Is It Time to Move on From the Reformation?

Luther Reformation

On October 31st, the world will remember one of the most life-altering days in the history of the world. Yes, many will celebrate Halloween (and I’m good with that). But many will also remember this day of October 31st as it particularly relates to the year 1517. It was on this day in 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Luther’s actions began the movement that would later be identified as the Protestant Reformation. It is truly amazing to think it has been a full five hundred years since the Reformation was set in motion.

In particular, Luther’s 95 Theses were questions and propositions he desired to debate with the Roman Catholic Church, the religious power of the Western European world. It was Luther’s fresh reading of Romans 1:16-17 – particularly the verse, “The just [or righteous] shall live by faith.” – which led him to dispute many of the practices of the Roman Catholic magisterium, the church’s leadership that consisted of the Pope and his bishops.

There is little doubt that the Protestant Reformation was deeply needed. The oppressive power of the Roman Catholic Church – which was just as much social, political and cultural as it was religious – stripped the general populace of any sense of God’s grace, forgiveness, love, generosity and kindness. Abuses were plentiful within the Church’s institutional system of merit and questionable practices in light of Scripture.

It was out of the Protestant Reformation that the reformers began advocating the five solas:

  1. Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)
  2. Sola fide (by Faith alone)
  3. Sola gratia (by Grace alone)
  4. Solus Christus (by Christ alone)
  5. Soli Deo gloria (Glory to God alone)

One great point worth noting – one that is very rarely talked about – is how the Protestant Reformation has led to a slow and measured reformation within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I don’t so much speak of the counter-Reformation as identified with the Council of Trent (in the mid-1500s). Whew, that was a reactionary event that basically labeled all Protestants as heretics! Rather I speak of something unfolding over the past five hundred years since the Reformation, particularly summed up in the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. I will also note that I believe more change is still needed within the Catholic Church.

In all of the good that truly came from the Reformation, there is a lot of bad to recognize as well. I originally thought of titling this article, “The Protestant Reformation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

So there is bad and there is also ugly.

What are some of the bad and ugly moments?

In all our efforts in championing the priesthood of all believers, summed up with the practicality of placing the Scriptures in the hands of all people for their own personal reading and interpretation, we have to consider how this has led to the thousands of denominations and church splinter groups worldwide. Matter of fact, in the 20th century, one might say this continued and rapid splintering was foundational within the Protestant evangelical movement. Each new group had finally figured out what was the truest and most biblical version of Christianity as God had originally designed. Each one believed they inched ever closer to what we find in the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament.

I know.

I used to believe this.

It was/is a bit naive. Somehow we knew better than 1900 years of Christians before us.

I now believe the church of old has more to teach us than the church of now.

Of course, I don’t believe we need retract the priesthood of all believers – though I would redirect it from our exceptional individualistic lens of the west. When Peter speaks of us being a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (1 Pet 2:9), he speaks of a collective people with that people focused on the mission of God – “that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

Also, I believe at its core all should have access to the study of Scripture. I would simply remind us that God has given some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as shepherds and teachers . . . (Eph 4:11).

Not only did the Protestant church become more and more fragmented, but it also learned well the way of its predecessor. Whereas power once lay in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, it was now shifting into the hands of the Protestant Church. This newly formed segment of Christianity desired its own expression of religious, social, political and cultural power.

The Hugenot Wars and Thirty Year’s War saw millions of people perish (both Rome and Protestants are to be implicated in the evils of these wars). Not only that, but much of Protestant Christianity got wrapped up in colonialism. As western empires looked to expand their power into “new” lands, institutionalized Protestantism of the west was able to develop its own horizons. With such, we have the tragic realities of how Africans, Native Americans and the like were treated, many times in the name of Christ. Even more, in recent decades, the Protestant-evangelical church has found itself lagging behind (or worse!) in defending the rights for African-Americans, women and other groups.

Part of our ugly Protestant history also includes our treatment of Roman Catholics. There have been plenty of Protestants and evangelicals who have marked out Rome as the Beast of Revelation and the Pope as the anti-christ. I remember when all Catholics used to be considered “unsaved.” Our disdain for this group is appalling. Thankfully much has changed these days (though there is still much work to be done).

In all, if we are honest, we must admit the Reformation and it’s legacy is a mixed bag of good, bad and ugly. To deny such is, I believe, to deny actual history.

I am grateful to God for his mercy in the midst of our own brokenness and my hope is that the way toward healing and reconciliation is continually paved.

As we joined together with our church this morning, remembering what was begun by the great Luther those five centuries ago, I was freshly reflecting on the Reformation. I had actually been reflecting on some things for many days, knowing the anniversary was upon us. And as we were worshipping this morning, a very clear comparative picture came to me.

The Bible recounts a story of an ancient people who lived in the land of the Chaldeans (the plain of Shinar) long ago. It’s a well-known story found in Genesis 11. We call it the Tower of Babel. Interestingly enough, we read that the whole world had one language, a common speech (11:1). With this background, we find that the people come together and make an astonishing declaration: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (11:4).

We know how things play out.

God confuses their language and what they had hoped would not happen did happen. The people were scattered over the earth (11:8-9).

Confusion. Division. Scattering.

And, so, when we come to the pages of the New Testament, particularly the festival of Pentecost as detailed in the book of Acts, we read an interesting account. “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven” had come together for this festival (2:5). It was an annual festival that would remember God’s giving of the law, the torah, at Mt. Sinai. Following the pouring out of the Spirit of God, we read “each one heard their own language being spoken” (2:6). You have people present from all over the then-known world and suddenly they hear folk speaking their own language seemingly at random.

Not your average festival, eh?

What many theologians see happening here is a reversal of the curse of Babel. Whereas the united people of Shinar became confused in language and, thusly, were scattered over the earth, we now find God’s people from every known nation of that time coming together and hearing “the wonders of God” in their own tongue.

What a turn of events!

At Babel, unity was turned to disunity.

At Pentecost, disunity was turned to unity.

How does this relate to the Reformation?

What came to me this morning is this: The Reformation was truly needed five hundred years ago. It was needed religiously, socially, politically and culturally. It was a literal deliverance for the people of God from an oppressive system that had held a deep stronghold for approximately one thousand years.

To use the words of the Babel scene, a scattering was needed.

But, just as the famed Pentecost of Acts 2 reversed the disunity of Babel, forging a fresh togetherness in God’s people, so it is time for a reversal of the Reformation and it’s scattering, separatist trajectory.

For five hundred years we have watched the church splinter and splinter and splinter. Not only that, but we’ve found ways to form our own oppressive systems that mirror those we protested five hundred years prior.

It may now be time for something better, for something new; it may now be time for a reversal of the division that began on October 31, 1517.

As Stanley Hauerwas stated in a recent article in the Washington Post:

“In short, the Reformation seemed to us to be “back there,” and I felt no need to defend Protestantism because it seldom occurred to me that being a Protestant was all that important or interesting. The antagonism of the past simply seemed no longer relevant.” (bold mine)

Further along, he articulates:

“That the Reformation has been a success, however, has put Protestantism in a crisis. Winning is dangerous — what do you do next? Do you return to Mother Church? It seems not: Instead, Protestantism has become an end in itself, even though it’s hard to explain from a Protestant point of view why it should exist. The result is denominationalism in which each Protestant church tries to be just different enough from other Protestant churches to attract an increasingly diminishing market share. It’s a dismaying circumstance.”

Is it time for the Reformation to end?

In a sense, no. We remember it and remember the good that would unfold because of Martin Luther and his companions. And as many Protestants and evangelicals would remind us, we must always champion the call of Ecclesia semper reformanda est – “the church is always reforming.”

However, in a sense, it may be time for the Reformation to end. It may be time for something anew (or Great Emergence, as Phyllis Tickle calls it).


Because it’s time to put to bed the division; it’s time to end the casting out of Roman Catholics; it’s time to lay aside oppressive ways through the entanglement of our own religion, culture and politics.

In a sense, we need to move on from what our fathers and mothers handed us. There is a better way for today. That better way is a reversal of the curse of Babel, one that truly unifies, heals and reconciles. We need a new work of the Spirit to build the New Jerusalem that we read about in Scripture.

5 thoughts on “Is It Time to Move on From the Reformation?

  1. Thanks Scott for an excellent article. The Stanley Hauerwas quote seems to suggest that the reformation was just a family bust-up and that, 500 years later, it was high time that we all made up and became one happy family again. OK – that is perhaps not quite what he was saying!! The question of how Christendom deals with the issue of the quest for unity and the quest for truth is a difficult one. As far as I can tell from scripture, what first comes to mind is the guidance in this matter which we find in places like Galatians and Ephesians.

    In Galations, we find that Paul tells us of the primacy of the gospel, and pronounced anathema on those who had corrupted it. The question regarding the Reformation therefore concerns whether the fundamental division between Rome and the Reformers was an irreconcilable gospel issue. If it was, then both sides were right to split away from each other. If one or both sides today still thinks that after whatever changes have taken place in the last 500 years, the differences that exist between them still boil down to a fundamental gospel issue, then neither side should compromise what it believes is fidelity to the Apostolic gospel. However – that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for maneuver ….

    Anecdotally, I was impressed with a recent public debate I went t,o between a reformed apologist and a catholic apologist. The debate was on whether the Catholic Marian dogmas are scripturally justified. What was most impressive is the integrity and respect both speakers had for each other. At the end, one pointed out that concerning an issue (e.g.) like abortion; both of them would willingly join forces and work together in seeking to promote a Christian perspective in the public arena on the ethical issues that this issue raises. But they also both recognised that were someone to approach either one of them and ask: “What must I do to be saved?” they would receive irreconcilably different answers. They concluded, that integrity, openness and honesty before God was best served by continuing to work together where they could, and yet continue robust, frank and open discussions about their differences, always seeking to understand and respond graciously to each other.

    The Ephesians teaching in ch.4, shows Paul exhorting this church to maintain the unity of the Spirit (working together), until we reach the unity of the faith (believing the same things). This suggests to me that no true unity of the spirit can exist where the unity of the faith is enforced. If that principal is ignored, then eventually the result is another reformation.

    • Jonathan, thanks for the comment. You always have great insights.

      I don’t want to pretend that moving toward unity is a simple task, one where doctrine matters little to none at all. I recently did a talk about breaking down walls (the antagonism we have toward one another religiously, culturally, politically, etc) but yet we also know lines need to be drawn at times. However, lines are much easier to cross than walls. Lines can be rubbed away, walls must be crushed. One puts us in a better place to move toward one another with hospitality; one very easily keeps us in a place of hostility.

      Interesting enough is that I think the Reformation gospel may be somewhat off as I might argue the Roman Catholic gospel is. I think both are off in areas, but not 100% off. I am much more a proponent of a gospel of the kingdom (not a gospel of justification) and I also appreciate what is called the new Pauline perspective championed by folks such as NT Wright. I think what Paul was dealing with (say in Galatians and Romans) is much different than what Luther was dealing with in the 1500s. What do we do when we believe both Catholic and Reformation ideas of the gospel are off? Well, the starting place is to remember I/we may be off as well.

      In the end, the social, cultural and political problems that arose out of the Reformation shows us this was no mere spiritual or religious revival. Let’s continue to be reformed, but we may need the legacy of the Reformation to end on many levels – the separatist, elitist and oppressive that ended up being a part of our history.

      • Hi Scott – thanks for your reply. I do respect your sincere longings for the Church to be far more genuinely united than we seem to be at this time. My natural bent is apologetic and not pastoral, so I guess I tend to look at things from a different vantage point.

        I am considering carefully (and it is a difficult problem) what Tom Wright’s version of The New Perspective is saying, I won’t try and go into it here, as I am not far enough along that path to reach specific conclusions, as yet.

        But may I ask – on a personal level – how your own move away from your Reformed past has affected you? Did you once believe that in some real way, the virtue and purity of Jesus was something that you had – something that was spiritually tangible, that had been given to you as a gift by faith? If you hold to a broad NP viewpoint, I would imagine that you would now consider such a notion to be mistaken. If so, did that effect you in any way?

        Otherwise – thanks again for your excellent article 🙂

  2. Scott, your article was very well written. Saw it first at IMonk, where I am a regular. I decided to comment here, because I don’t want to sound contentious. I’m not. (More like a broken record at times…) I think you want to see the positive aspects of things, and that’s not bad. It’s just that there’s more to the issue. Having lived in Europe, where Christian practice is at an all-time low, I think you are able to understand that.

    As Jonathan wrote, there are still some real theological differences, even though there are many practical areas where some Protestants and some Catholics can be allies. Very conservative Catholics and a lot of Protestants don’t want anything to do with one another. For years I tried to find a home with the Emerging creatives, who were trying to promote a generous orthodoxy that included a great deal of respect for people who held different theologies, and increased common life where the differences were minor. While I was never a Calvinist of any stripe, I found that over time most of those folks were (happily, it seemed) wandering away from any connection to the solas, taking neither Scripture nor any sort of Church tradition seriously. A number of people of prominence in that movement have left the faith, or, while still nominally Christian, don’t believe anything different than the surrounding culture – they are in essence moralistic therapeutic deists, not connected to any stream of historic Christianity.

    And the other thing is that your ideas don’t include the second-largest world Christian group: Eastern Orthodox (and other Eastern Christians). There are deeply different theological understandings between Eastern and Western Christianity. There are also 2 older schisms: the “great” one of c. 1054, and that between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians dating from the 5th century. (Official talks have been going on between the C’s and the non-C’s, and I have hope that that schism will be healed in my lifetime; it’s more a question of language than of actual theology.) In your optimism, you have left out a large number of Christians, and a large amount of Christian history – which is also a mixed bag of good and bad, but which had no need of a larger Reformation because smaller reforms and course corrections were happening over the years. Healing the larger schism is going to take more than saying, “Can’t we all just get along now?”

    It’s good to see you have a heart that longs for common life among Christians. I think there needs to be much more respect for one another. Part of that respect is respecting the differences, and why they exist. Thanks for thinking about this and sharing your ideas.


    • Dana, thanks for coming over here and commenting.

      Yes, short articles always leave out much on a topic. In light of the Reformation anniversary, I was focusing in particularly on western Christianity. I actually love the Eastern Orthodox faith, at least the little I’ve engaged with. I’ve been to a service and Bible study at an EO church around the corner from my house. The priest was a converted Southern Baptist guy, of all things.

      I am encouraged of what I’ve seen in recent days with Pope Francis and the Eastern Patriarch, Bartholomew. It seems like they have opened the door for more reconciliation. Of course, in their traditions, the great divide/schism will truly be healed when those two take the eucharist together. Perhaps one day.

      I’m also aware of the faults of the emergent group of churches. The generous orthodoxy has easily turned into an amorphous faith with less and less settled lines of doctrine. I think every movement is a reaction to a former movement/movements. Many of these people were tired of being controlled by the religious folk of the west/America, in a similar vein like what was happening in Luther’s day. At least that is a general perspective I have. They wanted something fresh where questions could be asked, boundaries could be pushed, authenticity could be experienced. They wanted their own Exodus from what they felt hampered true faith. However, many have no sense of the good, ancient paths that have been traveled. I think the future church will need to embrace the ancient story to be viable as we move forward.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s