems with the Church, and tried to fix them, but in the process the unity of the Church was broken. And it did not just split in two--it splintered.
The glass screen protector on my phone got a tiny chip on the edge a while back, from my keys. It was no big deal, but it weakened the whole thing. Before long, a crack emerged, stretching from the chip to the opposite corner, and soon after that, the screen protector was splintered into a mosaic of tiny pieces.
In the same way, one split in the Church leads to more.
Luther was perhaps a little naive when he put the interpretation of Scriptures into everyone's hands. I think he was right about the priesthood of every believer, but that does not mean that every believer is equally adept at Biblical interpretation. Soon, there were multiple different ideas about how to interpret the Bible--and also disagreement over which ideas were the most important.
This splintering of the Church was foreseen by one aristocrat who attempted to forestall it. He arranged a meeting between Luther and Zwingli, the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland. They were able to agree on almost all points of doctrine, except the nature of the Eucharist (also known as Communion or the Lord's Supper). Eucharist is the Christian sacrament where we eat bread and wine together in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, as Jesus instructed to do the night before He died (Matthew 26:26-29). Luther believed that the bread and wine literally contained the presence of Christ, where Zwingli believed that they were only symbolic. They could not come to a consensus, and instead things got heated. They apparently alternated between calling each other names and asking for each other's forgiveness. Then they each went their own separate ways, theologically.
This was perhaps the second big mistake in the Reformation. From this point on, a new pattern emerged in the resolution of disputes. Now, instead of a dialogue leading to reconciliation, church leaders began to go off on their own when they disagreed.
I've seen this for myself. The church I grew up in split when I was a kid. The pastor left and started another church a 10 minute drive away. It was not pretty. Two decades later, the church is still working through it.
The biggest thing that was lost in the Reformation, in my opinion, was the ability of the Church to be reconciled to itself.
"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)
So how can I believe in the God of a broken church?
Although I wholeheartedly believe that God is perfect, I also emphatically know that His people are not. In fact, that is kind of why we are His people in the first place. The Church is broken because it is made up of broken people.
"But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." (2 Corinthians 4:7)
It kind of amazes me that after all this time, even as the church continues to splinter, different churches are actually also converging in many ways. For example, my church partners with a nearby Presbyterian church for a lot of ministries. In fact, it was at that very church where I attended the seminar about the Reformation.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay for a class defending the theoretical framework my research is based in. I argued that disagreements were not a problem for the scientific method. When two scientists disagree, both will continue to test and refine their hypotheses, and, over time, they begin to converge. Maybe not quickly. Maybe it will be their students' students who find the common ground, but the scientific method will work it out, even if we take the scenic route.
Is it the same here? Are ideas of theology converging? If so, I don't think it's because of methodology. I think it could only be because of God.
*The Thirty Years' War, the Inquisition, and the Troubles in Ireland could all be considered to be a direct result of the Reformation, and Mary I of England martyred so many Protestants that she got the nickname "Bloody Mary," and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Julie, check out John 9:41 and the commentary, the saddest thing is those who claim to see, and with a lot of knowledge in fact sees nothing. The heart and soul of reformation is to recognized that faith is a gift. Only the Holy Spirit can quickens faith in us and in another person. Nothing, nothing can lead us to the right standing in Christ. The very freedom that people can choose is the source of real faith. The Gospel alone renders the Gospel credible. Reformation is much deeper, way deeper than what you mentioned in your post. And we shall discuss further if you are interested. John 9:41 - Regine Leung
ReplyDeleteOf course I agree with you that faith is so so important, and that the Reformation needed to happen. But that does not also mean that I do not mourn for the church splits and the lives lost. And of course the Reformation is much deeper than what I can cover in even two blog posts.
DeleteI enjoyed reading this article earlier today: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-martin-luther-and-christianitys-dangerous-idea-made-the-world-we-live-in-20171025-gz7qni
I read both your part 1 and part 2
ReplyDelete