Please note that due to the software used, not everything recorded in this transcript will be accurate.

Reformation II

Reading

“We have the opportunity to mend a critical moment of our history by moving beyond the controversies and disagreements that have often prevented us from understanding one another.” 

John Dickson (Studio)

Back in 2016, on October 31 (Reformation Day), Pope Francis took part in an ecumenical prayer service with the World Lutheran Federation in Lund, Sweden, to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. In his speech, the Pope counted the costs of the catastrophic break with Protestants and made a series of statements acknowledging errors on both sides of the Reformation. 

Reading

We too must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking forgiveness, for God alone is our judge. Certainly, there was a sincere will on the part of both sides to profess and uphold the true faith, but at the same time we realize that we closed in on ourselves out of fear or bias with regard to the faith which others profess with a different accent and language. With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life. The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart from God, we can do nothing.

John Dickson (Studio)

Talk of unity and friendship between Catholics and Protestants is not talk of coming back together to worship under the same church roof. In a joint statement Pope Francis made with the protestant Archbishop of Canterbury also in 2016, they said:

“While, like our predecessors, we ourselves do not yet see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred.Wider and deeper than our differences are the faith that we share and our common joy in the gospel. Christ prayed that his disciples may all be one, ‘so that the world might believe.” 

Certainly, this sort of unity discourse – Catholics and Protestants working together to find common ground – is an improvement on the wars that were waged between them in different periods of history. We’re in our second episode on The Reformation, and our guests are adamant that the oppositional narrative often put forward in histories of the Reformation is, maybe, wrong. We should not fall into the trap of defining Protestantism as against Catholicism or the contradiction of Catholicism. It’s easy to do, of course, especially given that the very name ‘Protestant’ suggests ‘protesting’. But it is a mistake to believe that the Reformers were pursuing a radical break with the past, with the Catholic church throughout history. The Reformation was not a rebellion intended to start a new church. Martin Luther and those who came after him, as we’ll hear in this episode, were trying to renew the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And that’s important. Not only because, 500 years later, this way of thinking will help emphasise what Catholics and Protestants continue to have in common, but also because it should encourage Protestants not to fear what came before Luther, as if between the close of the New Testament and the rise of Martin Luther, Christianity was lost to the world. No way! Protestantism did not start with Martin Luther, just as the Reformation did not end with him. In this episode, we do a bit of looking back to see what the Reformers were trying to recover. And we’ll look forward to the second generation of Reformers, and we’ll ask: what is the real legacy of the Reformation? Is there still something to celebrate about the Reformation, or is it, as many claim, the root of Christian division and conflict? I’m John Dickson, and this is Undeceptions

Undeceptions theme

Reading

I cannot at this time examine all the errors of this Enthusiast. But I say this, whoever will suffer himself to be counselled, let him beware of this man Zwingli, and shun his book as the poison of the Prince of devils; for he is entirely perverted, and has entirely lost sight of Christ.

John Dickson (Studio)

That’s a quote from our friend Martin Luther in his Dissertation on the Lord’s Supper, another polemical pamphlet written in 1528 against the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. “Entirely perverted” and one who has “lost sight of Christ”. No one would accuse Martin Luther of being overly gentle. He wielded his pen like a weapon – not just against Catholics but also against other reformers who disagreed with Luther. 

Matthew Barrett:
Well, it, it probably won’t surprise, uh, listeners that Luther was not always, easy to get along with.

John Dickson (Studio)

That’s Matthew Barrett, who joined us last episode. He is Associate Professor of Christian Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of several books. His latest is Reformation as Renewal published by Zondervan Academic, and, honestly, it is an amazing book. 

Matthew Barrett:
Luther, I think in many ways was, uh, no doubt, uh, instrumental to the genesis of Reformation in Germany. But, uh, there’s important remark by the historian David Steinmetz, uh, because David Steinmetz, who, who died, uh, just a few years ago, He said the Reformation does not begin and end, it does not end with Luther. And in that context, he was actually talking about Thomas Aquinas to say the story of Protestants and Thomas Aquinas has yet to be written. But that issue aside, I think that’s a great point to make. Luther on the one hand was instrumental to rupturing you know, you think of his book, the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, a, a very,you know, soft, gentle title, but Luther starts to pound on the walls of Rome. Um, part of the reason he’s he’s doing that is because Luther does not think they’re Catholic enough.   But all that said, uh, for all, for, for Luther’s, you know, huge role in, in kind of combusting, the church then had to be built. So Luther had disagreements even but he certainly had disagreements with other reformers. Um, most famously, uh, Zwingli over the Lord’s supper, there are colossal attempts  to bring these two reformers together for the sake of the unity of the reformation. In the end, it fails. 

John Dickson (Studio)

Ulrich Zwingli was born in Zurich, just 7 weeks after Luther, and came to his reformed convictions apart from Luther. He started the Swiss Reformation right alongside the better-known German one. Matthew Barrett says Zwingli deserves the title Reformer as much as anyone. By the way, “Zwingli123” used to be my password for … just about everything. Used to be!! Now it’s “AlcuinOfYork123”, of course!! Anyway, Luther wasn’t a fan of Zwingli. And the disagreements between the two led to the first break in the Reformation movement. Today there are literally thousands of different protestant denominations. The bust-ups among Protestants were plentiful. The disagreement between Zwingli and Luther was over the Lord’s Supper – the Eucharist, Communion. Zwingli said the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper was mostly a ‘sign’ or symbol of Christ’s body and blood given for us on the cross. Luther held the view that Christ was truly present in the bread and wine, in a manner that wasn’t true of ordinary bread and wine. He didn’t quite go with the Catholic idea that the bread and wine actually change substance in the Mass, but he was adamant that Christ was in the bread and wine. It was no symbol! I chatted a little more about all this with Matthew Barrett – why this debate mattered, what was at stake – and we’ve included that conversation as an extra for our Undeceptions Plus listeners. If you’re not yet an Undeceptions Plus subscriber, head to Undeceptions.com/plus. If that’s not your thing, we might throw a few links in the show notes. For the Reformers, the disagreement over the sacraments proved insurmountable. At Marburg Castle in 1529, Zwingli and Luther met to see if they could nut out their issues. They couldn’t. The story goes that Luther pulled out his knife in the heat of dispute and carved into a wooden table Jesus’ words from the Last Supper, “This is my body”, a permanent mark of his immovability. (Actually, some historians say Luther just scribbled the words in chalk. I prefer the knife!!!) This marked the first big division amongst the reformers. In fairly typical language for Luther, he called Zwingli a “wormy nut”, saying he was “of the devil”. Zwingli reported that Luther had treated him “like an ass”. Nevertheless, Zwingli wanted reconciliation, asking Luther to “remember that we are brethren.” But Luther wouldn’t have it. He responded that Zwingli had a “different spirit”. He didn’t mean ‘spirit’ in the colloquial sense of ‘vibe’. He meant ‘spirit’!!! They were not brothers. In Luther’s eyes, Zwingli was just as bad as the Catholics – he had strayed from the true faith. He was damned. Luther was quite something. The New Yorker published a piece for the 500th year anniversary of the Reformation, in which they said: 

“The fact that Luther’s protest, rather than others that preceded it, brought about the Reformation is probably due in large measure to his outsized personality. He was a charismatic man, and maniacally energetic. Above all, he was intransigent. To oppose was his joy.” 

Producer Kaley tells me there’s a thing online called ‘The Luther Insulter’, where you can generate insults based on Luther’s writings. Knock yourself out. Lucky he was the only difficult personality in the Reformation! Not! Turns out, Luther wasn’t the only Reformer to gain a reputation for being *ahem* difficult to deal with. 

Media – Kevin DeYoung sermon

John Dickson (Studio)

That’s a clip from a sermon by author and theologian Kevin DeYoung in 2021 titled ‘The Weakness of Man and the Permanence of the Word’.

Media – Kevin DeYoung sermon

John Dickson (Studio)

John Calvin is revered by many, including by me (!) as the “father of the reformed faith”. Now if you listened last episode, you might be thinking, ‘Isn’t Martin Luther the father of the reformation’?  In a sense, that’s true. Luther kicked off the Reformation in Europe.  He was the great disruptor, bringing the walls of the Catholic Church down around him. But someone had to start building new walls, or, to put it another way, someone had to rebuild the walls along more ancient lines.  That someone was John Calvin. 

 John Dickson:
Okay. We’ve gotta move to Calvin. Um,  the, the, the misconception around Calvin is that he was a grumpy, gray grandfather, um, whose, whose theology really reflects that. Um, is that right?

Matthew Barrett:
I think, to be fair to Calvin. Uh, and, and Bruce Gordon, who’s an excellent historian, uh, has pointed this out, um, like. Most of us all of us. Of course, Calvin, uh, had moments where was impatient or he he became angry. Now, I think there’s probably reasons for, you know, why, um, or, uh, at times, um, he wanted to push things through faster than, than maybe others did, or he was quite, uh, strict at times, even on church discipline. We have many examples of instances where, um, was quite adamant about, uh, exercising discipline in the church. Maybe in some ways that would surprise us. That said, uh, to your point, John, I, I do think that, uh, it is more of a caricature, uh, than, than a truthful representation of Calvin. in many ways, Calvin was a very compassionate soul. And, uh, yes, he cer certainly held his convictions. But, Calvin was one who took the providence of God seriously found himself submitting to God’s providence, even if it wasn’t his plan. 

John Dickson (Studio)

John Calvin was born in 1509 in France, so he was just a young boy when Luther published his 95 Theses, challenging the Catholic Church. It’s not clear how Calvin came to his own reformed convictions. He was a legal scholar, not a monk or priest. And his own account of his shift in thinking is vague: 

Reading

“[God] tamed to teachableness a mind too stubborn for its years – for I was strongly devoted to the superstitions of the papacy that nothing less could draw me from such depths of mire. And so this mere taste of true godliness that I received set me on fire with such a desire to progress that I pursued the rest of my studies more coolly, although I did not give them up altogether.” 

John Dickson (Studio)

It was a dangerous time in Paris to show sympathy with Martin Luther’s theology. The king of France, Francis I, was a devoted Catholic, and by the 1530s, he’d begun to persecute protestants. Protestants couldn’t preach or even gather together. Many fled France, as did Calvin, and took refuge in the Swiss town of Basel. This is right around the time Luther and Zwingli are arguing about Communion. Calvin would have been a keen observer of those debates. In Basel, Calvin wrote the first edition of his famed ‘The Institutes of the Christian Religion’, a manual for those who wanted to know something about the Christian faith and its core components. I remember in my second year of theology having to read the Institutes and attend tutorials. I hated the book—which appears in two volumes—until about page 100. I can’t quite put my finger on what it was—and I can’t really remember the exact topic Calvin was discussing—but I recall the feeling. Amidst all the logical argumentation and masses of Bible references, I was overwhelmed with a sense of the kind governance of God. I know we don’t often put those words together: kind and governance. But that’s the idea of providence: God’s good provision in all things, not just material things like food, but also spiritual things like my very will to do the good. Reading Calvin even helped my fear of flying. Helped, I say, not completely removed!! Anyway, the Institutes are where Calvin laid his reforming cards on the table. And, as a result, he became a wanted man and a refugee. While passing through the city of Geneva, the local church leader, William Farel, convinced Calvin to stay and help him organise a newly-formed Protestant church in the town. Calvin reluctantly agreed, worked for a while, before being banished by the city council. Calvin wrote a bit more, preached a bit more, and was eventually called back to Geneva to help dismantle Catholicism. It was felt that only someone with Calvin’s biblical and rhetorical brainpower could transform the city into a truly Christian city (whatever that is).

