JUDGING THE IMPACT OF THE REFORMATION

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Judging the Impact of the Reformation

Future generations tend to possess greater insight into the impact of significant movements throughout history. With the advantage of seeing the events in hindsight, such movements may be analyzed and considered based on their both benefits and drawbacks. The Protestant Reformation is such a movement which may be considered with the advantage of future knowledge. To properly judge the impact of the Reformation, one must consider both positive and negative impacts, of which there certainly subsist both. Three primary areas of impact that should be considered are 1) the Reformation’s impact on congregational worship participation, 2) division in the church, and 3) exaggerated reform beyond what was necessary at the time. The positive and negative impacts of the Reformation aid in rightly judging its impact on the church both during its era and in the centuries to come.

Congregational Worship Participation

            An apparent impact of the Protestant Reformation is that which it has had on congregational worship. Prior to the Reformation, worship participation through singing was not only discouraged but not allowed in the church. The Reformation, however, brought positive changes to Christian worship by encouraging congregational participation through singing (Mac, 2020, p. 15), prayer, and the public reading of Scripture. “Emphasis on vernacular language opened the Bible and theology to the common man” (Mac, 2020, p. 30). While the Holy Scripture was set in vernacular languages prior to the Reformation, the publication of the Luther Bible in 1534[1] enjoyed the most popularity among Christians. Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) employed action on what was seemingly a tipping point in church history; rather than claiming sole responsibility for reform in the church, Luther aided in the spread of Reformation thought and action.

            Congregational participation became vital to Christian worship during the Reformation. While Catholics have loosened their own regulations on congregational participation today, the concept grew during the Reformation.

The establishment of an enduring choral tradition is one of the hallmarks of the Lutheran Reformation. One of the key motivators for the development of such a distinctive devotional tradition that placed music and singing at the center of its worship and teaching was undoubtedly the personal affinity Martin Luther had for music (Loewe, 2013, p. 69).

Luther, a hymn-writer himself, wrote texts and composed tunes designed for congregational participation in the vernacular language, i.e. German for himself and his congregants. In fact, Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church likely gave him greater opportunity to employ such congregational participation among his future congregants.

            The goal of Christian worship among Protestants during the Reformation was active participation with a focus on the teaching of Scripture. For the Reformers, right Christian worship implied a return to the centrality of Scripture (Mac, 2020, p. 29). Luther’s goal was not a chasm within the church but a reform of what was practiced and a return to the purity of Christian faith. In fact, the division occurring during the Reformation saddened Martin Luther. Nonetheless, with the Reformation already in motion, it was too late to correct its course. Thus, reform came from the Protestants rather than the Catholics. The teaching of the Bible, i.e. the sermon became the central focus of Christian worship, whereas Catholic worship took on a more sacramental nature. In fact, the Lutheran model only kept two of the sacraments instead of the seven employed by Catholics: Communion and Baptism (Maag, 2017). Even the Lutheran Mass itself did not utilize all five parts of the Ordinary but only the Kyrie and the Gloria. J.S. Bach’s (1685-1750 AD) famed B-Minor Mass is significant in that the composer includes all five parts of the Mass Ordinary, although he was Lutheran himself. In such changes, it is evident that the Reformation gave rise to the centrality of Scripture and a move away from strict legalism and formality in Christian worship.

            The Reformation saw necessary shifts in Christian worship in the way of congregational participation. Where worship participation was previously reserved for the elite, educated, and only church leaders, the Reformation’s impact on Christian worship has been significant. Even now congregational participation seems to be typical and was eventually adopted by Catholics. Although no longer distinctly Protestant, the Bible taught in the vernacular language, songs sung by the congregation in the vernacular language, and congregational participation is a drastic impact of the Reformation and one that Luther (among other Reformers) saw to be necessary.

