Yes, God Can Reform His Church

Jesus said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Mt 16.18). That verse is a foundation for great encouragement in trusting that God can reform His church. The church belongs to Jesus Christ; he is the author and the finisher of her faith, and the chief cornerstone (cf. Eph 2.20). The preservation of the church and the renewal of the church belong to God. Psalm 127.1 says, "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain."

Because these seem like very bleak times, I want to reflect on two of the darkest seasons in the life of the church - the Arian triumph and the Avignon papacy. And, I want to commend to our consideration the sovereign renewing work of God during those periods. While there were religious and imperial political overtones to the Arian controversy, it was principally a theological battle which lasted for sixty-three years (318 - 381 A.D.). The Avignon debacle, while having some theological themes, was primarily 112 years of moral infidelity and corrupt power (1305 - 1417 A.D.). Yet, in each case, through the persistence of faithful leaders, the church was turned around. Reform was possible. There was "life after Arianism" - orthodoxy was not only officially proclaimed, but popularly embraced as well. The Avignon Embarrassment did pass - church order, while still faced with cultural and political pressures, was essentially restored.

The conflicts of both periods strikingly resemble current issues facing our church. While the specifics of Arianism and rival papal sees are not our concerns, central matters of theology, moral discipline, and church order are! Furthermore, each of these dark seasons in the life of the church were sustained for more than one generation. Just as it takes several days for an ocean-going cruise liner to make a U-turn, so it takes several generations for the church - a very large ship of faith - to repent of its erroneous ways and find itself renewed.

The Arian Heresy

Arianism, though defeated officially at the Council of Nicea in 325, continued to reign as the "theology of the day" for some sixty years. The turning point, at which time the church was able to reverse and correct itself, seemed to come around 362. Athanasius had already been exiled from Alexandria several times for his Nicene convictions. But, when Julian "the Apostate" assumed the throne as Emperor, his policy of allowing all exiled bishops to return to their sees brought Athanasius home; and, he came home with a commitment to diplomacy. Gonzalez writes,

Athanasius had come to the conclusion that many opposed the Nicene Creed because they feared that the assertion that the Son was of the same substance as the Father could be understood as meaning that there is no distinction between the Father and the Son....In a synod gathered in Alexandria in A.D. 362, Athanasius and his follow-ers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 'one substance' as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of 'three sub-stances' as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods. On the basis of this understanding, most of the church rallied its support to the Council of Nicea.

Though 362 was a significant turning point, Arianism was not finally defeated throughout the Empire until the Council of Constantinople in 381, eight years after Athanasius died. He never lived to see the full reform of the church, for which he had worked his entire life. It was a combination of the new Emperor Theodosius' support and the Cappadocians' precise trinitarian language which brought a conclusive end to Arian ascendancy.

Resolution of the deep conflict over trinitarian theology was hindered because of political intrigue involving the Emperors. Constantine set the precedent at the Council of Nicea when Arian bishops were not only deposed but Constantine, meddling in church affairs, had them banished also. Following Constantine's death, there was a succession of Emperors, some of whom favored Arianism and others who favored Nicene orthodoxy. Their approach to handling the controversy was to banish bishops who did not agree with them. Poor Athanasius was exiled five times throughout his episcopacy. In 353, when Constantius became Emperor of the entire Empire and officially endorsed Arianism, in direct opposition to Nicea's Creed, Jerome remarked, "The whole world groaned in astonishment at finding itself Arian."

Gonzalez makes the following poignant observation about the whole sordid, sixty-three year Arian affair: "What is surprising is not that theological debate became entangled in political intrigues, but rather that in the midst of such unfavorable circumstances the church still found the strength and the wisdom to reject those views that threatened the core of the Christian message." Several generations after the introduction and wide acceptance of Arianism, the church, through the perseverance of unswerving leaders like Athanasius and later the Cappadocians, was able to bring about theological reform. Who would have thought that it could have been possible!

The "Babylonian Captivity of the Church"

One thousand years later, the church found itself in the midst of an unimaginable scandal - there were three popes in three different locations, all claiming rightful succession to Peter's throne. It was the period of the Avignon Papacy and the Great Schism. The turning point in the Great Schism of the Papacy could be identified as the Council of Pisa in 1409, which marked the beginning of the Conciliar Movement. At this point in time the papacy had been in Avignon for just over a century, under the control of the French monarchy and French cardinals, and a second pope had been restored in Rome for twenty-eight years with his own set of cardinals. For several years prior to the Council of Pisa, theologians and other church leaders had been calling for an end to the papal comedy, but to no avail.

Yet, some in both colleges of cardinals began to discuss compromise and ways to end the papal disgrace. Unfortunately, neither pope would cooperate. So, some of the cardinals from both camps called for a Council in the hopes of ending the Schism. Gonzalez writes, "As the conciliar theory developed, its proponents came to hold that a universal council, representing the entire church, had more authority than the pope. If this were the case, then it would seem that the question of who was the legitimate pope could best be settled, not by the popes themselves, who obviously could not agree on the matter, but rather by a council." Regretfully, neither pope attended the Council. In frustration, the Council took matters into its own hands and deposed the two sitting popes and elected a third pope to replace them.

