Today is the 500th anniversary of the start of the Reformation, and it's brought up a lot of questions, a lot of pondering, and a lot of wishing things were not as divided as they are in Christianity. I cannot even begin to deny the abuses that were happening in the church at the time of Luther. They're pretty cut and dried, and known historical fact. But they were PRACTICES. Not doctrine. There's a difference. They were what sinful people did in the NAME OF THE CHURCH, not what the Church taught itself. And that's a huge difference to me.
I've been re-reading one of my favorite authors, Peter Kreeft, a professor of Philosophy at Boston College. And one thing he said when he was researching church history as a protestant has struck me as particularly relevant, as we look at where we have ended up as a Christian Church in 2017:
"But if Catholic dogma contradicted Scripture or itself at any point, I could not find it. I explored all the cases of claimed contradiction and found each to be a Protestant misunderstanding. No matter how morally bad the Church had gotten in the Renaissance, it never taught heresy. I was impressed with its very hypocrisy: even when it didn't raise its practice to its preaching, it never lowered its preaching to its practice. Hypocrisy, someone said, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. "
It's an ugly history, this Christianity. We've failed and failed again at what Christ commissioned us to do. What to do about that, though?
For me, it all boils down to two questions, really. FIRST: What did Christ mean when He said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."? And SECOND: "What did the Reformers reform the church to?"
Christ did not leave behind a book. In fact, He didn't write down a single thing that we have evidence of today. What He DID do is start a Church, and entrust it very specifically to people He knew, taught, and trusted, on the "rock" foundation of one man. That much is clear from scripture. So... where is it today? Because He promised us that it would survive for as long as time, and never be taken down by the gates of Hell. I believe we ALL should believe what Christ promised, if we profess to be Christians.
And in regards to the second question, a reform is a return to an original, not the creation of something new. Was the focus of the reformers the clergy who were perpetuating abuses? To reform the fact that the church was too much of a political entity, and was used for political power? If the medieval church had added on "pagan trappings" over time that needed stripping off.... to what extent did the Reformation turn back the clock? Did the Reformation turn back the clock to reform the church to as it was before 1500? To how it was in the 800's? To how it was before Constantine? To the Early Church? What is the standard by which they are "reforming" to an original? And if it IS the Early Church pre-Constantine that they were attemptingt or eform to, then I would challenge every last Protestant to read the writings of the Early Church. Because they exist, in surprising numbers. Reliable, historically verifiable writings of the very earliest Christians, who at times were taught by the Apostles themselves. GO READ THEM. There is a whole, vast history between the time of Christ and 1517. Read what these Christians wrote before the Bible was even assembled and canonized. And see what the church looked like for those first 300 years, and where and how it grew thereafter. And then ask yourself "WHERE TODAY IS THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED THEN????" Look around you. Do you see it anywhere today?
These are the questions I have asked myself time and again, and then I have spent crucial years searching for answers. Because only if I truly settle these things in my head and my heart can I claim to be what I profess to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment