What do you think?
Rate this book
Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings
Getting the Reformation wrong is a common problem. Most students of history know that Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the Wittenberg Church door and that John Calvin penned the Institutes of the Christian Religion. However, the Reformation did not unfold in the straightforward, monolithic fashion some may think. It was, in fact, quite a messy affair. Using the most current Reformation scholarship, James R. Payton exposes, challenges and corrects some common misrepresentations of the Reformation.
Getting the Reformation Wrong:
- places the Reformation in the context of medieval and Renaissance reform efforts
- analyzes conflicts among the Reformers
- corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola Scriptura
- examines how the Anabaptist movement fits in with the magisterial Reformation
- critiques the post-Reformational move to Protestant Scholasticism
- explores how the fresh perspective on the Reformation could make a difference in today's churches
Getting the Reformation Wrong:
- places the Reformation in the context of medieval and Renaissance reform efforts
- analyzes conflicts among the Reformers
- corrects common misunderstandings of what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola Scriptura
- examines how the Anabaptist movement fits in with the magisterial Reformation
- critiques the post-Reformational move to Protestant Scholasticism
- explores how the fresh perspective on the Reformation could make a difference in today's churches
272 pages, Paperback
First published July 2, 2010
14 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
James R. Payton Jr.
8 books10 followersJames R. Payton Jr. (PhD, University of Waterloo, Canada) is emeritus professor of history at Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ontario, Canada. He is the author of Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition and Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, as well as the editor of A Patristic Treasury: Early Church Wisdom for Today.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
December 20, 2010
I learned more about the Reformation in this all-too-short book than I have in the whole of my time in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles. The book is designed to draw our eyes to the actual shape of the history of the Reformation, rather than the Great Myth which all Protestants heard. The story which Payton tells is one of success and great failure, of struggle and conflict, and of constant in-fighting between Protestant factions. His barbs find their mark, and any good Protestant ought to cringe. When he points out that the Jesuits were the most successful movement of Reform in the 16th century when they reclaimed vast Protestant territories for Rome, and notes that the reason they were so successful was because the Reformers were too busy waging war with one another, one is inclined to weep. May we learn the lesson. He tackles attempted Catholic reform before Luther, addresses the Anabaptists, and I think fairly assesses the Reformation for what it was - a genuine reform movement within the Church of Christ, warts and all.
June 24, 2021
"According to Luther, reason had given Christian teaching "the French pox" (i.e., syphilis) and Aristotle was the pimp who had arranged the tryst." (p. 197)
A capable and impressively comprehensive treatment of the Protestant Reformation, including the historical movements perched above and below its moment in Western development. James Payton, Jr. is a professor of history who specializes in Reformation era scholarship. In this handy distillation Payton addresses some of the common misreadings of the Reformation—its ideas, its context, its trajectories—that so abundantly reside along the shoals of modern Protestantism. In doing so, he strays far from overlaying any private credo onto its retelling, choosing to maintain a stringently historical focus throughout. That is to say, even though his tome is published under the evangelical churning mill, InterVarsity Press, Payton pulls no punches and does not confine his inquiry to what today's Protestants might wish to hear.
This is the Reformation laid bare, warts and all, its triumphs as well as its tragedies. Indeed, a deeper excavation of this historical era may generate friction for those operating under the illusion that the Reformation was a monolithic, amicable waltz of Christian revelation and renewal. Getting the Reformation Wrong knocks down this wobbly edifice and erects in its place the multivalent presentation uncovered by historical scholarship in recent decades. It isn't until the final chapter that Payton swaps his historian attire for his self-confessed Protestant chapeau and offers some speculative wisdom on how Protestant Christendom may move forward in the face of some 30,000+ denominations and splinter sects extant.
Contextual Inevitability
The first misconception to which he lays waste is the notion that Martin Luther's ideas fell from heaven, as it were, sans historical context and ideological precedence. In fact, the clarion call for reformation within Western Christendom had been sounded for decades leading up to Luther's decisive act at Wittenburg. Longstanding corruption and profligacy within the Roman papacy and enfolding dioceses during the Late Middle Ages had provoked deep resentment from the outlying communities.
The rancor reached a fever pitch during the late 14th through the early 15th centuries in what became known as the Western Schism: Church governance devolved to an embarrassing state of disarray as quarrels over who had rights to the Roman throne only brought ignominy to the institution. The Medieval Period's Black Death, moreover, which rent the peoples of Europe and shaved its populaton by some 60-75 percent between the years 1347 and 1450, combined with religion's complete impotence to abate this paroxysm, further depleted the waning confidence in the Church. The siren of reformatio in capite et membris—"reform in head and members"—blared loudly, with anticlericalism a prevalent current at the front of European consciousness.
Mind you this was not an ideological opposition to religion writ large but rather a vehement disapproval of the rank venality in which the Roman communion was now awash. Christians of all stripes, from the Late Middle Ages to the Renaissance into which it bled, yearned for an overhaul of the Christian faith—a return to form. The groundwork for the Reformation had been laid atop a societal substrate eager to receive new ideas and leadership.
The Renaissance Revisited
A second misconstruction Payton targets is the idea that the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation were antithetical responses to the shared grievances toward the Church. The Renaissance, it is often supposed, was fundamentally irreligious and, ergo, anticipated the Enlightenment that was to come, while the Reformation was by contrast a recrudescence of spiritual wisdom. Payton traces these misconceptions largely to the 19th century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt, who published a number of works characterizing the Renaissance as a humanistic, or human-centered, movement as opposed to a religious one. This view carried weight for several centuries and was eventually revealed by later scholarship as a false dichotomy.
Scholarship has now shown that the term "humanist" as used in Renaissance literature carried no philosophical implications whatsoever but simply meant someone who taught the liberal arts or "humanities". It was in fact anachronistic of Burckhardt and his confreres to retroject their contemporary understanding of humanism onto a cultural epoch with an entirely different vernacular. The prevailing view today is one that sees the Renaissance as foregoing scholasticism and dialectic theological training for more individual concerns, such as poetry, grammar, history, and art.
While anti-papal sentiments were indeed widespread in Renaissance rhetoric, it was not a development centered on skepticism of religion as later interpreters have often presumed. Renaissance awareness aspired to a different balance between religion and culture, but embodied no hard-lined philosophical valence at its root. In this way, the Renaissance had far greater familial connection to the coming Reformation than to the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Question of Unity
Perhaps the gravest of misconstruals about the Reformation is that Luther's thinking followed a fixed, undeviating path from the moment he proclaimed his new way forward to the moment he died, or likewise, that the Reformers were all united in their ideas for reform. Like everyone else, Martin Luther was human and, as such, saw a shift in his thinking over time. Nor did the Reformers all share a similar background. Some of the major players were versed in Northern Christian humanism, while others were steeped in scholastic pedagogy, and this led to different emphases, foci, and clarities.
Trained in the scholastic mode of theology, Luther initially hit upon his revelatory approach to the Christian faith after some emotionally trying times during his monastic life. Even so, he did not anticipate or envisage a worldwide reformation to spring out of his ideas. They did, of course, and once his ideas were released into the wild, others latched onto them, sometimes taking them in directions he vehemently opposed.
The ferocity and zeal with which Luther and his Reformer compeers and detractors quarreled over various doctrinal commitments must have been something to behold. It was a common tactic of Luther to declaim his opponents as minions of Satan who wished to distort the truth in service to the wicked one. Here is one instance of the depths of Luther's discourtesy:
"You run against God with the horns of your pride up in the air and thus plunge into the abyss of hell. Woe unto you, Antichrist!" [From "Defense and Explanation of All the Articles," pg. 87 of Luther's Works, Vol. 32]
Or the inimitably endearing:
"You are dumber than Seriphian frogs and fishes." [From "The Bondage of the Will," pg. 77 of Luther's Works, Vol. 33]
Sola Fide
One of the moving targets of these colorful debates was Luther's core idea: justification sola fide. Through his many devoted years in service to the monastic order without any emotional relief to show for it, Luther had touched upon the doctrine that salvation is grasped by faith alone. This reduction of the Christian scheme of salvation was deemed heretical by the Roman Church, who contested that such a radical view would lead to indifference or apathy toward good behavior. In defense, the Reformers were more or less united in their ecclesiastical response. They countered that faith is never solitary and that good works and virtuous deportment are a natural outworking of the belief in God's unconditional mercy and plan for redemption. Faith is never alone but a package deal, they declared.