Further Division in the Church

            A seemingly negative impact of the Reformation is the vast division caused. Even for Luther, when he returned to Wittenberg from Wartburg Castle, “he found the reform had moved more quickly and radically than desired or could be sustained” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Luther’s goal, when he posted his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg (1517 AD), was not to divide the church but rather to unify her by reform, i.e. return to the basics of Christian faith. “The most important distinction for Luther’s political thought was between the lower and the higher capacities of man (nature and reason) on the one hand and grace and revelation on the other” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Perhaps, Luther lived during a time when enough people were ready for change that his qualms with Rome began an unexpected movement throughout Europe. In an unfortunate sense, however, the church as known at the time, became perhaps further divided than ever before.

            Certainly, reform was necessary in certain areas. For example, the disallowance of priestly marriage was challenged by Luther, as he eventually married as a Protestant. In this area, Luther’s impact continued through future generations. Of John Calvin’s (1509-1564 AD) marital covenant, John Witte Jr. writes:

Building on a generation of Protestant reforms before him, Calvin constructed a comprehensive new theology and law that made marital formation and dissolution, children’s nurture and welfare, family cohesion and support, and sexual sin and crime essential concerns for both church and state. He drew the Consistory and Council of Geneva into a creative new alliance to guide and govern the reformation of the domestic sphere (Witte, 2018, p. 282).

One might question, however, whether the necessity for reform was more important than the necessity of unity. Church history reveals that from the point of the Protestant Reformation, the church has continually divided into more sects with finer distinctions than their predecessors. Secondary issues have become primary issues in many cases and have seemed to cause further division in the body of Christ. Believers should consider the benefits of the Reformation but also the costs and if they were worth the outcome.

            Reformers challenged a plurality of thoughts exuded by the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation, many of them giving their lives for doing so; yet, the desired reforms were necessary. Perhaps, the cost of reform (namely division in the church), however, could have been avoided. One may only speculate if another solution could have been employed rather than total separation from the Catholic Church. In fact, what occurred because of the Reformation does not seem to represent the New Testament and 1^st-century church. With all the positive impacts of the Reformation, the further division in the body of Christ, which the movement brought, is among the least desired outcomes.

Exaggerated Reform beyond What Was Necessary

            Martin Luther understood the necessity of church reform, which is why he challenged the Catholic Church with not only the posting of his 95 Theses but also his teachings and sermons. When he discovered the drastic consequence the movement had in Wittenberg and across Europe, however, he grew discouraged, for what seemed to be overreach was not what he desired. “Reformation in Switzerland emphasized elements other than those championed by Luther. Far from being monolithic, the Protestant Reformation spawned many offshoots” (Mac, 2020, p. 9). In what would seem to be greater division and separation not only from the Catholic Church but also from other Protestant groups, finer miniscule differences caused more splits.

John Calvin came from a legal background and stressed the sovereignty of God. He became a formidable force in the Reformation, molding Reformed theology. Zwingli advanced a view of the Lord's supper that is reflected in New Testament language. The Anabaptists rediscovered immersion of adults as the proper design of baptism. The Anglicans favored many Catholic practices without the hierarchy. The Protestant states varied in their attitudes toward monasteries, but there was general agreement among the Protestants that monastic life was a mistaken form of Christian life (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

Although he held his own theological beliefs on secondary issues, Luther’s opinions favored a basic return to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Such was his purpose in proposing reform. What occurred, however, was an unstoppable movement of believers who reformed even secondary doctrines and extrabiblical thought. In fact, “the Protestant Reformation has been cited by scholars of European history as contributing to the rise of nationalism, individualism, capitalism, and secularism” (Trepanier, 2010, p. 206). Luther’s reformed arguments emphasize fundamental Christian doctrine rather than the futility of secondary and extrabiblical issues.

