Differences between the First and Second Reformations July 5, 2008
Posted by Zack in , trackback
One of the books I’ve been nibbling at these days is: Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries. It paints a picture of a population of believers in the Netherlands in the 1500’s bailing out of the established (Catholic) church looking for a more authentic relationship to God. They were skipping established church services (the Latin Mass, which they couldn’t understand) to listen to lay preachers (and renegade Catholic priests) in fields on the outskirts of town and in secret basement meeting places.
Their desire for a different kind of relationship to God in worship was so strong that they risked arrest, torture and even death to attend those sermons. A lot of our knowledge of these believers comes from their heresy trials: They were mostly skilled and semi-skilled laborers. They were a mix of literate, barely literate and illiterate. Their beliefs were an eclectic and contradictory mix of the theologies of the pioneer Reformation leaders.
Above all, they cared about getting back to the Bible. For many it was the first time in their lives that they heard the actual Gospel read and interpreted in a language they could understand. Many printings of Dutch translations of the New Testament floated around, small enough to easily hide, long before a single unified Dutch translation of the Bible was made.
The established church and the secular government at the time responded to this bottom-up revolt of belief by restricting the teaching of the Bible. That only served to sap even more credibility from the established church.
The movement seems to have some strong similarities to what America has seen over the last couple decades in the abandonment of the mainline churches for non-denominational, more Bible-based evangelical churches.
The big difference that stands out to me: In the Reformation, everyone was yelling at each other. You couldn’t support the new way without condemning the old way. And you couldn’t support one particular new way without condemning all the other (competing) new ways. The Reformation leader theologians argued with each other bitterly. And the rank and file argued with each other bitterly too, even though they often had only a loose understandings of the views of the theologians who inspired them.
Contrast that to today: A thousand different popular books pointing toward a new kind of Christianity, and almost all of them take issue with each other only in the subtlest, most loving tone. As carefully as possible, they refuse to name the authors they might be (you can never be sure) writing in disagreement with. Meanwhile, Christians of different very different views happily mix at the same conferences, and even in the same churches. Tolerance abounds.
I know that’s not the case with *everyone*. It’s possible to find cranky, argumentative leaders in the church today, but not in the “Revolution,” which some have called a Second Reformation.
In the 1500’s (in the Netherlands anyways) many believers were willing to die rather than attend Mass because they saw it as a site of idol worship. Today, so many non-denominational Protestant “revolutionaries” are happy to attend Catholic Mass. They even get a certain nostalgic kick out of it. Could it be the that lack of persecution today is what takes that edge off?
Tags: history, reformation
Comments»
I would hope the edge has been taken off by a realization that it is exceptionally difficult to rationalize or standardize a more authentic relationship to God.
“They even get a certain nostalgic kick out of it.”
Wow. Both condescending and disrespectful of the Catholic tradition. It is that attitude that I find endlessly amusing about Christians. The attitude that leads them to attempt to redefine the church, the bible message and the attitude of the religion every few generations. Old movements, like the Catholic church for example, are crusty and outdated. There is the thought, every few generations that “now we are really on to something. This speaks to people.”
I am consistently brought back to wonder, if Christians have Truth why does it need cleaned up, rephrased and re-presented every couple generations? Immutable Truth seems like the sort of thing that would remain clear, consistent and free of modification or dispute for all time. That does not appear to be the case though. Am I missing something?
I kind of rambled on a bit didn’t I? Heh, sorry about that. I guess the above quoted section inspired me a bit.
“Today, so many non-denominational Protestant “revolutionaries” are happy to attend Catholic Mass. They even get a certain nostalgic kick out of it.”
Looks like you meant now in that section.
Okay, I will play nice. I had Wheaties for breakfast and I am still feeling frisky and troublesome.
But yeah, whatever is wrong with the Catholic church now, the “middle ages” Church was a far different animal. I agree completely with that. But then most of Christianity is different now.
I’m unconvinced the Dutch laity were as theologically curious and sincere as presented - the Reformation was a bloody time in Christian history. I’m curious how Duke treats forced conversions of the Dutch by Calvinist leaders, heresy trials convened by Reformers, “cuius regio, eius religio,” and lay Dutch opposition not to the Church but rather to Spain (joining a Protestant church as an act of defiance against the Spanish Empire, much like joining the ancient Church as defiance against the Roman Empire).
Well, his book covers the period when the dissenters in the Low Countries were still on the outs and being persecuted. They were not able to persecute others (yet).
I was struck by how good and harmless they were at that stage — at the level of “ordinary radicals” anyways.
That brings up something interesting: Is that kind of violence that you referred to hard to avoid when there is no power holding over-excited religious communities in check? Could it be that the present day church actually owes a huge debt to secular traditions such as the rule of law and religious tolerance. (Albeit they are traditions strongly influenced by Christianity and Judaism.) Could it be that the Revolution in the church needs the bounds of the state to keep the revolutionaries at that good, peaceful “ordinary” level?