Sola Scriptura
The second delineating doctrine propounded by Luther and his contemporaries vectored around sola scriptura, which is often just as amenable to misinterpretation as that above. There is still to be found echoes of the "Scripture is good, tradition is bad" dichotomy nestled in modern Protestant thinking. A glance at the Reformers' own words reveals this to be an unacceptably narrow contrast. What Luther and company advocated was ad fontes theology, a return "to the sources," viz apostolic teaching and the writings of the Church fathers, something that had been muddled and all but smothered in the Christian life and teaching of the day.
Luther believed that much of the Christian doctrine of his time was unfaithful to Scripture as well as to the Church fathers' interpretation of Scripture. He sought to revive these ancient sources and privilege their position in the hierarchy of religious authority over against Catholicism's primary emphasis on tradition. While Luther and many of his loyalists argued that the Bible was the most important touchstone of Christian understanding, they did not insist it was the only hammer in the believers' toolkit.
Closing Thoughts
I was overall very pleased with this book. Payton delivers on the task he set out to accomplish. He provides a historically focused synopsis of the Reformation, allowing the major voices to speak for themselves, and corrects along the way the sundry misconceptions operative among many Protestants today. The book is also fastidiously referenced, allowing readers to drill further into the source literature for clarification. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Church history and the roots of Protestantism.
Note: This review is republished from my official website. Click through for additional footnotes and imagery.
A capable and impressively comprehensive treatment of the Protestant Reformation, including the historical movements perched above and below its moment in Western development. James Payton, Jr. is a professor of history who specializes in Reformation era scholarship. In this handy distillation Payton addresses some of the common misreadings of the Reformation—its ideas, its context, its trajectories—that so abundantly reside along the shoals of modern Protestantism. In doing so, he strays far from overlaying any private credo onto its retelling, choosing to maintain a stringently historical focus throughout. That is to say, even though his tome is published under the evangelical churning mill, InterVarsity Press, Payton pulls no punches and does not confine his inquiry to what today's Protestants might wish to hear.
This is the Reformation laid bare, warts and all, its triumphs as well as its tragedies. Indeed, a deeper excavation of this historical era may generate friction for those operating under the illusion that the Reformation was a monolithic, amicable waltz of Christian revelation and renewal. Getting the Reformation Wrong knocks down this wobbly edifice and erects in its place the multivalent presentation uncovered by historical scholarship in recent decades. It isn't until the final chapter that Payton swaps his historian attire for his self-confessed Protestant chapeau and offers some speculative wisdom on how Protestant Christendom may move forward in the face of some 30,000+ denominations and splinter sects extant.
Contextual Inevitability
The first misconception to which he lays waste is the notion that Martin Luther's ideas fell from heaven, as it were, sans historical context and ideological precedence. In fact, the clarion call for reformation within Western Christendom had been sounded for decades leading up to Luther's decisive act at Wittenburg. Longstanding corruption and profligacy within the Roman papacy and enfolding dioceses during the Late Middle Ages had provoked deep resentment from the outlying communities.
The rancor reached a fever pitch during the late 14th through the early 15th centuries in what became known as the Western Schism: Church governance devolved to an embarrassing state of disarray as quarrels over who had rights to the Roman throne only brought ignominy to the institution. The Medieval Period's Black Death, moreover, which rent the peoples of Europe and shaved its populaton by some 60-75 percent between the years 1347 and 1450, combined with religion's complete impotence to abate this paroxysm, further depleted the waning confidence in the Church. The siren of reformatio in capite et membris—"reform in head and members"—blared loudly, with anticlericalism a prevalent current at the front of European consciousness.
Mind you this was not an ideological opposition to religion writ large but rather a vehement disapproval of the rank venality in which the Roman communion was now awash. Christians of all stripes, from the Late Middle Ages to the Renaissance into which it bled, yearned for an overhaul of the Christian faith—a return to form. The groundwork for the Reformation had been laid atop a societal substrate eager to receive new ideas and leadership.
The Renaissance Revisited
A second misconstruction Payton targets is the idea that the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation were antithetical responses to the shared grievances toward the Church. The Renaissance, it is often supposed, was fundamentally irreligious and, ergo, anticipated the Enlightenment that was to come, while the Reformation was by contrast a recrudescence of spiritual wisdom. Payton traces these misconceptions largely to the 19th century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt, who published a number of works characterizing the Renaissance as a humanistic, or human-centered, movement as opposed to a religious one. This view carried weight for several centuries and was eventually revealed by later scholarship as a false dichotomy.
Scholarship has now shown that the term "humanist" as used in Renaissance literature carried no philosophical implications whatsoever but simply meant someone who taught the liberal arts or "humanities". It was in fact anachronistic of Burckhardt and his confreres to retroject their contemporary understanding of humanism onto a cultural epoch with an entirely different vernacular. The prevailing view today is one that sees the Renaissance as foregoing scholasticism and dialectic theological training for more individual concerns, such as poetry, grammar, history, and art.
While anti-papal sentiments were indeed widespread in Renaissance rhetoric, it was not a development centered on skepticism of religion as later interpreters have often presumed. Renaissance awareness aspired to a different balance between religion and culture, but embodied no hard-lined philosophical valence at its root. In this way, the Renaissance had far greater familial connection to the coming Reformation than to the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Question of Unity
Perhaps the gravest of misconstruals about the Reformation is that Luther's thinking followed a fixed, undeviating path from the moment he proclaimed his new way forward to the moment he died, or likewise, that the Reformers were all united in their ideas for reform. Like everyone else, Martin Luther was human and, as such, saw a shift in his thinking over time. Nor did the Reformers all share a similar background. Some of the major players were versed in Northern Christian humanism, while others were steeped in scholastic pedagogy, and this led to different emphases, foci, and clarities.
Trained in the scholastic mode of theology, Luther initially hit upon his revelatory approach to the Christian faith after some emotionally trying times during his monastic life. Even so, he did not anticipate or envisage a worldwide reformation to spring out of his ideas. They did, of course, and once his ideas were released into the wild, others latched onto them, sometimes taking them in directions he vehemently opposed.
The ferocity and zeal with which Luther and his Reformer compeers and detractors quarreled over various doctrinal commitments must have been something to behold. It was a common tactic of Luther to declaim his opponents as minions of Satan who wished to distort the truth in service to the wicked one. Here is one instance of the depths of Luther's discourtesy:
"You run against God with the horns of your pride up in the air and thus plunge into the abyss of hell. Woe unto you, Antichrist!" [From "Defense and Explanation of All the Articles," pg. 87 of Luther's Works, Vol. 32]
Or the inimitably endearing:
"You are dumber than Seriphian frogs and fishes." [From "The Bondage of the Will," pg. 77 of Luther's Works, Vol. 33]
Sola Fide
One of the moving targets of these colorful debates was Luther's core idea: justification sola fide. Through his many devoted years in service to the monastic order without any emotional relief to show for it, Luther had touched upon the doctrine that salvation is grasped by faith alone. This reduction of the Christian scheme of salvation was deemed heretical by the Roman Church, who contested that such a radical view would lead to indifference or apathy toward good behavior. In defense, the Reformers were more or less united in their ecclesiastical response. They countered that faith is never solitary and that good works and virtuous deportment are a natural outworking of the belief in God's unconditional mercy and plan for redemption. Faith is never alone but a package deal, they declared.
