How Should We Then Live? Chapter 5: The Reformation - 2nd Order Effects
2nd Order Effects
"Every action has a consequence, and each consequence has another consequence. These are called Second-Order Effects. Every change you make to a system will have Second-Order Effects, which may affect the system’s functionality. Be careful when making changes, they may have the opposite effect of what you aimed for." - https://personalmba.com/second-order-effects/
Luther posted the 95 Theses for the purpose of challenging incorrect doctrine and church corruption. Chapter 4 covers the effect the Reformation had on theology and church operation. Things got better because they removed pagan influence which had crept in and taken root during the Renaissance. But outside of reestablishing Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy, what did the Reformation cause?
Schaeffer covers three 2nd order effects of the Reformation in the realm of politics, slavery or race relations and economics. Most of the chapter attributes advances in political freedom and limited government to the Reformation. I will explain the claims of the book and compare them to what I have read recently from another source.
"Let us also note the political freedom which the return to biblical Christianity
gradually brought forth."
"wherever the biblical teaching has gone, even though it has always been
marred by men, it not only has told of an open approach to God through
the work of Christ, but also has brought peripheral results in society, including
political institutions. Secondary results are produced by the preaching of the
Gospel in both the arts and political affairs."
Politics
It took time. Starting in the late 14th Century, politics was moving towards being arbitrary and authoritarian. Then over the next 300-400 years biblical teaching produced freedom without chaos. That was possible because society adopted the churches views on values and morality and purpose. Human action was constrained within biblical truth. The effect of this constraint didn't lead to oppression, but to turning away from oppression. With that space for individual freedom, people didn't descend into chaos but lived out lives of meaning and self-control.
The Roman state was centrally focused. Citizens were granted rights. But in the Empire the Caesar ruled in total. The Caesar wasn't limited by the Senate. There was no law above him. But to the Reformers God was above all and His will was codified in the Bible. It was the foundation of morals but also law. They knew justice could only be achieved if government authority based their action on God's law.
Then Schaeffer traces a thread of political thought through time. He started in France describing Alexandre Vinet (1797-1847). Vinet was a leader in French Protestantism and his influence stretched into the other French speaking areas of Europe. His work led to some freedoms Switzerland still enjoys today. He spoke, wrote, and pushed for freedoms of conscience before both religious and political leaders.
Similar political teaching occurred in England, the Netherlands, and in other Reformation countries. He goes back further in time to mention Martin Bucer (1491-1551) from Strasbourg. Among his many influences was John Calvin and it lead to the governmental structure in Geneva.
The Scottish Presbyterian church adopted a constitutional model of church government that then drifted into their political structures. The Puritans were influenced by these ideas and used them to limit the power of English kings.
The main influence over political thought in Scottish Protestantism was portrayed as Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661). He wrote the book "Lex Rex: Law is King" in 1644. In it he describes a government made up of laws not simply the decisions of men. He also taught man's freedom did not mean freedom to live without boundaries. He was under God's authority as laid out in the Bible. It may be hard to imagine, but applying this principle to kings and authorities produced an abundance of freedom for normal people.
"the ordinary citizen discovered a freedom from arbitrary governmental
power in an age when in other countries the advance toward absolutist
political options was restricting liberty of expression."
The key was that these ideas taught that all people even those in authority were to submit themselves to the law of God, which was found only in Scripture. In contrast, those kings who were centralizing power under themselves found an easy ally in the Roman Catholic church which was itself built on central authority and placed itself equal to the Bible in spiritual authority.
Rutherford's teaching even carried influence over the U.S. Constitution through two other men, John Witherspoon (1723-1794) and John Locke (1632-1704). John Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister who signed the Declaration of Independence and was a part of the Continental Congress. He followed "Lex Rex" directly and was involved in the writing of the Constitution. John Locke drew from Rutherford's teaching as well but secularized the Presbyterian tradition. He taught ideas like inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and the right of revolution. However, he contradicted himself by then challenging the idea of natural rights by mixing in the teachings of Empiricism. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) adopted Locke's secular version and brought it into America's founding. To this degree Schaeffer's central theme is correct.
"To whatever degree a society allows the teaching of the Bible to bring
forth its natural conclusions, it is able to have form and freedom in
society and government."
Political thought and the limiting of government by constitutions was a positive 2nd order effect of the Reformation. However, I think Schaeffer takes it too far with this quote.
"The world had not known anything like this before."
But in relation to political freedom I think he is more correct by simply asserting the positve influece of the Bible not the historic uniqueness of freedom, rule of law, and limited government.
"Here in the return to the Bible in the Reformation had an
important and beneficial influence."
It was a return to the Bible. Not a new discovery. The Reformation was bringing political thought back to what was found during at least part of the Middle Ages. Schaeffer mentions briefly the late Middle Ages "moribund contract ideas", but that was after there had been developments toward centralization and strong monarchy during and after the 100 Years War. Before then, the political rights of common people, serfs, are very surprising to us today.
Politics during the Middle Ages followed the same pattern as the Reformation. They started with the centralized power of Rome. After Rome fell society crept toward the principle that the Law was supreme over lord and serf alike.
For at least a time, political power was fragmented. Lords and nobleman controlled relatively small tracts of land. Kings like Clovis and Charlemagne expanded sovereignty over larger tracts of land, but feudal loyalties on more local levels still held. Political power was shared between lords and overlords. They all competed with each other for the allegiance of the people. Serfs still had responsibilities to work the land. The nobleman were obligated to protect serfs. Serfs weren't obligated to go fight in wars to bring their lords glory or settle their personal disputes with others. Legal responsibilities flowed both ways.