Matthew Barrett:
When we look at his ministry in Geneva, what we find is a pastor who is quite sacrificial. Uh, in fact, he’s exiled from Geneva. Any pastor who’s been fired might be able to relate to Calvin at this point. And, um, he says at one point when they are asking him to come back, um, he would, he would rather, uh, uh, die on the cross than go back to Geneva. But we know the story because in the end he does go back to Geneva. He does pick up that cross. Why, why would he do that? I think in, I think ultimately the reason why is becasuse he really does believe in the truths of the reformation and, and the ability of those truths to transform the church. And so as much as he, uh, had, had certain disagreements, that’s at the, that’s at the core of who he is. And he’s willing to suffer to make sure that the people of God, even the common person, uh, has the opportunity to hear the word of God taught and preached. and actually, In a real way, transform their life. So I think to fill out the picture on Calvin, we can’t just look at ’em as say a polemicist. Uh, we have to look at ’em as a pastor.

John Dickson:
What was Calvin’s, um, theological advancement like, how would you describe what he did? Building  on and even critiquing what Luther had already done. Yeah. Can you put your finger on the thing he did?

Jennifer McNutt:
Well, I think in, in part he systematizes things. 

John Dickson (Studio)

That’s Rev Dr Jennifer Powell McNutt, who was also our guest for the first part of this two-part special. Jennifer has a particular interest in the history of the church from the Reformation through to the Enlightenment.

Jennifer McNutt:
He  is a, he’s very constructive in that way. Luther is caught in the moment of having to respond. Calvin takes time to edit and, you know, develop and build his theological magnum opus. That is the institutes of the Christian religion. Woohoo. , which goes through many different, and

John Dickson:
It’s just there you go. Next to the Suma. Well done. . .

Jennifer McNutt:
Well there you go. I mean, I dunno, I guess that fits like in some ways , so I think that’s part of it is systematizing things. And I, I would probably say sanctification. is a key aspect. Um, the whole doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Mm-hmm. , um, some of these things we can’t hold against Luther cuz he’s a totally different generation. Yeah. You know, um, having different conversations. Calvin is also building bridges about Eucharistic theology. , you know, what’s happening when we, um, sit together at the Lord’s table, um, he’s trying to create links with that. Um, he shares Luther’s view that the doctrine of justification is the, the fulcrum, uh, the hinge upon which all religion turns.

John Dickson (Studio)

Calvin’s view of the Communion or Eucharist had a massive influence on the Anglican Church (among other movements). He fell somewhere between Zwingli’s “mostly a symbol” view and Luther’s “real presence” view. For Calvin, Christ is present not exactly in the bread and wine but in the act of eating and drinking by faith. He reckoned Communion is thus actually effective. It spiritually nourishes the Christian, not just because it is a psychological reminder but because Christ is there blessing the participant.  Something like that, anyway …

Jennifer McNutt:
And so, um, so there’s a lot of different similarities, but I would say probably this emphasis on the Holy Spirit and on sanctification would be one of, and how that relates to justification would be one of the, the major contributions and the Holy Spirit emphasis has to do with development with over the doctrine of scripture. And how is it that we know that scripture is true? There is an inner testimony that the Holy Spirit gives to us that helps us to see the truth of scripture. And so that’s, that’s another way in which he develops his own thinking. Calvin, uh, talks about our relationship with God in a, a way that is a bit different than how Luther talks about it. He thinks about it as our, that we are basically orphans who are being adopted by a good father. And so it’s a father child relationship. Um, whereas for Luther, partly cuz he comes out. You know, medieval mysticism as well. He’s thinking about a marriage between the bride and the bridegroom. So Calvin’s kind of whole. Concept of our relationship with God is, is different than Luther’s and, and, and both are biblical.

John Dickson:
What on earth was his idea with Geneva ?Is this Yeah. You know, with all the discussion at the moment of Christian nationalism Yes. Was it a little Christian nationalist?

 Jennifer McNutt:
I mean, yes. But I wouldn’t occur to, to anyone really in that time that, that. Weird. Weird. Yes. That’s so that would, the fact that we might question that or that we do question that today, um, would never occur to them in their time. So I think that’s important to keep in mind, um, that there, you know, he, he is pushing back along with the Protestant reformation against theocracy, so against the church overseeing all of mm-hmm. life. Um, but of course, the other side of that is called arresting, which is where the state governs the church and you know, and is also very controlling of that. We see that, especially in England. So, so in fact, Calvin is more of a midling sort in this regard because he wants to preserve autonomy, some autonomy of the church from the overreach of the state. And so he talks about it in terms of jurisdictions. This is, you know, what we have been called to do is theology and pastoral care, and you have been called to rule and to govern, you know, sort of morals and to curb evil, you know, in a community. And that, of course, he receives from Luther and Luther’s two kingdoms. So the two of them are trying to create some sort of, um, independence between the church and the state. And this will be the problem for generations actually, after Calvin, you know, passes on and then his legacy  and the generations that come after. Him, they will struggle to preserve the autonomy of the church. And of course we move into a whole different political history.

John Dickson (Studio)