Sola Scriptura
The second delineating doctrine propounded by Luther and his contemporaries vectored around sola scriptura, which is often just as amenable to misinterpretation as that above. There is still to be found echoes of the "Scripture is good, tradition is bad" dichotomy nestled in modern Protestant thinking. A glance at the Reformers' own words reveals this to be an unacceptably narrow contrast. What Luther and company advocated was ad fontes theology, a return "to the sources," viz apostolic teaching and the writings of the Church fathers, something that had been muddled and all but smothered in the Christian life and teaching of the day.
Luther believed that much of the Christian doctrine of his time was unfaithful to Scripture as well as to the Church fathers' interpretation of Scripture. He sought to revive these ancient sources and privilege their position in the hierarchy of religious authority over against Catholicism's primary emphasis on tradition. While Luther and many of his loyalists argued that the Bible was the most important touchstone of Christian understanding, they did not insist it was the only hammer in the believers' toolkit.
Closing Thoughts
I was overall very pleased with this book. Payton delivers on the task he set out to accomplish. He provides a historically focused synopsis of the Reformation, allowing the major voices to speak for themselves, and corrects along the way the sundry misconceptions operative among many Protestants today. The book is also fastidiously referenced, allowing readers to drill further into the source literature for clarification. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Church history and the roots of Protestantism.
Note: This review is republished from my official website. Click through for additional footnotes and imagery.
February 23, 2012
James Payton has produced a remarkable book. He is already cutting the legs out from under many standard Reformed evangelical lecture quotables. I don't know if this book will make many friends for Dr. Payton in the world of conservative Reformdom (or conservative anything-dom), but it deserves a careful reading by all those are serious about the study of history. (On a personal note, Dr. Payton is a careful scholar, as well as a kind one. When I was doing my M.A. research, he was kind enough to send me a copy of his doctoral dissertation, which related to my topic. He also helped me with a short bibliography on a topic I was pursuing at Trinity Theology College.)
A good example of his balanced scholarship is his treatment of Renaissance humanism. It is a truism in discussions of Christian "world-view thinking" to say that the Renaissance was a move towards a man-centered worldview, in other words, humanism. Dr. Payton shows that we have totally mis-read the "h-word" in regard to the Renaissance:
"But during the Renaissance umanista carried no philosophic implications. Rather, it had pedgagogical ones: a 'humanist' was someone who taught the 'humanities'--the liberal arts. These Renaissance figures focused not on some perceived or alleged philosophical differences from their scholastic opponents, but on the pedagogical difference from them. Where scholastics concentrated on logic, dialectic and metaphysics, Renaissance humanists focused on grammar, poetry, rhetoric and history. Rather than ensconcing themselves in the 'professional' schools at the universities (law, medicine and theology), the Renaissance figures emphasized the importance of preparatory or undergraduate education in its own right. Their purpose was to prepare their students to become capable and functioning members of society--not as specialists in law, medicine or theology, but as well-rounded individuals who could serve the needs of the burgeoning society in Italy. Burckhardt's [first real historian of the Italian Renaissance] readers had committed an egregious category mistake: they had misappropriated the understanding of 'humanism' of their own day, with all its philosophical and humanity-centered implications, to interpret the 'humanism' of the Renaissance, a movement that had no such philosophical emphasis or implications," (61-62).
"Renaissance figures produced a great deal of devotional literature, careful textual studies of the New Testament and treatises on various doctrinal topics. Rather than dismiss these as holdovers from a superstitious upbringing, scholars have come to recognize them as evidence of the Renaissance figures' ongoing Christian commitment" (64).
A good example of his balanced scholarship is his treatment of Renaissance humanism. It is a truism in discussions of Christian "world-view thinking" to say that the Renaissance was a move towards a man-centered worldview, in other words, humanism. Dr. Payton shows that we have totally mis-read the "h-word" in regard to the Renaissance:
"But during the Renaissance umanista carried no philosophic implications. Rather, it had pedgagogical ones: a 'humanist' was someone who taught the 'humanities'--the liberal arts. These Renaissance figures focused not on some perceived or alleged philosophical differences from their scholastic opponents, but on the pedagogical difference from them. Where scholastics concentrated on logic, dialectic and metaphysics, Renaissance humanists focused on grammar, poetry, rhetoric and history. Rather than ensconcing themselves in the 'professional' schools at the universities (law, medicine and theology), the Renaissance figures emphasized the importance of preparatory or undergraduate education in its own right. Their purpose was to prepare their students to become capable and functioning members of society--not as specialists in law, medicine or theology, but as well-rounded individuals who could serve the needs of the burgeoning society in Italy. Burckhardt's [first real historian of the Italian Renaissance] readers had committed an egregious category mistake: they had misappropriated the understanding of 'humanism' of their own day, with all its philosophical and humanity-centered implications, to interpret the 'humanism' of the Renaissance, a movement that had no such philosophical emphasis or implications," (61-62).
"Renaissance figures produced a great deal of devotional literature, careful textual studies of the New Testament and treatises on various doctrinal topics. Rather than dismiss these as holdovers from a superstitious upbringing, scholars have come to recognize them as evidence of the Renaissance figures' ongoing Christian commitment" (64).
October 31, 2016
This is the best book on the Reformation I have read.
Many Protestants, particularly evangelicals who champion "sola scriptura" idealize the Reformation. James Payton offers a more sober and nuanced account of the Reformation's origins, impact and subsequent developments by Protestant scholastics.
Payton begins by examining the state of medieval Christianity before the Reformation broke out. He notes the plethora of problems plaguing the papacy, including the rise and fall of conciliarism by the cardinals, the conundrum of the Western Schism and the profligacy and ignorance of many of the medieval clergy, many of whom openly rebelled against the demands for clerical celibacy, including, of course, the notorious Pope Alexander VI. A suspect Church was not the only quandary for Europe as the plague had devastated Europe during the 1300s, dramatically reducing the population.
The author brings to light many things I had not previously considered. Firstly, Payton pays careful attention to the intellectual atmosphere before the Reformation when humanism (which during the Renaissance only meant someone who studied the liberal arts) arose to vie with scholasticism for control of the academy (while Martin Luther was vigorously trained as a scholastic, most all of the other leading Reformers were humanists). Medieval theologians would emphasize ONE aspect of God's character from which to construct their theology, such as will or reason.
One of the most important is the fact that Martin Luther's beliefs changed over time as he responded to critics and refined his thought. However, the problem is that the presses (which helped make the Reformation immensely successful and widespread) would print his previous works. Thus, while Luther may have sharpened his beliefs regarding a tenet in 1528, his previous convictions regarding that tenet were still being consumed and believed by those who read his earlier works, leading to a horrendous amount of misunderstanding. It was have been impossible for Luther to correct all of the people who acted on Luther's outdated beliefs (especially given how popular Luther's writings were since he made them so accessible to the common folk).
Another important clarification is made regarding Ulrich Zwingli's views of the Eucharist. Payton chides those who claim Zwingli believed in a "real absence" or merely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Rather, Payton tells us that Zwingli's beliefs about the Eucharist reflected the richer and deeper meaning of "anamnesis" in which Christ was made present through remembrance.
Payton also offers another clarification about Anabaptists. While it is commonly asserted that Anabaptists demanded "believers' baptism" what they actually practiced was "disciples' baptism." They wanted those who sought baptism to demonstrate a clear commitment to Jesus (this brings to mind how the early Church did not immediately baptize people but wanted them to undergo catechesis and preparation) before being baptized. As well, the Anabaptists did not actually care all that much about the mode of baptism.
More generally, Payton offers the insights of not only Luther but Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin regarding how they approach Scripture, tradition and other issues. While he does not pay any attention to the English Reformation, Payton does assess the rise of Protestant scholasticism after the first generation of Reformers died out, along with analyzing the Counter Reformation (indeed, Payton suggests the Jesuits appeared to be the winners as they regained many territories that had gone Protestant, although they did so by setting up schools where the children of Protestant nobles were indoctrinated into Catholicism, despite the Jesuits' assurance they would do no such thing). Payton notes that the Reformation actually caused Rome to ROUSE itself of its lethargy and to train its clergy better, define its theology and correct its corruptions. Payton also stresses that unlike their successors (at least until the 1980s), the Protestant Reformers were exceptionally well-read in the Church fathers and used their knowledge of them and their thought to back up their own tenets.
