A brief retelling of the birth of the Protestant Reformation with the hanging of Luther’s 95 Theses on October 31, 1517.

This approaching October 31, 2017, when most people in the USA will be celebrating “Hallow-een,” with pumpkins, eating pumpkin pie, going “trick-or-treat”-ing, and make-believe witches riding broomsticks, Christians will either be in worship on All-Saints Eve –November 1^st is all Saints’ Day with a reading from Hebrews 11:1-12:3 – or celebrating the “eve” of the Protestant Reformation.

On October 31, 1517, an Augustinian monk walked from the monastery and school where he taught to All Saints Cathedral in Wittenberg, a city in the electorate of Saxony in present-day Germany. Clenched in his fist was a rolled-up scroll which was flattened out on the door of the Cathedral and then secured there. On the scroll were 95 theses as an invitation to a debate. The monk’s name was Martin Luther, the son of Hans and Margarethe (nee: Lindemann) Luther.

Luther got the debate he wanted but the “protest” he made was “contested” by one John Eck who sided with the wishes of Pope Leo X.

Luther became the center of attention throughout Europe. The nailing of the 95 Theses on the door of all Saints Cathedral was not the one incident which brought about European-wide attention. What did bring attention was the circulation of the 95 Theses in several cities from east to west and north and south throughout the German domains—Saxony, Bavaria, the Rhineland, the Palatine, Austria, and Alsace-Lorraine, and also into Switzerland. In point of fact, it took twelve years for an actual “Protestant Reformation” to take place. It was on April 19, 1529, when six Princes and representatives of 14 imperial Free Cities gathered at the Memorial Church in the city of Speyer to issue a petition calling for the Imperial Diet to not hinder the spread of the evangelical faith as expounded by the Lutherans across the whole of Europe. It was called a “Protest.” Since it was a Testimony on behalf of Luther and the spread of what he represented, it was called the “Letter of Protestation.” It was printed and made public. It was signed by Johann, Elector of Saxony; Georg, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ernst, Duke of Braunschweig-Lineburg; Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse; and Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.

The text was then sent to the Holy Roman Emperor by an embassy. From this time the supporters of Luther were called “Protestants,” and not because of what they were against but what they were for. Later the term “Protestant” was used to designate the whole renewal movement which included the “reforms” sought by John Calvin, Huldrich Zwingli, Bathasar Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and others. The story of the Reformation is much larger than Luther and that is another story in and of itself.

Luther’s letter of protest on October 31, 1517 lit the fires of renewal across all of Europe and into England, which has since become referred to the Protestant Reformation.

Jon Mark Ruthven, What’s Wrong with Protestant Theology? Tradition vs. Biblical Emphasis (Tulsa: Word and Spirit Press, 2013), 314 pages, ISBN 9780981952642.

Books on Christian theology are often written by academic types: persons of seminary and university training, but with only marginal pastoral experience. This is not true of this work.

Dr. Ruthven is both a scholar and a pastor. He was a pastor for twelve years, and then a professor at Regent University for 18, besides taking numerous missionary trips to the majority world. He wrote the definitive book critiquing cessationism, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), which is still in print. He has since written or co-authored a half dozen other works.

Dr. Ruthven’s thesis is that the Bible has an overwhelming emphasis as to what the believer is to do: hear the voice of God and obey. This is not just a command to the religious leaders and elites, but to every believer.

This book establishes this thesis after outlining the key features of Protestant theology, by showing that the central emphasis of scripture involves the process of the prophetic word of God coming to mankind, directly and immediately into individual hearts. This emphasis of scripture is proven by the recurring, central plot line of biblical narratives; the central temptation to mankind (Gen 3; Matt 4 and Luke 4); the essence of the New Covenant (the prophethood of believers); and the central, explicit mission of Jesus: to bestow the prophetic Spirit.

At the end of the work, Ruthven summarizes the answer to his title, “What’s Wrong with Protestant Theology.”

Christian Epistemology. For all the emphasis the Protestants placed upon scripture as their ultimate doctrinal authority, they tended to use the Bible as a source for proof texts against Rome on the nature of “salvation” rather than allowing it to speak with its own voice and emphasis.

