Does anyone have any resources on how Protestant "church planting" worked during the Reformation? I imagine that it didn't include renting a building, putting up a sign and placing an ad in the newspaper? How did the reformers evangelize the lost in the Roman Catholic church of the day?
"Church Planting" During the Reformation?
- Thread starter Dane
- Start date
- Status
p.s.
Many History of Missions texts are woefully in error in their opinions about missions during the Reformation. Stephen Neill and many others speak of the great dearth of missions during the Reformation. And it is true that the Protestants did not have the structures or the sending-out capability like the Catholics did for quite a number of years. And so, Catholics/Jesuits were trudging over the steppes of Asia while the Protestant stayed in Western and Northern Europe for quite some time. But, if we truly believe that Catholic lands are mission fields and not truly "Christendom" then the Reformation was one of the most missionary-minded ages that we've ever seen. It is hard to send missionaries to China when your movement is fighting for its life and your French brethren are being massacred, etc.
Many History of Missions texts are woefully in error in their opinions about missions during the Reformation. Stephen Neill and many others speak of the great dearth of missions during the Reformation. And it is true that the Protestants did not have the structures or the sending-out capability like the Catholics did for quite a number of years. And so, Catholics/Jesuits were trudging over the steppes of Asia while the Protestant stayed in Western and Northern Europe for quite some time. But, if we truly believe that Catholic lands are mission fields and not truly "Christendom" then the Reformation was one of the most missionary-minded ages that we've ever seen. It is hard to send missionaries to China when your movement is fighting for its life and your French brethren are being massacred, etc.
SinnerSavedByChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Amazing. I always thought the reformers just sat around debating theology. How wrong I was!!
And I always wondered what happened to the French Protestants. it *seems* like most of them were genuine believers, thus not willing to be on the "offensive" in dethroning their ungodly government and king. I assume their obedience towards scripture, towards submitting to the government, eventually led to the total removal of protestants from France by the late 17th Century. Sure there were wars, but it just doesn't seem like the protestants put up much of a fight. If the sources quoted by Pergamum are accurate - then it is impossible that a country with 50% of its people 'calvinist' should suffer total extermination by the catholics.
And I always wondered what happened to the French Protestants. it *seems* like most of them were genuine believers, thus not willing to be on the "offensive" in dethroning their ungodly government and king. I assume their obedience towards scripture, towards submitting to the government, eventually led to the total removal of protestants from France by the late 17th Century. Sure there were wars, but it just doesn't seem like the protestants put up much of a fight. If the sources quoted by Pergamum are accurate - then it is impossible that a country with 50% of its people 'calvinist' should suffer total extermination by the catholics.
Here are some additional notes I wrote for someone in the past about Calvinism and mission (and the Reformation):
-----
First, I had to deal with the sad truth that many during the Reformation believed that the Great Commission was already fulfilled.
Many who state that belief in God’s sovereignty stymies missions need only look to Luther for supposed evidence. Luther did not believe in fulfilling the Great Commission. It was already fulfilled. He believed that the Great Commission, given to the apostles was fulfilled by the apostles in their lifetime. The church, therefore, need not regard Matthew 28 as its own continuing mandate.
How did he arrive at this conclusion? From passages such as Acts 2:5, which speaks of devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven” who were present at Pentecost and responded to the Gospel. Also, Paul speaks of the faith of the church at Rome as having been spoken of “throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8). Paul also writes of the truth of the Gospel having already gone out and being in the process of bearing fruit “in all the world” (Colossians 1:6). Thus, the Great Commission was given to the apostles, was fulfilled by them, and ended with them. Luther the predestinarian was also Luther the denier of the continuation of the Great Commission.
Did Luther’s belief in divine sovereignty thus lead him to deny the Great Commission?
Hardly.
Luther’s denial of the Great Commission’s ongoing validity to the church lay in his ecclesiology, not in his predestinarianism. The equation is simple: No apostles = No Great Commission.
Ironically, though Luther was an Augustinian monk he did not follow Augustine’s affirmation of the continuation of the Great Commission.
Augustine writes:
"I do not know whether one can discover anything more definite on this question...that the Lord’s coming will take place when the whole world is filled with the Gospel. Your Reverance’s opinion that this was already achieved by the apostles themselves is, I am sure on the basis of the definite evidence, not true. Here in Africa there are innumerable barbarian tribes to whom the Gospel as not yet been preached..."
Let it be said that, doctrinal differences aside, Luther was, in fact, very evangelistic. He translated the Bible into the German vernacular. He emphasized the priesthood of all believers. He wrote many religious hymns.
This belief that the Great Commission is no longer a continuing mandate cannot be isolated to Luther alone.
Many of the Reformers, in fact, believed that the Great Commission was already fulfilled. Philip Nicolai even published De Regno Christi in 1597, in which he concluded that the apostles must have reached every nation under heaven because on every continent local peoples held to beliefs similar to Christianity. In 1652, the Lutheran faculty of Wittenburg stated that “the church has no missionary duty or calling at all.”
Some early defenders of the Great Commission faced much opposition. Hadrian Saravia was opposed by Beza in 1590. Justinian Von Welz, 1664, was opposed by Urinius. Count Truchsess, in 1651, was opposed by the state church. Again, predestinarianism did not cause this lack of missionary zeal. Ecclesiology was at fault.
-----
Then I deal with Calvin:
Calvin’s missionary zeal is well-documented. As Dr. John Mark Terry writes: “Calvin made Geneva the base camp for an intensive evangelistic effort in France.”
Calvin sponsored missions throughout Europe and even as far afield as Brazil.
Errol Hulse documents that, “From 1555 to 1562 we know for sure that 88 preachers were sent from Geneva into France. Of these, nine laid down their lives as martyrs.” Remember: France at that time was, in fact, a mission field, being of a different language, ethnicity, and dominated by fierce Catholic opposition.
Hulse goes on to document the results of these missionary church-planting endeavors in France:
In 1555 there was only one 'dressed church'. Seven years later, in 1562, there were 2,150 such churches! This represents growth of extraordinary proportions. Eventually there were over two million Protestant church members out of a French population of twenty million. This multiplication came in spite of fierce persecution. For instance in 1572, 70,000 Protestants lost their lives.
Calvin, however, was a Calvinist, right? Certainly. He believed that God alone must save sinners and that man is utterly unable to even approach God unless God at first approaches man, right? God has so fixed the number of the Elect that not one more or one less would be saved.
Correct.
Yet Calvin still maintained man’s responsibility. Calvin stated, “Pray God that his reign might increase...since the power to do so is not in us.” And yet this hopelessness in our own efforts did not dissuade Calvin from being active in many evangelistic endeavors.
Ray Van Neste summarizes Calvin’s beliefs:
Calvin’s doctrine of predestination did not make the preaching of the gospel unnecessary; instead, it made preaching necessary because it was by the preaching of the gospel that God had chosen to save the predestined.
Calvin’s efforts were primarily within Western Europe, however, unfortunately named “Christendom.” Thus, Calvin’s role as a promoter of cross-cultural mission across countries, peoples and languages is not fully acknowledged.
-----
Finally, I deal with the question, "Was missions ignored during the Reformation? And, if so, was Calvinism at fault?"
The Protestant Reformation, led largely by Calvinists, resulted in a deep freeze for missions, right? The Reformers operated during (and caused) a stagnant era of evangelistic decay, correct? Were not the Calvinistic Reformers lazy in missions?
Some say so. Some respected historians and missiologists have helped to paint a dire picture of missions during the times of the Reformation.
