In Reformation: Europese House Divided (2004), Oxford theologian Diarmaid MacCulloch gives a deep and broad historical sketch of the reformation. The reformation has always intrigued me: how could people rally against each other, and commit the most horrible acts, for ideas. Hence, I was an easy prey for the mainstream scientific hypotheses, which explain the reformation as a (geo)political, social and economical phenomenon.
MacCulloch breaks this delusional spell, and he does this with a magnificent book. The author argues that social, economic and even (geo)political explanations are insufficient to explain the origin of the Reformation. True, princes and statesmen - especially in Germany and France - quickly saw the potential of these religious storms to increase their power or even change the whole game (as in the case of many German regions), but this only proves how people with power can jump on anything that might be beneficial to them.
So how did the Reformation start? To understand this, you have to go back to fourth century Hippo (in North Africa). The bishop of this Roman town, better known as Saint Augustine, came up with a sort of Christian philosophy which quickly became one of the foundations of the Western Church. Augustine meticulously studied the Bible, as well as contemporary sources on the Roman Empire (especially its history), and he was familiar with the Greek philosophical schools. The results of this? The doctrine of predestination. Augustine argued that God created the universe, and then he created man. At the moment of Creation, God already knew the sinfulness of human beings, and out of love for us (since God is supposedly all-loving), he selected a few of us who were marked for salvation. What about the rest of us? Well, most of us will burn in eternal hellfire, where our skins will burn, new skins will grow so they can burn again, etc. etc. In other words: the moment a human being is born, it is already determined - by God, at the moment of Creation - if that particular person is marked for salvation or will go to hell.
MacCulloch clearly explains how this doctrine is inhuman, and this is the reason that the Western Church, through the Middle Ages up to 1517, put gradually more emphasis on salvation and God's grace. For starters, if it is already determined at birth if you will burn forever or not, why should you follow God's commandments? Next, priests who helped people in their dying days saw human beings in intense agony and fear - of course they stressed that there were alternatives to Hell. This humane boundary between rigid doctrines and human lives, turned into official Church doctrine: Purgatory was invented. People don't go to Hell, they simply go to a temporary Hell - based on how many sins you committed you have to be purged in this temporary firing place.
But even the idea of thousands of years of burning alive wouldn't really soothe people's minds. So next came the indulgences and rewards for charity. The Church claimed that people who do good, for example donating money to hospitals after their death or giving alms to beggars, would be rewarded. The patients in the hospitals and the beggars would pray for you - this would give you time off in Purgatory. You could also buy an indulgence from the local priest and shorten the time of skin flaying in Purgatory.
Anyways, when Martin Luther went to university, he stumbled onto two problems. First, he couldn't stand Aristotle, and since Aristotelian philosophy was official Church doctrine (ever since Thomas Aquinas), this led him to an aversion to official Church teachings. Second, Luther found - when reading the works of Saint Augustine - that the practices of the Western Church, like selling indulgences and pronouncing the possibility of salvation through good deeds, had seriously run off course throughout the centuries.
We all know what came next. Luther started to proclaim that the Pope was Antichrist and that the Church was delusional. People should just read the Bible for themselves and then the Holy Ghost will see to it that people will be inspired and learn for themselves what's true. This idea was, of course, a serious threat to the power and authority of the Western Church, so swords would likely be drawn.
According to MacCulloch, the rise of Luther - and later Zwingli, Melanchton, Calvin, and others - came at a time when Europe was in a very bad state, and mood, so to speak. The Turks were continuously attacking Christian borders and capturing European slaves at the coasts of Europe. This was seen as punishment of God for bad Christian behavior. Second, there were famines, plagues, natural disasters, and man-made wars. This was also seen as punishment of God. In other words: during the 16th century there was much to worry about for Europeans and many people believed the end-times were coming.
Another catalyst for the later problems was the shape of the German territories. The Holy Roman Empire was superficially a huge force, but there was much internal strife and power play between different princes, dukes, etc. In short, the 16th century was a bad moment for a split in the Western Church.
All these troubles culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), in which entire Europe became a battlefield for religious strife. An illustration: current estimates point to 30-40% of the inhabitants of the German lands dying of warfare, or subsequent famine and disease. Think about what this means: every third person you know and care about dropping dead.
MacCulloch, as a Christian and a theologian, is very honest when he writes how the Thirty Years' War was, in essence, a religious conflict. It is all too cozy to explain it as power play of European princes and nobility - the alliances were religiously motivated, the frontiers were caused by (earlier) religious fracture, and in the end people killed in name of their religion. He clearly explains, throughout the whole book, how very abstract discussions about even more abstract ideas would culminate in broken relationships at best, and open war at worst.
Just a few examples to illustrate the key point of the book (the Reformation was about ideas), which probably sound absurd to modern day human beings, but try to imagine this was a matter of life or death for most people involved.
1. Do the wafer and wine at the Mass really contain the body and blood of Christ? Or is this just a metaphor? And if so, how does this happen? Isn't it the case that when an essence changes, the substance is different? The idea of transubstantiation was an inflammatory issue, not just in academic circles.
2. Is Jesus Christ of the same nature as God? Or is he of a different nature? If of the same nature: what is the relationship between Christ's human body and God's infinite spirit? If of a different Nature: should Christ then still be regarded as God, or should we see him as a 'mere' prophet? Once again, this debate was far from settled after the early Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon.
To end this review, let me, once again, say that Reformation: Europe's House Divided is a magnificent book, written by a very eloquent and able writer. The only drawback is its length: it is more than 700 pages, which makes it a huge investment - so I can recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about Christianity and/or one of the most important historical epochs of Europe.