Ulrich Zwingli

Background

While a wealth of information exists regarding the theology of Martin Luther, John Calvin and others, relatively little is available with relation to Huldrych Zwingli. Zwingli was a contemporary of Martin Luther, and his renunciation of the Roman Catholic priesthood came only a few years after Luther's; these factors may explain Zwingli's comparative obscurity relative to Luther and Calvin as one of the driving forces behind the Reformation.

Another reason for Zwingli's failure to capture the public imagination may be his radical theology. Some commentators believe that history has overlooked Zwingli simply because it was written by men unsympathetic to his doctrinal views, who went out of their way to suppress them. They hold that "history is written by the victors"; the "other side of the story" is either forgotten, or suppressed. Needless to say, this view is prevalent principally among dyed-in-the-wool Zwinglians, and should perhaps not be taken at face value, particularly in the light of the extensive academic research conducted over the last 20 years or so into the sources of the Reformation.

Zwingli's contribution to Reformation

One major difference in theological opinion between Zwingli and Luther is on the nature of the Christian sacraments. Many consider Luther to have been the originator of the belief that God's covenants to man are unconditional; Zwingli, on the other hand, proposed that God's covenants were just that--spiritually binding contracts between God and man that were vulnerable to man's relapse into the sinful life that could eventually lead to an annulment of God's part in the contract.

E. Brooks Holifield says,

“

When Luther called the sacrament a covenantal seal, he meant that baptism visibly ratified and guaranteed God's promises, as a royal seal authenticated a government document on which it was inscribed. Only secondarily was baptism a pledge of obedience by men. For Zwingli, however, the sacrament was primarily 'a covenant sign which indicates that all those who receive it are willing to amend their lives to follow Christ

”

For both Luther and Zwingli, the sacrament of baptism was a sign or symbol of God's new Gospel covenant. Their theological differences arise in the relationship between baptism and mankind.

A key doctrinal difference between Zwingli and Luther was their view on the Eucharist. Whereas Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the bread and wine of this sacrament (a view often called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans), Zwingli thought the sacrament to be purely symbolic and memorial in character. Their differences were discussed at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. By contrast, the next generation Reformer John Calvin's view was that Christ is spiritually but not physically present in the sacrament, but some later Calvinists such as Charles Hodge tend more towards Zwingli's memorialism than Calvin's doctrine.

Zwingli was also known for his belief that the Christian sacrament was similar to a military oath or pledge in order to demonstrate an individual's willingness to listen and obey the written word of God.

Music in the Church

Zwingli was one of the first Protestants to question the use of musical instruments during worship services. In fact, he was so alarmed by the abuses to which music was subjected that some of his services did not have any music whatsoever. He regarded music as a possible distraction from single attention to the preaching of the word of God.Much of the Reformed movement fell into agreement with the exclusion of instruments from worship, pointing out the organ in particular as being a prominent example of what they meant by the corruption allowed into worship by the Roman Catholic Church. Zwingli recommended that a better use for an organ would be to sell it and give the money to the poor. Zwingli did not have a distaste for music in general usage; rather, he naturally loved music and could play a variety of instruments.

Scholars have demonstrated new findings regarding Zwingli and music in the church as well. Gottfried W. Locher writes, "The old assertion 'Zwingli was against church singing' holds good no longer.... Zwingli's polemic is concerned exclusively with the medieval Latin choral and priestly chanting and not with the hymns of evangelical congregations or choirs".He goes on to say that "Zwingli freely allowed vernacular psalm or choral singing. In addition, he even seems to have striven for lively, antiphonal, unison recitative". Locher then summaries his comments on Zwingli's view of church music as follows: "The chief thought in his conception of worship was always 'conscious attendance and understanding' — 'devotion', yet with the lively participation of all concerned".