James Scherer summaries this period:
By the opening of the eighteenth century it was evident that Protestants had fallen far behind their Roman Catholic rivals in giving expression to missionary zeal. This was partly excusable, since the Protestant powers were late in acquiring colonial possessions. But Protestants were chagrined when Catholics reproached them with being “un-missionary” and “parochial” in their churchmanship. Such things, argued the Roman apologists, really showed that Protestants were not the true church. Rankled by such criticism, some Protestant leaders in Holland, England, and Germany advocated the establishment of Protestant versions of the Society of Jesus and of the Roman agency known as the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith. In 1644, an Austrian nobleman, Baron von Weltz, pleaded with evangelical princes meeting at the imperial diet to sponsor a missionary society for work in foreign lands. The proposal was defeated when conservative church leaders warned that Waltz was a fanatic. Christians were not obliged to preach the gospel to unbelievers, they said.
This seems to be the conclusion of many: the Reformation was a dreary time for missions.
Ruth Tucker sums up the period with this dismal assessment: “The sixteenth-century Reformation that brought new life to Christianity unfortunately contributed little to the evangelism of previously unreached peoples.”
Bosch summarizes this period negatively as well: “In the Reformed world, Voetius was the first to develop a comprehensive “theology of mission” (cf Jongeneel 1989), but it had little lasting effect on subsequent generations.”
The Catholics even used the Protestants’ lack of foreign missionary involvement as proof of their error. Later historians point out the irony that while the Protestants restored Biblical Christianity the Catholic labors far outdid then in action. Louise M. Hodgkins writes:
Hence we have the remarkable spectacle for many years of a live Protestant Church without mission interest, while the church which had been left because it lacked life was carrying on extensive missions in the Orient, and a little later in America.
-----
BUT....
In one sense, the Reformation can be seen as a renewal movement of Christendom. If one rejects the notion of “Christendom” or that Europe was already “reached” by the Catholics, however, then the Reformation becomes one of the major missionary movements of history.
Much of unreached Europe was finally watered by the pure Gospel instead of the poison of the Catholic heresy. The Catholic foundations of stubble were burned away and true Biblical foundations sprang up throughout Europe. This takes time and effort. The Reformers cannot be faulted for not sending evangelists across the globe at the very time they were fighting for survival. The extermination of the Huguenots in France is evidence enough that the Reformers were in the fight of their lives.
Whether you want to call the Reformation a renewal movement or a missions movement does not change the fact that Biblical Christianity revived and spread throughout much of Europe during this time - and this due to the sacrificial labor of many Calvinistic Reformers. It certainly was a joyous improvement from medieval Catholicism, was it not?
As the Reformation truths spread and the grip of Rome fell away, evangelists spread throughout most of Europe. They spread across linguistic and ethnic lines. Is not this a definition of missions - the spread of the Gospel across cultures? This all sounds very evangelistic, and even missionary as well.
Even if we assert that the Reformation was lacking in zeal for missions to foreign lands, was this due to a belief in God’s sovereignty? Hardly. The causes, rather, seem to be the following:
(1) Ecclesiology: As stated above, some Reformers held to an ecclesiology that asserted that the Great Commission was already fulfilled. Herbert Kane notes this church-state relationship and how it affected missions:
Of missionary efforts on the part of the Reformation Church there is sadly little to record. It is true that, following out the idea advanced by Calvin and others of the reform leaders that the duty of extending the Gospel into non-Christian lands rested with the State rather than the church, some Protestant governments, notably those of Geneva and Holland, and later England also, did make attempts to found Christian colonies in heathen lands.
(2) Lack of sending structures: The Reformers emptied out many convents and monasteries and thus deprived foreign missions of much of their labor force. Only when voluntarism and mission societies an other structures focused specifically on sending were revived did Protestant mission endeavors soar.
(3) Lack of colonies: The Protestants lacked overseas colonies at the onset of the Reformation. Thus the realm in which they could easily spread was more restricted than Southern Europe, which remained largely Catholic.
In summary, the Reformation may or may not be a missions movement. The Reformation did, however, set the stage for the world’s greatest century of missions by laying the theological groundwork. Many servants of God certainly suffered in order to spread Christ into many dark lands. The Reformers, fighting for their very existence, certainly should not be faulted. It is admitted that missions to “heathen lands” outside of Europe during this era were entirely neglected. However, let it be said that Europe - “Christendom” - itself was largely a heathen land. It was barely claimed for Christ in anything but name only and centuries of medieval Catholicism drained most of the church of any true life. This slogan of the Reformation certainly holds true – Post Tenebras Lux – “After Darkness, Light!”
