It is important to revisit the history of the Reformation from time to time. It is the piece of cloth from which we are all drawn as evangelical Protestants. There is a popular and common but incomplete narrative of this part of Church history. Each year, on the occasion of the international celebration of the Protestant Reformation, we try to supplement with some less widespread information on the history of the Reformation. Today, let's talk about reforms instead of REFORMATION with a little special emphasis on radical reformation.
It is the best known. Its most celebrated leaders are mainly Luther in Germany, Zwingli in Zurich, Calvin in Geneva and some Anglican reformers. It is called magisterial for at least two reasons. It is first of all drawn from magisterium in the scholarly sense. It should be noted that the magisterial reformation was marked by a great influence of university professors and humanist intellectuals who converted to the cause of the Reformation. The authority of the expert teacher then became too great an influence that some reacted by accusing the magisterial reformers for being new popes. But the name of magisterial reformation also refers to secular magistrates. They played an important role in spreading and strengthening the reformation ideas of the early reformers. The German princes starting from Frederic who hid Luther in the castle, the Scandinavian kings who used their authority to make Lutheranism a national religion, Zwingli who used the civil authorities of Zurich and Calvin the same thing in Geneva. We could mention the King Henri VIII who after separating himself from Rome became the Head of the Church of England and the list could go on.
Some people found that the magisterial reformation of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli was not deep enough, at least in some aspects. Radicals are found on the fringes of both Lutheranism and Calvinism. For centuries the history of the free, radical, non-conformist, left-wing Reformation has been misunderstood, misrepresented and at worst totally ignored. But a few decades ago the history of the radical reformers was revisited, their contribution appreciated and their flaws exposed. The radical reformation was led not by high-level university professors like the magisterial reformation, but by intellectuals from all sorts of backgrounds. They were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. Far from being homogeneous, the movement was diversified, therefore easy to stigmatize because within it there were glaring heretical deviations, brutal revolutionaries.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out some positive important features acknowledged by history. Space does not allow me to go in depth. So I will be brief and informative.
The radicals were generally Anabaptists who rejected the scriptural authority of infant baptism, which angered the magisterial reformers. Conrad Grebel who may be called the first Anabaptist was Zwingli's close friend. He was shocked to see his friend embracing what he had once renounced, infant baptism. He separated from Zwingli. In June 21st 1525 something “radical” happened and this date was retained by historians as the launching of the Anabaptists movement. While those who had followed these convictions gathered in the house of Felix Mantz, a certain Georges Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to baptize him. But all those who were present in the house of Felix Mantz ended up being baptized too. From there different streams with basic similar convictions sprang from that well. Simon Menno led the same fight in the Netherlands and the Mennonites were born. We can also speak of the Moravians in Germany under the leadership of Count Zinzendorf, who had Anabaptist roots too. The radical reformers pleaded for a strict separation between State and Church. Among the magisterial reformers, civil authorities were used to enforce Church discipline when a member of the Church strayed from the right path. They did not hesitate to use the civil authorities to carry out socio-religious reforms. They believed that church and state should be linked in the service of faith and morality. Attempts to create some kind of theocracy where civil law and moral law could be one thing, were evident. But the radicals felt that the Church was accountable only to Christ and to the Scriptures and not to some human institution. They were hated because they refused to do politics, to be soldiers, to pay taxes that financed the war. Admittedly, magisterial reformers sometimes used their political influence to persecute the minority of Anabaptists. The Radicals were also distinguished by their nostalgia for becoming the Early Church again in its practices and simplicity. Anabaptists in general did not appreciate highly centralized leadership. They called each other brethren. So the Brethren were associated from the start with the radical reform movement. We could also talk about Moravians who instituted a communal lifestyle. Finally, to conclude, the radical movement sometimes found the magisterial reformation highly intellectual. They began to emphasize subjective experience with the Spirit. Luther called them enthusiasts. Their earliest and main leader Müntzer was an extremist who indulged in excesses that affected the reputation and reliability of the whole movement. Nevertheless, generalization beside, there are people like Georges Fox, father of the Quakers who insisted on the inner light without being heretical. The influence of the Quakers in the spiritual revitalization of the Church cannot be denied. But since the reformers insisted on the Bible as the external Word, those who insisted on the Spirit, and who valued encountering God in mystical and interior experience, were harshly confronted by magisterial reformers. Without endorsing excesses and abuses that have characterized some of the free reformers, History has validated their legitimate fear. The fear was that Church can become too much focused on the correctness of the doctrine that it becomes a religion that is intellectually rigid, but spiritually arid and lifeless. The Catholic Church found certain accusations made by the reformers legitimate. Moreover, before them, other voices had already been heard against the moral corruption of the clergy. Some Catholics wanted to eradicate abuses within the Church without however leaving. This is the case for example of Erasmus who never left it, despite his great contribution to the Protestant cause. Paul III convened the Council of Trent in 1545 which sat until 1563. They tried to purge the clergy of abuses without touching the fundamental dogmas. Clerical corruption was redressed but all the sacraments were maintained.
Contextual considerations
More than 500 years after the Reformation, there are issues which still remain unresolved, open to debate and call for tolerance. These issues have unnecessarily divided Christians for centuries, and we are far from reaching a consensus among the most sincere scholars. While I do not discourage the pursuit of truth in these areas like church leadership styles and sacraments, we should be more irenic in the way we listen and treat others with opposite views. As we celebrate protestant reformation, it’s time for us to remember that Evangelical Christianity in Burundi is about a century old. It seems that there have been at least three major waves of the Gospel. There is a historical evidence that Radical Reformers relied much more on the subjective authority of the inner voice and mystical experiences than on objective authority of external Word, the Bible. But it is also possible that the magisterial reformers overreacted to the supernatural. It should be noted that to the ears of the magisterial reformers, things like miracles were connected to the false stories of miraculous relics and superstitions of the Catholic Church in the middle Ages. It is very possible that they hastily associated any account of the supernatural with Catholic lies. The recent debate among reformed circles about the supernatural gifts make us wonder if we do not still make the same mistake today of letting the abuses and excesses of others shape our theology. The magisterial reformers found that the radicals were disrupting the cause of Reformation, adding confusion and extremism. They were afraid it would discredit the whole Reformation movement. For their part, the radicals found that the first reformers had not pushed the reformation far enough, that they preserved some catholic vestiges. We deplore the cases of persecution that have occurred between these two groups. But we learn from here that it is easy to develop feelings of intolerance, pride, conceit and hatred and fail to appreciate what God is doing through other groups which do not agree with us in everything. This trap should be avoided in our generation as we all strive for a Semper Reformanda in the Church in Burundi. Lastly we have seen how the Catholic Church tried to clean up things, at least morally although doctrinally there has been no change. For some decades, the changing postmodern world has prompted the abandonment of moral values. Despite this, we have seen the Catholic Church taking intransigent positions against such moral deterioration. They have spoken out officially against abortion, homosexuality more than the Protestant churches did. Some protestant churches have openly embraced the liberal trend.
On the local level, the recent constraining measures, in the eyes of some, of the Burundian government towards the Protestant churches may be reactionary to the multiple moral scandals which have been observed among the Protestant churches and leaders. It seems that there has been a turnaround, and that it is now the turn of the Protestant Church to clean up her house. 