Where most of Europe saw drastic responses to reform, English Reformers took a more subtle approach. “The early English Reformers were Catholic in their tastes, or at least eclectic…” (Rex, 1999, p. 39). The impact of the Reformation, therefore, was largely dependent on geographical location. It could be suggested that what occurred in the English Reformation is perhaps closer to what Luther desired in Wittenberg and the surrounding areas of Europe. In non-English-speaking areas:

what began as a “protest” became an advocacy for a new understanding of religious authority and Christian practice. The impact of the Reformation continues to be felt. Its tenets of faith ring loud and clear, even in a world that has gone through many revolutions of thought since the 16^th century (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

            Reformers surely desired changes in church doctrine and practice, none more than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther. Nonetheless, from Luther’s teachings, writings, and actions, the exaggeration of reform saddened him, as his desire was for greater unity rather than division. Even Protestants held their differences in doctrinal issues. For example, while all Protestants opposed the Catholic Church, teaching salvation by faith alone, Calvin extended the doctrine to include that of predestination, which certainly caused further rifts in the church, even among Protestants. Anabaptists’ belief on immersion further separated the body of Christ by creating yet another group of Protestants. What was a good intention of the Reformation then, namely reform of fundamental issues, became exaggerated to the point of causing what seems to be further disunity. Considering the impact of the Reformation in this regard, it is right, therefore, to weigh the benefits against the detriments.

Overarching Judgment of the Reformation’s Impact

            The impact of the Reformation may be seen from both positive and negative perspectives depending on the topic considered. It is right, understanding centuries of knowledge post-Reformation, to judge the overarching impact of the movement, its strengths and weaknesses, and whether or not another solution would have been better. Certainly, one’s personal background influences his or her thought of the Reformation’s impact. Even Luther himself experienced questions regarding what occurred because of his 95 Theses. The three primary areas discussed here offer a compact and precise standard by which to judge the impact of the Reformation. The development’s sway on congregational worship, church unity (or lack thereof), and the level of reform should be deliberated when making a judgment. As with many historical events, one may point to both positives and negative results. The sum of all impacts, however, affords one the opportunity to make a right judgment on the outcomes of the Reformation and whether it was overall advantageous or damaging to the body of Christ.

References

Brooke, Sebastian (2004). Reformation Rhetoric: The Genealogye of Heresye. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 6 (No. 3), 374-393.

Lee, Trepanier (2010). The Protestant Revolution in Theology, Law, and Community. Political Science Reviewer, Vol. 39, 206-231.

Loewe, Andreas J. (2013). Why Do Lutherans Sing? Lutherans, Music, and the Gospel in the First Century of the Reformation. Church History, Vol. 28 (No. 1), 69-89.

Mac, Lynn (2020). [Course syllabus for MRS 411 The Reformation]. MRS 411 The Reformation, Nations University.

Maag, Karin (2017). The Reformation: What Did We Gain? What Did We Lose? Retrieved from https://www.thebanner.org/features/2017/09/the-reformation-what-did-we-gain-what-did-we-lose

Rex, Richard (1999). The Early Impact of Reformation Theology at Cambridge University, 1521-1547. Reformation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies, Issue 2, 38-71.

Searle, Joshua T. (2017). The Reformation in Ukraine and Russia and Its Relevance for Today. European Journal of Theology, Vol. 26 (No. 1), 55-64.

Steinmetz, David C. (2017). Things Old and New: Tradition and Innovation in Constructing Reformation Theology. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 19 (No. 1), 5-18.

Witte, John (2018). The Marital Covenant in John Calvin’s Geneva. Political Theology, Vol. 19 (No. 4), 282-299.

Wootton, Janet, H. (2011). The Wilderness and Christian Song. International Congregational Journal, Vol. 10 (No. 1), 75-90.

---

[1] The New Testament was published earlier in 1522.

THREE TRUTHS EXPOSED IN THE RECENT US ELECTION

 Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Three Truths Exposed in the Recent US Election

Today is the last Sunday after Pentecost or the last Sunday or Ordinary Time, also known as Christ the King Sunday. Next Sunday begins Advent. Today, however, is a day to recognize the authority of Christ over all dominion, i.e. all principalities and powers, human and otherwise. He is certainly the King whether people realize it or not; one day, however, all will recognize his kingship and bow to him. Believers should consider him King far above any king or ruler. In the United States, we just went through an important election. In considering Christ the King, the recent election has caused many to wonder if Christ truly is the King even in the lives of professing Christians. I believe the recent US election has exposed hard truths about American society with which we must grapple. For the scope here, I will point to three hard truths the recent US election has exposed in American society.