Payton is not starry-eyed about the Reformation. While he affirms the Reformation's rediscovery of the gospel of grace from the layering of medieval and ecclesiastical additions to the gospel, he also rebukes later Protestants for burying that same gospel under their own additions as they schism from each other for any number of reasons (indeed, one of the reasons the Counter Reformation WAS so successful was because the Lutherans and Reformed - not to mention the Anabaptists - were feuding among one another and so could not provided a united front against Rome). Payton ends by affirming the recovery of patristics study by evangelicals while also pointing out that the Church fathers, and Jesus himself, sought unity no matter what doctrinal differences (except in the understanding of salvation, as per Clement). Anyone who wants a balanced and intellectually stimulating account of the Reformation should read this book so that they'll "get the Reformation right!"
Many Protestants, particularly evangelicals who champion "sola scriptura" idealize the Reformation. James Payton offers a more sober and nuanced account of the Reformation's origins, impact and subsequent developments by Protestant scholastics.
Payton begins by examining the state of medieval Christianity before the Reformation broke out. He notes the plethora of problems plaguing the papacy, including the rise and fall of conciliarism by the cardinals, the conundrum of the Western Schism and the profligacy and ignorance of many of the medieval clergy, many of whom openly rebelled against the demands for clerical celibacy, including, of course, the notorious Pope Alexander VI. A suspect Church was not the only quandary for Europe as the plague had devastated Europe during the 1300s, dramatically reducing the population.
The author brings to light many things I had not previously considered. Firstly, Payton pays careful attention to the intellectual atmosphere before the Reformation when humanism (which during the Renaissance only meant someone who studied the liberal arts) arose to vie with scholasticism for control of the academy (while Martin Luther was vigorously trained as a scholastic, most all of the other leading Reformers were humanists). Medieval theologians would emphasize ONE aspect of God's character from which to construct their theology, such as will or reason.
One of the most important is the fact that Martin Luther's beliefs changed over time as he responded to critics and refined his thought. However, the problem is that the presses (which helped make the Reformation immensely successful and widespread) would print his previous works. Thus, while Luther may have sharpened his beliefs regarding a tenet in 1528, his previous convictions regarding that tenet were still being consumed and believed by those who read his earlier works, leading to a horrendous amount of misunderstanding. It was have been impossible for Luther to correct all of the people who acted on Luther's outdated beliefs (especially given how popular Luther's writings were since he made them so accessible to the common folk).
Another important clarification is made regarding Ulrich Zwingli's views of the Eucharist. Payton chides those who claim Zwingli believed in a "real absence" or merely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Rather, Payton tells us that Zwingli's beliefs about the Eucharist reflected the richer and deeper meaning of "anamnesis" in which Christ was made present through remembrance.
Payton also offers another clarification about Anabaptists. While it is commonly asserted that Anabaptists demanded "believers' baptism" what they actually practiced was "disciples' baptism." They wanted those who sought baptism to demonstrate a clear commitment to Jesus (this brings to mind how the early Church did not immediately baptize people but wanted them to undergo catechesis and preparation) before being baptized. As well, the Anabaptists did not actually care all that much about the mode of baptism.
More generally, Payton offers the insights of not only Luther but Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin regarding how they approach Scripture, tradition and other issues. While he does not pay any attention to the English Reformation, Payton does assess the rise of Protestant scholasticism after the first generation of Reformers died out, along with analyzing the Counter Reformation (indeed, Payton suggests the Jesuits appeared to be the winners as they regained many territories that had gone Protestant, although they did so by setting up schools where the children of Protestant nobles were indoctrinated into Catholicism, despite the Jesuits' assurance they would do no such thing). Payton notes that the Reformation actually caused Rome to ROUSE itself of its lethargy and to train its clergy better, define its theology and correct its corruptions. Payton also stresses that unlike their successors (at least until the 1980s), the Protestant Reformers were exceptionally well-read in the Church fathers and used their knowledge of them and their thought to back up their own tenets.
Payton is not starry-eyed about the Reformation. While he affirms the Reformation's rediscovery of the gospel of grace from the layering of medieval and ecclesiastical additions to the gospel, he also rebukes later Protestants for burying that same gospel under their own additions as they schism from each other for any number of reasons (indeed, one of the reasons the Counter Reformation WAS so successful was because the Lutherans and Reformed - not to mention the Anabaptists - were feuding among one another and so could not provided a united front against Rome). Payton ends by affirming the recovery of patristics study by evangelicals while also pointing out that the Church fathers, and Jesus himself, sought unity no matter what doctrinal differences (except in the understanding of salvation, as per Clement). Anyone who wants a balanced and intellectually stimulating account of the Reformation should read this book so that they'll "get the Reformation right!"
April 21, 2022
Decent, pointed out some good ideas and ways to think about the Reformation as a Protestant. Ended better than it started.
July 17, 2012
My expectations for this book were probably out of proportion to what Payton could likely provide in this book. The provocative title leaves the reader anticipating more than he delivers. I'm left with the conviction that the conventional evangelical understanding of the Reformation is largely correct. Where we've gone wrong, according to Payton, is primarily in understanding the Renaissance.
Payton argues, and rightly, that the church, to the degree that it discusses the Renaissance, views it as a primarily secular movement. Payton argues it was more a return to original source documents--even the Bible in its original languages. He argues that the northern humanists, particularly under thirty, were persuaded by Luther's thesis on justification and were his first disciples. Our misconception of the Renaissance stems from reading back a more modern definition of humanism back onto the Renaissance.
Payton covers this ground in the first part of the book, and from my perspective was the most significant way that we "get the Reformation wrong." So what's the rest of the book? He discusses what the Reformers meant by "sola fide" and "sola scriptura." He reviews the anabaptist movement--primarily noting that anabaptists are not the forebears of modern baptists. He reviews the Roman Catholic reform movement--noting it began prior to the Reformation. He notes the many successes of the Jesuits in countering the effects of the Reformation. He "grades" the Reformation largely as a failure--at least for the Protestants. The Jesuits are the only group getting a "succeeded" grade.
Finally, he argues the Reformation was both a triumph and a tragedy. It was a triumph because it succeeded in returning the church, or at least a portion of the church, to a biblical understanding of justification and the authority of Scripture over all human authority. But the Reformation was a tragedy in fracturing the church leading to greater schisms and cultural impotence.
This is a good book, and a good introduction and overview of the Reformation. It fails to live up to the expectations of those who want to see a substantial reassessment of the Reformation.
Payton argues, and rightly, that the church, to the degree that it discusses the Renaissance, views it as a primarily secular movement. Payton argues it was more a return to original source documents--even the Bible in its original languages. He argues that the northern humanists, particularly under thirty, were persuaded by Luther's thesis on justification and were his first disciples. Our misconception of the Renaissance stems from reading back a more modern definition of humanism back onto the Renaissance.
Payton covers this ground in the first part of the book, and from my perspective was the most significant way that we "get the Reformation wrong." So what's the rest of the book? He discusses what the Reformers meant by "sola fide" and "sola scriptura." He reviews the anabaptist movement--primarily noting that anabaptists are not the forebears of modern baptists. He reviews the Roman Catholic reform movement--noting it began prior to the Reformation. He notes the many successes of the Jesuits in countering the effects of the Reformation. He "grades" the Reformation largely as a failure--at least for the Protestants. The Jesuits are the only group getting a "succeeded" grade.
Finally, he argues the Reformation was both a triumph and a tragedy. It was a triumph because it succeeded in returning the church, or at least a portion of the church, to a biblical understanding of justification and the authority of Scripture over all human authority. But the Reformation was a tragedy in fracturing the church leading to greater schisms and cultural impotence.
