| The
motto of the church I belong to is, "Taking the Reformation into
the 21st Century." It is a marvelous slogan, but I wonder if it
is not naive. Is a new Reformation possible today? Of course it
is, if God wills it. Many of us have been praying for a Reformation
for years. But I am preoccupied by another issue. Since Europe
and the world are so different from what they were 500 years ago,
how can it happen again? The question should more properly be,
if a Reformation occurs today, what will it look like? Will it
be very similar, or quite different, from what happened in the
16th century?
To
answer that we need to know something about the way the 16th
century Reformation fit the particular structures of society.
This in no way removes from the spiritual and theological nature
of the Reformation, rather it enhances it, because it shows
that God uses circumstances and cultural features in ordering
world events. as Steven Ozment puts it, "Spiritual changes are
also embodied; they have a preexisting material matrix and concurrent
material effects. The soul's salvation also engages the mundane
issues of individual and social life. The Reformation's struggle
for souls took place as much on the battlefields of body and
property, money and politics, society and culture as within
individual hearts and minds."1
It is easy to look at the speed with which the Reformation conquered
a city like Geneva, and to forget all that went on in the background.
On the surface, it all happened in rapid succession. Genevans
were interested in Lutheran views as of the 1520s. Farel, with
Antoine Saunier and perhaps OlivÈtan, went there in 1532. They
preached and won many adherents. But they were soon sent out.
The next year Antoine Fromment and Pierre Viret came to Geneva,
observing that its people were eager "to hear the Word." Sunday,
May 21, 1536, the city officially decided to embrace the Reformation.
Calvin arrived two months later. Though he and Farel were expelled
from 1538 until 1541, Calvin then came back for good. He labored
until his death in 1564, seeing the church and city to fuller
conformity with Reformation principles. Genevan Calvinists then
became the most potent religious force in Protestantism.2 The
Genevan Reformation spread far and wide, and its effects are
still felt today.
Was this the stuff of pure miracle? Of course, the ultimate
explanation for such a profound revolution is God's grace. Yet
there were many elements in the background of the Genevan Reformation
that demonstrate the way in which an essentially spiritual transformation
is connected to the particulars of the social situation. Moreover,
in order to appreciate the fact that the Reformation brought
change at every level, from church structure to moral authority,
to political and economic life, it is necessary to understnd
the backgrounds against which those changes occured. Let us
briefly exmine three areas. Each of these can be considered
revolutions, rather than just change.
Steven Ozment: Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution (New York:
Doubleday, 1991), p. 67.
Owen Chadwick: The Reformation (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 96.
HUMANISM
First,
the renewal of learning. Humanism was a movement in the 15th
and 16th centuries which elevated new discoveries, a new interest
in the human dimension, and a readiness to reshape earthly life.
The upper classes, rulers and merchants began to be well educated.
Libraries grew, printing machines multiplied, original languages
were appreciated. One can see in the art of the Renaissance
a gradual change in emphasis from judgment (the reigning Christ
over the doors of Gothic churches) to human response (Leonardo's
Annunciation).
Humanism
combined two elements. First, critical freedom. It has roots
back to Peter Abelard (1079-1142) at the Cathedral School in
Paris. His famous Sic et Non ("Yes and No"), were a series of
affirmations and denials to show that reason, not just authority,
has a role to play in determining truth. Second, moral fervor.
Going back at least to Bernard de Clairvaux (1090-1153), purity
of faith and devotion to God challenge the constant temptation
of laxity and corruption.
Unlike
its modern version, the Humanism of the Renaissance was largely
Christian. It combine a love for learning with spiritual zeal.
The best known Humanist is Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466- 1536).
Through satire and erudition, he put into words the feelings
of mny that something was wrong in the church. His book, The
Praise of Folly (1511), is an ironical blast against the
abuses of monasticism and the indulgence system. Humanism warred
against tradition, using a powerful philosophical ally: Nominalism.
Nominalism was the major philosophical opponent of scholasticism.
Nominalists believed that truth is in the real world, the world
of experience, not mere logic. Because of this down-to-earth
emphasis, the Humanists were able to study the Bible for what
it was, with due attention to historical facts.
