Why did the Reformation (apparently) lose steam so (relatively) quickly?

[Davidius]

The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.

But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?

 

[christianyouth]

Hey David,

Another good question! I'm looking forward to reading the responses that this questions gets.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[moral necessity]

Well, to give the overall main answer, it occurred due to a withdrawal of the Spirit of God and a lessening of his influence. As to the specific ways he caused this to happen, I do not recall all of the details at this time. Let me think on it.

Blessings!

 

[Davidius]

Well, to give the overall main answer, it occurred due to a withdrawal of the Spirit of God and a lessening of his influence. As to the specific ways he caused this to happen, I do not recall all of the details at this time. Let me think on it.

Blessings!

Yeah, I'm looking for something more along the lines of secondary causes.

 

[panta dokimazete]

My opinion - precisionism to the nth degree along with passionate and unyielding individualism. Autonomy guised as theonomy.

**ducks head**

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Of course one could say the abandonment of Biblical worship but I do not want to get Panta involved in another 10 page worship thread

 

[panta dokimazete]

 

[Davidius]

Well, I'm hoping that it's something a little more complex than that. We like to give very simple answers. It makes it that much easier for us to justify ourselves.

Something relevant to my question is the relationship between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Is it a coincidence that former came right on the heels of the latter? There may much more complex issues at work.

Anyway, keep the thoughts coming!

 

[Jon Peters]

The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.

But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?

I'm not sure I buy the premise that the Reformation has tanked. I also don't buy your description of the early church; it certainly wasn't a postmillenialists dream. I recall there was a bit of controversy over a few slightly important doctrines.

I think we have romanticized an era a little too much. There were lots of divisions within the ranks of those trying to reform the church even in the very early stages.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.

Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.

With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...

 

[Davidius]

The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.

But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?

I'm not sure I buy the premise that the Reformation has tanked. I also don't buy your description of the early church; it certainly wasn't a postmillenialists dream. I recall there was a bit of controversy over a few slightly important doctrines.

I think we have romanticized an era a little too much. There were lots of divisions within the ranks of those trying to reform the church even in the very early stages.

Were the heretics not expelled? Do we not rightly recognize the men who fought against Arianism and Pelagianism as men who accomplished something great? Sure there were problems, but unlike our day, the problems seem to have been solvable back then.

As far as disagreeing with my choice of language (the Reformation has "tanked"), that's fine. But I want to know why you disagree with the nature of the premise, based on the examples I gave.

 

[Davidius]

Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.

Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.

With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...

Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.

 

[Zenas]

I agree that the period is romanticized too much.

The men were undoubtedly men like us, with all of the imperfections, quirks, etc. It is sure that they fought against the heresies of Arminianism and Pelagianism, but so do we. Theirs was a fight much more publicized because of the nature of the time. Travel, kingdom expansion, dissemination of education, the printing press, etc. were all brand new vehicles used to spread and publicize their fight, but they do no more fighting than we do today.

I don't think the reformation "tanked" at all, but rather, the novelty of it all wore off.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.

Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.

With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...

Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.

Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet apologia and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant

 

[Zenas]

A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...

Good point!

 

[Zenas]

Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.

Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.

With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...

Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.

Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet apologia and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant

Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...

Good point!

Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the negative effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.

 

[Christusregnat]

What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?

Davidius,

The triumph of the early church was not without cost.

The truimph of the Reformed faith was not without cost either. Luther's rejection of papal authority was wrongly interpreted by wicked men to mean that they could reject God's authority (both in the bible, in the church and in the state). Many "free thinkers" look upon Luther as a hero, and I have read articles confirming as much. Luther, I'm sure was rolling over in his grave.

There is the usual list of suspects, but if I may introduce another topic which I believe has contributed to the decline in Christendom: eschatology. The backbone of building the church, and the commonwealths of the world was the belief that Christ was Lord of ALL: not just the church, and the space between my ears. I'm not saying everyone had to be post-mil; all I'm saying was that the martyrs didn't think they were losing Rome by being eaten by lions; they believed they were conquering the Roman Empire by the gospel of Christ. Guess what? They did.

Today, we hear prominent theologians say that "reclaiming the culture is a waste of time". Guess what? We lose.

It's not about pre- post- or a-; it's about the direction the church expects the future to take. Generally, we expect it to "tank"; guess what? It does.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[CharlieJ]

Davidius, I think you ask an excellent question that deserves thoughtful answers. I am not qualified to give those answers, but I hope more will pop up.

Are things as bad in modern Christianity as you present them? I greatly agree with you that the American church is plagued with many woes. But I do think we see the Spirit of God strengthening the Church in different geographic areas at different periods in history.

Reformation/Post-Reformation saw immense changes in Germany and the Netherlands, then Britain.

Victorian and Elizabethan England was a bastion of Protestantism and missionary endeavors.

The United States had a distinctly Christian founding and has experienced a great measure of blessing and revival in its relatively short history. I wish I had the citation, but I remember seeing in a history class a snippet from the journal of a faculty member at Yale. He remarked that before Timothy Dwight became President (1795), he thought that there were less than five regenerate students on campus. That would be like saying that GPTS, PRTS, and WSCal had only a dozen regenerate students among them.

Today, we see amazing revivals taking place in China and the Philippines. While much of the teaching is not Reformed, I do not doubt the genuineness of most of the conversions, and I hope that as the Church matures there, they will become more doctrinally conscious.

So, sorry that I didn't really answer much of your question, but I'm not sure that the Reformation at its core (justification by faith alone) is quite over.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.

Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet apologia and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant

Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.

Well, I think you are seeing the initial stages of the "godless" finding God - It's our job as agents enabled by the Holy Spirit, to make the right Way so clear they have no excuse but to turn to it if they have any desire to be consistent.

 

[Davidius]

*changed the title in hopes of preventing emotional responses and focusing on the meat of the question*

 

[panta dokimazete]

*changed the title in hopes of preventing emotional responses and focusing on the meat of the question*

I still stand by my first response - it is what it is, because we are who we are.

 

[Davidius]

Are things as bad in modern Christianity as you present them? I greatly agree with you that the American church is plagued with many woes. But I do think we see the Spirit of God strengthening the Church in different geographic areas at different periods in history.

This is an excellent response that deserves a moment of reflection. Note that I did not say "Christianity" in the OP, rather "the Reformation." It may well be true that some form of Christianity is flourishing under the power of God's Spirit in places such as Asia and South America. This, however, could actually contribute to the dilemma presented in my original question. What does this say about our sustainability? It's not like we haven't been sending out missionaries (note: I am not denying that we are having some of our own effect in places like China).

Reformation/Post-Reformation saw immense changes in Germany and the Netherlands, then Britain.

Okay, and those changes lasted until when? 1700? Maybe 1800 at best? For how long have these same nations been on the decline? It sure didn't take Germany, the home of the reformation, to turn around and begin spitting out more deadly philosophy and biblical scholarship than any nation on the planet.

Victorian and Elizabethan England was a bastion of Protestantism and missionary endeavors.

Exactly, so what happened? This is the crux of my question. I do not deny that something happened during the Reformation. But why does its shelf life appear to be no where near as long as the early Church which faced challenges as great or greater?

The United States had a distinctly Christian founding and has experienced a great measure of blessing and revival in its relatively short history. I wish I had the citation, but I remember seeing in a history class a snippet from the journal of a faculty member at Yale. He remarked that before Timothy Dwight became President (1795), he thought that there were less than five regenerate students on campus. That would be like saying that GPTS, PRTS, and WSCal had only a dozen regenerate students among them.

See above

Today, we see amazing revivals taking place in China and the Philippines. While much of the teaching is not Reformed, I do not doubt the genuineness of most of the conversions, and I hope that as the Church matures there, they will become more doctrinally conscious.

See first paragraph.