The late famed atheist Christopher Hitchens called Calvin’s Geneva a “prototypical totalitarian state”. If you read some writers, Geneva at the time of Calvin’s pastorship represented the ultimate in repression. Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances laid out a structure for the church: pastors would preach the Bible, Doctors/scholars trained up new pastors and ensured the teaching was faithful, elders oversaw moral discipleship – helping people live Christianly, and they also reported wayward behaviour. Deacons then looked after the underprivileged in the church and the city. Those roles are still found in many protestant churches today. Calvin also established ‘the consistory’, a type of ‘morals court’ overseen by a mix of pastors and civil magistrates that met every Thursday at midday to address misbehaviour and wrong belief. The consistory policed church attendance, blasphemy, illicit sexual activity, Catholic practices, drunkenness, and even quarrels. Discipline from the consistory might include private admonition, public rebuke, temporary suspension from the Lord’s Supper or (in rare cases) exclusion from the church. In some cases, the consistory could refer a sinner to the secular city council, which had the authority to hand down a jail sentence or even execution. The consistory of Geneva could be heavy-handed. It’s been compared to George Orwell’s 1984. But Calvin wasn’t a dictator. He himself was subject to the same Consistory. Consistories like this popped up in many, many reformed Christian communities across Europe and in North America. I’m not a fan of the concept!! Calvin has a mixed reputation. And part of that reputation is tied to his involvement in the execution of a notorious heretic named Michael Servetus. Michael Servetus was a wanted man all over Europe, because he publicly questioned the doctrine of the Trinity – the conviction that the one true God is eternally three persons. It’s a central Christian idea, shared by Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox churches. Servetus was burned at the stake as a heretic in Calvin’s Geneva, and Calvin’s role is the topic of debate. I asked Matthew Barrett about this, and I took the opportunity to quiz him on some other examples of Protestants behaving badly. I’ll return to Calvin and Servetus in a moment. But we have to wind back to Luther 20 years earlier. I’m sorry to say it, but Luther reserved his most disgusting vitriol not for Catholics and other perceived heretics but for European Jews. I apologise to any listeners with Jewish heritage, but here is an excerpt from Luther’s 1543 tract “The Jews and Their Lies.”

Reading

Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew … Therefore the history books often accuse them of contaminating wells, of kidnapping and piercing children … They, of course, deny this. Whether it is true or not, I do know that they do not lack the complete, full, and ready will to do such things.

John Dickson (Studio)

Then, following a biblical argument in favour of seeing Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah, Luther ends with seven shameful practical recommendations about the Jewish problem in Germany (brace yourself):  

Reading

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed … Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them … Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb … Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home … Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping … Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow …

John Dickson (Studio)

I hardly know what to say, except … I am sorry you had to hear that. I wish I could say this is young, reckless Lurther. But it’s 1543. It’s mature Luther. How are we to respond to such behaviour from someone who’s celebrated – someone I celebrate – as a hero of the reformed Faith?

John Dickson:
How do you mm, cope with, uh, the, the historical fact of Luther’s anti-Semitism? Uh, we will, in the podcast, uh, quote from his 1543 Tract uh, the Jews and Their Lies,  and also Calvin’s agreement, um, with the execution of Michael Saboto. Why don’t these things undermine your love of all things Protestant?

Matthew Barrett:
Oh, these are very good questions, John, and very difficult ones and I think the best way to approach ’em is to just be honest and uh, to face him head on.  I think the issue here is act, it’s not actually Luther, it’s not actually Calvin in the end, is that it is actually about how do we understand church history? How should we read the failings of those before us? If we look at church history and, and, uh, are looking for that sparkling moment in which, uh, there is just total purity, uh, well we will only find that in Jesus Christ. And I think that is how it should be. So naturally enough, uh, I would argue, and again, this goes right back to that oppositional narrative. think one of the problems with the oppositional narrative, it, it assumes that we should read history as if it’s the good guys versus the bad guys. And then our job is decipher through it, discern who’s bad, chuck ’em overboard, and then we just herald those who are good. Uh, the, the problem, the problem with that is that, uh, it’s a myth and it’s an, it’s an impossibility. As soon as you pull back the curtain on even  the best of those in the past, you things that you, you are going to cringe at. take Luther, what’s happening with Luther? Why in the world would he have this anti-Semitic tone? Fierce, fierce tone? Right at the very end of his life is, is he, is he  senile? There’s been all kinds of theories. Uh, I mean, we can go some extent to try to explain it. I, I think for example, some have  said, some historians have said, you know, during the earlier years of the reformation, Luther is very optimistic. He thinks the gospels here is going to transform, uh, the Jewish people. We are gonna convert to Christ. Perhaps there’s some frus frustration by the end of his life. That’s been one theory. Um, there’s been other theories that have tried to capitalize on maybe some of the social context as well, like what is actually happening between the, in Germany, uh, between say certain Germans and, and, and the Jews who live there. Uh, there’s been theological explanations, but we could go on. But I think at the end of the day, what I would say is this. I don’t think we need to excuse it. It is what it is. And if you read Luther, you’ll see that for yourself. There’s no way to excuse it. Um, at the same time, I think we have to recognize Luther like everyone before him he’s a man of his times. uh, he has moments where, uh, he is used in tremendous ways. He has other moments, uh, in which his strength is his weakness. What originally erupted and created the reformation, this, this powerful voice, that spoke truth into, uh, a very complicated and confusing time period also could work against Luther. We mentioned this with v. Um, I, I, I look at some of the debates that, that Luther has with Zwingli, and I don’t, I don’t agree with Zwingli but I also wonder if Luther could have been, um, could have pursued a unity there that would not have compromised the Reformation in the end. That too could be a failing on Luther’s part. What do, what do, what do we do with Calvin? On the one hand, we don’t need to  gloss over it. Uh, Calvin certainly was involved, um, at the same time. Uh, Calvin too is a man of his times. Now, I will say this, I will say this about Calvin’s situation because I think sometimes we forget this. it wasn’t just Calvin, it wasn’t just Geneva. In fact, with Servatus, uh, there were earlier attempts by other cities that that, uh, captured him and then Servatus escaped. They would, they would’ve done this, they would’ve also executed him and gone through that process. other words, it’s not a Protestant thing or say a Roman  thing. If, Servatus would’ve ended up in a Roman Catholic territory, they wouldn’t have done the same thing. We have examples of this. Now there’s a long there’s a long story here, but a lot of this comes back to how they state in re in relationship to, uh, discipline in the church. Uh, it, our context context today that was in some respects, uh, inconceivable to them. And, and I talk a lot about this towards the end of the book where I talk about what was their understanding uh, the re what was the relationship exactly between the sword and the pulpit. today, now Now that said, um, Calvin does have a hand in it, but he’s not the one to actually, uh, they actually ask for his opinion, but he’s not the one who has the power to make the decisions in the end. Calvin, at one point actually asks, um, asks them to be merciful. Uh, he ghost or  surveillance us and, and pleads, uh, at one point, um, that, that he would change his mind, uh, because what he is teaching is heretical uh, there’s a refusal. But even, even still, Calvin begs for a, a merciful execution in the end. Um, What do we do is with veley and the drowning of, uh, Anabaptists? Right? We could go on. I oftentimes reme remind Protestants today, you know, we, they, they will claim to the reformers, as if, you know, their perfection itself over against Rome. Uh, but we have to remember, uh, Zwingli, uh, ley, uh, in the anabaptism. Well, that’s another in which, uh, men and women are being drowned because they, because they believe in believers baptism. Again, it’s complicated because,  uh, it wasn’t just baptism. They actually saw this as undermining the social status that, that, uh, both the state and the church wanted to preserve. So, all that to say, I think we read history a way that should, uh, be characterized by humility, uh, understanding that we don’t want to impose maybe some of our context, which. could not have imagined back onto their day and then be quite judgmental the same time. Uh, I don’t think we excuse them. I think we have to see it for what it is. And, uh, perhaps that’s a, uh, an inspiration to us then, uh, as we see their faults, uh, to understand, okay, well, as we carry on, uh, reformation today, how can it, how can it be improved?

