Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Observer correctly points out that to some it may seem illogical that I praise reformers in the same paragraph as I criticize those supposedly seeking to reform the Church today. She compares me not to Martin Luther, but to the Church leaders who would have criticized Martin Luther's arrogance. She is right on the surface: Martin Luther and John Wesley and the other reformers were open to this criticism from higher up.
On the foundation level, however, she is wrong because she was inattentive to the later comment, which also perhaps should have been more clearly dealt with by myself. I will try to remedy that now. Edmund Burke criticized the revolution in France, not because the French system was, he believed, the best one going, but because they treated their country as "carte blanche", that is, a blank slate on which they might write anything they chose. They had no regard for the institutions of their country, nor really, for the people they were supposedly helping. In claiming to stand for "the rights of man" (whatever that ephemeral phrase might mean) they sought to sweep away all the institutions that had formed the people over the years. Those of you who studied the French Revolution in History may remember that they basically declared war on Christianity--destroying monastaries, dethroning the church, altering the calendar, abolishing the holy days, even seeking to change the structure of the week, all because they thought they knew better than anything based on Scripture. These are the liberal "reformers" of the day. I am not. Nor was Martin Luther, nor was John Wesley. By contrast, Burke had commendation for the American revolutionaries because rather than sweep away everything and start complete afresh, they sought to alter the existing system only in very minor ways. Yes, there was something revolutionary about what they did. Certainly Jefferson's sweeping and not very well thought out preamble to the Declaration of Independence spoke of abstract dreams like "life", "liberty", "the pursuit of happiness", "all men are created equal", "inalienable rights". This sounds pretty radical, especially given the context of the times. But when they actually sat down to frame a government, what they came up with, while very different in some respects from the British government they had thrown off, was not radically different, so much so that many opposed it for fear it would usher back in the age of British oppression. While there were certain things they felt were outdated and needed to be changed, in the long run, they returned to the traditional way of doing things.
All this to say, there are two kinds of reformers. Those who, with no respect for God's Word or tradition, seek to drag new ideas in from all over and "new" becomes synonomous with "right" (this is not an argument, by the way, that "new" always equals "bad"). With no respect for the great men of the past or for the Bible, they seek simply to impose their own extra-Biblical views, usually exceedingly new, onto what the Church has taught for centuries. This leads to questioning everything, not as a basis for finding the truth, but as a basis for questioning as an exercise in and of itself. Questioning becomes something you do not to find the truth, but because, for lack of a better word, it's "cool" or it seems intellectual. People like this have gone way beyond Descartes even, because at least Descartes ended with something that he considered rock bottom and could not be questioned. And in the end, he sought to find the truth. These "reformers" do not, because to them, there is no truth. But that was not the style of Luther or Wesley. Nor was it the style of Jesus. Luther never wanted to break away from the traditional church; he only sought to reform certain abuses that grew out of it. Wesley included in his famous "Wesleyan qudrilateral" both Scripture and tradition, not just reason and experience. Reformers need not be revolutionaries--that is, they need not destroy what they seek to reform. Jesus Himself did not condemn traditions as such--in John 8, He kept the Feast of Hannukah, not commanded in Scripture but dictated by tradition. It was when traditions superseded the Word of God that He felt obliged to alter or abolish them. I would not say that all traditions must be kept inviolate--some are flat out wrong, some have outlived their usefulness. But reformers need not be revolutionaries in the French sense of the word, nor should they be, that is, they should not have to destroy what they are trying to reform. Saruman sneers at Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings, Book I that white light, the primary color, can be broken, and Gandalf answers firmly, "In which case it is no longer white. And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." They have also left the path of reformation, you may call them revolutionaries but reformers they are not and arrogant they certainly are, because they hold themselves aloof and above all "lesser mortals" who happened to live before them.
On the foundation level, however, she is wrong because she was inattentive to the later comment, which also perhaps should have been more clearly dealt with by myself. I will try to remedy that now. Edmund Burke criticized the revolution in France, not because the French system was, he believed, the best one going, but because they treated their country as "carte blanche", that is, a blank slate on which they might write anything they chose. They had no regard for the institutions of their country, nor really, for the people they were supposedly helping. In claiming to stand for "the rights of man" (whatever that ephemeral phrase might mean) they sought to sweep away all the institutions that had formed the people over the years. Those of you who studied the French Revolution in History may remember that they basically declared war on Christianity--destroying monastaries, dethroning the church, altering the calendar, abolishing the holy days, even seeking to change the structure of the week, all because they thought they knew better than anything based on Scripture. These are the liberal "reformers" of the day. I am not. Nor was Martin Luther, nor was John Wesley. By contrast, Burke had commendation for the American revolutionaries because rather than sweep away everything and start complete afresh, they sought to alter the existing system only in very minor ways. Yes, there was something revolutionary about what they did. Certainly Jefferson's sweeping and not very well thought out preamble to the Declaration of Independence spoke of abstract dreams like "life", "liberty", "the pursuit of happiness", "all men are created equal", "inalienable rights". This sounds pretty radical, especially given the context of the times. But when they actually sat down to frame a government, what they came up with, while very different in some respects from the British government they had thrown off, was not radically different, so much so that many opposed it for fear it would usher back in the age of British oppression. While there were certain things they felt were outdated and needed to be changed, in the long run, they returned to the traditional way of doing things.
All this to say, there are two kinds of reformers. Those who, with no respect for God's Word or tradition, seek to drag new ideas in from all over and "new" becomes synonomous with "right" (this is not an argument, by the way, that "new" always equals "bad"). With no respect for the great men of the past or for the Bible, they seek simply to impose their own extra-Biblical views, usually exceedingly new, onto what the Church has taught for centuries. This leads to questioning everything, not as a basis for finding the truth, but as a basis for questioning as an exercise in and of itself. Questioning becomes something you do not to find the truth, but because, for lack of a better word, it's "cool" or it seems intellectual. People like this have gone way beyond Descartes even, because at least Descartes ended with something that he considered rock bottom and could not be questioned. And in the end, he sought to find the truth. These "reformers" do not, because to them, there is no truth. But that was not the style of Luther or Wesley. Nor was it the style of Jesus. Luther never wanted to break away from the traditional church; he only sought to reform certain abuses that grew out of it. Wesley included in his famous "Wesleyan qudrilateral" both Scripture and tradition, not just reason and experience. Reformers need not be revolutionaries--that is, they need not destroy what they seek to reform. Jesus Himself did not condemn traditions as such--in John 8, He kept the Feast of Hannukah, not commanded in Scripture but dictated by tradition. It was when traditions superseded the Word of God that He felt obliged to alter or abolish them. I would not say that all traditions must be kept inviolate--some are flat out wrong, some have outlived their usefulness. But reformers need not be revolutionaries in the French sense of the word, nor should they be, that is, they should not have to destroy what they are trying to reform. Saruman sneers at Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings, Book I that white light, the primary color, can be broken, and Gandalf answers firmly, "In which case it is no longer white. And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." They have also left the path of reformation, you may call them revolutionaries but reformers they are not and arrogant they certainly are, because they hold themselves aloof and above all "lesser mortals" who happened to live before them.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 3:40 PM 