In some locations during some years, a single serf had the power to veto any law or edict a lord wanted to enact. Either ALL the people accepted the new law or the law was made void, by ONE vote. If only we had that same level of political power today! Even when an individual didn't have that level of power they were protected from the whims of their lords by the law. The law in those days was defined by what was old and good. These were customs that had proven to benefit the people not grant more power over to the noblemen over time. If only we had the same standard for law today!
At the same time, spiritual power was unified. There was one faith, one baptism, one church. All of Europe was linked together by the church. It was the Roman Catholic church which at some point became corrupt. But with a healthy, functioning, unified church, Europe possessed a locus of power to stand against individual lords or even Holy Roman Emperors. The church didn't always compete with kings. Sometimes it gave its blessing to a them. The idea of the divine right of kings came from this cooperation. But that doesn't change the fact that when unified and spiritually healthy the church provided a buffer between ordinary people and those in authority. If you are interested to learn more about this part of history, I have provided several links to articles I am basing my comments on.
Once the Reformation resulted in the split of Protestant from Catholic the church was no longer a unified force against secular oppression. The church itself then became fragmented. The buffer between society and state which had once provided the space needed for freedom was gone.
Even more, Protestant churches during the Reformation had to be protected from the Roman Catholic church by friendly lords or kings. This meant churches on both sides of the spiritual divide now existed at the allowance of the state, and only when the church of the region showed allegiance to the lord. The other development was that monarchy was developing in some countries with the same requirements for allegiance.
The influences toward political and religious freedom during the Reformation were not derived strictly from the Reformation itself because of the fragmentation I have described. However, where ever the Reformers applied Biblical principles regarding politics, there was a movement towards political freedom. This is based on the Biblical teaching discussed in the previous article on Chapter 4. The Bible teaches that each individual person is equal in dignity as being made in the image of God and having direct access to Him through the work of Christ. Each person is also equally fallen before God in a state of sin and in need of salvation. Individual sin. Individual reconciliation. Individual value. Individual rights.
"51 percent of the vote never becomes the final source of right and wrong
in government because the absolutes of the Bible are available to judge a
society. The "little" man, the private citizen, can at any time stand up and,
on the basis of biblical teaching, say that the majority is wrong. So, to the
extent to which the biblical teaching is practiced, one can control the
despotism of the majority vote or the despotism of one person or group."
Schaeffer continues about how Reformation thought generated the idea that checks and balances should exist within governmental structure. This is why we have separated executive, legislated, and judicial power in the U.S. Constitution. Different countries implemented this in different ways. Some located the different branches of government in different cities. The purpose is to introduce a type of political fragmentation within a government. As good of an idea this is, I think history shows it works better when competition like that is found between different governments and with a totally separate entity like the church.
In contrast to Reformation thought on politics is Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). He embraced something called Polybian republicanism from a Greek name Polybius (198-117 BC), another pagan thinker who supported centralization of power. Following that, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" which advocated ruthlessness and authoritarianism all for the purpose of improving the application of state power. It is telling that at least in part "The Prince" was used by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to build their political philosophy.
Race Relations And Economics
I will keep this section short. Schaeffer comments positively on the Reformations effect on politics. I have tried to show here that his thoughts are I think correct but very incomplete and lack broader historical context. On the subjects of race relations and economics, Schaeffer isn't near as positive, and again it is unclear why this is the case. He criticizes the church for not doing enough to erase slavery and racism. He also criticizes the church for not demanding society use the wealth of the Industrial Revolution more compassionately.
I agree. The church didn't do enough. Christians never do enough. We don't pray enough. We don't tell people the gospel enough. We don't obey Jesus enough. But the criticisms, I think, miss the mark.
First, according to the articles I linked to above, slavery largely disappeared in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages. It wasn't until the Renaissance that is started to become common again. That is because slavery is supported by Pagan ideology. With the teaching of Aristotle and Plato exerting more influence over society slavery was bound to become an accepted institution once again. Schaeffer is right though, Christians should never have accepted slavery in society and they did from the Renaissance to the Modern Age.
"they harked back to Aristotle's definition of a slave as a living tool
and were far removed from the biblical teaching."
Regarding slavery, Schaeffer then goes on to list people like John Wesley (1703-1791), John Howard (1726-1790), Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845), Lord Shaftesbury (1801-1885), John Newton (1725-1807), Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846), and William Wilbeforce (1759-1833), Charles Dickens (1812-1870), George Whitefield (1714-1770), and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States. All this in a very short section of the book. These people all made huge impacts on society for prison reform, abolition of slavery, charity, and changing racial attitudes. Schaeffer's criticism is that there should have been more and improvements should have been made faster. If only. But yet slavery still exists in 2020 in the Muslim and Communist world, about 150-200 years after it was ended in Western Europe and North America.
Regarding charitable use of wealth, he criticizes David Ricardo (1772-1823) as one who taught things that others used to justify leaving the Irish alone to die from starvation during the Potato Famine. I can't address the specific issue here, but I have read other things from Ricardo. His job was to explain economic theory and his observations about how proper market relations operated. I find it hard to believe that he advocated death by starvation. Charity, generosity, and compassion lie outside of economic law. Christians should embrace both. Economic law is based on human nature. Charity is based on biblical morality. Those are two separate subjects. Christians should follow economic law to generate as much material prosperity as humanly possible and also be generous to those who have immediate needs. I find Schaeffer's comment here myopic.
Clearly, a multitude of 2nd order effects came out of the Reformation. How could this not be true? Some should have developed faster or more completely to the benefit of the world. There were also negative 2nd order effects as the church's influence over society was fractured and diminished. If something as great as the Reformation could have such serious 2nd order effects, then how should we then live?
Comments
Post a Comment