If you have interest in the Reformation, you will find this worth reading. As the title indicates, it is constructed around the idea that many people misunderstand key points of the Reformation. Unless you are already as expert as the author clearly is in this field, you will surely learn some things about the Reformation you did not know from this text.
I did have a couple of questions I would have liked to have asked the author as I read. First, in the chapter on scripture as the sole authority for faith and practice, the author claims that the main, magisterial reforms held that the early church fathers were what I would call "subsidiary authorities." His point is that the reformers did not take sola scriptura to mean that there were no other authorities for faith, only that the other authorities were authorities that must be judged by scripture.
I don't doubt that many of the reformers took this view. But it appears that the author also holds this view. The problem is that the view is not carefully defined in regard to what "authority" must mean if it is to mean anything. It appears trivial to say that a teacher or a creed that agrees completely with scripture will be correct.
What the author seems to be getting at is the idea that reading the Bible in isolation is not as good as reading it in light of the church fathers. True as that might be, it does not make the church fathers "authoritative" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Finally, the author judges the Reformation a failure in regard to the fact that it split into many denominational factions as time went by. He spends a chapter lamenting this based on Jesus' prayer for unity in the Gospel of John. While that is a good point, he never makes clear exactly what he thinks Christians should do when someone understands the Christian faith in a fashion different enough from his own to make cooperation at a practical level morally impossible because doing so would force one to endorse and promote teachings sincerely held to be both false and significant to the content of the faith.
In spite of these reservations and questions, I am glad I read this book.
The title of a new book by James Payton is sure to raise some eyebrows: "Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings". This new book from Inter-Varsity Press does more than merely challenge long held assumptions. In 272 short pages, it provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the Protestant Reformation.
As someone who looks favorably on Reformed theology, I was somewhat skeptical going into this book. But Payton's calm and careful approach won me over. He adds meat to the skeletal concepts many have of the Reformation. And along the way upholds the basic Protestant view that the Reformation was a good thing. He does correct some misunderstandings, however. He gives a lesson in Church history to challenge conservative, evangelical Protestants in some needed ways.
Payton gives a masterful treatment of the medieval background to the Reformation, as well as the connection it has with the Renaissance. He shows how from all quarters in the church, a strong call for reform was raised in the years preceding the Reformation. Reformation in capite et membris -- "reform in head and members" was the clarion call. This was hastened along by the dreadful scourge of the bubonic plague and how the clergy often would desert their posts in fear of the coming devastation.
Payton next explains the rise of the Reformation focusing on Luther. He dispels the myth that Luther's theology was fully developed when he nailed the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. He shows how Luther and what became his movement, was carried along by numerous misunderstandings. People saw what they wanted to in Luther. And Luther was growing in his own understandings too. Luther was backed as a hero by discontent peasants, many of whom rebelled in a lawless, bloody riot. He was backed by princes and land-owners who saw his views as a way to gain autonomy and ascendancy. All of this was used in God's providence to spur on the growth of the Reformation movement and give it freedom to grow until it was too large to stop.
Many aspects of life in the 1500s are brought to life through Payton's book. Particularly important is his discussion of the peculiar challenges to life in medieval cities. Luther's distance from city life may have influenced his strong law-gospel antithesis and emphasis on the two distinct kingdoms of Church and State. The Law shouldn't impact life in the State. But other early reformers, such as Zwingli, Bucer and Oecolampadius "laid heavy emphasis on the transformation of society; social ethics was a prime consideration for them" because they were each leading pastors of a struggling city (pg. 106). Another aspect he illuminates is scholastic thought, in which various theologians (and Luther held the privileged Doctor of Theology degree) would build a coherent logical system of thought from one principle idea. Luther did this with justification by faith, and this primary idea influenced his view of law and the two-kingdom approach to society. It also slowed his pace of reform, as he was reluctant to go on to more conforming of church practice to Scripture until everyone thoroughly absorbed the first principle of grace.
After explaining how the early Reformers had various conflicts which kept them apart, the book goes on to challenge popular misconceptions of the Reformation ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. He explains how faith was lauded as the sole ground of our justification. The Reformers were unified in this tenant, which is still the predominant Protestant view today. He points out how the Reformers also insisted that faith always is accompanied by works, however. He offers several substantiating quotes, but this one by Zwingli from his book An Exposition of the Faith (1530) is my favorite: "Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat." In discussing this point, Payton takes on a widespread problem in the evangelical church today. Payton explains:
"This notion of solitary faith nonetheless has led many pastors and evangelists to call their hearers... to be sure they can recount the date and the hour when.. they 'prayed the sinner's prayer' and thus were eternally saved, no matter what they might do in the rest of their lives. This calls people to rely on a spiritual birth certificate to know they are alive; the Reformers called them to live.... Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone." (pg. 131)
The misconception Payton attacks regarding Sola Scriptura centers on: "A simplistic `Scripture good, tradition bad' notion" (pg. 133). He shows how the Reformers urged the Scripture as the primary authority but did not spurn other sources of authority. Luther summarized his entire program by urging, "Back to the Bible, to Augustine and to the church fathers!" (pg. 138). The Reformers were scholars of the church fathers and took pains to show their teaching as supported by the church fathers. They viewed the era of the early fathers as the "golden age" of church history, actually. He uses this point to challenge the evangelical neglect of the church fathers and of church history in general.
After a treatment of the counter-Reformation which highlights some of the positive changes to the Roman Catholic church brought about by the Reformation age (while still not neglecting the negative reactions against evangelical beliefs from the Council of Trent), and after a treatment on the many-headed ana-Baptist movement (which he argues is not directly related to the Baptists of today), Payton goes on to critique the years following the Reformation. He sees the Reformer's successors' return to scholasticism and Aristotlean logic as a way to defend the newly recovered faith as largely a failure. He sees the systematization of the faith as necessarily losing some of the actual life of the Biblical faith of the Reformers. He points out how sin became defined as an infraction of God's law, whereas the Reformers first saw it as "unfaithfulness toward God and estrangement from him" (pg. 208). Payton elaborates on the difference between the Reformers and their scholastic heirs on another topic, that of faith:
"Under Protestant scholasticism, faith was depersonalized to the acceptance of right doctrine-which could be objectively and convincingly laid out for others to see. For the Reformers, though, faith was first and foremost personal bonding to God-cleaving to him, assured of his loving embrace. Again, these two conceptions of faith need not exclude each other; the important issue is which one receives the chief place...." (pg. 208)
Payton doesn't stop where he could, but digs in even deeper to challenge how we should view the Reformation. Was it a success? He documents the Reformers' own disappointment with the movements of their day. He also shows how the infighting in Protestantism gave way to bloodshed and warfare even, and how some errors like unitarianism found avenues to come to light through the rise of Protestantism. He cautions against viewing any era as a "golden age" and urges a recovery of the study of the church fathers. He also challenges the disunity and fighting which characterizes so much of Protestantism today: "It is at least a horrendous anomaly that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold division." (pg. 256-257)
Payton spares no punches, and his book presents numerous challenges to today's evangelical Christianity. Yet he brings the world of the Reformation to light, and gives life to that era of history. He shows how we shouldn't revere that time as a magical age of impossible heroes; rather they should be seen with their failures and flaws, and be imitated to the degree that they remained faithful to the truth.
One will not agree with all of Payton's emphases and may disagree with some of his claims. But "Getting the Reformation Wrong" will certainly encourage a critical engagement with the Reformation. My hope is that I'll get it right. I applaud Payton's zeal for the truth and his insightful analysis of many of our contemporary blind-spots. A careful reading of his book will help us see ourselves more clearly, and may help us achieve a needed Reformation of today's church. May God be pleased to grant that!
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.