This is a good book, and a good introduction and overview of the Reformation. It fails to live up to the expectations of those who want to see a substantial reassessment of the Reformation.
February 19, 2017
The title of a new book by James Payton is sure to raise some eyebrows: Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings. This new book from Inter-Varsity Press does more than merely challenge long held assumptions. In 272 short pages, it provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the Protestant Reformation.
As someone who looks favorably on Reformed theology, I was somewhat skeptical going into this book. But Payton’s calm and careful approach won me over. He adds meat to the skeletal concepts many have of the Reformation. And along the way upholds the basic Protestant view that the Reformation was a good thing. He does correct some misunderstandings, however. He gives a lesson in Church history to challenge conservative, evangelical Protestants in some needed ways.
The book starts out with an explanation of how the study of history has advanced over the years. Historians are consciously aware of their self prejudices today, as they attempt to uncover what actually happened in the past. In the past, authors often erred in trying to see past eras too much through the lenses of their current age, or else they mistakenly thought pure objectivity was attainable through modernistic rationalism. Payton shows how the initial studies of the Reformation had some clear deficiencies, even though many of the findings from that era of scholarship are still parroted in many circles, both in the church and in the classroom, today. He aims to bring fresh discoveries from decades of research into the original documents of the period to light, and set the record straight while holding up contemporary views of the Reformation to close scrutiny.
He goes on to give a masterful treatment of the medieval background to the Reformation, as well as the connection it has with the Renaissance. He shows how from all quarters in the church, a strong call for reform was raised in the years preceding the Reformation. Reformatio in capite et membris — “reform in head and members” was the clarion call. This was hastened along by the dreadful scourge of the bubonic plague and how the clergy often would desert their posts in fear of the coming devastation. In his discussion of the Renaissance, he disproves a widely held notion that the Renaissance was a human-centered movement for reform, whereas the Reformation was God-centered. This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term “humanism” when referring to the movement to study the classic literature of ages past as the best way to learn helpful lessons for the problems of the day. In part this was a reaction to the medieval scholasticism which emphasized philosophy to the neglect of more practical sciences. Humanism was the birth of liberal arts studies. But like everything else in Europe in the 14 and 1500s, it was very much compatible with deep-seated religious faith. In fact the Reformation very much grew out of this renewed zeal for studying the humanities, as Payton explains:
Payton next explains the rise of the Reformation focusing on Luther. He dispels the myth that Luther’s theology was fully developed when he nailed the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. He shows how Luther and what became his movement, was carried along by numerous misunderstandings. People saw what they wanted to in Luther. And Luther was growing in his own understandings too. Luther was backed as a hero by discontent peasants, many of whom rebelled in a lawless, bloody riot. He was backed by princes and land-owners who saw his views as a way to gain autonomy and ascendancy. All of this was used in God’s providence to spur on the growth of the Reformation movement and give it freedom to grow until it was too large to stop.
Many aspects of life in the 1500s are brought to life through Payton’s book. Particularly important is his discussion of the peculiar challenges to life in medieval cities. Luther’s distance from city life may have influenced his strong law-gospel antithesis and emphasis on the two distinct kingdoms of Church and State. The Law shouldn’t impact life in the State. But other early reformers, such as Zwingli, Bucer and Oecolampadius “laid heavy emphasis on the transformation of society; social ethics was a prime consideration for them” because they were each leading pastors of a struggling city (pg. 106). Another aspect he illuminates is scholastic thought, in which various theologians (and Luther held the privileged Doctor of Theology degree) would build a coherent logical system of thought from one principle idea. Luther did this with justification by faith, and this primary idea influenced his view of law and the two-kingdom approach to society. It also slowed his pace of reform, as he was reluctant to go on to more conforming of church practice to Scripture until everyone thoroughly absorbed the first principle of grace.
After explaining how the early Reformers had various conflicts which kept them apart, the book goes on to challenge popular misconceptions of the Reformation ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. He explains how faith was lauded as the sole ground of our justification. The Reformers were unified in this tenant, which is still the predominant Protestant view today. He points out how the Reformers also insisted that faith always is accompanied by works, however. He offers several substantiating quotes, but this one by Zwingli from his book An Exposition of the Faith (1530) is my favorite: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” In discussing this point, Payton takes on a widespread problem in the evangelical church today. Payton explains:
The misconception Payton attacks regarding Sola Scriptura centers on: “A simplistic ‘Scripture good, tradition bad’ notion” (pg. 133). He shows how the Reformers urged the Scripture as the primary authority but did not spurn other sources of authority. Luther summarized his entire program by urging, “Back to the Bible, to Augustine and to the church fathers!” (pg. 138). The Reformers were scholars of the church fathers and took pains to show their teaching as supported by the church fathers. They viewed the era of the early fathers as the “golden age” of church history, actually. He uses this point to challenge the evangelical neglect of the church fathers and of church history in general. Let me quote some of his conclusion on this point:
After a treatment of the counter-Reformation which highlights some of the positive changes to the Roman Catholic church brought about by the Reformation age (while still not neglecting the negative reactions against evangelical beliefs from the Council of Trent), and after a treatment on the many-headed ana-Baptist movement (which he argues is not directly related to the Baptists of today), Payton goes on to critique the years following the Reformation. He sees the Reformer’s successors’ return to scholasticism and Aristotlean logic as a way to defend the newly recovered faith as largely a failure. He sees the systematization of the faith as necessarily losing some of the actual life of the Biblical faith of the Reformers. He points out how sin became defined as an infraction of God’s law, whereas the Reformers first saw it as “unfaithfulness toward God and estrangement from him” (pg. 208). Payton elaborates on the difference between the Reformers and their scholastic heirs on another topic, that of faith:
Payton doesn’t stop where he could, but digs in even deeper to challenge how we should view the Reformation. Was it a success? He documents the Reformers’ own disappointment with the movements of their day. He also shows how the infighting in Protestantism gave way to bloodshed and warfare even, and how some errors like unitarianism found avenues to come to light through the rise of Protestantism. He cautions against viewing any era as a “golden age” and urges a recovery of the study of the church fathers. He also challenges the disunity and fighting which characterizes so much of Protestantism today: “It is at least a horrendous anomaly that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold division.” (pg. 256-257)
Payton spares no punches, and his book presents numerous challenges to today’s evangelical Christianity. Yet he brings the world of the Reformation to light, and gives life to that era of history. He shows how we shouldn’t revere that time as a magical age of impossible heroes; rather they should be seen with their failures and flaws, and be imitated to the degree that they remained faithful to the truth.
One will not agree with all of Payton’s emphases and may disagree with some of his claims. But Getting the Reformation Wrong will certainly encourage a critical engagement with the Reformation. My hope is that I’ll get it right. I applaud Payton’s zeal for the truth and his insightful analysis of many of our contemporary blind-spots. A careful reading of his book will help us see ourselves more clearly, and may help us achieve a needed Reformation of today’s church. May God be pleased to grant that!
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
See additional reviews and resources are available at CrossFocusedReviews.com.
As someone who looks favorably on Reformed theology, I was somewhat skeptical going into this book. But Payton’s calm and careful approach won me over. He adds meat to the skeletal concepts many have of the Reformation. And along the way upholds the basic Protestant view that the Reformation was a good thing. He does correct some misunderstandings, however. He gives a lesson in Church history to challenge conservative, evangelical Protestants in some needed ways.
The book starts out with an explanation of how the study of history has advanced over the years. Historians are consciously aware of their self prejudices today, as they attempt to uncover what actually happened in the past. In the past, authors often erred in trying to see past eras too much through the lenses of their current age, or else they mistakenly thought pure objectivity was attainable through modernistic rationalism. Payton shows how the initial studies of the Reformation had some clear deficiencies, even though many of the findings from that era of scholarship are still parroted in many circles, both in the church and in the classroom, today. He aims to bring fresh discoveries from decades of research into the original documents of the period to light, and set the record straight while holding up contemporary views of the Reformation to close scrutiny.
