The Reformation was the most divisive event in the history of the western Church. For the Catholic Church it prompted the Counter-Reformation bringing changes which had they come earlier, could well have averted the Reformation. For the Protestant Churches and all the denominations that have followed it shifted their legitimacy from Apostolic Succession to biblical authority sometimes coupled with overt spiritual inspiration. All these groups have stories of the Reformation leaving us, whatever tradition we come from, with a selective interpretation of the event.
In its broadest sense The Reformation is seen as bettering the Church with an underlying assumption that the Church was getting back to its roots and original purity. This emphasis remains strong even today among certain congregations. There is little doubt that change was necessary nor that the changes, though unintentionally brutal and destructive brought improvements, but there is also more to the story than we usually consider.
Over the fourteen centuries that preceded the Reformation the church had absorbed and accommodated many cultures, practices and ideas but had maintained unity with an emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. By the 15th century this attempt at a cohesive system was crumbling and its diverse strands too disjointed so change became inevitable. The question however was on what basis could this change occur?
Epitomized by Luther’s revelation ‘the just shall live by faith’ the reformers emphasized a gospel accessible by ‘everyman’ as a counter to a religious system no longer sensitive to individual humans. (Luther wanted to know how he, a hurting man, could connect with God) Essentially the Reformers were humanists; they wanted a human-sized gospel freed from all the mystique and excess of the clerics. To this end they made the bible available to the people and encouraged people to read it. This shifted spiritual authority from a system that claimed direct lineage and hence legitimacy from Jesus disciples (Apostolic Succession,) to an individual and community response to God’s authority via the Bible. Within this broad understanding and up to the current day we have seen a multiplicity of groups emphasizing certain facets of this authority with the intention of better knowing or pleasing God.
Always however the main emphasis has been beliefs and ideas about God. Whether that is a literal acceptance of every word in the bible or a loose appreciation for aspects of an ancient text, the objective remains the same – what are the ideas we can believe in? That’s because we live in a world of ideas – of facts, figures, information – it’s the basis of all our learning and activity. It in fact defines the western world.
But that world is now floundering and I would suggest that as in the 15th century the modern western worlds ‘attempt at a cohesive system is crumbling and its diverse strands too disjointed.’ I would also suggest that the Church regardless of its emphasis has been too closely allied to that western world of ideas and intellect. With this consideration I think we should view The Reformation in a new light and rather than just see it as reform we should view it as re-formation.
A formation is a structure or an arrangement of things, (e.g. troop formation) and the Reformation was just that, a re-arrangement of Christianity. Though the Reformation brought major disruption the reformers retained much if not most from the past. What they did do however was re-arranged those things to reflect a new emphasis. To that end the Mass was stripped of its mysterious power (Transubstantiation) preaching the Bible (transferring ideas) gained emphasis, the supremacy of Jesus was re-established and tradition was downplayed, but all the core ingredients remained
Primarily the Reformation was a specific response to specific conditions at a specific time and I think we now find ourselves in a similar situation. Sure we can all point to parts of the world where the church is growing, and even in NZ certain brands of church have increasing congregations but the general pattern of the West is people leaving churches and losing faith in the God of the Bible. What should we do about this? Should we ignore the phenomena blaming the culture for turning its back on God and leave them to their fate? Should we pray for revival hoping that a society that has little if any connection with its Judeo-Christian heritage can be revived? Or do we need to get back to a human-sized gospel that resonates with the need of its culture? What would a loving God do and what might he like those who love Him to do?
To address this phenomena we firstly need to understand the world in which we live; a world built on certainty. (Global media provides access to the entire world, and such intrusion obviously colours our picture, however I am only concerned here with western culture in the New Zealand context) To validate such a statement would require an extensive overview of European history both political and philosophical and its outworking which is not possible here so you will just have to bear with me and follow my thinking.
The Reformation understanding that God (certainty) could be found free of religious dogma, courtesy of the written word, eventually led to the understanding that certainty, via discovery and science, could be found in the internal and external world. The world we now know, one of industry, business, education, medicine, leisure, entertainment etc has mostly sprung from this root, and by both example and colonisation extended around the globe. But this confident world that promised life liberty and happiness has now lost its confidence. (It’s even convinced that the very environment we occupy is, via climate change, conspiring against us). And that’s just the external world.
Now most people live distracted lives, sidetracked by either busyness or leisure and perplexed by a ‘big picture’ they feel powerless to affect. Family and relational breakdown has left many people with unresolved hurt and damaged relationships. We are daily barraged with contradictory messages from academics and scientists which, rather than increasing clarity leave us questioning all information. Yet we also clutch at whatever ideas are in vogue for fear of appearing different.
This is the modern world or rather the postmodern world because this disillusionment with all that has gone before (the modern) has left the West bereft of all belief and hence post–modern. It is this reality that requires a new ‘formation’ to make sense (not merely intellectual) of what is happening and provide meaning for the future.
All belief systems, whether spiritual or philosophical, are an attempt at a meaningful explanation of experiential reality. The Reformation was an undertaking in the light of information and experience to find a new way to live an authentic life. As we have seen it worked but the context has now changed and that explanation and methodology is not expansive or meaningful enough to connect with postmodern humans.