Despite its best intentions of bringing the Schism to an end, the Council should have been able to anticipate the results of its actions. If the popes had not been cooperative in working out a diplomatic solution to the Schism or in attending the Council, why did the Council think that they would submit to the Council's authority? As could have been predicted, the result of the Council of Pisa, while well intentioned, was that instead of reducing the papacy from two to one, it increased it from two to three!

In spite of this further disgrace and lack of political savvy on the part of the cardinals, it was the beginning of the conciliar momentum to work toward reform in church discipline and church order. Five years after the embarrassing Council of Pisa, another Council was called through pressure exerted by Emperor Sigismund of Germany. By this time, the "third" papacy was well established and had been succeeded by John XXIII. The Council of Constance was convened in 1414 and met for three years in forty-five different plenary meetings and numerous other smaller gatherings. The result of the Council was that two of the three popes were tried and deposed, and the third pope resigned his see. In 1417 a new pope was elected and the unity of the papacy was restored. Martin V reigned for fourteen years, bringing peace and administrative reform to the papal court.

There had been problems in the papacy for years, but they became quite serious when political conditions in the 13th century in Italy had made it almost impossible for the pope to reside in Rome. In 1305 refuge was found in the papal palace in Avignon. At the same time, national interests were rising which were not contiguous with the jurisdiction of holy mother church. Local courts curried favor with the pope in hopes of forming a strategic religious alliance against a neighboring kingdom. This happened when the papacy moved to Avignon. Gonzalez reports, "This period, often called the 'Avignon Papacy' or the 'Babylonian Captivity of the Church,' was marked, not only by the absence of the popes from Rome, but also by their willingness to serve as tools of French policy."

Sixty-five years later, in 1370, with the papacy still in Avignon, Catherine of Siena, a Dominican tertiary, received a vision from God to devote herself to working for the return of the papacy to Rome. Gonzalez describes her leadership this way:

She had had a vision, and set out on a campaign to have the papacy return to Rome. In order to do this, it was necessary to pave the way in Italy, where constant wars made it unsafe for the pope to reside. To that end she began a pilgrimage from city to city, and was received by multitudes who flocked to see her, and among whom stories circulated about her many miracles. All the while she wrote humbly but firmly to the pope, whom she called "our sweet father," but to whom she also complained of "seeing God thus offended" by the long stay at Avignon. To what degree this influenced Gregory's decisions, it is impossible to know. But in any case on January 17, 1377, amid general rejoicing, Gregory entered Rome. The long period of exile in Avignon had ended. Catherine died three years after that event.

Unfortunately, the rejoicing in Rome was premature, for the really serious problems began a year later in 1378 after an Italian pope was elected amidst much rancor and politicking. His dictatorial style was unappreciated by the French cardinals, so it was then that they, having become rather independent-minded, elected their own, Avignon-based pope. If one had been present at the time, one would have had to ask, "Can it get any worse than this?" As Gonzalez says, "all western Christendom was forced to take sides." The Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Scandinavia, Hungary and England supported the Roman pope. France, Spain, and Scotland supported the French pope.

Unfortunately, the answer to the question, "Can it get any worse than this?" was, "Yes, it can!" And, it did - at the Council of Pisa in the midst of what the cardinals had hoped would bring the disgraceful situation to an end. It is clear from this situation that sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. What is also clear is that despite the embarrassment of a third pope, they were not discouraged to the point of resignation. The Council of Pisa was a disaster, but, presumably in learning from their mistakes, the Council of Constance had a much better chance of being the success that it was.

In both situations - the Arian triumph, and the Avignon Papacy and Great Schism - God's word to Elijah applied in their respective generations: "There are still seven thousand who have not bowed the kneel to Baal." (1 Kgs 19.18) Renewal in the church is possible because of the following reasons:

	1.	Christ is the head of his body, the Church.  (Col 1.18)

	2.	There is precedent for reform during some of the darkest 
		hours of the church's history, periods that were much worse 
		than what the church is facing today.

	3.	Church leaders were committed to the "long-view" and persevered 
		through short-term setbacks.  Both Athanasius and Catherine died
		before seeing the reform pass, for which they had worked so hard.
		Their lives are reminiscent of the description of the heroes of
		 faith in Hebrews: "All these people were still living by faith 
		when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they 
		only saw them and welcomed them from a distance." (Heb 11.13).

During the Arian controversy, we know who the heroes were - Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Catherine of Siena was a visionary during the Avignon Captivity. But, during the Great Schism, apart from the Emperor, we do not know who the faithful, persistent theologians and leaders were who pressed for the Council of Constance after the disastrous Council of Pisa. They are unknown heroes and leaders. May it be said of us, also.
Bibliography

Dowley, Tim, ed. Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984.

Jedin, Hubert and Dolan, John, ed. History of the Church. New York: Crossroad, 1986.

The NIV Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.