Chapter Nine
Chapter Nine Conclusion B ucer's work and ministry did not end with his death—neither in England nor on the Continent. His personality and his ideas had impressed and inspired too many people for his influence to cease abruptly. Bucer's books as well had a life of their own: copies continued to exist in private libraries and continued to be read. His writings were also reprinted and translated into many different vernacular languages, often transporting his thought under a fictitious name or even anonymously. 'This dissemination of his ideas and its historical and theological consequences have yet to be sufficiently studied.
We should nevertheless be cautious of overestimating the impact of Bucer's theology in subsequent years, however extensive it may have been.
Bucer's name did indeed come up frequently in the second half of the sixteenth century in many places: in England, in the German Empire, in Strasbourg, of course, but also in other imperial cities and territories, as well as in the Netherlands, in Switzerland, and in many other European countries. But it often turned out to be only select statements from his letters and books that were being quoted out of context and used by people in entirely different situations in order to shore up their own positions with Bucer's enduring theological and ecclesiastical authority. Bucer was thus turned into a spokesman for views of which he had never been the sole or even the leading espouser. For instance, the Anglicans as well as the Puritans laid claim to him in England, and on the Continent the Lutherans as well as the Reformed saw him as one of their own. The Dutch Remonstrants, influenced by humanism, rallied around Bucer and his writings at the beginning of the seventeenth century in their struggle against the narrow-minded and strict Calvinism of their times.
Martin Bucer Thus tremendously diverse groups became convinced of the congeniality between their own and Bucer's theology—certainly a sign of the Strasbourg reformer's lasting impact, albeit at the price of both overand underestimating him in the process. Put another way, his ideas were domesticated and adapted to the views and needs of the confessional age.
In consequence, soon the image ensued of Bucer as a spineless and accommodating theologian, more interested in the effectiveness of his conciliatory formulations than in God's revealed truth. Bucer, of course, never founded an independent school of theological thought. Neither did a "Buceran" denomination emerge from his ministry. There were several reasons for this, including the simple political fact that only the princely territories, and not the imperial cities, would prove to have a future in the German Empire. In addition, Bucer's time in England was too brief to allow him to leave a durable imprint on the church there. A further essential reason was Bucer's inability and unwillingness to cast his theology into a clearly and firmly structured mold and thus turn it into a readily teachable and learnable dogmatic system, as Calvin and Melanchthon had succeeded in doing. In view of stiffening confessional fronts on both the Catholic and the Protestant side, unequivocal theological, ecclesiastical, and religious positions were called for and needed in the second half of the sixteenth century. In such a context, Bucer's answers were often found wanting and outdated.
Yet the same things that apparently limit the efficacy of his theology can also be seen as an asset. Bucer's theology was unique in that it could not be easily brought to a point or readily fixed doctrinally. It was not only
Bucer's restless, unremitting, and persistent individual personality that transcended boundaries during his lifetime. The theological and ecclesiastical effects of his work and ministry as well continued to overcome boundaries after his death. We thus can fully grasp Bucer only if we view him squarely in the center of the impassioned controversies and bitter rifts of the Reformation era. From his perspective, they presented him with ever new and awesome challenges that he was only too glad to take on.
He was not ready to shy away from wide-ranging responsibilities, often fully aware that by assuming them he was getting himself entangled in extremely complicated and sometimes even distressing problems.
In a rapidly and thoroughly changing world, Bucer was bent on understanding others and coming to an agreement with them. This was hardly a craving for harmony and appeasement at any, or almost any, price. It is perhaps most fitting to describe Bucer as a theologian of dialogue. This does not mean he was not sure of what he believed. On the contrary, his own
Conclusion 2y3 theological standpoint was quite clear and firm. But he did not use it primarily to contrast his own position over against that of his opponents, but rather as a point of departure for embarking in an exchange with them.