Ours is a pluralistic world, exposed to a multiplicity of beliefs. It has expanded our knowledge from the sub-atomic to the universal. It has examined the human condition with both physiology and psychology. But all this investigation, predicated on the notion that such discoveries would lead to truth and hence purpose, has had the opposite effect. It has left us bewildered with our limitations and incapable of meaningful action.
In the light of this many would suggest that the old beliefs are an anachronism and as such should be discarded. Equally apparent is the renewed interest in the spiritual (of all hues) as a counter to the dry hollow husk of modernism. This is why we need a re-formation, a new arranging of the model to best reflect experiential (both personal and evidential) reality.
Psychology has shown us that love and affirmation from a significant (to the individual) other is the best motivator for a productive and fulfilled life. It has equally shown that deprivation of love and affirmation results in anger and despair. In the light of this experiential understanding a re-formed reality must have compassionate constructive love as the main source for authentic human existence.
We live in a space / time world and have discovered that everything exists relative to something else. This new understanding of relationship helps us realize that context is critical so we need less emphasis on ‘absolute’ and more on interconnectedness.
Humans perform best when freely choosing to act rather than being induced or driven. They contribute most when they can freely give of themselves, when they work in co-operation with God rather than merely from obedience. So an understanding of partnership with God must be incorporated in a re-formed model.
All human discoveries (in both the external and internal worlds) though greatly adding to our knowledge of all that is have proved inept at providing direction or meaning, so a re-formed understanding must allow for mystery and the inexplicable if only because the explainable obviously isn’t enough.
Certainties though providing short term comfort also create barriers and limit relationship which is counter to Jesus example of a loving and giving life so watertight conviction that is only comfortable with like minds would be less emphasised in a re-formed model.
The notion that truth can be defined and transmitted in words alone (as in statements of faith etc) and that the hearer can give assent and then expect them to become reality in their own life ignores the real process of transformation. Lasting change comes from within and words can only explain or affirm the process, they are not the source of that process. For this reason a reformed model would place less emphasis on ‘facts’ as the basis for change.
For some this re- formation will sound dubious if not heretical, but a reading of the Bible without denominational glasses will show that all I am suggesting can be found there. It’s important to understand that we always bring prejudices and pre-conditions to our belief which makes it hard to see past our ‘programming’ but just as the Reformers found God in a new way through reading the Bible afresh we can do likewise. I am not asking anyone to reject the God of the Bible rather I am asking you to reject the ‘interpretations’ that constrain that God.
It must be understood that the Bible is not an instruction book rather it is a narrative. Sure it has some instruction, but also history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic writings and other genre. To that end the understanding of the bible I like best is of biography. I think of it as if 40 or so writers over a thousand year period were each asked to write on an aspect of God as they have experienced Him. Consequently we get songs to God, musings on God, instruction from God, historical evidence of Gods interaction with people collective and individual, and records of relationship with God as Jesus etc. As with any good biography we get a clear understanding of the subject, who they are and why they act as they do. This biography goes one step further however because it invites the reader to actually become acquainted with the subject: God, in a way that is both meaningful and personal.
Of course while our ‘formation’ will respond to the cultural environment it intends to engage, it will ultimately reflect our perception of God. (The Reformation reflected an accessible God freed from the clutches of ecclesiastical authority and able to be found in the pages of the Bible) So I will briefly tell of my picture. For some this may be a bridge too far, and I must confess to having been scared by my conclusions at earlier stages as well as constantly astonished by this God. However all my understanding of the Bible coupled with my observation and experience in life has led me to concur with Athanasius (a 4th cent bishop in Alexandria) who said that ‘God became man, in order that man could become God.’
God is love. He doesn’t just love (as if love were pre-existent) rather he is the cause of love and the major consequence of love is the desire to share it. (God already exists in a state of shared love because He exists as Trinity.) But love is not a one way street, true love both gives and receives. It is a state of no barriers; nothing separates the loved and the lover so the participants become both lover and loved. However the realest love is that enjoyed with like kind and this is what Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus about when he talked of being born again. It was always Gods objective that we transcend a physical birth and be born a second time as ‘God kind’. This is the ultimate intention in His love, and for this God created us.
The history of Gods interaction with the human race told in the Bible and up to the present day is of God encouraging his children to come to maturity. Only in maturity are humans free, and love will never be complete unless the participants are free. The love of a child for its father and vice-versa is wonderful but while the child is dependant and the father responsible neither party is completely free and the love enjoyed remains limited by this disparity. When that child becomes an adult free of dependence and the dad is freed from his responsibility then both are independent. To then want to share with and be exposed to one another is to love with no strings. This is the love God wants to enjoy with his creation a love of freely choosing beings - love with His friends.
The story of the Fall, the history of Israel, Jesus birth death and resurrection, and the story of the Church all evidence and reflect God’s desire to see his intention come to pass. As with all creativity the goal remains constant but the methods and processes to attain that goal may change. They are flexible because they are not the intention; they are only tools used to achieve the end result. We need to look afresh at our understanding and consequent presentation of God to see how this may aid or hinder God’s ultimate intention of enjoying relationship with his children, and re-form them accordingly to best reflect and confirm that picture.
© Grant Finch 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment