Reform and Radicalism: Where Luther and the Reformation Went Wrong

Reform and Radicalism: Where Luther and the Reformation Went Wrong

Since its inception, the Protestant Reformation has been the subject of endless debate, discussion, and study for Christian scholars. The theological shift which this movement engendered is poignantly felt to this day. Catholics still bemoan the dire consequences of disunity that have resulted. Countless Protestants born into this tradition decades later, have no adequate idea of the nature of the Church their ancestors broke away from or what they lost by the division. Though the Reformation began as a movement for real and needed reform within the Church, it ended in a most cavernous schism. The question arises, “Why did this radical break occur?” and similarly, “Where did the Reformation go wrong in its efforts at reform?”

The Catholic Church, at the time of the Reformation was, indeed, in need of reform. The abuses in the Church were widespread and problematic. It seems that many of the Church’s problems were tied to money. Multiplication of benfices (salaried positions within the clergy) was the unfortunate problem of a single clergy member holding several ecclesiastical titles so as to increase his monetary gain. This led to absenteeism, the reality that a single person, even though bearing many titles, could not keep up with the accompanying responsibilities. Thus, a given diocese (if it happened to be one of many held by a single bishop) could be left without adequate pastoral leadership and guidance. ^1^  Simony, the selling of ‘spiritual goods’, including, but not limited to, ecclesiastical positions and indulgences was also illicitly practiced during this time. One issue not related directly to finances, was the decline of Scholasticism in the Church and a corresponding dearth of proper education among the clergy, which resulted in further troubles in properly and intelligibly representing and upholding the truths of the faith.

Yet there were political and philosophical factors at play as well as religious and theological ones which made efforts at reform a turbulent and messy affair. According to Alan Schreck, author of, The Compact History of the Catholic Church, “the tragedy that led to the Reformation was that spiritual reform and renewal were not rooted in the mainstream of the Catholic Church.” ^2^  Regarding the philosophical leanings of the day, the influx of Renaissance thought, with its emphasis on the individual along with the detrimental force of nominalism (introduced by William of Ockham), shaped what would eventually become the ‘me and Jesus’ religion of Protestantism. ^3^

On the political scene, matters were complicated. The intricacies and tensions of church-state relations at the time were the occasions of much conflict and corruption. The Church was in the awkward position of ‘needing’ the state to ensure that its integrity was not compromised. While the state constantly leveraged its civil authority to gain power over the Church. Popes had to negotiate with civil governments in order to hammer out the powers proper to the Church and state respectively. ^4^ Two issues that arose from this conflict were the occurrence of persons simultaneously holding positions within the Church and the government (which inevitably led to conflicts of interest) and nepotism (in which those who held civic authority reserved the right of ecclesiastical offices to themselves and their relatives, thus gaining power over the church). ^5^

Stepping prominently onto the stage of this dramatic time in the Church and the world, was one influential Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, from the study of whom may be gained many important insights into the spirit, force, and drive of the Reformation. What is most intriguing and unique about Luther is that he started out as a devoted member of the Catholic church and an Augustinian friar. He appears to have begun his efforts at reform honestly, in view of what he saw as legitimate grievances within the Church. Yet his desire for reform quickly gave way to an inner realization of what he viewed as deep doctrinal problems within the Church. ^6^

Taking a look at Luther’s philosophical and theological journey may help to shed light on his later actions. Martin Luther was heavily affected by the philosophy of nominalism gaining force in his time. This philosophy denied the existence of universals, rendering everything in existence as essentially unrelated. This affected Luther’s conception of God, truth, and goodness as well. For Luther, goodness was an arbitrary whim of God and was divorced from objective reality. Thus, God does not will the good because there is such a thing as an intrinsic universal good (at least not in itself), but a thing is good only because God wills it. ^7^ Further, Patrick Madigan asserts in his article published in the Heythrop Journal: A Bimonthly Review Of Philosophy And Theology that,“Luther repudiates any knowledge of how God is in himself,” because, “all that concerns [the faithful Christian] is how God is for us.” ^8^ This reflects Luther’s belief that reason is contrary to faith. One doesn’t need to understand God, so long one understands what God requires, which in Luther’s ideal, is just faith. ^9^

