Church History
I made it home just a little bit later than I had hoped (but earlier than I had expected) and am now ready to turn around and head right back to the United States, this time driving 1000 miles to my parents’ place in Atlanta. We’re off to a late start, but that couldn’t be helped.
While I was flying home from L.A. yesterday I read Stephen Nichols’ The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World. I encountered the following quote and thought I would leave you with it. I thought it was a great summary of why the Reformation “took” or why it worked where so many other movements before and since have failed.
Prior to the Reformation, there were various attempts to reform the church. Some movements addressed issues of church leadership and government, trying to wrest control from the papacy. Other groups tried to reform the extravagance of the church and its pursuit of wealth. Others addressed the lackluster spirituality that was all too prevalent. These movements could put their finger on the problem—they just couldn’t arrive at a solution. All of these movements failed where the Reformation succeeded. The reason? The Reformation got to the heart of the matter: right theology. The Reformers rightly diagnosed the disease, and they rightly administered the necessary cure.Today we can fall into the same trap as those failed movements that attempted reform. We can put our trust in programs. We can rely on new leadership or the application of innovative management techniques. We can count on moral reform. The Reformation sounds a clarion call of caution to all such attempts. If we as a church don’t get it right on the doctrines of the Bible, Christ, and salvation, we’ll never head in the right direction, no matter how innovative or energetic or zealous we may be.
See you from Atlanta!
Comments (31) »
1. Steve
March 11, 2007
12:06 PM
Excellent quote and a great reminder that the Ancient Words and the Old Paths are God’s chosen means to save, sanctify, and awaken the Church! May we return to such fidelity to the Scriptures as did the Reformers
2. Justin
March 11, 2007
12:37 PM
Bring A La Carte Back!!!
3. donsands
March 11, 2007
1:38 PM
Great quote. They preached the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone. If we do this, then we will succeed as well, even if the Church doesn’t grow, for we will be doing the Lord’s will. But at the same time, the Church will grow, because the Gospel is the power that saves a soul, and changes a rebel’s heart, to that of a servant’s.
4. Paul Martin
March 11, 2007
1:54 PM
Travel safe (and SLOW) partner! Great doing Shepherds’ with you. Shall I fill the world in on the real Tim Challies!?
5. nathan colquhoun
March 11, 2007
3:06 PM
I don’t know if that makes much sense. It seems to me that if someone is trying to ‘reform the church’ and get them away from pursuing wealth they are trying to get a grasp and bring the church back to a right theology.
Basically what I feel this quote is saying is that the only way to reform the church or to ‘head in the right direction’ we need to have our theology perfect. For some reason that seems a bit far-fetched seeing as where we’ve been and how the church is today.
I think its beautiful as different people are passionate about different things to help bring the church as a whole some sort of balance of theology. It’s difficult when you get saying that everyone needs to have everything perfect on the Bible, Christ and salvation before we can make any progress.
6. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 11, 2007
3:23 PM
Nathan,
My position (and I think that of the quote) would be that true progress only comes from correct doctrine, which the Reformers were correctly focused upon.
As I have heard the White Horse Inn fellows say more than once…’good works’ apart from correct doctrine are nothing more than pagan ritual.
7. SteveE
March 11, 2007
4:11 PM
Here is an interesting quote… “The gripping message of the bible will never be fully heard in the library. When we value scholarly prescision and doctrinal purity above a personally transforming encounter with the God who reveals Himself in His Word, when we fail to see that an academic grasp of Scripture often leads to a proud appreciation of knowledge more than a humble and passionate appreciation of Christ, we develop and orthodoxy that crushes life. And we miss the gospel that frees us to live.”
I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive, ie: doctrinal purity and a relationship with God. But from experience, I have seen more polarization than I have a blending of the two. People attend churches because they believe the doctrine taught there but often live in opposition to that teaching. Reformed folks are going to heaven because they were chosen, not because then necessarily believe or even understand God’s scripture, while at the opposite end folks believe that God is just too good to let them die because they chose Him.
I suppose I will never understand why people insist on placing God in either of these positions. Yet he did say that “the path to destruction is wide, and the path to salvation is narrow, and few there are that find it…” Of course, for many the path was chosen for them…why look to see if it might be wrong?
8. James
March 11, 2007
4:52 PM
Why did it work? At least in Germany, it worked because Frederick of Saxony kept Luther alive.
9. Katherine
March 11, 2007
6:38 PM
“It seems to me that if someone is trying to ‘reform the church’ and get them away from pursuing wealth they are trying to get a grasp and bring the church back to a right theology.”
I don’t think seeking moral reformation necessarily begets theological reformation—it’s more likely to work the other way. Just as only a change in the heart produces lasting change in the fruit of one’s life (Luke 6:43-45), so does a better understanding of God and His word beget increased obedience and devotion to him. Because people live what they believe, better doctrine is necessary for better morals.
William Wilberforce blamed the lack of understanding of the “peculiar doctrines” of justification for the moral lapse of his day. He writes, “The fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines insensibly gained strength. Thus, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity went more and more out of sight, and as might naturally have been expected, the moral system itself also began to wither and decay, being robbed of that which should have supplied it with life and nutriment.” (A Practical View of Christianity)
10. Armen
March 11, 2007
7:00 PM
While I don’t agree precisely with the way he put it, I think Nathan C. has a point. I mean some of the reformers were ‘off’ on their theology as a whole. However, the crux of the matter was there, by grace alone, through faith alone, in the merits of Christ alone.
On top of the vital doctrine of justification, came a right view of God. They immersed themselves in God by the study of the Word and in prayer. They spent hours alone with God, they cut themselves off from the world in devotion to God, then after having obtained power with God, the result was power with men, and they impacted the world far and near.
I heartily recommend Alan Cairns’ message ‘WANTED - Preachers with Passion and Power’ (from sermonaudio.com). He reflects on the reformation and what we can learn from it so as to see what is required in this day and generation.
11. Mark Lauterbach
March 11, 2007
7:17 PM
A very interesting quote but one with which I would find exception.
First, there were other efforts at Reform prior to Luther and they were also focused on the doctrine of salvation. Those who led those efforts never got traction — Wycliffe, Savanarola, and Hus. They were martyred. The Reformation succeeded in the providence of God due to the divinely ordained politics of Frederick the Elector, the advent of the printing press, plus the unusual gap in the leadership of the Holy Roman Empire in 1519. Most of the scholars of Luther (whether Oberman or Bainton) would see providence as more a factor than “getting it right.” I am not sure I would want to tell Hus he did not succeed because he had a slightly off centered theology!
Second, I doubt very much the Reformers would say they got it right. I think they were men who by grace loved truth and contended for it at risk of life. They were not trying to start a reformation. They were not self-conscious about such a goal. One has only to read their stories to see how often they got it wrong as well — but in the providence of God a tidal wave was launched at that time. Most of them would also say they owed their success to those who went before them and were martyred.
Third, I think this kind of emphasis makes us entirely too self-focused and more aware of trying to get it right than of trying to walk humbly with our God in upholding his truth. Anyone who says they have the “key” to a renewed or reformed church is missing the sovereignty of grace.
12. Jeri
March 11, 2007
9:49 PM
Tim, God bless you as you travel. Thanks for your hard work, and for the thought you put into all your efforts. What sorts of interesting things is your pastor about to reveal about you…we are waiting interestedly!
13. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 11, 2007
9:53 PM
Wycliffe failed???
Isn’t he known as the morning star of the Reformation?
14. RabbiT
March 11, 2007
11:40 PM
I have to agree with M Lauterbach. Stephen Nichols’ statement is a slight to the likes of Savonarola, Huss, and countless others, whose time had not come to witness the fruit of their labours.
God has not guaranteed that getting the right theology would necessarily bear fruit in our lifetimes.
To borrow a chaos theory analogy, the butterfly in Beijing should faithfully flap her wings even if she can’t see the cyclone it would produce in the South Pacific someday.
15. david
March 12, 2007
12:54 AM
Nichols’ statement is only a slight to the likes of Wycliffe and Hus if you consider them failures. But they were not failures, and it was their correct theology and their willingness to stand firm in it, even to death, that makes their contribution to church history significant.
16. Jeff de Ruyter
March 12, 2007
1:13 AM
Thank you for this post. I am reading The Ragamuffin Gospel right now. It can be hard to find the balance between hard good theology and grace.
17. Steve
March 12, 2007
1:44 AM
Before more stones are thrown at Stephen Nichols consider the following statement by Stephen Nichols in Pages from Church History (pg. 33)
“Luther would also be the first to admit that his work greatly built upon the preceding efforts at reform from the like of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.”
Clearly Stephen Nichols needs to be understood within the context of his complete writings and not just a two paragraph quote.