Idolatry

            First, idolatry has certainly been exposed through the recent US election, although such was likely seen by many even prior to the event. While many elections protrude hints of idolatry in American society, the most recent presidential election seemingly shed greater light on it than previous elections.[1] Leading up to that first Tuesday in November, the social media feeds, television commercials, and radio programming was inundated with ads paid for by campaigns attempting to criticize the opposite candidate. Often, these ads would not necessarily highlight the benefits of electing the advertising candidate but rather the negative aspects of the opposing person.

In my younger years, the Republican party seemed to hold a corner on the religious market in politics, i.e. it was assumed that Christians would vote for the Republican candidates.[2] In more recent years, however, both Democrats and Republicans (and often third parties) have claimed the Christian voting base. I would even suggest that the claim is equal across the aisle. What we have been given then is the assumption that a Christian should vote for one candidate or another on the sole basis of their party. In fact, it has become common for one party and supporters of one candidate to convey the idea that if the other is elected, society as we know it will meet its fate in a dire situation. Many of us even heard and read statements like, “How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for [insert candidate here]?” Such statements reveal the unwanted truth that most people in our society place their hope in someone or something other than God.

The seriousness of the first commandment should be considered by everyone who professes the name of Christ. Hope is not found in a politician no matter who they are. God is jealous (Exod 34:14) and demands consummate worship from his people and, in fact, all people (and will one day receive it from everyone). The fact that in the past two elections, people’s hopes and dreams appeared to be squashed completely because the candidate they did not like was elected reveals the idolatry that exists in our country even among those who claim to be followers of Christ. I do not intend to diminish the importance of having opinions and voting as American citizens; nonetheless, Americans have trusted in a false god: the god of politics and politicians. Elections have become a large game of competitive hockey in which one team boasts that they beat the other while the other practices for the next match by criticizing the opposing party for the next four years. Christians should be completely devoted to the worship of God, his glory, and the spread of his fame through the gospel. Whether people realize it or not, the recent US election has exposed many people’s idolatry in how they reacted to the outcome. Whether overjoyed or painfully despaired, one extreme or the other indicates people who falsely claim Christ as their God but truthfully idolize politicians and political parties.

Hypocrisy

            Secondly, the most recent US election has revealed the underlying truth of hypocrisy in the church. For the scope here, I submit three primary areas of hypocrisy in the church, which the recent US election has exposed: 1) hypocrisy on abortion, 2) hypocrisy on big government, and 3) hypocrisy on morality of candidates.

            I dare suggest that abortion is the single-most important issue facing our generation. The scope of this discussion is not abortion; it must, however, be mentioned. While many argue hypocrisy from the pro-life movement because they claim to be opposed to abortion yet neglect elements such as education, it should be realized that the other issues are not life issues but quality of life; one cannot have quality of life if life is not protected first. The hypocrisy on abortion, however, does not come from the left but from the right. Many claim to be pro-life and yet do little to nothing in the way of abolishing the heinous act. In fact, most Supreme Court justices when Roe vs. Wade was ruled were Republicans. Even now, it is common for politicians to claim a pro-life stance but fail to act on legislation that abolishes it. Many professing Christians hold to voting for a particular party because of their so-called pro-life stance when that party does nothing but regulate abortion rather than abolish it, which is why there exists a growing movement of abolitionists who separate themselves from the pro-life movement, which has become, in essence, an industry in itself. The recent election has exposed the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life and yet continue to vote for candidates that have done and likely will do nothing on the issue of abortion.

