How Should We Then Live Part 4: The Reformation

In some respects this was a simpler episode keeping to more basic but recurring and even redundant themes. Schaeffer assumes that his audience is already familiar with the basics of the Reformation narrative and spends hardly any time laying out its chronology. I was surprised however to hear how he postured his narrative. He argued the Reformation was the breaking away of the Reformers from the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally the movement represented a turning away from the humanistic elements of medieval Catholicism.

Why is this surprising? Because it's not the common argument employed in our day, nor is it the narrative utilised by the Reformers themselves. They, and I'm thinking here of Calvin, argued that Rome had departed from the Church and that they (the Reformers) were in fact part of a continuous line of doctrine connected to the Early Church. And likewise today the emphasis is more in terms of continuity and appropriation and yet when Schaeffer made his documentary in the 1970s, that was not the mindset. His comments make sense but are also instructive in terms of some of the shifts that have taken place within the Evangelical movement, a minor but interesting point that keeps coming up during this series.

Some would argue the Reformation represents the recovery or repristination of New Testament and/or Early Christianity but even as they say this, they don't entirely mean it. And I think Schaeffer is perhaps conscious of this because many moderns as well as Schaeffer don't actually wish to 'roll the clock back' to the early centuries of Church history. Not at all. They have no interest in a martyr Church, the Church before Nicaea and before Constantine. And for Schaeffer in particular there is a great deal from the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance that he would preserve.

The Reformation we're told represented the 'turning away' from the humanistic elements within Catholicism. And yet once again what Schaeffer describes as humanistic is in fact represented by Nominalist philosophy and its rejection of concrete and in some cases even conceptual universals, the latter being viewed as little more than artificial contrivances. Now, as I've talked about extensively in other essays, Nominalism is a potent and yet dangerous philosophical tool. It can become quite destructive but at the same time can also be utilised to fragment and break apart man-made systems and the assumptions which undergird them and this is true even in the realm of theology. It is this latter tendency that was celebrated by Martin Luther and a strong argument can be made for Calvin as well. William of Ockham, the name most associated with the philosophical movement was lauded by Luther and some of the other Reformers.

Now this is strange because if Schaeffer is right, then the Reformers should have lambasted Ockham and his philosophy, but that's not the case. So, something is evidently wrong with Schaeffer's thesis, a point I have repeatedly made, and it's one connected to the still active Reformers vs. Reformation Scholastics (or sometimes Calvin vs. the Calvinists) debate. Schaeffer seems wholly incapable of discerning the differences between Thomism and Nominalism and the different humanist impulses in the Renaissance and how they interacted with Medieval Scholasticism. Schaeffer draws an artificial line of continuity between Thomism and the Renaissance and while there were connections with Aristotelian epistemology and the later Age of Reason and Enlightenment, the Renaissance was by most (if not all) accounts a reaction to and rejection of Aristotelian-driven Scholasticism's impulses and intuitions.

This plays out in Schaeffer's interpretations of art and his identification of Michelangelo, Dante and others with the Nominalism he continues to call Thomistic humanism. This interpretation is deeply even fatally flawed as the common understanding points to the Renaissance as being a quasi-Platonic revival and reaction to the Aristotelian tendencies of the Medieval era. This tension, depicted in Raphael's The School of Athens is key to understanding the dynamics of the period – and Schaeffer seems to completely miss it which results in his distorted commentary.

He misses the Magisterial Reformation's deep connections to the Renaissance and its milieu. Indeed the ethos of ad fontes was part of the story, as men revisited origins and old texts, and new-old texts that had come from the East. And the Reformers and their allies were also connected to the Renaissance in their pursuit of the humanities, languages and texts, but also in questions of prolegomena and eventually social questions concerning law and the nature of the political order. Repeatedly he fails to properly define and address the nature of Renaissance Humanism, criticising Erasmus while sidestepping the fact that Calvin was also reckoned a Renaissance Humanist as well.

