I have been interested in the range of articles and opinions that have emerged in the last months and will be around for some years. We are at the five-hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, usually attributed to Martin Luther and other sixteenth century reforming figures. I suspect various schools and churches approach this story from multiple directions. I am sure there is not one agreed upon interpretation of Luther’s break from the Roman Catholic Church---or was it more like the Catholic Church kicking him out of the Church? It depends.
I even have authored an article reflecting back on the five-hundred years since he nailed the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door in 1517. At that point, he was still a Catholic priest and university professor. I think it is fair to say he had no idea he was about to precipitate anything other than a dialogue with church leaders. Within four years he would be tossed out of the Church.
One of the most ironical things about Luther is his marriage to a former Catholic nun! He was a formidable Biblical scholar. He wrote music. He was a multi-talented man. Soon all his energies and talents were put to use guiding a growing contingent of followers as they began their progression out of the Church. I find it difficult sometimes to imagine what it would have been like to begin developing theological positions that conflicted with the Mother Church, i.e. the Catholic Church.
In the beginning I doubt many of those who left or were kicked out of the Church really wanted that outcome. I suspect they preferred simply to reform the Church. However, reform is a tricky thing. What some leaders might consider reform, other leaders see as rebellion. What some theologians see as reform ways of thinking, others see as erroneous ways of thinking. Differences of opinions become divisive. Often this is driven by personalities who become conflicted and, sadly, combative. Spiritual fraternities are fractured and the factions evolve into denominations. That is the general story of the Protestant Reformation in the USA.
Sadly, we too often self-identify as Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, etc., instead of Christian. Our view of “church” is still too narrow and, regrettably exclusive. Personally, this was the way I grew up and, fortunately, have tried to grow out of. I dearly appreciated the emerging ecumenical movement of the 1960s. I try to self-identify as a Christian who lives out that faith primarily as a Quaker, but with tinges of Catholicism.
To me the ongoing Reformation story---and I do think it is ongoing---is truly a story of reform. A core belief of the Christian faith is the unity of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ and there is only one body. No one group has the whole church in hand. It is only when the totality of “we” Christians find our way into a united “we” can we claim to be the Church, the body of Christ. That single body, as the Apostle Paul, envisioned is a diverse collection of people speaking multiple languages. We are called back into our fraternity of Spirit.
One way we continue to grow toward that unity is to continue to talk with each other. Some of that conversation inevitably will be theological. We don’t find unity by avoiding theology. And we need to understand it is theological unity, not uniformity. Any form of theological uniformity necessarily will become exclusive and continue to cause conflicts. As I think about the theological issues that can bind rather than cause battle. I point to the idea of justification, which was central to the sixteenth century squabble.
One of the ways I was helped to think about this came through reading a Catholic periodical I usually read. German Catholic theologian, Peter Nuener, comments on Luther and the idea of justification. Neuner is exactly correct when he states, "Luther's Reformation was not a revolution against the pope, but a breakthrough of the biblical message of justification." This Catholic theologian heads in the direction I am advocating here. He says, “We should try to overcome the differences, which separate our churches today and hinder courageous steps toward a community of Christians.”
Part of this process is to recognize all of us humans have issues with what is classically called “sin.” If I don’t like the word, I can find a synonym. I don’t care about the word; I do care about the reality the word, sin, points to. Paul was correct: we all fall short of the glory of God. That is where justification comes into the human picture. Justification simply describes the process of overcoming sin and being re-established in our right relationship with God, with each other and with our world.
Too often, justification sounds heavy, complex and, maybe, outdated. But I would argue, most of us humans need to be involved in justification on a frequent basis. Whenever we find ourselves acting less than perfectly, we invite the old bugbear sin into the picture. And justification necessarily will be used to get us out of the sad place of alienation.
This is actually good news. And it is good news shared by Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers and all other Christians. Justification will aid us in the discovery of Christian community and unity.
I even have authored an article reflecting back on the five-hundred years since he nailed the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door in 1517. At that point, he was still a Catholic priest and university professor. I think it is fair to say he had no idea he was about to precipitate anything other than a dialogue with church leaders. Within four years he would be tossed out of the Church.
One of the most ironical things about Luther is his marriage to a former Catholic nun! He was a formidable Biblical scholar. He wrote music. He was a multi-talented man. Soon all his energies and talents were put to use guiding a growing contingent of followers as they began their progression out of the Church. I find it difficult sometimes to imagine what it would have been like to begin developing theological positions that conflicted with the Mother Church, i.e. the Catholic Church.
In the beginning I doubt many of those who left or were kicked out of the Church really wanted that outcome. I suspect they preferred simply to reform the Church. However, reform is a tricky thing. What some leaders might consider reform, other leaders see as rebellion. What some theologians see as reform ways of thinking, others see as erroneous ways of thinking. Differences of opinions become divisive. Often this is driven by personalities who become conflicted and, sadly, combative. Spiritual fraternities are fractured and the factions evolve into denominations. That is the general story of the Protestant Reformation in the USA.
Sadly, we too often self-identify as Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, etc., instead of Christian. Our view of “church” is still too narrow and, regrettably exclusive. Personally, this was the way I grew up and, fortunately, have tried to grow out of. I dearly appreciated the emerging ecumenical movement of the 1960s. I try to self-identify as a Christian who lives out that faith primarily as a Quaker, but with tinges of Catholicism.
To me the ongoing Reformation story---and I do think it is ongoing---is truly a story of reform. A core belief of the Christian faith is the unity of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ and there is only one body. No one group has the whole church in hand. It is only when the totality of “we” Christians find our way into a united “we” can we claim to be the Church, the body of Christ. That single body, as the Apostle Paul, envisioned is a diverse collection of people speaking multiple languages. We are called back into our fraternity of Spirit.
One way we continue to grow toward that unity is to continue to talk with each other. Some of that conversation inevitably will be theological. We don’t find unity by avoiding theology. And we need to understand it is theological unity, not uniformity. Any form of theological uniformity necessarily will become exclusive and continue to cause conflicts. As I think about the theological issues that can bind rather than cause battle. I point to the idea of justification, which was central to the sixteenth century squabble.
One of the ways I was helped to think about this came through reading a Catholic periodical I usually read. German Catholic theologian, Peter Nuener, comments on Luther and the idea of justification. Neuner is exactly correct when he states, "Luther's Reformation was not a revolution against the pope, but a breakthrough of the biblical message of justification." This Catholic theologian heads in the direction I am advocating here. He says, “We should try to overcome the differences, which separate our churches today and hinder courageous steps toward a community of Christians.”
Part of this process is to recognize all of us humans have issues with what is classically called “sin.” If I don’t like the word, I can find a synonym. I don’t care about the word; I do care about the reality the word, sin, points to. Paul was correct: we all fall short of the glory of God. That is where justification comes into the human picture. Justification simply describes the process of overcoming sin and being re-established in our right relationship with God, with each other and with our world.
Too often, justification sounds heavy, complex and, maybe, outdated. But I would argue, most of us humans need to be involved in justification on a frequent basis. Whenever we find ourselves acting less than perfectly, we invite the old bugbear sin into the picture. And justification necessarily will be used to get us out of the sad place of alienation.
This is actually good news. And it is good news shared by Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers and all other Christians. Justification will aid us in the discovery of Christian community and unity.
Comments
Post a Comment