Luther’s ideas are still driving the Christian world, says Francis Campbell
The Reformation was more of a phenomenon than we sometimes perceive. It was not simply religious but was societal, political, social and economic too. It is also more apt to speak of Reformations, rather than The Reformation, for in the end Luther also initiated a Catholic Reformation. In summary, what we can agree is that Luther ushered in a Reform that had, and still has far-reaching consequences for religion and also for society across the Western world.
The question then is whether the Reformation remains unfinished. For me, the simple answer has to be a clear yes – not just politically or culturally but most importantly at a personal and individual level, for remember that Luther’s core message was about how to achieve salvation. The Reformation, if we hold it to be an effort to bring us closer to the core meaning of the Christian message; if it is an effort to ask us to examine our ways as practicing Christians, and to change accordingly, then one cannot but answer that the Reformation remains unfinished. So that is as true in our respective Churches as it is in wider society. However, too often when we look at such a question of whether the Reformation remains unfinished, we look at the other, or we focus on an organisation or structure.
But, for believers, it must always be an internal question. A constant question if one were to cite St John Paul II. One which is not static but the work of a lifetime. It is a question that asks us to reexamine the basics and to strive for holiness. It is something that asks us not to be complacent, but to re-examine a baptismal calling which can sometimes get lost in our wider (and worthwhile) considerations.
Question
For Luther that question – “How do I receive the grace of God?” was in the view of Pope Benedict XVI (probably the Pope, who in the last 500 years best understood Lutheranism), the driving force of Luther’s whole life and one that always made an impression on Benedict. Pope Benedict, speaking at Erfurt in 2011, at the Augustinian Seminary where Luther studied theology, asked how many Christians today concern themselves with such a question. He said, “what does the question of God mean in our lives?”
So in the sense that the Reformation is a phenomenon, which was societal, and in the sense that it asked a Church and individual believers to re-examine their faith, then clearly the Reformation is unfinished, and always will be.
It remains to consider the importance and implications of “unfinished Reformation” for the modern Catholic Church. Some have suggested that the Reformation was a trajectory and that Catholics were somehow slow learners. That Vatican II heralded some of the steps which the Reformation dealt with some centuries earlier.
I do not agree with that perspective. Why? Because it conveys a misunderstanding of both Lutheranism and Catholicism since 1517 and before. It would also place too much emphasis on the areas of disagreement, historical and continued than is appropriate. It would also suggest that there is a single trajectory of reform to follow.
Static
History, however, has shown that reforms are more appropriate to speak of than a singular, and that reform would include not just Protestant or Anglican reforms, but also Catholic reforms too. Few entities remain static, and so a reform has to take account of how respective Churches and organisations evolved and how they are constituted.
So reform is not a question of simply catching up. So perhaps we should remind ourselves of that distinction in the word reform, between restoring to an original condition and changes simply to improve. Of course, the influence of each branch of mainstream Christianity on the other is rich, even when in direct opposition. In the last 50 years, the ecumenical dialogue has formed all the participants to reappraise what the other holds dear: scripture; tradition; liturgy; Eucharist. A year ago this month, Pope Francis visited Sweden to mark the 500th-anniversary celebrations of Lutheranism. Speaking at the Lutheran cathedral in Lund he identified two positive consequences of the Reformation saying: “that while separation has led to suffering and misunderstanding, without Jesus, we can do nothing; and also that it helped to give greater centrality to sacred scripture in the Church’s life”.
So while attesting to the difference, there is also inter-dependence. Luther – a priest and theologian – contributed to the reform of the Catholic Church. Without him, would it have happened? Would the Council of Trent have occurred? Would it have followed the trajectory that it took? Again authors differ on these questions as to whether the reforming nature of Trent would have taken the direction that it did if it had not been for Lutheranism and subsequently Calvinism. So while Catholicism has been shaped and formed by the Protestant Reformations, so too have they been formed by Catholicism.
So is there an unfinished reformation in Catholicism? Again the answer would have to be yes. A reformation that asks each of us as believers, the question posed by Luther to himself – “how am I to be saved?”
However, it is not just the personal call to each of us to reform. We also have organisational and societal calls which we cannot ignore because reform is constant. So what does this mean for Catholicism? Is there an unfinished Reformation? In diplomatic speak: yes and no. The events of 500 years ago are not the same circumstances or conditions faced now in Western or Irish life. The power structures have changed considerably. Faith groups, if they do have special constitutional provisions in states, have little real temporal power. However, even if conditions differ, similar themes within faiths can still reemerge hence, our attempt to straddle the yes and no answer.
One similar theme, which is still present in Catholicism, is the relationship to the universal and the particular. I mean the global and local nature of the Church and its unity, and yet at the same time the huge differences, cultural, linguistic, tribal, ethnic, one finds across the globe. In the media, the Vatican is often portrayed as detached, a monolith, similar to what one hears in some quarters about the European Commission. (Having worked in the latter and observed the former, I think Whitehall and Stormont could learn something about lean and effective structures from both the Vatican and the Commission.)
However, the question is not about the relative size to the task in hand, but more about power and effectiveness. Today, it is not the same power that Luther saw, a temporal and spiritual power, where the Pope was often chosen from among the noble families of Rome and ruled over the Papal States. Rather the debate today is about the proper relationship between the central and the local within the Church. It is not a question solely for the Catholic Church, but runs through all global churches and many other bodies besides; balancing unity with representative structures.