John Dickson (Studio)

Calvin’s version of the Protestant faith, often called simply the Reformed faith, ended up having a life all of its own. Places like Italy and France remained fully Catholic. Germany and Scandinavia went fully Lutheran. But in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Scotland, and even England (to a degree) it was the Calvinist form of the Reformation that took hold. And in 1539, a powerful Italian Cardinal, Jacopo Sadoleto, wrote to the church in Calvin’s Geneva, urging them to “return to the Catholic faith”. He timed the letter well; it was just after Calvin had been expelled by the city. Sadeleto gave the Genevans a simple choice: follow the Catholic Church and its fifteen hundred years of faithfulness to God or follow the “innovations” of the past two and a half decades, led by newcomers like Calvin. Although Calvin wasn’t in Geneva, he was asked to respond to the Cardinal’s argument. Calvin’s response is important for understanding the heart of the Reformation: the Reformers, he said, are more catholic than Rome. 

Reading

“Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours … all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction.”

John Dickson:
Can you tell us about, uh, Calvin’s famous letter back to Cardinal sto? Um, cuz I, I, I think this is intriguing and comes to the, the core of your thesis about this entire period.

Matthew Barrett:
Yeah. It really does. I’m so glad you mentioned it. And, and just for listeners, you know, if there’s, if you only have time to read one thing from from the Reformation, I, I would say this is it. Uh,

John Dickson:
We’ll link to it in our show notes for the podcast for sure.

John Dickson (Studio)

And, yes, dear listener, we’ve done just that!

Matthew Barrett:
It’s a, an really an exchange of letters between John Calvin and uh, Cardinal ato. why is it so important? uh, as I, as I mentioned for, this is a whole nother story for another time, but  Calvin’s been kicked outta Geneva and, uh, the wound is fresh in some ways, in a very ironic, uh, of, of events. Um, it’s Geneva, certain folks in particular that contact Calvin and they ask for his help even when he’s gone. He’s having actually the best time of his life. He goes to Strausberg, he’s learning from Martin Butzer. Uh, he’s writing, uh, it’s a very fruitful time for him and, uh, he’s learned how to be a pastor and maybe become more mature in that respect. So it, it’s a very fruitful, wonderful time for him. But he interrupts that, that, uh, you know, period in the Promised Land because, uh, Cardinal Sato looks at Geneva and says, this is, this is this is my chance, uh, to bring church in Geneva, back to Rome, to to her mother. One of the ways, strategic ways that Sadaletto does that in his letter is he says, uh, well, there’s no salvation outside the church. And, uh, if you, if you do not come back to Rome, uh, who are you? You, you’re outside. You’re outside of the, of the church, uh, of the true church. And, uh, the consequences are, are great. It’s a powerful argument, uh, because it  assumes, and, and Sadaletto actually says this, um, it assumes that the Reformation is a deviation from the church, universal of the church Catholic. One, that’s an innovation with novel views and even heretical views, that has led the Genvans astray even outside the parameters of, of the true church.Well, they write to Calvin, and Calvin uh, takes up his pen, so to speak, and responds. Calvin’s response is telling, Yes, of course he’s gonna focus on the things we would think of like justification. What, what, what actually is the, the biblical doctrine of justification? We would expect that much, or biblical authority. But, one thing that Calvin mentions, I think sometimes is forgotten, and it’s this, Calvin actually says, uh, we have not betrayed or drifted from, uh, the church Catholic, the church universal. In fact, we have just as much right to claim that the Catholic Church, as you do. In other words, what he’s making a very bold claim. He’s saying, actually, we haven’t deviated. In fact, uh, when it comes to certain doctrines, uh, we are actually more Catholic than you think. And he would show this, uh, with his doctrine, grace, he would, uh, appeal like Luther did to Augustine to say, ‘No, we are actually being Augustinian in our understanding of grace’. With authority, for example, uh, Calvin is essentially saying, uh, yes, we believe the Bible is our final, uh, inspired, uh, revelation, written revelation from God. Um, but Calvin said, we’re not radicals. We, we don’t dispense with tradition or the church. It’s not as if the church has been lost since, uh, until we showed up. Uh, that was actually the radicals, uh, Calvin Despised. He, he, he wanted nothing to do that. Um, Bruce Gordon has this, uh, great statement where he, where he says, if, if Calvin had seen, uh, the word Catholic attached to Rome, he would’ve been horrified by that because he thought of the Reformation as Catholic. Now, this is a bold statement. I’m just gonna put it out there, but I think the reformers said this themselves, uh, in many ways, they thought of themselves as more Catholic than Rome. 

John Dickson (Studio)

Luther agreed wholeheartedly with this response. When Henry of Braunschweig accused Luther of betraying the church universal with innovation and heresy, Luther’s reply echoed Calvin’s:

“They allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church. No … We are the true ancient church … you have fallen away from us.” 