 

[Ravens]

David,

Let me preface this post by saying that what I have to say may not be directly applicable to your query. I also don't want to assume or imply motives where they do not exist. That being said, the short point that I hope to make is one that I have thought of relative to my own reflection on these issues, and thus not necessarily any portrayal of where you are coming from.

That being said, the perceived state of Protestantism is often used to undermine the validity of the Protestant churches as true churches, and to show that the Reformation itself was a mistake, and that we are the guilty ones in the schism. I think that issue is at least related to the one you bring up, or, more accurately, someone could use your query in the same way, that is, as an undermining of Protestantism.

I am not an expert in history, and am eager to be corrected where I am wrong, but I believe the same general type of question could be asked of both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches.

Regarding Orthodoxy (assuming, for sake of argument, that they are the true church): Why, within 400 years of rejecting the claims of the Roman bishop and continuing on as the true apostolic church, did Constantinople, the flower of the civilized world, fall to Muslims? How can it be that the true, catholic, apostolic church has lost nearly all of her native lands to the Muslims. Furthermore, when Russia became the standard-bearer for the orthodox world, why did the church end up falling under the yoke of communism and oppression. Why does it have (thinking in "postmillenial" terms) so little impact in the world at large?

Regarding Roman Catholicism: Why have they had such little "success" (in the sense we are discussing) throughout the centuries? Why was all of the Byzantine and Balkan worlds mostly lost to her control after the 11th century? Why, within three hundred years of losing the East, did she also lose Northern Europe, North America, etc., to the Protestant Reformation? Why are Protestant churches still flourishing (as I assume they are) at greater rates in some third world countries, as opposed to Roman Catholic churches?

More than that, as a Roman Catholic, I imagine that I could look at the atheism and secularism of Europe, the liberalism and actual defiance of papal authority found in American Catholics, and the superstitions associated with much of Hispanic catholicism (maybe that is just a caricature, but that's how I've always viewed it, more or less) and wonder a good bit about my church's "success".

Like I said, I realize that isn't your question. But I think the two are related. And I imagine that one would have to ask and answer that question regardless of one's ecclesiastic vantage point.

Which leaves me thinking:

1) We are finite, so it is obviously impossible to accurately know the strength and size of the invisible church.
2) Even judging according to the visible church, most of us (myself more than others) probably don't know enough about the history and current state of things (in detail, on a scholarly level, as a lifetime pursuit) to make an accurate judgment of the modern current.
3) Perhaps we are defining "success" or the growth and conquering of the church in the wrong way.

 

[Zenas]

A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...

Good point!

Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the negative effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.

Well, the general populace controls the government. When the general populace has lost its mind, then it's sort of an inmates running the asylum sort of situation.

 

[timmopussycat]

Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.

Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet apologia and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant

Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.

C. S. Lewis observed that a return to religion, by which he meant "loose deism" would soon result in a revived church since the loose deist is eminently convertable.

 

[Davidius]

Josh,

Thank you for such a helpful post. That really does put things in perspective. I by no means asked the question in order to undermine what we have been doing since we broke from Rome. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I realize that something great did happen in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

It's because I see the Reformation as a good thing that I'm so puzzled. Because the initial impact made on the Church and on society by the reformers was so strong, I guess I am just confused by the seemingly almost immediate influx of error, division, and the amazingly quick decline into cultural irrelevance. It makes me want to give up any kind of positive eschatology. If anyone should be able to provide a model for reforming society as a whole, shouldn't we be the ones able to implement that? If we're going back to the early Church, as the reformers claimed, why can't we overthrow Rome? We don't even face the same political barriers the first Christians saw.

Or, since your post is helping me broaden my thinking about the issue, why have all of the professing Christian churches failed to meet the challenges of our era?

 

[Zenas]

I don't know if I can cop to that though. The lose deist is in just as good of a position as the atheist to deny God and insert whatever idol they want. Both are in a position to deny God, it is only the nature of the idol they replace Him with that changes due to their theistic orientation.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Good point!

Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the negative effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.

Well, the general populace controls the government. When the general populace has lost its mind, then it's sort of an inmates running the asylum sort of situation.

Agreed.