Without intending to question basic Catholic doctrine, the Humanists
nevertheless got into fights over unfounded traditions. LefËvre
d'Etaples, for example, showed that Mary Magdalene was not Mary
the sister of Martha. Erasmus doubted Paul wrote the Book of
Hebrews. He also published a new Greek version, the first to
use original manuscripts. the Humanists railed against popular
superstitions and cermonies.
Now, these Humanists were not Reformers. Erasmus may have laid
the egg that Luther hatched, as the saying went, but he could
not and would not have hatched it. He wanted reform, not revolution.
To be sure, a major branch of Humanism wanted to apply the insights
of antiquity to everyday life, from jurisprudence to medicine
and natural history. There are many connections between the
methods of the Reformers and their Humanist cobelligerents.
The 95 theses were effective in part because Humanist sodalities
distributed them.3 But there are great differences in the message
itself. The Humanists stood on the foundation of the medieval
church, even though they criticized its faults. Luther questioned
the foundation itself. The Humanists were content with change.
Luther spearheaded a revolution.
Similarly,
Calvin owed a great deal to Humanism. Trained at the CollËge
de Montaigu, under such luminaries as Guillaume Cop, the King's
physician, and Guillaume BudÈ the best Greek scholar in the
country. There he also encountered the Nominalist Scotsman John
Major, who may have introduced him to Luther. He later went
to the Law Faculty of OrlÈans, and on to Bourges where he studied
languages. Both places were full of great Humanist professors,
and one can see from the material he encountered there than
Humanism profoundly affected his scholarship. His commentaries
are indebted to Erasmus and BudÈ. His careful attention to words
and context, his critical interaction with prevailing opinion,
his knowledge of the classics and the church frathers, owe a
good deal to Humanism.
At the same time, it is impossible to reduce Calvin to Humanism.
His basic approach to learning was revolutionized through his
love of evangelical truth. Let's take an example. Calvin, stemming
from Humanist practice, stressed the method of "brevity and
simplicity" as he examined Scripture. With his teachers, he
wanted a text to be understood for what it said, and to be explained
to every reader. But then he was first of all a pastor. He cared
deeply about the souls of his congregation. When he exposited
Scripture it was with a view to edifying and adminishing both
Genevans and his spiritual children all over Europe.
One avenue of research that should be encouraged is understanding
the system of thought that Calvin espoused. It has hitherto
been thought that the system is all too obvious. A few passages
of the Institutes taken in isolation make him out to be obssessed
with predestination or the purity of the church. In point of
fact, we are easily misled because of his commitment to simplicity
and brevity. His writings are so clear, and powerful, that each
portion gives the appearance of being monolithic. H. Bauke and
others have pointed out that in fact, there is a "conjunction
of opposites," rather than one or two exclusive themes in Calvin's
theology. Furthermore, the many different forms of his writings,
from catechism, to treatises, to commentaries, to letters, to
sermons, to liturgy, all give different perspectives on the
mosaic of his theology.
My point here is that true Calvinism, the Genevan spirit at
its best, is rich and brilliant, abounding in theological and
practical insights. Compare it briefly, and no doubt unfairly,
to two other schools. Lutheranism says the gospel is everything.
Law must be preached as a prelude, but once grace has come,
law takes a back seat. Anabaptism says obedience is everything.
The gospel must be there, but it is only a beginning, then radical
discipleship begins. Calvinism, on the other hand, says grace
and obedience must coexist. One is saved by grace in order to
obey. One obeys because he is saved. The law tells us how to
please God. The gospel puts us in right relation with the law.
Here
again, we have not renewal but revolution. The Genevan Reformation
effected such a powerful transformation of all of life because
Calvin's theology begins and ends with the glory of God. To
know God is to accomplish the purpose of human life. This was
a revolution made possible because ultimately it rested on authority,
the very Lordship of the Sovereign God.
The
same things could happen today!
Bernd
Moeller: "The German Humanists and the Reformation," in Imperial
Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays (Durham: Labyrinth,
1982), p. 24.
Owen
Chadwick: The Reformation (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 96.
Steven Ozment: Protestants: The Birth of a
Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 67.
|