He goes on to give a masterful treatment of the medieval background to the Reformation, as well as the connection it has with the Renaissance. He shows how from all quarters in the church, a strong call for reform was raised in the years preceding the Reformation. Reformatio in capite et membris — “reform in head and members” was the clarion call. This was hastened along by the dreadful scourge of the bubonic plague and how the clergy often would desert their posts in fear of the coming devastation. In his discussion of the Renaissance, he disproves a widely held notion that the Renaissance was a human-centered movement for reform, whereas the Reformation was God-centered. This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term “humanism” when referring to the movement to study the classic literature of ages past as the best way to learn helpful lessons for the problems of the day. In part this was a reaction to the medieval scholasticism which emphasized philosophy to the neglect of more practical sciences. Humanism was the birth of liberal arts studies. But like everything else in Europe in the 14 and 1500s, it was very much compatible with deep-seated religious faith. In fact the Reformation very much grew out of this renewed zeal for studying the humanities, as Payton explains:
By the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, all but one of the more than thirty Protestant religious leaders in the Lutheran camp had been trained in northern Christian humanism. Similarly, all those who became leaders in the nascent Reformed movement (following Zwingli in Zurich, Bucer in Strasbourg, and Oecolampadius in Basel) had been devoted adherents of the northern Renaissance. It is no exaggeration to state that, aside from Luther himself, the leadership of the Reformation was in the hands of northern Christian humanists. (pg. 70)
Payton next explains the rise of the Reformation focusing on Luther. He dispels the myth that Luther’s theology was fully developed when he nailed the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. He shows how Luther and what became his movement, was carried along by numerous misunderstandings. People saw what they wanted to in Luther. And Luther was growing in his own understandings too. Luther was backed as a hero by discontent peasants, many of whom rebelled in a lawless, bloody riot. He was backed by princes and land-owners who saw his views as a way to gain autonomy and ascendancy. All of this was used in God’s providence to spur on the growth of the Reformation movement and give it freedom to grow until it was too large to stop.
Many aspects of life in the 1500s are brought to life through Payton’s book. Particularly important is his discussion of the peculiar challenges to life in medieval cities. Luther’s distance from city life may have influenced his strong law-gospel antithesis and emphasis on the two distinct kingdoms of Church and State. The Law shouldn’t impact life in the State. But other early reformers, such as Zwingli, Bucer and Oecolampadius “laid heavy emphasis on the transformation of society; social ethics was a prime consideration for them” because they were each leading pastors of a struggling city (pg. 106). Another aspect he illuminates is scholastic thought, in which various theologians (and Luther held the privileged Doctor of Theology degree) would build a coherent logical system of thought from one principle idea. Luther did this with justification by faith, and this primary idea influenced his view of law and the two-kingdom approach to society. It also slowed his pace of reform, as he was reluctant to go on to more conforming of church practice to Scripture until everyone thoroughly absorbed the first principle of grace.
After explaining how the early Reformers had various conflicts which kept them apart, the book goes on to challenge popular misconceptions of the Reformation ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. He explains how faith was lauded as the sole ground of our justification. The Reformers were unified in this tenant, which is still the predominant Protestant view today. He points out how the Reformers also insisted that faith always is accompanied by works, however. He offers several substantiating quotes, but this one by Zwingli from his book An Exposition of the Faith (1530) is my favorite: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” In discussing this point, Payton takes on a widespread problem in the evangelical church today. Payton explains:
This notion of solitary faith nonetheless has led many pastors and evangelists to call their hearers… to be sure they can recount the date and the hour when.. they "prayed the sinner’s prayer" and thus were eternally saved, no matter what they might do in the rest of their lives. This calls people to rely on a spiritual birth certificate to know they are alive; the Reformers called them to live…. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone. (pg. 131)
The misconception Payton attacks regarding Sola Scriptura centers on: “A simplistic ‘Scripture good, tradition bad’ notion” (pg. 133). He shows how the Reformers urged the Scripture as the primary authority but did not spurn other sources of authority. Luther summarized his entire program by urging, “Back to the Bible, to Augustine and to the church fathers!” (pg. 138). The Reformers were scholars of the church fathers and took pains to show their teaching as supported by the church fathers. They viewed the era of the early fathers as the “golden age” of church history, actually. He uses this point to challenge the evangelical neglect of the church fathers and of church history in general. Let me quote some of his conclusion on this point:
For the Reformers, sola scriptura found its boundaries in the faithful teaching of the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of the ecumenical councils. Exposition of Scripture which remained within those limits could be expansive and imaginitive. However, to wander outside those limits and produce something “new” was for the Reformers not the mark of someone reading Scripture responsibly and using its authority rightly. How often, though, do Christians in the contemporary world hear about the allegedly scriptural “principle of seed faith” used to invite investment in a ministry? And what about “green prosperity prayer cloths” or the “health and wealth” gospel? None of these (nor similar aberrations) find any support whatsoever from the Protestant Reformation’s material principle of sola scriptura. (pg. 159)
After a treatment of the counter-Reformation which highlights some of the positive changes to the Roman Catholic church brought about by the Reformation age (while still not neglecting the negative reactions against evangelical beliefs from the Council of Trent), and after a treatment on the many-headed ana-Baptist movement (which he argues is not directly related to the Baptists of today), Payton goes on to critique the years following the Reformation. He sees the Reformer’s successors’ return to scholasticism and Aristotlean logic as a way to defend the newly recovered faith as largely a failure. He sees the systematization of the faith as necessarily losing some of the actual life of the Biblical faith of the Reformers. He points out how sin became defined as an infraction of God’s law, whereas the Reformers first saw it as “unfaithfulness toward God and estrangement from him” (pg. 208). Payton elaborates on the difference between the Reformers and their scholastic heirs on another topic, that of faith:
Under Protestant scholasticism, faith was depersonalized to the acceptance of right doctrine–which could be objectively and convincingly laid out for others to see. For the Reformers, though, faith was first and foremost personal bonding to God–cleaving to him, assured of his loving embrace. Again, these two conceptions of faith need not exclude each other; the important issue is which one receives the chief place…. (pg. 208)
Payton doesn’t stop where he could, but digs in even deeper to challenge how we should view the Reformation. Was it a success? He documents the Reformers’ own disappointment with the movements of their day. He also shows how the infighting in Protestantism gave way to bloodshed and warfare even, and how some errors like unitarianism found avenues to come to light through the rise of Protestantism. He cautions against viewing any era as a “golden age” and urges a recovery of the study of the church fathers. He also challenges the disunity and fighting which characterizes so much of Protestantism today: “It is at least a horrendous anomaly that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold division.” (pg. 256-257)
Payton spares no punches, and his book presents numerous challenges to today’s evangelical Christianity. Yet he brings the world of the Reformation to light, and gives life to that era of history. He shows how we shouldn’t revere that time as a magical age of impossible heroes; rather they should be seen with their failures and flaws, and be imitated to the degree that they remained faithful to the truth.
One will not agree with all of Payton’s emphases and may disagree with some of his claims. But Getting the Reformation Wrong will certainly encourage a critical engagement with the Reformation. My hope is that I’ll get it right. I applaud Payton’s zeal for the truth and his insightful analysis of many of our contemporary blind-spots. A careful reading of his book will help us see ourselves more clearly, and may help us achieve a needed Reformation of today’s church. May God be pleased to grant that!
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
See additional reviews and resources are available at CrossFocusedReviews.com.
July 30, 2014
James R. Payton Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic 2010). Paperback / Kindle
Every now and then, I hear friends describe—denounce, really—some book as a work of “revisionist history.” What they mean by that appellation is that the book contains a false account of the past. And while they may or may not be correct in their evaluation, what strikes me is their misunderstanding of the historical task. By nature, all historical writing is revisionist. That is, the task of historians is to revise our present understanding of the past through better methodologies and more accurate information. They don’t always succeed in doing so, but they (should) always try. Absent their efforts, we run the risk of misremembering the past and acting in the present on the basis of misleading, if not false, history.