This isn’t mere rhetoric. The reformers like Luther and Calvin (if not the later radical reformers) were genuinely trying to go back to Augustine and to Paul before Augustine and to Jesus before Paul. They kept the word ‘Catholic’ as the description of the true church. In Greek, ‘catholic’ kata holos, just means ‘according to the whole’, or the ‘universal’ church. I myself am a proud Catholic. It’s just that I don’t think the Pope is the head of the world church, I don’t think the bread and wine of Communion actually becomes Christ’s body and blood, I don’t believe in indulgences or purgatory, and I am sure my good works don’t earn merit with God – it’s all the gift of God, even my faith and good deeds. But apart from that, I am 100% Catholic.

Let’s press pause: I’ve got a Five Minute Jesus for you.

The key insight of the Reformers was correct. I mean no disrespect to my Roman Catholic friends, and I do have some Catholic friends who listen to this podcast. But God’s favour, mercy, salvation, come to us not through merit but entirely through Christ’s gift. This isn’t just the theology of Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries. It’s not just the theology of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. It’s the teaching of Jesus. I said in the last episode that Jesus’ famous wining and dining with the so-called sinners makes the point that divine mercy is a gift, not a reward, for any good work on the part of the wrongdoer. Jesus always makes the first move. Jesus extends the mercy, and as a result the recipient is transformed. The structure seems to be: God’s gift and then our response of gratitude. But there’s a wonderful parable Jesus told, that makes the point in very clear terms. Anyone who trusts their own merit will forfeit God’s grace, but those who don’t rely on their merit, but on the sheer gift of mercy, will find themselves justified. Jesus actually uses the word “justified” – made right with God. Let me read the passage and then offer just the briefest comment:

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’”

Before I read the conclusion of the parable, which is shocking, beautiful, and exactly what the sixteenth-century Reformers were trying to say. Let me point out a few things about Jesus’ description of the sinner. “He stood at a distance” – this probably means a distance from the Pharisee, in other words, he knows he doesn’t compare well. “He wouldn’t look up to heaven,” Jesus said – the traditional prayer pose was one facing up, but this man is humble before the Pharisee and God. “He beat his breast” – this probably indicates he knew he deserved punishment. And one last action, the most important one perhaps, he asked “God have mercy on me, a sinner.” – amidst his sense of shame he obviously had hope for mercy. He placed zero confidence in his own behaviour and placed all his confidence in God’s character of mercy. And then Jesus concludes:

“I tell you that this man, the sinner, rather than the other, the Pharisee, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The Pharisee’s confidence in his own morality and merit was his downfall. The tax collector’s confidence in God’s mercy was his salvation. Now let me make clear, Jesus isn’t saying a good life is bad in itself. Nor is he saying that we’re all as bad as the tax collector. The Pharisee is in the story to remind us that even the so-called best of us have no right to place confidence in our conduct. The tax collector is in the story to remind us that even the so-called worst of us can enjoy God’s free gift of mercy. Jesus, of course, knew this better than anyone else. A short time after he told this parable, he would end up on a cross. And he said he would “on the cross bear our sin and the judgment we deserve.” So that the theme of the parable might become a reality in our lives. And that is exactly what the Reformers were saying. You can press play now.

John Dickson: This brings us to what you call the oppositional narrative, which, which you, um, profoundly disagree with. And, um, and do so on the basis of clear evidence. Uh, I want to, I wanna read you back to you , and then get, and then get you to comment. The story of the Reformation because I mean, maybe you don’t agree with it anymore. “The story of the Reformation is sometimes told in evangelical institutions and churches as if the reformers were radicals throwing off the shackles of tradition. And as if the church had been corrupted and lost since the apostles in the name of Solar scriptura, the reformers shed a corrupt church breaking with the church of their day to start their own undefiled church. That’s what a lot of people reckon. And you say it’s bunkum.

Matthew Barrett:
I don’t think I can put it better than well, myself

John Dickson:
So, hang on. The Reformation wasn’t anti-tradition?

Matthew Barrett:
You know, there’s been a popular narrative, uh, you, you’ve, you’ve said it, John, an op, what I call an oppositional narrative that essentially says  just that, um, You know, there might be more nuance here and there, but that’s what they’re after. And I, I think you’re right, John. I I do think it’s bonkers, uh, I think when that narrative is unleashed, what we’re, what, who, who are we really describing? I think it’s the radicals of the 16th century, not the reformers. I think the radicals would’ve looked at that and said, ‘Hey, that’s us. Uh, yes, we, we, uh, are quite critical of tradition. Uh, we are actually making such a bold claim to say, uh, that even the reformers themselves are, are, are, don’t add up and they’re not part of the church and et cetera’.the radicals, some of the radicals thought. Solo scriptura would mean, uh, what? It’s what? Heico Oberman, the historian calls tradition Zero. Uh, to put it, you know, just bluntly, um, it’s an opposition to tradition, uh, as if, uh, the church has been lost, but thanks to the radicals they have now, uh, revived it afresh. Um, and so it’s this claim that, uh, we must go back to the apostles only, uh, or we must go back to the scriptures only as if we are doing this, that’s actually not what Sola Scriptura refers to. And the reformers were quite keen to point this out. Um, they could not con, they were not as, some have portrayed them Luther at the diet of worms. You know, this, this iconic moment. He is not an enlightened man, an enlightenment man, a modern man, as if he is,uh, standing, uh, on the authority of himself. It wa it would’ve been completely foreign to them to read the Bible by themselves so when you look at their debates, yes, they are appealing to the Bible as their final authority because they believe that this is God’s written inspired, inherent revelation. But they nonetheless see their interpretation of the Bible as something that is an accord with the church, Catholic, the ancient church. And so, Oberman then distinguishes between what’s called tradition one and tradition two to say, no, these aren’t for the reformers. There’s not two streams of revelation. Um, you know, even one as if tradition could, could actually be superior to Revelation rather, the reformers see, uh, God’s word as superior, but nonetheless always interpreted with the church Catholic and so this is one of the reasons why it, it won’t take you long to open one of their commentaries, and you’ll notice they’re quoting Augustine or Bernard. In other words, it’s, we could, let me just see if I can put it this way. not a debate. The debate between Rome and the reformers is not, can’t say this enough, it’s not a debate between tradition and scripture. It’s not, uh, it’s a, it’s a debate between tradition and tradition which understanding of tradition will we hold to? 