Even if we assert that the Reformation was “non-missionary” certainly the boogeyman of God’s sovereignty cannot be blamed.
[/QUOTE]
-----
First, I had to deal with the sad truth that many during the Reformation believed that the Great Commission was already fulfilled.
Luther and the Early Reformation
Many who state that belief in God’s sovereignty stymies missions need only look to Luther for supposed evidence. Luther did not believe in fulfilling the Great Commission. It was already fulfilled. He believed that the Great Commission, given to the apostles was fulfilled by the apostles in their lifetime. The church, therefore, need not regard Matthew 28 as its own continuing mandate.
How did he arrive at this conclusion? From passages such as Acts 2:5, which speaks of devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven” who were present at Pentecost and responded to the Gospel. Also, Paul speaks of the faith of the church at Rome as having been spoken of “throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8). Paul also writes of the truth of the Gospel having already gone out and being in the process of bearing fruit “in all the world” (Colossians 1:6). Thus, the Great Commission was given to the apostles, was fulfilled by them, and ended with them. Luther the predestinarian was also Luther the denier of the continuation of the Great Commission.
Did Luther’s belief in divine sovereignty thus lead him to deny the Great Commission?
Hardly.
Luther’s denial of the Great Commission’s ongoing validity to the church lay in his ecclesiology, not in his predestinarianism. The equation is simple: No apostles = No Great Commission.
Ironically, though Luther was an Augustinian monk he did not follow Augustine’s affirmation of the continuation of the Great Commission.
Augustine writes:
"I do not know whether one can discover anything more definite on this question...that the Lord’s coming will take place when the whole world is filled with the Gospel. Your Reverance’s opinion that this was already achieved by the apostles themselves is, I am sure on the basis of the definite evidence, not true. Here in Africa there are innumerable barbarian tribes to whom the Gospel as not yet been preached..."
Let it be said that, doctrinal differences aside, Luther was, in fact, very evangelistic. He translated the Bible into the German vernacular. He emphasized the priesthood of all believers. He wrote many religious hymns.
This belief that the Great Commission is no longer a continuing mandate cannot be isolated to Luther alone.
Many of the Reformers, in fact, believed that the Great Commission was already fulfilled. Philip Nicolai even published De Regno Christi in 1597, in which he concluded that the apostles must have reached every nation under heaven because on every continent local peoples held to beliefs similar to Christianity. In 1652, the Lutheran faculty of Wittenburg stated that “the church has no missionary duty or calling at all.”
Some early defenders of the Great Commission faced much opposition. Hadrian Saravia was opposed by Beza in 1590. Justinian Von Welz, 1664, was opposed by Urinius. Count Truchsess, in 1651, was opposed by the state church. Again, predestinarianism did not cause this lack of missionary zeal. Ecclesiology was at fault.
-----
Then I deal with Calvin:
Calvin and the Later Reformers
Calvin’s missionary zeal is well-documented. As Dr. John Mark Terry writes: “Calvin made Geneva the base camp for an intensive evangelistic effort in France.”
Calvin sponsored missions throughout Europe and even as far afield as Brazil.
Errol Hulse documents that, “From 1555 to 1562 we know for sure that 88 preachers were sent from Geneva into France. Of these, nine laid down their lives as martyrs.” Remember: France at that time was, in fact, a mission field, being of a different language, ethnicity, and dominated by fierce Catholic opposition.
Hulse goes on to document the results of these missionary church-planting endeavors in France:
In 1555 there was only one 'dressed church'. Seven years later, in 1562, there were 2,150 such churches! This represents growth of extraordinary proportions. Eventually there were over two million Protestant church members out of a French population of twenty million. This multiplication came in spite of fierce persecution. For instance in 1572, 70,000 Protestants lost their lives.
Calvin, however, was a Calvinist, right? Certainly. He believed that God alone must save sinners and that man is utterly unable to even approach God unless God at first approaches man, right? God has so fixed the number of the Elect that not one more or one less would be saved.
Correct.
Yet Calvin still maintained man’s responsibility. Calvin stated, “Pray God that his reign might increase...since the power to do so is not in us.” And yet this hopelessness in our own efforts did not dissuade Calvin from being active in many evangelistic endeavors.
Ray Van Neste summarizes Calvin’s beliefs:
Calvin’s doctrine of predestination did not make the preaching of the gospel unnecessary; instead, it made preaching necessary because it was by the preaching of the gospel that God had chosen to save the predestined.
Calvin’s efforts were primarily within Western Europe, however, unfortunately named “Christendom.” Thus, Calvin’s role as a promoter of cross-cultural mission across countries, peoples and languages is not fully acknowledged.
-----
Finally, I deal with the question, "Was missions ignored during the Reformation? And, if so, was Calvinism at fault?"
Was missions ignored during the Reformation? And, if so, was Calvinism at fault?
The Protestant Reformation, led largely by Calvinists, resulted in a deep freeze for missions, right? The Reformers operated during (and caused) a stagnant era of evangelistic decay, correct? Were not the Calvinistic Reformers lazy in missions?
Some say so. Some respected historians and missiologists have helped to paint a dire picture of missions during the times of the Reformation.
James Scherer summaries this period:
By the opening of the eighteenth century it was evident that Protestants had fallen far behind their Roman Catholic rivals in giving expression to missionary zeal. This was partly excusable, since the Protestant powers were late in acquiring colonial possessions. But Protestants were chagrined when Catholics reproached them with being “un-missionary” and “parochial” in their churchmanship. Such things, argued the Roman apologists, really showed that Protestants were not the true church. Rankled by such criticism, some Protestant leaders in Holland, England, and Germany advocated the establishment of Protestant versions of the Society of Jesus and of the Roman agency known as the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith. In 1644, an Austrian nobleman, Baron von Weltz, pleaded with evangelical princes meeting at the imperial diet to sponsor a missionary society for work in foreign lands. The proposal was defeated when conservative church leaders warned that Waltz was a fanatic. Christians were not obliged to preach the gospel to unbelievers, they said.
This seems to be the conclusion of many: the Reformation was a dreary time for missions.
Ruth Tucker sums up the period with this dismal assessment: “The sixteenth-century Reformation that brought new life to Christianity unfortunately contributed little to the evangelism of previously unreached peoples.”
Bosch summarizes this period negatively as well: “In the Reformed world, Voetius was the first to develop a comprehensive “theology of mission” (cf Jongeneel 1989), but it had little lasting effect on subsequent generations.”
The Catholics even used the Protestants’ lack of foreign missionary involvement as proof of their error. Later historians point out the irony that while the Protestants restored Biblical Christianity the Catholic labors far outdid then in action. Louise M. Hodgkins writes:
Hence we have the remarkable spectacle for many years of a live Protestant Church without mission interest, while the church which had been left because it lacked life was carrying on extensive missions in the Orient, and a little later in America.
-----
BUT....
Is all this correct? Did the Reformers lack missionary zeal? And if so, was Calvinism to blame?
In one sense, the Reformation can be seen as a renewal movement of Christendom. If one rejects the notion of “Christendom” or that Europe was already “reached” by the Catholics, however, then the Reformation becomes one of the major missionary movements of history.
Much of unreached Europe was finally watered by the pure Gospel instead of the poison of the Catholic heresy. The Catholic foundations of stubble were burned away and true Biblical foundations sprang up throughout Europe. This takes time and effort. The Reformers cannot be faulted for not sending evangelists across the globe at the very time they were fighting for survival. The extermination of the Huguenots in France is evidence enough that the Reformers were in the fight of their lives.