Another essentially Protestant concept which Luther moved along, is that of justification by faith alone, to the exclusion of works. Luther believed, as Brent Sockness synthesized in an article published in The Journal of Religious Ethics, that, “True Christians need no law, because, being righteous, they freely (like good trees bearing good fruit) do more than the law demands.” ^10^ In his desire to be confidently assured of his own salvation, he sought to entirely divorce all actions in the body (in conformity with the law) from having any bearing on the soul, asserting instead that God alone justifies. ^11^ In fact, as Madigan points out, Luther’s theology goes so far as to assert that “the Son [of God] ‘assumed’ not just [human] nature, but [its] sin as well, which he overcomes through ‘perfect obedience.’” ^12^ The only point Luther saw as necessary was belief in Christ, ironically elevating a resilient clinging to faith, to be the sole ‘action’ necessary for salvation. In doing this, Luther abstracted one aspect of faith from its complete definition and in a sense left faith without definite meaning. Author, Paul Hacker, in his book, Faith in Luther: Martin Luther and the Origin of the Anthropocentric Religion, comments on Luther’s apparently ‘reflexive’ conception of faith: “A pregnant expression of the reflexivity of Luther’s faith is its description as faith in one’s own faith. This description is suggested by Luther’s exhortation ‘to have faith in the believed Christ.’” This subtle shift was important. While claiming to place more emphasis on God’s action in the soul, he ended with an even greater dependency on the personal ability to believe in the security of one’s salvation. For, to Luther, any doubt of salvation becomes self-fulfilling. ^13^

A third essential mark of Luther’s brand of Protestantism is his tenet of absolute Scriptural supremacy. He came to believe that the Church’s Tradition perverted the essential meaning of Scripture. However, he ironically read his own particular and subjective interpretation into the text of Scripture, thus making himself the sole authority on matters of faith. ^14^

The question remains, where did Luther go wrong? How did an effort at just reform transform into a radical movement of rebellion against the Church? Schreck explains a large part of the problem: “The irony of the Protestant Reformation is that much of what Luther believed and taught was authentic Catholic doctrine that had been distorted by abuses and incorrect practices.” ^15^ The lack of proper Catholic education among the clergy at the time most likely contributed to this. Luther’s  famous Ninety-Five Theses, which he (at least reportedly) nailed to the door of the castle in Wittenberg, dealt with real issues that needed reform in the Church but also not too subtly introduced theological concepts which began to diverge from Church teaching.

Luther wanted to make a statement, to get the Church’s attention; even then, he remained loyal to Pope. However, when he exhausted his legitimate avenues of recourse within the Church, Luther did not end his campaign. He ended by defying the authority of the Church. This then, is the shift from reform to radicalism; it bred many more errors in Luther’s theology as he wandered farther and farther away from the steadfast authority of the Church of Christ. When ordered by Pope Leo X to repudiate several of his theological errors, Luther ultimately would not submit and was excommunicated. ^16^

Luther was just one of the players in the Reformation, albeit a particularly dynamic one. Still, his error applies to the Reformation as a whole, and to each of its other players as well. What did these ‘reformers-gone-wrong’ give up in renouncing the authority of the church for their own individualist religions? They set themselves outside of the divinely ordained and infallible guidance of the Magisterium, and left themselves at the mercy of endless stream of errors which have splintered Christianity into innumerable variations.

The lesson of the Reformation is clear: true reform in the Catholic Church will always, in the end, remain docile to the authority of Christ given to her. So long as one understands the weight of the command of Christ which instituted both the Church and its apostolic line of succession, there can be no honest deviation on this point.

Image Credits

http://dejonckheere-gallery.com/en/home/old-masters-collection/portrait-of-martin-luther/

https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/monografia/lutero/fotos4.htm

Footnotes

^1^ Vidmar, John, The Catholic Church Through the Ages, (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2014), 189-190.

^2^ Schreck, Alan, The Compact History of the Catholic Church, (Cincinnati, OH: Servant, Franciscan Media, 2009), 70-73.

^3^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 186.

^4^ Schreck, Compact history, 69-70.

^5^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 190.

^6^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 191-193.

^7^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 193-194.

^8^ Madigan, Patrick. 2009. "From Luther's Theology of the Cross to Nietzsche's Probing for the Übermensch: Growth in the Modern Rhetoric of Self-Doubting Intimidation." Heythrop Journal: A Bimonthly Review Of Philosophy And Theology 50, no. 2: 304-309. Philosophers Index with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed August 18, 2018).

^9^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 197.

10^ Sockness, Brent W. 1992. "LUTHER'S TWO KINGDOMS REVISITED." Journal Of Religious Ethics 20, no. 1: 96. Philosophers Index with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed August 18, 2018).

^11^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 194-195.

^12^ Madigan, Patrick. 2009. "From Luther's Theology of the Cross to Nietzsche's Probing for the Übermensch: Growth in the Modern Rhetoric of Self-Doubting Intimidation." Heythrop Journal: A Bimonthly Review Of Philosophy And Theology 50, no. 2: 304-309. Philosophers Index with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed August 18, 2018).

^13^ Hacker, Paul, Faith in Luther: Martin Luther and the Origin of the Anthropocentric Religion, (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2017), 8-11.

^14^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 196-198.

^15^ Schreck, Compact history, 73.

^16^ Vidmar, Through the Ages, 192-200.