To the Editor:

I am writing in reference to Kevin Courter’s article “Semper Reformandum?” which appeared in the February 14 Bagpipe.

Though I had never before encountered the expression “Reformatus est semper reformandum” and am not surprised that various people have not been able to locate that expression in documents before 1900, I have been for a number of years aware of a similar formulation, “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda” (that is, “the Church reformed, always to be reformed”). In an unusually helpful article, Harold P. Nebelsick (”Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda,” Reformed Liturgy and Music Journal, XVIII [1984], 59-63) mentions several other formulations, including “Ecclesia semper reformari debet” (”The church must always be reformed”); “Ecclesia reformanda quia reformata” (”The church to be reformed because it has been reformed”), to be found in the writings of Reformed Dutch theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676); and simply “Ecclesia semper reformanda” (”The church always to be reformed”), which antedates the Protestant Reformation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith contains, at least implicitly, a statement compatible with these formulations: “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture” (I,10). Presumably, “all decrees of councils” would include the declarations of the Westminster Assembly itself.

Clearly the Church has often been conscious of its need for the Holy Spirit to work for its further reformation, especially as it rejoices in such reforming as He has already accomplished in it. This reforming work of God’s Spirit might manifest itself in more than one way. He might refocus the eyes of His people so that they see more clearly what He is teaching in the Bible. He might generate repentance in His people for their lack of zeal in searching out His teaching in the Bible or for their unfaithfulness in not believing and obeying what they already understand Him to be teaching in the Bible.

Though one would find it hard to disagree with Mr. Courter’s claim that “throughout the Church’s history, it has never been the case that it didn’t have the truth,” his next assertion (that “no progression of understanding has been needed”) hardly comports well with the Church’s long-term awareness of its need for continual reformation by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Bible. Does the Bible itself warrant our being certain that the Holy Spirit’s speaking in the scripture is at any time known exhaustively and with sufficient clarity? Though we should rejoice in such understanding as we have and though we should certainly not underestimate the Spirit’s power to teach, should we not also pray for more understanding and should we not guard against underestimating the power of such noetic effects of the fall as our ignorance, our mental laziness, and our sinful resistance to the Spirit?

By the way, I should confess that I cannot find provenance for words I had thought to be a long-standing part of the reformed tradition, namely, “semper reformans,” that is, “always reforming.” Perhaps Voetius and others were more careful than to encourage the Church in the idea that it is the primary agent of its own reformation. “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda” should serve to remind us that it is God’s Holy Spirit who has been, is, and will continue to be the primary agent of all the reformation that the Church needs.

Nicholas Barker