            Another area of hypocrisy is found in the concept of big government. Republicans tend to claim a small government philosophy when they are essentially another side of the same coin. The reality is that debt has massively increased under the leadership of both parties, the deficit has increased, and government programs continue to rise to the point of controlling the American society. When enough people work for or gain their livelihood from some form of government, people will likely not vote themselves out of a job. For the Republican party to claim a small government mentality, two out of three of the biggest government decisions I have known in my lifetime have come from Republican leadership: the Patriot Act and legalizing civil forfeiture in the name of the war on drugs.[3] Those who pay attention realize that the Republican party is almost equally as big-government-minded as the Democrat party; yet, many professing Christians claim to vote for one party or the other because of their small-government philosophy.

            A third area of hypocrisy is the morality of candidates. Such hypocrisy is seen by all parties. In fact, both parties pointed to the opposing candidate as an immoral person while looking past the failures of their candidate. It has been said that Americans have had to vote for the lesser of two evils. The fact is that until Christ returns, people will always vote for the lesser of two evils. Moral failures are a part of human existence. If Christians desire to love like Christ, however, forgiveness is in order. It is also necessary to consider the failures of all candidates. Hypocrisy was revealed in the recent election not only by Christians pointing to the immortality of one candidate while looking past the other’s but also by failing to forgive as Christ forgives. May God gives us eyes like Christ, as we see people whom he loves and treat them as such. Everyone fails; how one responds to the failures of others, however, is telling about the spiritual condition of that person.

An Imperfect System

            A third item exposed through the recent US election is the imperfection of the electoral system. In suggesting this, I do not intend to diminish the greatness that is the United States, for the US system of government is far greater than others around the world. Anything apart from Christ and his kingdom, however, may only be imperfect no matter how good it is. Christians need to be okay with such a truth because until the church is with Christ after life on earth, his kingdom is seen only partially. The pitfalls of the US electoral system were revealed in the confusion after the election. Often, people have the idea that the United States Constitution is an infallible document. That title only belongs to holy Scripture. Even the documents of the United States’ founding fathers are replete with human errors. The system in which the US operates is good but imperfect, something with which believers must be okay, for God’s people should operate with the understanding that no matter how good something is, if it is of this world, it is temporary and may not be perfect, as only God’s kingdom is. The recent US election has shed light on this truth.

Christ is King, although Evidence in the American Church Suggests Otherwise

            If Christ is truly King of his people in the United States, believers must bear fruit that reveals such. The idolatry and hypocrisy of Christians (on all sides of the political aisle) suggest opposite of Christ the King. The recent US election has exposed these three truths highlighted here among others related to the American Christian subculture. Whether your candidate won or not, how you respond is telling of where lies your faith. Those who are exceedingly and disproportionately overjoyed and those who are equally in despair should examine that in which their hope lies. Such reactions are indicative of idolatry. God commands his people to worship and fear only him, for he alone is worthy of his people’s worship and fear. No matter a political situation, may Christians in the United States boldly declare that their hope is not in a political party, system, or candidate but only in Jesus Christ alone.

---

[1] I am willing to submit that such a revelation will only increase in the future.

[2] I do not suggest this to be right or wrong; I am merely making an observation.

[3] The other decision is the Affordable Care Act passed under democratic leadership and signed by President Obama.

LIVE PREPARED

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV) 

The Coming of the Lord

¹³ But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. ¹⁴ For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁵ For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

            It seems that many today believe the imminent return of Christ to be a sort of mythological story designed to scare people. The return of Christ, however, is certain; make no mistake that when the Father gives the command, Jesus will return whether people are ready or not. The Apostle Paul writes of Christ’s Second Coming here and paints a portrait of what will occur in that moment. Prior to this portrait, however, Paul pleads with his hearers so that they do not find themselves “uninformed” (v. 13). We too must prepare ourselves for what will surely happen. We may not be alive to see the return of Christ (or we may); either way, our preparedness is vital. Believers should live life as if Christ will return at any moment (because he will). The point of Paul’s words here is not to scare people but to give believers the hope that awaits. Beyond the amazing hope we possess now, we also hold to a future hope of our Messiah’s return, for he will return for his people to share in his glory and radiance as his redeemed bride. May the people of God stand blameless before him and live life on this earth in constant preparation and readiness for his imminent return.