On this Reformation Day 2019, a word on Semper Reformanda, its history and the tension which the church holds it in.
In some circles, the phrase “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est secundum verbum Dei” has taken on a bit of urban legend status. R. Scott Clark, in an article on the Ligonier website, has a nice summary of the historical background and usage of the phrase. He begins with this:
With the possible exception of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), none of these [Reformed] slogans has been mangled more often toward greater mischief than ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, always reforming). According to historian Michael Bush, much of what we think we know about this slogan is probably wrong.
After a brief review of the 16th and 17th-century variants, he says:
The full phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (the church reformed, always reforming according to the Word of God) is a post-World War II creature. It was given new impetus by the modernist Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who used variations of the phrase with some frequency. Mainline (liberal) Presbyterian denominations have sometimes used variations of this phrase in official ways.
One of the points that Dr. Clark makes is that John Calvin and other reformers of his generation did not see the Reformed faith as evolving but as something that could be achieved and set. He says:
When Calvin and the other Reformed writers used the adjective reformed, they did not think that it was a thing that could never actually be accomplished. Late in his life, Calvin remarked to the other pastors in Geneva that things were fairly well constituted, and he exhorted them not to ruin them.
In another Ligonier article, Michael Horton also takes a close look at the phrase. At one point he says:
Our forebears who invoked this phrase had in mind the consolidation of catholic and evangelical Christianity embodied in the Reformed confessions and catechisms. There is a reason that this wing of the Reformation called itself “Reformed.” Unlike the Anabaptists, Reformed churches understood themselves as a continuing branch of the catholic church. At the same time, the Reformed wanted to reform everything “according to the Word of God.” Not only our doctrine but our worship and life must be determined by Scripture and not by human whim or creativity.
And he makes the point that it is not the Reformed faith that necessarily needs to be reformed, but the human implementation of it:
And yet the church is not only Reformed; it is always in need of being reformed. Like our personal sanctification, our corporate faithfulness is always flawed. We don’t need to move beyond the gains of the Reformation, but we do need further reformation. But here is where the last clause kicks in: “always being reformed according to the Word of God.”
The PC(USA) website has an article by Anna Case-Winters which is widely quoted in various other articles, including Michael Horton’s article above and Leo Koffeman’s below. Near the beginning she discusses the early meaning of the phrase like this:
Our Reformed motto, rightly understood, challenges both the conservative and the liberal impulses that characterize our diverse church today. It does not bless either preservation for preservation’s sake or change for change’s sake.
In the 16th-century context the impulse it reflected was neither liberal nor conservative, but radical, in the sense of returning to the “root.” The Reformers believed the church had become corrupt, so change was needed. But it was a change in the interest of preservation and restoration of more authentic faith and life — a church reformed and always to be reformed according to the Word of God.
The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day was that what is older is better. This is strange to our contemporary ears. We do not share this assumption; if anything, we applaud the new and “innovative.”
Finally, Leo Koffeman, in an academic article, weaves Horton’s and Case-Winter’s article into his where he looks at not only the origin of the phrase but the ecumenical implication and application. He echoes some of what I have mentioned already, but has this particular emphasis:
I repeat my question: is the slogan ecclesia reformata semper reformanda, either in its shortened or in its lengthier form, a helpful slogan when considering the pros and cons, the possibilities and the limitations, of church renewal in the Reformed tradition? It seems to me that it is not, as long as it leaves the question open as to what, in practice, secundum verbum Dei means. It provides a formal criterion. Therefore, the real issue at stake is that of biblical hermeneutics.
In his conclusion he answers with this:
As far as the motto ecclesia reformata semper reformanda points to the possibility of and need for church renewal, it represents a welcome reminder for all churches that take seriously their identity and mandate. But it can easily over-emphasise human action (‘always reforming’) at the expense of the awareness of how the church is an instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit (‘always being reformed’). Therefore, a focus on the role of the church in the missio Dei and a clear understanding of the need for ecumenical cooperation is pivotal.
So where does that leave us? Stringing this all together we have Dr. Clark’s emphasis on a developed Reformed faith expressed in the historic creeds and confessions of the church, but with the fallen and flawed nature of a church of human maintenance as pointed out by Dr. Horton. It is a radical call for the church to find identity in its roots of scripture according to Dr. Case-Winters, but as an instrument of God through the Holy Spirit as expressed by Dr. Koffeman.
So with that – Happy Reformation Day. And may we all be Reformed and always being reformed as guided by the word of God.