Bucer remained sensitive to elements of truth in the arguments of his antagonists, and even more to elements of truth in their lives and actions. 'This allowed him to associate quite freely with Luther and Zwingli and their respective supporters, always open to learning from them but at the same time intent on maintaining his independence. He entered into conversations with Anabaptists and supporters of the Catholic Church with the same self-assurance. This is probably the aspect of Bucer's personality and theology that seems most current and modern.
It is worth emphasizing once again, however, that Bucer was never guided by mere considerations of utility or glib accommodation. His conduct was inextricably connected to the fabric of his theology, in which competing strands intersected and intermingled. Traditions of the High and Late Middle Ages and crucial Reformation insights were closely interwoven in his thought. We have already seen how Bucer was fascinated by the vision of a thoroughly Christian society brought about by the closeknit cooperation of church and state; yet his model was not merely a replica of the received concept of the corpus christianum but rather presupposed a fully new ecclesiology based on the individual responsibility of every single Christian. While Bucer promoted with all available means the establishment of state church structures and the enforcement of obligatory doctrinal norms, he also sought simultaneously to safeguard liberty of conscience and even to make practical allowances for the possibility of diverging views. He incessantly proclaimed God's law to be eternally and inalterably valid, even to the point of sounding crudely legalistic; yet at the same time he subordinated God's law to the work of the Holy Spirit, who creates people anew, bestows on them the gift of faith in God, and sows in them love for their fellow human beings and the desire to seek the welfare of both the civic community and the Christian fellowship.
These differing strains vied with one another in Bucer's thought and actions, influencing and imbuing one another. Every statement he made implied a counterstatement. And affirming a position meant for Bucer also seeking to win over those who rejected that position. For him, entering into conversation with Christians who held views on faith different from his own was not a choice but a necessity. The ultimate foundation for this attitude was, and this was no coincidence, the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace through faith. The conviction that God unconditionally loves human beings as they are stood at the center of Bucer's theology and
Martin Bucer his entire church work. This conviction also gave him the capacity to deal with and endure differing views and even positions diametrically opposed to his own. The doctrine of justification also put limits on his theology's innate tendency toward absoluteness and totality. This, of course, did not lead to tolerance in the modern sense of the term, but rather to a recognition of the incompleteness and transience of all human attempts to understand the mysteries of God.
What relevance, if any, does this have for us?
Of course, we are not called to continue or repeat anything of what Bucer did. Yet by remembering this past, we learn of convictions, experiences, and aims still worth pondering. Among these are, to begin with,
Bucer's realization over four centuries ago of what we now call "theological pluralism," taking it for granted today. Next, we are challenged by Bucer's ecclesiastical perspective that was oblivious to national boundaries: his view focused not only on the situation of the church in Germany but extended all the way to Christians in the Low Countries, France, England, as well as in Italy, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and Moravia.
'This supranational vantage point assumed that Christians must be willing to listen to one another and learn from one another, thus creating a common ground that allows differing parties to unite without smothering their uniqueness and particularity.
Further, we have to take note of Bucer's compelling urge to see the gospel and a living Christian faith encompass all of society, including its structures and institutions. As we saw, he was particularly energetic in demanding that Christians assume responsibility for shaping the world they live in, a point amply illustrated in previous sections.
A final point worth reflecting on is Bucer's lifelong struggle to build a church that was generous in including as many people as possible—and yet that vigorously upheld discipline and moral standards; a church that respected the individuality and responsibility of each single member and had its foundation in grass-roots congregational life—yet at the same time was not afraid to get involved in surrounding society and was even willing to cooperate with the politically powerful.
'There are certainly countless questions that Bucer left unanswered. But his intense and unconditional devotion to the problems and challenges of his times has left us a legacy of such immensity that we have barely begun doing it justice. Of course, nothing of this legacy can be blindly imitated, as we already noted above. Yet remembering Bucer and his work can perhaps help future generations grapple with issues that remain fundamental.