18. Travis Hilton
March 12, 2007
6:51 AM
Tim,
Excellent quote. I agree with the last comment that this has to be taken in context. Any faithful scholar would not be looking over the efforts of Wycliffe and Hus, but only affirming thier convictions being fully realized in the Reformation.
Have a save trip to Atlanta!
19. sarah
March 12, 2007
7:22 AM
When you guys are up to your eye brows in doctrine(doctrine’s good) take a swing over to Paul Washer’s site and get a taste of what you all are debating over…heaven. I was weary of this debt without even realizing it and found this sermon…it’s worth your time and he is very reformed…you’ll love what he has to say. The sermon is called Pray and Not Lose Heart. It’s the first one. http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=131
20. Travis Hilton
March 12, 2007
7:45 AM
Sarah,
I would agree that any sermon by Paul Washer is worth my time. He is speaking at my friend Jeff Riddle’s church in Charlottesville, Virginia later this month. I had extended the invitation for him to come to our church, but he declined because he is lightening his schedule due to health issues recently.
21. Mark Lauterbach
March 12, 2007
11:22 AM
Good discussion here — I have not read Nichols but am glad for the additional quote supplied.
Hope you have a safe and fruitful trip Tim. Thanks for serving so many through your blog!
22. RJD
March 12, 2007
12:21 PM
Take that, Rick Warren!
23. Dan Evans
March 12, 2007
12:27 PM
Tim,
I like the quote, and I believe it is correct in its context. However, I do like the references made to the providence of God as to why Luther’s impact continued and the others, though earth shattering in themselves, did not gain the same notoriety as Luther. One of the events historically that I think aided Luther was the invention of the printing press prior to his nailing his “Theses” on the door. Luther’s challenges became much more widely publicized than those of his predecessors and so there was much more popular backing. Shows that God’s timing of all things is perfect and beautiful.
Dan
24. sarah
March 12, 2007
2:37 PM
Travis, I didn’t hear that Paul was sick…I do hope that it isn’t serious. Do you know if it is or not?
25. Travis Hilton
March 12, 2007
10:02 PM
Sarah,
I cannot give the specifics, but a few months back, he had to cancel a previously scheduled engagement at my friend’s church after he was taken to the emergency room for having chest pains. I’m not for sure what the final diagnosis was, but as I understand, there has been a decision made not to overcommit Paul too much. He still has a full schedule, but there have been some adjustments.
In the past, I understand that he would preach in many churches he would visit for about a week at a time. He seems to have limited the number of days he will stay at a church in which he is visiting. If I remember correctly what I heard from his office he seems to be improving. I’m sure he would appreciate our prayers.
26. vynette
March 12, 2007
10:23 PM
Brian, you said: “My position (and I think that of the quote) would be that true progress only comes from correct doctrine, which the Reformers were correctly focused upon.”
It is unfortunate in the extreme that as well as casting out ‘marianology,’ the ‘Reformers’ did not also cast out the ‘incorrect’ and unscriptural doctrine of the ‘Miraculous Incarnation’ that the worship of Mary was founded upon.
The entire doctrinal edifice of the Eastern and Western Churches was constructed by the Graeco-Roman church fathers in an attempt to explain away what the New Testament writers state quite plainly - that Jesus of Nazareth was born out of wedlock.
This doctrinal foundation of shifting sand will eventually see the demise of Christianity as we know it unless we finally complete what the Reformers began and once again embrace the Hebrew Christianity of Jesus and the Apostles.
The ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ has not yet been preached!
27. Ann Addison
March 13, 2007
12:00 PM
Justin said: Bring A La Carte Back!!!
I have one a la carte for you on my site… today’s post on http://mousenaround.wordpress.com/
Just one, but maybe it will help get you by :)
28. donsands
March 13, 2007
8:02 PM
vynette,
Come again? What you just wrote isn’t confusing, it’s, well, yeah it is confusing. What are you talking about?
29. Mark
March 13, 2007
9:16 PM
Don (#28),
Since I have a two year-old son, I watch a lot of Dora the Explorer. You’re in danger of crossing the troll bridge, if you know what I mean…
30. vynette
March 14, 2007
2:12 AM
Don, my comments tend to confuse because they challenge established doctrines such as the ‘Miraculous Incarnation.’
What particular part of my comment is confusing? Or perhaps it all is? I’d be happy to elaborate.
31. donsands
March 14, 2007
6:06 PM
vynette,
I have to visit your site. Don’t really want to get in to it here. I’ll check out your thoughts there.