In Getting the Reformation Wrong, James R. Payton Jr. engages in a revisionist history of the 16th-century Reformation in order to correct popular misunderstandings of that seminal movement, especially among North American evangelicals. Successive chapters deal with the following misunderstandings:
The Reformation did not originate de novo in the 16th century (chapter 1). Rather, the events of the 16th century built on the desire felt throughout Western Christendom in the preceding two centuries for reformatio in capite et membris—Latin for head-to-toe reformation. The reformers may have capitalized on this long-felt desire, but they did not create it.
The Renaissance and Reformation were not competing movements (chapter 2). Instead, they were complementary movements. Indeed, with the notable exception of Luther, most of the first generation of Protestant reformers were “humanists,” that is, advocates of a liberal arts education as opposed to a medieval scholastic education.
The Reformation did not emerge rapidly or smoothly (chapter 3). Rather, in the early years, different people were attracted to Luther for different reasons, not all of them having to do with justification by faith. For example, the Peasant Revolt drew inspiration from themes in Luther’s writings, even though Luther himself specifically—and forcefully—condemned the revolt.
The Reformers did not agree with one another (chapter 4). Indeed, their disputes were sometimes rancorous and led to longstanding rifts within the movement.
The Reformers did not dispute the importance of good works in the life of the Christian (chapter 5). They agreed that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide), but they also agreed that the faith by which we are justified is not alone. It produces good works.
Similarly, the Reformers did not think that the Christian life could dispense with church tradition (chapter 6). They believed in Scripture alone (sola fide) as the final, unquestioned authority in the life of the church. But they also believed that tradition (e.g., creeds, councils, confessions, etc.) could play a subordinate role.
Regarding the so-called “radical reformation,” Payton shows that 16th-century Anabaptists were not predecessors of Baptists, incorporated a broader range of groups than modern-day Anabaptists, and originated in multiple places, not just in Switzerland (chapter 7).
The Counter Reformation was not merely a response to the Protestant Reformation (chapter 8). Rather, based on a centuries-old desire for head-to-toe reformation, various Catholic reform movements spread up before, along with, and outside of the Protestant Reformation.
Late-16th- and early-17th-century Protestant scholasticism was not necessarily a natural outgrowth of the earlier Reformation (chapter 9). Rather, it represented a significant shift in methodology and emphasis.
The Reformation was not an unalloyed success, at least not according to the Reformers’ own stated goals (chapter 10).
Similarly, if we pay attention to the teaching of the Reformers, then we cannot see the Reformation as a theological norm or “golden age” (chapter 11).
This bullet-pointed summary of Getting the Reformation Wrong doesn’t do justice to Payton’s nuanced argumentation, though it alerts you to the topics he addresses. The book is gracefully written, fair-minded, and insightful on a range of topics. I was especially impressed by the chapters on the events preceding the Reformation (chapter 1) and on the Catholic movements for reformation (chapter 8). The desire for reformatio in capite et membris was both widespread and ecumenical.
Payton’s final chapter asks whether the Reformation was a triumph or a tragedy, and concludes that it was both. Triumph: “it rediscovered and boldly proclaimed the apostolic message, the Christian gospel.” Tragedy: “divisions among the Protestant Reformers have mushroomed among their descendants in contravention of the explicit words of Jesus Christ himself” (i.e., in John 17:20–21). “It is at least a horrendous anomaly,” Payton writes, “that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold divisions.”
To which this Protestant can only say: “Lord, have mercy!” And also, thank God for revisionist historians who bring such problems to light!
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Every now and then, I hear friends describe—denounce, really—some book as a work of “revisionist history.” What they mean by that appellation is that the book contains a false account of the past. And while they may or may not be correct in their evaluation, what strikes me is their misunderstanding of the historical task. By nature, all historical writing is revisionist. That is, the task of historians is to revise our present understanding of the past through better methodologies and more accurate information. They don’t always succeed in doing so, but they (should) always try. Absent their efforts, we run the risk of misremembering the past and acting in the present on the basis of misleading, if not false, history.
In Getting the Reformation Wrong, James R. Payton Jr. engages in a revisionist history of the 16th-century Reformation in order to correct popular misunderstandings of that seminal movement, especially among North American evangelicals. Successive chapters deal with the following misunderstandings:
The Reformation did not originate de novo in the 16th century (chapter 1). Rather, the events of the 16th century built on the desire felt throughout Western Christendom in the preceding two centuries for reformatio in capite et membris—Latin for head-to-toe reformation. The reformers may have capitalized on this long-felt desire, but they did not create it.
The Renaissance and Reformation were not competing movements (chapter 2). Instead, they were complementary movements. Indeed, with the notable exception of Luther, most of the first generation of Protestant reformers were “humanists,” that is, advocates of a liberal arts education as opposed to a medieval scholastic education.
The Reformation did not emerge rapidly or smoothly (chapter 3). Rather, in the early years, different people were attracted to Luther for different reasons, not all of them having to do with justification by faith. For example, the Peasant Revolt drew inspiration from themes in Luther’s writings, even though Luther himself specifically—and forcefully—condemned the revolt.
The Reformers did not agree with one another (chapter 4). Indeed, their disputes were sometimes rancorous and led to longstanding rifts within the movement.
The Reformers did not dispute the importance of good works in the life of the Christian (chapter 5). They agreed that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide), but they also agreed that the faith by which we are justified is not alone. It produces good works.
Similarly, the Reformers did not think that the Christian life could dispense with church tradition (chapter 6). They believed in Scripture alone (sola fide) as the final, unquestioned authority in the life of the church. But they also believed that tradition (e.g., creeds, councils, confessions, etc.) could play a subordinate role.
Regarding the so-called “radical reformation,” Payton shows that 16th-century Anabaptists were not predecessors of Baptists, incorporated a broader range of groups than modern-day Anabaptists, and originated in multiple places, not just in Switzerland (chapter 7).
The Counter Reformation was not merely a response to the Protestant Reformation (chapter 8). Rather, based on a centuries-old desire for head-to-toe reformation, various Catholic reform movements spread up before, along with, and outside of the Protestant Reformation.
Late-16th- and early-17th-century Protestant scholasticism was not necessarily a natural outgrowth of the earlier Reformation (chapter 9). Rather, it represented a significant shift in methodology and emphasis.
The Reformation was not an unalloyed success, at least not according to the Reformers’ own stated goals (chapter 10).
Similarly, if we pay attention to the teaching of the Reformers, then we cannot see the Reformation as a theological norm or “golden age” (chapter 11).
This bullet-pointed summary of Getting the Reformation Wrong doesn’t do justice to Payton’s nuanced argumentation, though it alerts you to the topics he addresses. The book is gracefully written, fair-minded, and insightful on a range of topics. I was especially impressed by the chapters on the events preceding the Reformation (chapter 1) and on the Catholic movements for reformation (chapter 8). The desire for reformatio in capite et membris was both widespread and ecumenical.
Payton’s final chapter asks whether the Reformation was a triumph or a tragedy, and concludes that it was both. Triumph: “it rediscovered and boldly proclaimed the apostolic message, the Christian gospel.” Tragedy: “divisions among the Protestant Reformers have mushroomed among their descendants in contravention of the explicit words of Jesus Christ himself” (i.e., in John 17:20–21). “It is at least a horrendous anomaly,” Payton writes, “that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold divisions.”
To which this Protestant can only say: “Lord, have mercy!” And also, thank God for revisionist historians who bring such problems to light!
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
June 21, 2017
An excellent resource for studyin the reformation in its historical context. The author presents a strong argument of misconceptions concerning the good and the bad of the Protestant Reformation. He showed what the reformers were committed to as well as what they meant by sola dude and sola scriptura. I recommend to any seminary student studying this season of church history.
August 9, 2017
Not bad if not stellar . . . if, also, you leave out the risible 9th chapter in which it is argued that the Reformed Scholastics put too much logic into the Reformation and so departed from the Reformation. What nonsense! Refinement and systematization are not, apparently, legitimate developments.
