If it seems I have been too harsh regarding the Protestant Revolution, I want to explain the reason. I am assuming that most of my audience is predominantly Protestant/Evangelical. Therefore, the common narrative found within the Protestant tradition about the roots of Protestantism is that of a glorious “coming out of the Catholic dark,” led by good, honorable, and godly men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The dark side of the movement is conveniently air-brushed out of the big picture of Protestantism.
We don’t like hearing about Luther’s rabid anti-Semitism, or of his urging the German authorities to cut down hundreds of thousands of peasants, or of his absolute rejoicing upon hearing the news of Zwingli’s death. We don’t like being told that many of the “revolutionary-reformers” hated the Anabaptist movement so much, that a common form of punishment of Anabaptists was to “re-baptize” them for good—i.e. drown them. The reason why we don’t like hearing about those things is simple: we want simplistic and white-washed depictions of history, with “our side” coming out, smelling like roses. But such white-washed history can only succeed in covering up the dead bones in the tomb for a while. Eventually, the stench of death comes wafting out.
That obviously is not to say that nothing good came about from the Protestant Revolution. The Catholic Church of Luther’s day was corrupt, and certainly needed reformation. And much of Luther and Calvin’s theology is insightful and essential for any Christian who seeks to get closer to Christ. And certainly, perhaps the biggest success of the Protestant Revolution, precisely because of the emphasis on Scripture and the conviction that everyone should be allowed to read the Bible in his own language, has been the fidelity and interest in the Bible found in most Evangelical churches today.
Nevertheless, if we are to ever come to a better, more truly Christian understanding of our history, our culture, and our society today, we must have the courage to assess the mistakes of the past. And there certainly were many mistakes that stemmed from the Protestant Revolution. One of the many mistakes was the fact that the revolutionary-reformers encouraged the destruction of many beautiful works of devotional art that had decorated churches throughout Europe for over a thousand years: stained glass, statues, painting, altarpieces, etc. In their over-zealousness to get rid of “all things Catholic,” Protestant revolutionaries ended up destroying centuries’ worth of priceless artwork that had been done for the glory of God. Such a mentality often can still be found in many Protestant churches today, where the visual arts are either ignored or flat-out discouraged.
That is not to say that Protestantism did not end up contributing mightily to the arts. Where would western culture be without the music of Johannes Sebastian Bach or George Frederic Handel? And what about painters like Rembrandt? I think this says something about the inherent creativity within human beings—despite wars and theological schisms, that creative spirit in human beings still finds a way to bear witness to the beauty and creativity of God.
Erasmus and the Catholic Reformation
The real reformation within the Catholic Church was already starting to take place by the time Luther arrived on the scene. Perhaps the forerunner to the Catholic Reformation was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536 AD), a contemporary of Luther. Like Luther, Erasmus decried the corruption and debauchery that was taking place in Rome. He himself had visited Rome five years before Luther’s fateful visit, and like Luther, was shocked at what he saw. He said, “with my own ears I heard the most loathsome blasphemies against Christ and His Apostles.” He also, like Luther, saw such corruption wasn’t just in Rome; it was spread throughout the Catholic Church. In his work, The Praise of Folly, Erasmus didn’t simply make fun of the degenerate lives of many monks, he also made it a point to argue that they were actually harmful to society.
(As a side note, another important Catholic, Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), who founded the Jesuit order of priests, was advised not to go to Rome, because there was a fear that anyone who went to Rome and actually saw the debauchery and depravity that was allowed to go on there, that person’s faith might be shaken. That tells you all you need to know about the deplorable state the Papacy was in at that time).
In any case, Erasmus saw the major problem within the Catholicism of the High Catholic Age as being that there was virtually no connection between the often esoteric and often utterly irrelevant doctrinal arguments of the Scholastics in the universities, and the practical, day to day living of the common man. Or in other words, the problem was that while scholars were busy discussing the minutiae of irrelevant theological speculation (i.e. how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?), the common man was getting absolutely no instruction and training from the Church as to how to live a truly Christ-like life.
The result was that not only was the common man wholly ignorant of Christ and the Christian life, but he was, ironically, given over to mindless superstitious “religious” practices like going on pilgrimages, honoring relics, etc. Erasmus’ point was simple: without a true knowledge of the Bible, without a true understanding of Christ, no Christian ritualistic practice will really be of any use—it will simply be an odd version of Christian idolatry. And yet, unlike Luther, Erasmus didn’t end up instigating a violent revolution against the Catholic Church. He went about, get this…trying to reform it.
Erasmus’ proposal as to who to resolve this dilemma was to encourage real Bible study in the universities, so that monks, priests, and scholars could have a true understanding of the Bible, and then could, in turn, be better Bible teachers to the common man. In his attempt to do this, Erasmus produced a critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Remember, the official version of the Catholic Bible was the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the original Greek. Erasmus made the original Greek more readily available. In doing so, he encouraged the translation of the Greek New Testament into the vernacular languages of Europe (after all, how do you think Luther was able to translate the Bible into German?). Simply put, it was because of Erasmus that there was a revival in the study of biblical languages.
Yet Erasmus remained in the Catholic Church, trying to reform it from within. His rhetoric was not nearly as divisive and fiery as Luther’s, and if there ever was a temptation for Erasmus to join Luther’s movement, no doubt the bloody chaos that had begun to sweep through Europe in the 1520s and 1530s served as a somber warning that there was indeed something vitally wrong with the roots of the Protestant Revolution.
The Council of Trent
Nine years after the death of Erasmus, and almost thirty years after Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral, the Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD). Its sole purpose was to respond to and push back against the Protestant Revolution. It did so with these six resolutions:
- First, it clearly affirmed the Catholic teaching that the Bible and Church Tradition were equal, and both were dependent on the interpretation of the “Holy Mother Church” (i.e. the Pope).
- Second, in a move that certainly would have disappointed Erasmus, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the authority of the Latin Vulgate over (ironically) the original Greek.
- Third, it completely rejected Luther’s concept of justification by faith. Faith, Trent declared, was simply the beginning of one’s salvation, and that therefore, was not entirely the work of God—it required human cooperation in the form of works.
- Fourth, Trent affirmed that Christians received that saving grace through the sacraments.
- Fifth, Trent doubled-down on its teaching regarding indulgences and the veneration of the saints.
- And sixth, Trent decisively affirmed the supreme authority of the Pope.
As should be obvious, there were a number of things decided at Trent that I think are wrong. But in any case, not everything at the Council of Trent was a push-back against Protestantism. It did, in actuality, attempt to right some of the wrongs in the Catholic Church. Simony was officially ended; priestly celibacy was enforced; inexpensive Bibles written in the vernacular were made available; and a number of Catholic seminaries were established with the sole purpose of actually educating men to be priests in their local parishes.
Let the Battle Lines Be Drawn
But nevertheless, the religious battle lines had been drawn, and for the next 100 years there would be constant strife and warfare throughout Europe between, not only Catholic and Protestant groups, but also between Protestant and Protestant groups. What ended up happening was that the ruler of any particular region simply declared an official religion for his region, and thus made all other expressions of faith illegal and subject to persecution, hence came the concept of “state religion.” Catholicism was “illegal” in places throughout Europe; and all the varieties of Protestantism were “illegal” in places throughout Europe. It marked the rise of the State churches, so don’t be a Calvinist in Scandinavia, and don’t be a Lutheran in England—and don’t even think of being an Anabaptist, well…anywhere!
This was the situation that sparked the various “wars of religion” over the next 150 years. But that is for another time and another post.