Signs and wonders, the central way God (and his Son) revealed himself in the Bible, were rejected by Protestants as obsolete devices to “prove” doctrine—as “signs” with no value except as they pointed to an accredited Gospel creed. This misconception resulted in …

The loss of the big picture of Jesus’ mission. The Protestant emphasis was on the free gift of Christ’s sacrifice. By contrast, the New Testament portrays Jesus’ kingdom mission as introducing, modeling, ratifying, vindicating, commissioning, and bestowing the New Covenant charismatic Spirit––a synonym for the kingdom of God––a concept traditional theology largely ignored.

By denying Jesus’ central kingdom mission, traditional Protestantism seriously messed up New Testament discipleship, by denying the essential work of the Spirit in the life and mission of the believer. Protestantism generally ignored the significance of the early commissioning accounts, e.g., Mt 10; Mk 6; Lk 9-10, relegating those to the apostles only.

Instead, in traditional theology, the believer’s role is essentially that of a consumer: to receive salvation, meaning a place in heaven, and to “be good” until then.

Jon M. Ruthven in 2012.

It is Ruthven’s view that traditional religion avoids the central point of scripture: the ideal of a believer in full communication and communion via the empowering Spirit. Tradition puts the task of hearing God into the hands of the religious leadership. In Judaism this is through the institution of rabbinical commentaries, and in the Christianity it is via the role given priests and preachers of expounding the Word of God––to the exclusion of layperson’s input. For instance, it would be shocking in most churches in Christendom for a layperson to stand up at the end of the sermon and say: “I believe the Spirit of the Lord would add these words to what Pastor Smith has said…”

W. David Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions: An Invitation to Theological Hospitality (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 373 pages, ISBN: 083082832X.

This book skillfully explores a number of contemporary Protestant traditions by tracing their historical and ecclesiastical backgrounds, their theological and hermeneutical methods, and their characteristic beliefs. Buschart offers the reader “an invitation to theological hospitality,” and this is perhaps the best metaphor to describe the scope and intentions of the book. The considerable theological diversity among just the Protestant traditions make this work a valuable resource and ecumenical field guide. For those familiar with the Protestant heritage, Exploring Protestant Traditions offers an organized way to access and compare significant information; for those unacquainted with Protestantism, the book presents a valuable and reliable introduction to the classical theological traditions.

The book concludes with a call to theological hospitality. Buschart surveys Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, and Pentecostal traditions. Obviously there are more traditions within Protestantism, not to speak of the larger ecumenical world of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The mere existence of these divisions bespeaks the dilemma of Christian relationships and the sinfulness that attends the emergence of ever new denominations. Buschart, among many others, upholds hospitality as an antidote to polarization and divisions among the churches. Christian hospitality, emulating the hospitality of God toward humankind, has made it obligatory for Christians to pursue meaningful and honest relationships with one another. “A tradition of theology that flows from God’s preemptive hospitality,” Buschart argues, “is a good gift and … a resource for, not an enemy of, Christian hospitality” (264). In this sense, the book is likely to introduce the reader to more strangers than friends. And it is precisely the call to embrace the stranger that stand at the heart of the Christian life of hospitality.

W. David Buschart (PhD, Drew University) is associate dean and professor of theology and historical studies at Denver Seminary.

The introduction of the book defends the use of the term “Protestant traditions.” Nonetheless, a number of readers may prefer not to find themselves described as “Protestant,” because the term indicates particular historical events and theological convictions with which they do not identify. Pentecostals may by particularly well-known among this group. Historically, Pentecostals did not participate in the movements of Reformation and Counterreformation that swept Western Christendom. More precisely, Classical Pentecostals were ostracized and persecuted by the major Protestant traditions in North America, and an association with Evangelicalism did not develop until after World War II. On the other hand, Pentecostals have also disassociated themselves from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To describe Pentecostalism as “Protestant” is historically, ecclesiastically, and theologically incorrect. It may suggest that Pentecostals somehow “fit” better with Protestant Christianity. On the other hand, if Pentecostalism is a universal movement of the Holy Spirit, then we may find Pentecostals in all major Christian traditions with no particular “Pentecostal” identity.