Whether you want to call the Reformation a renewal movement or a missions movement does not change the fact that Biblical Christianity revived and spread throughout much of Europe during this time - and this due to the sacrificial labor of many Calvinistic Reformers. It certainly was a joyous improvement from medieval Catholicism, was it not?
As the Reformation truths spread and the grip of Rome fell away, evangelists spread throughout most of Europe. They spread across linguistic and ethnic lines. Is not this a definition of missions - the spread of the Gospel across cultures? This all sounds very evangelistic, and even missionary as well.
Even if we assert that the Reformation was lacking in zeal for missions to foreign lands, was this due to a belief in God’s sovereignty? Hardly. The causes, rather, seem to be the following:
(1) Ecclesiology: As stated above, some Reformers held to an ecclesiology that asserted that the Great Commission was already fulfilled. Herbert Kane notes this church-state relationship and how it affected missions:
Of missionary efforts on the part of the Reformation Church there is sadly little to record. It is true that, following out the idea advanced by Calvin and others of the reform leaders that the duty of extending the Gospel into non-Christian lands rested with the State rather than the church, some Protestant governments, notably those of Geneva and Holland, and later England also, did make attempts to found Christian colonies in heathen lands.
(2) Lack of sending structures: The Reformers emptied out many convents and monasteries and thus deprived foreign missions of much of their labor force. Only when voluntarism and mission societies an other structures focused specifically on sending were revived did Protestant mission endeavors soar.
(3) Lack of colonies: The Protestants lacked overseas colonies at the onset of the Reformation. Thus the realm in which they could easily spread was more restricted than Southern Europe, which remained largely Catholic.
In summary, the Reformation may or may not be a missions movement. The Reformation did, however, set the stage for the world’s greatest century of missions by laying the theological groundwork. Many servants of God certainly suffered in order to spread Christ into many dark lands. The Reformers, fighting for their very existence, certainly should not be faulted. It is admitted that missions to “heathen lands” outside of Europe during this era were entirely neglected. However, let it be said that Europe - “Christendom” - itself was largely a heathen land. It was barely claimed for Christ in anything but name only and centuries of medieval Catholicism drained most of the church of any true life. This slogan of the Reformation certainly holds true – Post Tenebras Lux – “After Darkness, Light!”
Even if we assert that the Reformation was “non-missionary” certainly the boogeyman of God’s sovereignty cannot be blamed.
[/QUOTE]
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
Elias gave a lecture on this topic at the Gospel Coalition conference.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resou...to_the_propagation_of_the_gospel_to_all_natio
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resou...to_the_propagation_of_the_gospel_to_all_natio
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sorry Elias Madeiros the RTS prof. Missed his last name typing on my phone.
CuriousNdenver
Puritan Board Sophomore
It seems that at least some of the Catholic missionary work during the colonial period was carried out for purposes of gaining converts for their crown. Many of the Catholic outposts in the "New World" were built by slave labor, overseen by the Padres.
While some of these Catholic efforts were carried out under the umbrella of missions, political interests were served as well. Part of the missionary efforts of the Catholic Church were birthed out of their counter-reformation. They were an effort to stem the tide of exodus from the church and to uphold the power structure the church had become.
Melanie,
Some early Protestant missions, as well, was closely tied to their colonial enterprises.
Yes, much of the Catholic mission efforts were birthed in the Counter-Reformation, but there was considerable activity even before. Much of it was coercive, however (though the Protestants, too, were also sometimes guilty of offering rewards/consequences for conversion as well).
Here is another excellent article on this general subject of the OP: Themelios | Article: Calvinism And Missions The Contested Relationship Revisited - The Gospel Coalition
Some early Protestant missions, as well, was closely tied to their colonial enterprises.
Yes, much of the Catholic mission efforts were birthed in the Counter-Reformation, but there was considerable activity even before. Much of it was coercive, however (though the Protestants, too, were also sometimes guilty of offering rewards/consequences for conversion as well).
Here is another excellent article on this general subject of the OP: Themelios | Article: Calvinism And Missions The Contested Relationship Revisited - The Gospel Coalition
- Status