He lauds the Reformation's focus on individual salvation versus an understanding of salvation rooted in the Church as an institution or in a corporate entity. The Reformation broke down these walls and allowed individual man to deal directly with God. There's much to celebrate here, even if his explanation is somewhat truncated. Nevertheless the fact remains that to Roman Catholics both then and now and to secular historians, the Reformation with its focus on the individual in terms of salvation, private judgment and later with regard to civil rights was in fact an expression of the very humanistic-oriented fragmentation Schaeffer seeks to condemn. And I'm afraid when casting these questions in cultural terms, the force of argument probably stands with the advocates of Rome. And yet, when compared to Scripture, Rome is to be condemned.

And where does that leave the Magisterial Reformation? It struggles to stand apart from its specific narratives. It must either identify with Rome or break from it entirely, an option many find less than appealing. The latter view (which is actually to be preferred and is demanded by the New Testament) can only stand when Rome is condemned, not just in terms of soteriology but in its sacralist Christianisation agenda. And it is for this reason that Schaeffer no matter how muddled his thinking is, will always fall back on the assumptions of Rome, even while he attempts to condemn some of its particularities and specific expressions.

Schaeffer once again offers no theological critique of Catholic rooted art and instead offers what can only be described as a lame analogy. For Christians sacred groves were idolatrous and bad and yet trees in and of themselves were certainly okay and if trees were removed from the context of the sacred grove there was no problem with trees. Lamenting the iconoclasm of the Reformation period he compares the paintings and statues to the trees of the sacred grove. If simply removed from the context of the Church and worship then they're fine or so he reasons.

Art, a production of man and an expression of ideas is not analogous to trees, a product of nature and creation. The analogy fails, his conclusion a glaring case of non sequitir. Additionally the art he refers to contains a content which is not neutral but specifically theological. It's one thing for the art to deal with Galatea or Orpheus, potentially idolatrous but by the Middle Ages a mere recall of the Classical World and mythological tradition – but when events, persons and supernatural episodes of Scripture are depicted... this is a different story and one Schaeffer repeatedly avoids.

And yet what a strange thing, given that the Reformers addressed these very issues and indeed in some cases died for them. Obviously Schaeffer would be far more appreciative of the Lutheran and Anglican views when it comes to such questions and yet his own Calvinist-Reformed tradition has a lot to say on these points, but clearly Schaeffer isn't interested and in some cases is hostile to the arguments.

Instead he repeatedly makes nonsensical assertions about the syncretism which appeared since the time of Aquinas. Since Aquinas? Once again, the Middle Ages, indeed the very assumptions of Christendom rest upon a foundation that seeks to syncretise the post-Constantinian 'Christian' culture with that of the Classical World. This is why while art was 'sacred' the remnants, images and motifs of the Classical World were almost always tolerated. It was all part of one grand sweeping story, a point that many contemporary Dominionist thinkers actually celebrate. One would think Schaeffer would as well but he is clearly confused.

Again his real focus is on culture and his desire to forge a narrative in support of his unified philosophical theory... or worldview as many would have it. For Schaeffer this again is expressed in terms of the Problem of the Universals and for him God is the Universal that provides unity and thus meaning to all the particulars. This is (perhaps) an interesting way of framing the question but it's neither Biblical nor is it how the Reformers thought and argued. It's a strange and rather forced argument to be making during a documentary on the Reformation, but for Schaeffer this is central as he seeks to combat the fragmentation of society that he witnessed throughout the 20^th century – the real point and purpose of his series.

He is critical of Luther's response to the Peasant Wars which is interesting because in recent years just as Evangelicals and Christian Rightists have come to embrace the Crusades and a sort of sanctified capitalism there has been a growing hostility to the German Peasant's Revolt of the 1520's. More often than not Luther is praised by today's commentators for his condemnation of the uprising and his call for the magistrates to crush the rebels. Schaeffer's comment is once again a minor but interesting reminder of how the movement (in just a generation) has shifted and changed and at some points moved beyond the thoughts of its founders and influencers.

We then turn to music and art and of course this means turning to Bach and Rembrandt the favourites of Confessionalists and would be culture-sanctifiers. While I won't engage in criticism of these artists (though some criticism is warranted), I reject the notion that they somehow represent the apotheosis of Reformation culture, the golden fruits of its labours. They were artists in a particular place and at a particular time and while some were undoubtedly brilliant and talented, the theology which supposedly undergirds their work is (again) not above critique. I love the Dutch Masters as much as anyone and yet there are other schools of art I appreciate just as much if not more.

