This is superb storytelling and a good synthesis of most important intellectual matters on the Reformation. It’s an old book. It does have more storytelling than intellectual discussions, but reading a good entertaining narrative while facing some two or three lines of the most important intellectual background of it, is great stuff. It presupposes religion as driving force and impossible to organize in simple cause and effect analysis. Bye bye social sciences. No glimpse of Marxist, weberian, scientific or whatever reading.
The late medieval church is displayed as corrupt. The argument: It became secular, since it became a very strong political power, and the manifestation of ecclesial rule was the sacramental perspective on life. It was wordly, because it was a form of power. So it agonized for spiritual revival. This is very important: for Baiton the reformation is a religious revival. That is why he’s able to see all currents in a more impartial way, and he can be critical of them all: spiritual revivals are like that, they explode and go in many different ways.
On ubiquity and sacrament for Luther: “His position was that matter and spirit are not antithetical. The physical was created by God, is permeated by God, and it a fit vehicle for communication with the divine. God is omnipresent in all the material world, and Christ as God is also ubiquitous. But we do not perceive their presence because our eyes are holden. God is a hidden God who has chosen to make himself known at three points: in the flesh of Christ, in the world embedded in Scripture, and in the elements of the sacrament” (pg. 48). A latinized version is applied to Calvin. Where therefore the reformers gnostics or mystics? You tell me (and Eric Voegelin). Later on he points how Zwingli, Carlstadt and some puritans were more “gnostic” in that sense, by positing the material as obstacle to spiritual.
A similar example of intellectual debate by Baiton on baptism: “The question of adult versus infant baptism has very far-reaching consequences for the theory of the Church, because adult baptism goes with the view that the church is a gathering of all who have had an experience of regeneration, whereas infant baptism points to the church compromising the entire community […] Here is the problem of the sect and the Church, of the small, select, voluntary converticle over against the comprehensive institution conterminous with state and society” (50)
The chapter on Anabaptism is great as well, almost as Luther’s. He starts by pointing the main presupposition of Anabaptists view, which happily explains many later developments of Christian sects: the church view as persecuted, despised, small, selective and exclusive.
*
The last part of the book has a great discussion of Reformation and politics, and it helps whoever ends up in discussion it with smart Catholics.
You see, if you debate romanists the on evil consequences of reformation, an often used argument against it is: protestants dissolved Christendom and started the secular version of community: the modern nation. Just pick Jean Sibelius the Finnish composer when he came around, and wrote that beautiful Finlandia hymn to Finland as if that nation was the New Jerusalem, join it with every nationalistic war since, and so it is given and proved how the secularized State became the modern redemption for man, when the institutional church stopped being it. Something has to occupy the temporal sphere: if it’s not the church, it’s the state.
Not so fast. The state was growing before the reformation for matters of security, since Europe was opening up and dropping feudalism. The first Lutheran princes where on the side of the Empire, not of any german nation. Catholics assisted kings where they saw fit to resist the Empire, and also the other way around. Calvinist were sometimes loyal some times resistant, completely contingent and practical. The main principle was freedom to worship as they saw correct, which is a rather conservative principle, not a progressive one. There was no absolute view of society in either side, both catholics and protestants were fighting the battle for faith, and both contributed to it and resisted this process. Luther never affirmed total submission and many Lutheran churches opposed later totalitarianisms. To sum it: England was where there absolutism received most support from churchmen in XVI century, but on the XX it became the bulwark of democracy (236). How important was reformation political thinking after all?
*
This makes this book a starting point to study the Reformation from a protestant perspective. But not more.
J. Pelikan notes in his kind foreword that two big stuff are missing: a careful understanding of the Catholic Reformation (which would put Erasus in a better place than just a “Free Spirit” hovering around as a ghost), and how the reformers drew from the catholic tradition themselves. So there you have it: all recent “Reformation from a medieval perspective” sort of studies is completely absent (think of Heiko Oberman, Steven Ozment, David Steinmetz, and some Westminster California people). Notes on how the reformation developed it’s own tradition are also not present, so there is not even a brief word on scholasticism. This is why I gave it only 4 stars.