Some thoughts on Mike Reeves' book The Unquenchable Flame: Introducing the Reformation:
1. In common with many introductory books it is short, easy to read and accessibly produced with pictures and boxes focussing on one thing or another. It covers an lot of ground very quickly. But unlike many introductory books it is infused with the character of the author. It is lively, occasionally funny and never dry.
2. It is passionate and clear about the central issue of the Reformation being our justification before God, but is it not hagiographic and is weighs up the strengths and weaknesses of every actor in the drama.
3. Some history books are so stuck in the past that they have nothing to say to today. Others just use the history to grind their own axes. Reeves seems to simply love spending time with these characters, but he never looses sight of his reader and is always inviting them into the story, and ends the book showing why we should still listen to the Gospel of the Reformers:
“[it is into our] context that Luther’s solution rings out as such happy and relevant news. For, having jettisoned the idea that we might ever be guilty before God, and therefore need his justification, our culture has succumbed to the old problem of guilt in subtler ways that it has no means to answer. Today we are all bombarded with the message that we will be more loved when we make ourselves more attractive. It may not be God-related, and yet it is still a religion of works, and one that is deeply embedded. For that, the Reformation has the most sparkling good news. As Luther put it: ‘sinners are attractive because they are loved; they are not loved because they are attractive.’ Only this message of the counter-intuitive love of Christ offers a serious solution.
A profoundly relevant beautiful and sweet message, a joy-giving message, a death-defying message: it is no wonder Richard Sibbes called the Reformation ‘that fire which all the world shall never be able to quench’.”
'Today we are all bombarded with the message that we will be more loved when we make ourselves more attractive ...it is still a religion of works'
ReplyDeleteDo you love [if i may use that word] the reformers because of what they did or for some other reason?
Good question!
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head I like them because they're:
1. Fresh - like most old authors I guess, they thought different to us.
2. Real - they face up to reality (whether us, the world or God) as it is.
3. Theological AND devotional AND practical - they are never dry theologisers, but interested in everyday life and particularly with personal change and a relationship with God himself.
4. Passion - they really cared!
5. It was at its heart about the Gospel - and the Gospel is timeless. So, there are connections with life today like the passage you quoted.
So I guess I get more excited about what they still say directly to me today than what they achieved. But I should probably be more bothered about their achievements because they have profoundly shaped the church today (inc the RC church) - and mainly for the better - and that probably has more of an effect on my life and faith than any theology I read.
Sorry thats really off the top of my head. I've got to go to church.
BTW I've got a post brewing on the authority of the church. Need to find the space to write it.
How would you sum up your feelings about the Reformation?
Interesting response. I was actually driving at a slightly different point, which I'll stick with if you don't mind...
ReplyDeleteMy point is that it's what the Reformers did with their lives - writings included - that you like about them. Which makes them attractive. Understandably so. But, doesn't that undermine Reeve's point that we should protest against a 'religion of works' that encourages people to make themselves more attractive (in the broadest sense of the word). People are attractive becuase of what they do. That's the way of the world, and believing - and telling others - anything else is dishonest and (pace your point 3) unrealistic.
My view of the Reformation. One has to accept the way history has turned out and there must have been (some) good reasons for the Reformation (incl poor education of priests), but I am sorry about the damage it did to many churches, which were the results of generations of Christian devotion. I am not convinced by reformation theology and dislike the anarchy of protestant thought, which is reflected in the countless protestant denominations.
Sorry - I meant to say, in my second para, with due respect to your point 2 not 'your point 3'.
ReplyDeleteSorry I misunderstood Steve. Was probably because I was in such a rush.
ReplyDeleteIn a rush today as well. I'm going on holiday to the Lakes on Friday and have loads to do before then (and after unfortunately), so don't feel able to properly respond. I think if I did get round to writing my post on the church it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as it my thinking has been formed in part by your concerns.
I think your second paragraph, if I'm understanding it correctly, is quite a sad statement.
"the way of the world" maybe to love only what is attractive, and as fallen sinners I think we fall into that, but the way of God is free grace of loving the unlovely. God's love is of a different kind to the conditional love that characterises most of our love. The best human love is unconditional, overlooking faults, and just because it is rare and hard doesn't mean we should settle for the more "realistic" option.
This kind of unconditional love in human experience, but especially when backed by the creative word of God, does create attractiveness. An unconditionally loved child is more likely to grow into a lovely adult. But with God it is certain. "We love because he first loved us".
Reeves' statement comes from the final theological thesis of Luther's 1518 Heildelberg Disputation which says it better than me:
The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.
The second part is clear and is accepted by all philosophers and theologians, for the object of love is its cause, assuming, according to Aristotle, that all power of the soul is passive and material and active only in receiving something. Thus it is also demonstrated that Aristotle's philosophy is contrary to theology since in all things it seeks those things which are its own and receives rather than gives something good. The first part is clear because the love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, fools, and weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good. Therefore sinners are "attractive" because they are loved; they are not loved because they are "attractive": For this reason the love of man avoids sinners and evil persons. Thus Christ says: "For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt. 9:13). This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35), says the Apostle. Hence Ps. 41:1 states, "Blessed is he who considers the poor," for the intellect cannot by nature comprehend an object which does not exist, that is the poor and needy person, but only a thing which does exist, that is the true and good. Therefore it judges according to appearances, is a respecter of persons, and judges according to that which can be seen, etc.
Hope that is engaging with what you're saying. Please tell me if not. I don't think there is a more important thing that Luther ever said than this thesis.