*****
One of the central dimensions of Catholicism, in how it structures itself, which is broadly the same as the latter structures of the Roman Empire, is the sometimes healthy tension between local and central power. That was as true in 1517 as it is today. Some today press for greater consideration to be taken of the local situation and complain of Rome’s lack of engagement. Others ask for greater clarity from Rome to establish uniformity.
Within Catholicism, the central organisational power rests on three broad and essential areas: the office of the papacy; the appointment of bishops who are all centrally chosen and vetted by the Vatican; and finally, the ability to settle doctrinal disputes centrally which results in universal applicability.
Tonight we are marking an anniversary of what must be seen as the second biggest break in Church unity. The first being the Great Schism of 1054. However, despite this, it is nonetheless remarkable that unity and continuity have broadly been maintained in a global structure which directly inherited its governance model from the Roman Empire.
But when it has been broken, as in 1517, it has often been the case that the delicate balance between the local and the universal has not been respected or that the Church went through periods of exaggerated centralisations where the efforts at reform, aimed at restoring an original condition, found it difficult to get heard.
The governance model of the Catholic Church, or for that matter any other governance model, cannot be static. It never has and never will be. Nor can governance in a faith context be conflated with governance in a political context.
And in this sense Pope Francis is aiming to bring sharper separation between sacramental and political power. Governance in a faith setting cannot come down to what simple majorities want or might perceive they want at a particular point in time. But yet governance must be in touch with local conditions while all the time ensuring believers do not conflate notions of secular democracy with church governance. Doctrines cannot be universally applicable and eternal if they are reliant on momentary polls at particular points in time.
Pope Francis, in my view, appears to be reexamining the balance between local and central authority in the Church and allowing for more local interpretation or initiative. For some, that is met with skepticism, and they point to what other faith groups have encountered such as the Anglican Communion, which has found it difficult to maintain global unity in the face of debates and tensions on the ordination of female clergy and homosexuality. For others in the Church, it is a return to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council and the Early Church, with a greater emphasis on the use of synods, which bring together all the national churches, rather than have an over-reliance on the Roman curia.
Relationship
Pope Francis, in his papacy, seems to be re-balancing the relationship between central authority and local churches. His group of nine cardinals, whom he has convened to advise him on Vatican reforms, are mostly drawn from large dioceses across the world, rather than chosen from within the Roman curia. Developments in communication and technology naturally bring the local consideration closer to Rome and the Vatican, but I believe that his lasting legacy is more likely to create a greater space for the local view in the universal nature of the Church.
So more might creep up and less be pushed down. I think the effects of that change could be with us for centuries to come. It will no doubt change the Catholic Church as voices are heard, within its universal structure, which will come from far beyond Europe. Such changes to governance, though, are not new as some might suggest. Nor do they simply arise from the Second Vatican Council. Rather they are taken from the life of the Church – in particular the early Church – and as such they are an authentic expression of the governance model within Catholicism, which balances Papal authority with the collective voice of the Bishops in Synod or Council.
But as with any change, it will require careful nurturing to ensure unity. The Orthodox Church has managed to achieve and maintain doctrinal unity through such a model of governance; however, it has not been able to avoid issues of primacy in recent decades.
Tensions between central and local will always be in flux in any organisation; too tight control will likely lead to sharper tensions and too loose control will likely damage unity. The challenge is thus maintaining unity around core beliefs while covering such a huge swathe of humanity. It requires careful discernment about when to allow for greater autonomy, and in what areas, and when to rein in views or behaviors which risk unity by not according with core doctrine. Provided the three critical instruments of unity remain in place; setting doctrine, selecting bishops and the unifying office of the papacy, then tensions within the Catholic Church, between central and local authority, will remain healthy.
For me, that is the central issue in the Church around reform, the link between the local and universal church. That need to balance traces its origins back to the early Church with the letters of St Paul. So reform is not in my view about a modern-day series of changes to, or liberalisation of positions such as on celibacy, etc. That would not capture the Lutheran Reformation. Because it was not simply a manifesto for change, like a political manifesto which promises change to improve things or sometimes is just change for the sake of change.
Rather the Lutheran Reformation was a change which was about re-listening to the original message of salvation and acting accordingly. The task today for all mainstream Christian churches is how to re-listen to that message of 2,000 years ago and to ask how it can be heard afresh by a population, especially in the West, which is overwhelmed with information, but often lacks meaning.
Key challenge
The key challenge, for the Catholic Church and any faith group, is to discern how it offers a continuity which speaks to the modern conditions of the day, rather than a rupture which fragments the message and the tradition.
So is there an unfinished reformation in the Catholic Church? Yes, if you believe that Christ is active in and through the life of the Church. Yes, if you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and the synods to discern the signs of the times and thereby makes the message of Christ more relevant to the age in which we live. So yes if you believe the call to a reformation is an individual call to examine God’s role in your life, a call to restore our lives to the message of faith.
But the ‘how’ is what is vital, and is a challenge for Catholicism and all Christian faiths, and indeed all faiths.
Prof. Francis Campbell is the former British ambassador to the Holy See, and is vice-chancellor of St Mary’s University, Twickenham. This is an edited extract from his October 6 speech in Queen’s University Belfast on ‘The Unfinished Reformation?’