In addition to his praise of what is essentially Baroque artwork (the broadened categorisation removes some of the lustre), he turns to what he deems to be another glory of the Reformation, the trajectory toward Democratic and Republican government which he believes to be born of Reformation ecclesiology and polity. And yet the historical tale is a different one.

First, the 16^th and 17^th century Reformers, Puritans and Confessionalists, the heirs of the Reformation had little interest in democracy and in fact were hostile to it and the implications that moral questions could be decided by what amounted to mob rule or popular will. Their 'Republicanism' was often sacralist and theocratic and thus a close cousin to something like Conciliar Catholicism, Anti-papal but still Catholic Ghibelline politics and certain forms of clericalism. It was pluralised religious government as opposed to expressions which concentrated power in the hands of a narrow ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The Democratic Republicanism which fomented rebellion against Great Britain and led to the creation of the United States was born not of the Reformation or Sola Fide (as some have tried to argue for) but of ideas rooted in the Enlightenment. Did the individualism born of the Reformation play a part in setting the intellectual stage for Enlightenment Humanism and Classical Liberalism? A case can be made but what emerges in the 18^th century is a distant cousin at best and in many respects the ideology that fueled the likes of Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson and Madison is in fundamental opposition to the philosophical assumptions that undergirded the Reformation. I would think American Confessionalists would want to distance themselves from such connections but given their affinity and religious devotion to the United States as a type of New World Zion, they continue to impose this flawed and ultimately false meta-narrative.

Moving through the checklist that in subsequent years would become standard for such narratives and didactic expressions, Schaeffer turns to a celebration of the Reformation doctrine of Vocation, something I've repeatedly criticised in other writings and need not be revisited here. The salient point with regard to Schaeffer's commentary is that his understanding of Vocation is connected to his monistic conception of society (a kind of Christianised 'Republic' a la Plato) that eliminates all pluralisms and dualities, an expression of what could be described as his extreme anti-Nominalism.

And yet this tendency affects and permeates all of theology and even epistemology, tending to eradicate the ability to limit concepts, retain tensions and embrace nuance, let alone mystery. Indeed, the irony is great as once again Schaeffer who presents himself as the anti-humanist is in fact expressing a governing philosophical structure that is rooted not in Early Christianity or even Medievalism but in Hellenic philosophy and ultimately the Enlightenment. It is at this point regarding Vocation, the ideas which undergird it and its implications, that even I must admit (with no small amount of bitterness) that Thomism and the Roman Catholic system are actually better in that there is a sense of nuance and the opportunity to pursue a more deliberate life of service that can be contrasted with an ordinary but certainly still acceptable life. Schaeffer like most Confessionalists who are ever on a quest to combat what they perceive to be Pietist influence or Roman Catholic nature-grace dualism simply fail to reckon with the New Testament and in particular Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians.

After some further disconnected comments regarding music, Schaeffer concludes with a narrative regarding the Reformation and freedom and how Reformation theology (or in reality philosophy) gave man a reason for 'greatness', a concept both absent and at odds with New Testament ethics and expectation. He then follows with yet another non sequitir connecting man's freedom from works, from the need to earn merit with this freedom to pursue greatness.

Thus we must conclude that for Schaeffer the true crowning issue, the real reason to celebrate the Reformation was that it opened the door for the full blooming of Western Civilisation and marked an improvement on what had been seen in the medieval era, an era that Schaeffer nevertheless clearly loves and appreciates.

While he doesn't elaborate this point in this episode, we are left to assume that the greatness and glory Schaeffer speaks of is in reference to the age of capitalism and industrialisation and the periods of colonisation and empire. While the glory-narrative makes sense in worldly terms, yea in the very humanistic (man measuring and judging all things by himself) standards Schaffer condemns – and yet when these values are compared to the New Testament, we have one bankrupt, heretical and immoral order being swapped for another. And while Schaeffer touts the Bible, what he's really concerned with is the Bible as the starting point for a grand (but contrived) philosophical construct which at some points represents an improvement on the Catholic order but in other aspects pales in comparison.

Continue reading Part 5