John Dickson:
I can imagine the modern descendants of the radical reformation , um, finding this, um, little bit troubling, um, but so might some Catholics, by which I mean Roman Catholics. Uh, do you have any sense of what Roman Catholic historians or theologians might make of this thesis of yours? That the Reformation was really a renewal movement, calling people back to a catholicity?

Matthew Barrett:
I think in my conversations, at least with Roman Catholics, uh, sometimes you find two different reactions. Um, There is an older, uh, this goes right back to the 16th century itself. There’s an older narrative, uh, I call it the, uh, schismatic narrative that sees, you know, if the radicals saw, saw themselves as opposing that which came before, uh, many in Rome saw, the ro the, the Reformation as, uh, a schism in which, uh, it could only produce discord in dis unity. And to this day, uh, Roman Catholics will look at Protestants and say, look look at the divide. Uh, look at the lack of unity. So those who might sympathize with that narrative, certainly, uh, will see, you know, the claim I’m making in this book. And, um, they will, they will see it as problematic because to to, to call the reformers Catholic. With a lower C even, uh, that to them seems an an impossibility. However, I have had conversations with others, other Roman Catholics, in which they still hold to their positions and to their viewpoints. They’re not gonna budge on those. However, um, if they have been reading, uh, history in the last, say 50 years, even Roman Catholic historians, some have made the same claims and same, uh, observations that I have. So one of the points I make in my book is, um, as much as my book may seem like it’s a theological argument, uh, it is primarily, primarily a historical argument. You could agree or disagree with whether you think the reformers actually were Catholic or whether they were successful in that sense. Uh, in one, in one way. That might be another book altogether, But, uh, what I’m arguing is that. The reformers themselves actually consider themselves  Catholic with a small c. And that is something that even Roman Catholic historians have said. Yeah when we look at the sources, that certainly is true. Now, I, I suppose that raises the big question, right? Um, how then should we actually understand the reformation? And this is where I think it’s quite helpful to say, uh, to Protestants in particular when we define our identity as something that is against catholicity, right? I think we actually betray our forefathers. And so, uh, all that to say, I think that a good history of the reformation can actually make the claim to be reformed in that sense is tobe Catholic, um, Catholic with a small c. To, to make that claim. Yes, it certainly can be a theological claim, but it actually is first and foremost simply saying, this is actually our identity historically.

John Dickson (Studio)

But Catholics at the time of the Reformation most certainly would not have made such a concession. After the break, we’ll hear how the Catholics of the 16th century responded to the onslaught of the Reformation movement. We’re packing our bags and heading to northern Italy, to the Council of Trent. 

Break

John Dickson:
Tell us about the Council of Trent and. The Catholic response, uh, in those decades, um, to the Reformation.

Matthew Barrett:
when you look at the very complicated, uh, years leading up to Trent, there is a strong push, uh, to actually create a type of renewal. And so in my book, I actually call it a, um, a Catholic renewal. I think. I think there’s proof for that. there’s attempts to create renewal within the church. Uh, in other words, what I’m trying to say is even those Trent or even after Trent, understand, yeah, there has been, there has been abuses, there has been corruptions. And we ourselves understand, especially on the pastoral level, uh, there, there needs to be changes made. Now here’s the thing though. and this is the controversial point, Um, kind of change is that? I think in the eyes of the reformers, they see it as primarily, maybe not only, but primarily as a change, um, in moral conduct. And, uh, ecclesiology. In terms of the practices of the church. Where they think Trent falls short, well, they do not see it as primarily an actual reform in doctrine. And by the time Trent, you know, puts, you know, puts down its verdict, uh, in the eyes of the reformers, they feel that, that, you know, that judgment is, is only confirmed because they then land, uh, on, on, when it comes, everything from justification to purgatory, to indulgences and so on,  they then actually make it. They put it in concrete.

John Dickson:
So in a strange way, Trent is the thing that entrenches the, uh,  contradiction between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The, the parting of the ways.

Matthew Barrett:
It’s a, it is a major turning point in which there’s a turning of the ways. So I know it can be tempting to go back and to look at the early years of the reformation as if, oh, this is a major deviation from the church. But actually you could look at, at it as a question mark, which way is the church? Which way church go? Uh, that’s a very different way of looking at it, and I think it actually gives the reformers a little bit more, uh, credibility. Um, maybe even a little bit more sympathy as to what they are actually trying to accomplish. Now that said, okay, I think Trent, there’s two sides of this coin as well. they’re pursuing a type of Catholic renewal. Um, and that’s been a helpful corrective in many, in, in even recent history histories of, of, of Trent. But nonetheless, we don’t wanna swing that pendulum too far because there still is a strong counter-reformation tone, spirit at Trent. And, and even beyond we, I mean there’s a whole history here with the Inquisition and and so on that we don’t have to get into. I don’t think we need to interpret Trent as if it’s one or the other. Some have tried to do that. Uh, I think it’s both. In other words, the type of renewal they actually implement does have the DNA of a counter reformation. I think that’s inevitable and we see that even with the wars that are pursued, um, before and after Trent as well.

John Dickson (Studio)

At Trent, Rome drew a line in the sand about what it meant to be Catholic (Roman Catholic). It doubled down on its opposition to the Reformation’s insistence that justification (right standing with God) was by faith alone, and it affirmed that indulgences still had a place within the church (though they should not be marketed), and the council reiterated the existence of purgatory. The Council of Trent met in fits and starts over an 18-year period. It was slow, deliberate, and detailed. And it provoked what historians call the ‘Counter-Reformation’, the huge Catholic intellectual backlash against Protestantism. Pope Paul IV established the Roman Inquisition, partly to root out Protestantism, and he created an Index of Prohibited Books. As you can imagine, Luther’s volumes were high on the list! City-states began to draw very strong boundaries along Protestant and Catholic lines. This led to the 30 Years War, from 1614 to 1648, when between 10-20% of the population of Europe was killed. We will eventually do an episode on the various Inquisitions, and on the 30-years War. As bad as they were, there are loads of myths about them. For example, it’s fair to say that most modern historians no longer see the 30-years War as a religious conflict. They see it as a conflict between city-states that demanded independence from the crumbling Holy Roman Empire. This is why you frequently had Catholic and Protestant city-states joining forces to fight other city-states that could be Protestant or Catholic. It’s a weird and wonderful (and horrible) story to tell, and it resulted in powerful theological arguments about the necessity of a pluralistic Europe. As I say, that’s for another episode. One ‘legacy’ of the Reformation that can’t be denied or explained away is division. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are currently more than eleven hundred different Protestant denominations. Eleven hundred. Actually, excuse me. I left off a zero. There are currently more than 11,000 different Protestant denominations in the world today. That is crazy! 

 John Dickson:
Into our modern period, Protestantism is often accused of, you know, spawning thousands of different denominations. And, um, I mean, is there so. Cantankerous and disagreeable about Protestantism. I mean, certainly my Catholic friends Yeah. Would say, look what Protestant? Yeah. You know, it’s theology does it, it breaks you apart and every person with a new idea starts a new denomination. And, um, you’ve separated from the great tradition.

 Jennifer McNutt:
Yeah. I think that that is something too to grapple with mm-hmm. and to, torecognize some of those dynamics at work. I think that the, it, it really does look like that. It really does look like that. And part of that is because Protestantism  is highly. , um, adaptable to its context. Hmm. That’s really what is taking place. And I usually talk about this with Marburg. What happens at Marburg when Luther and Zwingli meet for the very first time and the conversations that they have, and then that they go home. When they go home, they are going home into different contexts. Right. And so what the Protestant tradition begins to do is it, it becomes very mobile and it is able to adapt. It is able to be on the move. And there are some fundamental reasons why that is. One is in part because they turn their backs on the idea of sacred space, right? There’s no one place that I have to be. where I can worship God, um, you know, I don’t have to have even a priest there. The mediator for me becomes the Bible. So as the Bible is more movable and more accessible, the Protestant tradition is also more movable. And I think it, in part, it’s a consequence of the refugee crisis and how Protestants navigate the refugee crisis. But in addition to that, I think it’s, it’s in part because of how, uh, a vernacular language too, right? These different traditions are gonna take on the common language of their regions, right? And then they’re going to engage with the political systems of their regions. And the fact of the matter is the Europe is not uniform in those ways in terms of its government [00:44:10] systems, in terms of its language and culture, um, et cetera. And so you begin these traditions that develop in their regions and then that has a long history.

John Dickson:
Okay, our final question, Jennifer. Um, you, you’re at a dinner party of devout  Catholics. Okay. And. You know, if you’re in a rollicking conversation and they ask what you do and you say, oh, I’m a, I’m a specialist in the reformation, all eyes are now on you. They say, okay, Jennifer, tell us what good did the Reformation do? We are gonna give you one shot to answer us tonight. .

Jennifer McNutt:
I mean, I think my answer is the Bible, for sure, hands down, um, the, the  Reformation really pushed Christianity to reroute itself in the revelation of scripture and in what the Bible actually says and teaches us about who Jesus Christ is and what he’s done and how our church should be shaped by that. And that is something that impacts not just Protestants and Protestant tradition, but it also impacts Catholicism and it’s time. That part of the story we don’t always get to hear about but is one that is there and present and important. And it, it will shape Catholicism. 

 John Dickson:
You mean Catholicism will go back to the Bible as a result? Or what are you,  what – ?

Jennifer McNutt:
So that there is a more appreciation for scripture, for the reading of scripture, for, you know. Also for education and the need for clergy to be educated in what it is that they’re, they’re doing in, in the life of the church. Um, I really look to the Jesuits, uh, as an expression, as an example of the outworking of, um, ,how the Reformation impacts, um, not just Protestants, but also the Roman Catholic Church. And in those kinds of ways, there’s more [00:46:20] attention than, especially through Jesuits to catechetical teaching, which is a really important practice that we see The, the Protestants adopt, um, the Luther Champions from 1529. And um, so there, there’s just kind of an appreciation for how can we engage the congregation into the life of the church that I think is really beneficial to, to the church.  And actually, in the end, um, you know, they do succeed in wanting the Bible to be better translated, to be more accessible. That is the great success of the. So now our job is to get people to read it.

John Dickson (Studio)

That’s interesting, isn’t it? This is basically what the Pope himself said in our grab at the beginning of the episode: 

“With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life.”

Personally, I think putting the Bible near the centre of life will lead people to the Catholic faith—I say ‘catholic’ in the true sense. If you read the Bible, I think you will see that the Protestants were right about justification by grace through faith. It seems to me overwhelmingly clear that what is primary in Christianity is not my human will and exertion, let alone my merit, but God’s love and grace toward us, granting us forgiveness through Christ’s death and resurrection, and then moving us by the gift of his Spirit to live a life of gratitude for all that God has given. But I also think returning to the Bible will underscore how much Roman Catholics and Protestant Catholics actually have in common. None of the great Creeds was changed in the Reformation, not the Apostles’ Creed, not the Nicene Creed, not the Athanasian Creed. These great statements of the three-person God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Creator, Redeemer, and Life-Giver, remain the structure of the Christian faith, as taught in the Bible. So, although I identify as a proud Protestant, even more than that – and I hope this isn’t controversial, after we’ve explored all this together – I am a proud and reformed Catholic.

Undeceptions