November 5, 2017
The book dispels some myths and soundbites about the Reformation. Good at the discussion about sola fide and sola scriptura; weak in some regards on Luther (i.e. his views on the law). Check Carl Trueman's book on Luther to supplement your reading.
September 22, 2017
Avoid some fairly obvious misconceptions about the reformation. Rather overblown title but good reminder of the issues
November 8, 2017
Информативна, леко написана и по необходимост критична.
Задължителна книга за реформацията в честването на нейната годишнина.
Задължителна книга за реформацията в честването на нейната годишнина.
January 6, 2023
The book was good, but not great. I enjoyed the last chapter the most. The style or organization was not helpful to me. But the information overall was good.
April 7, 2024
pretty good, easy enough to read and it was detailed enough while not being esoteric. I really liked his conclusion in the last chapter having to do with the reformation and denominations.
June 13, 2024
Great text on the reformation and corrects many misconceptions of the era. Engaging read.
May 15, 2012
James R Payton performs an important service in this book. He strips the Reformation of the mythologies that have developed around us which helps us both appreciate what was truly accomplished and to recognize some of its failures.
He demonstrates that the Reformation and the Renaissance were more friends than enemies and that there had been a strong movement for reform in the centuries leading up to the Reformation that was simply touched off by Luther's 95 Theses. He helps us see that the Reformers were by no means of one mind, sadly leading to the splitting that has continued among Protestants to this day. He shows that sola fides of Luther did not envision an absence of works or holiness in the life of the Christian but simply recognized that this played no part in the justification of the Christian. Similarly sola scriptura did not jettison all reference to the fathers or the traditions of the church but simply asserted the primacy of scripture. Payton demonstrates how the early reformers frequently recoursed to the fathers and in fact saw their efforts and restoring the church to what the fathers had taught.
His later chapters treat the rise of Protestant scholasticism as a departure from reformation vitality, the successes and failures of the reformation, particularly the continues schisms among protestants that makes a scandal of Christian unity. At the same time, he recognizes the significant influence in calling the church back to its foundations of faith and the purifying that took place, not only in the Protestant churches but also within the Catholic church, particularly in the highly missional Jesuit movement. This was a helpful work that punctured some of the ways I've gotten the Reformation wrong, particularly in the opposition of the Reformation to early Renaissance thought.
He demonstrates that the Reformation and the Renaissance were more friends than enemies and that there had been a strong movement for reform in the centuries leading up to the Reformation that was simply touched off by Luther's 95 Theses. He helps us see that the Reformers were by no means of one mind, sadly leading to the splitting that has continued among Protestants to this day. He shows that sola fides of Luther did not envision an absence of works or holiness in the life of the Christian but simply recognized that this played no part in the justification of the Christian. Similarly sola scriptura did not jettison all reference to the fathers or the traditions of the church but simply asserted the primacy of scripture. Payton demonstrates how the early reformers frequently recoursed to the fathers and in fact saw their efforts and restoring the church to what the fathers had taught.
His later chapters treat the rise of Protestant scholasticism as a departure from reformation vitality, the successes and failures of the reformation, particularly the continues schisms among protestants that makes a scandal of Christian unity. At the same time, he recognizes the significant influence in calling the church back to its foundations of faith and the purifying that took place, not only in the Protestant churches but also within the Catholic church, particularly in the highly missional Jesuit movement. This was a helpful work that punctured some of the ways I've gotten the Reformation wrong, particularly in the opposition of the Reformation to early Renaissance thought.
May 28, 2015
Both the human memory and the human predilection for understanding our reality through some sort of narrative have a tendency to sand down the rough edges of our favorite stories. The farther we get from the true events, the more the retellings get a life and character of their own, which can deviate significantly from what actually happened. This is certainly true for something as iconic and world-shaking as the Reformation and its cast of characters playing the heroes and villains (which is which depends on who is retelling the story to you).
For several of the topics of this book, it would be more accurate to say that my shortcoming was complete ignorance rather than misunderstanding, such as in the relationship between the Reformation and the Renaissance, or the role(s) of the Anabaptists. On other topics, such as the ideas of Sola Vide and Sola Scriptura, I found that my understanding of the concept was relatively accurate (or at least, how I understood the concept was what I always had *hoped* the Reformers meant by the terms). And yet other topics were ones that I did not hold strong beliefs on prior to reading this book but had at times heard the "misconception" passed along as fact. In all cases, I enjoyed learning the fact-based truth from a scholar who has done his homework.
Finally, in addition to the several chapters dedicated to correcting individual misunderstandings, the author concludes with a few chapters regarding the ultimate legacy of the Reformation, whether it was successful or unsuccessful, triumphant or tragic. I found these chapters to be honest and thoughtful, especially coming from someone who is ultimately fruit from the Reformation tree.
All in all, this is a very informative and helpful book.
For several of the topics of this book, it would be more accurate to say that my shortcoming was complete ignorance rather than misunderstanding, such as in the relationship between the Reformation and the Renaissance, or the role(s) of the Anabaptists. On other topics, such as the ideas of Sola Vide and Sola Scriptura, I found that my understanding of the concept was relatively accurate (or at least, how I understood the concept was what I always had *hoped* the Reformers meant by the terms). And yet other topics were ones that I did not hold strong beliefs on prior to reading this book but had at times heard the "misconception" passed along as fact. In all cases, I enjoyed learning the fact-based truth from a scholar who has done his homework.
Finally, in addition to the several chapters dedicated to correcting individual misunderstandings, the author concludes with a few chapters regarding the ultimate legacy of the Reformation, whether it was successful or unsuccessful, triumphant or tragic. I found these chapters to be honest and thoughtful, especially coming from someone who is ultimately fruit from the Reformation tree.
All in all, this is a very informative and helpful book.
September 12, 2014
I found Payton to be less polemic and more humbly conversant than his title would suggest. Payton addressed common misconceptions concerning Reformation topics such as sola fide, sola scriptura, the "unity" among the Reformers, as well as other topics. He was extremely clear and fair in his argumentation throughout.
Payton concluded with the insight that the Reformation was both a triumph and a tragedy. It triumphed in its reproclamation of the Gospel, a Gospel sola fide. However, he notes that it was also a tragedy. The split of the Protestants did not cease, but has only splintered into tens of thousands of denominations. Thus, Payton concluded that we must reassess the factors in the church over which we are willing to divide, and those which are merely "family squabbles."
I found Payton's book to be a very enlightening book. I would not recommend it for an "I'm only going to read one book on Reformation History, what should I read?" book; however, it makes a great supplementary textbook to go along with whatever core text one may choose.
Payton concluded with the insight that the Reformation was both a triumph and a tragedy. It triumphed in its reproclamation of the Gospel, a Gospel sola fide. However, he notes that it was also a tragedy. The split of the Protestants did not cease, but has only splintered into tens of thousands of denominations. Thus, Payton concluded that we must reassess the factors in the church over which we are willing to divide, and those which are merely "family squabbles."
I found Payton's book to be a very enlightening book. I would not recommend it for an "I'm only going to read one book on Reformation History, what should I read?" book; however, it makes a great supplementary textbook to go along with whatever core text one may choose.
April 22, 2012
A lot of good material explaining how Christians' views of the Reformation are often askew. Payton presents a more nuanced and balanced view of the Reformation and the Reformers than one often hears or reads in popular Protestant discussions of the subject. Much of the information he provides would not be particularly new to someone who has read or studied carefully about that era. At points I think he overstates his case somewhat, particularly later in the book. Overall, however, it is a helpful and informative read, particularly to someone who has not read widely on the subject.
October 16, 2013
Really very good. Worth it just for the chapter on Reformation and Renaissance, where he argues that the hard distinction does not stand the test.
November 19, 2011
Well written book that makes the reader consider or re-consider their understanding of a pivotal period in World History.
July 7, 2015
Really good
April 7, 2011
Very good work. I recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews