Free at Last

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

-          Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster; most famously performed by Janis Joplin

Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World, by Brad S. Gregory

In Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation of religion in America, he described it as “the first of their political institutions.”  There is little of this visible in the situation today:

Values and moral commitments that were then widely shared no longer are.  This is the outcome of a long historical process, and it also lies at the root of some widely acknowledged frustrations in American public life and political culture today, difficulties that have never been more apparent than since the election of November 2016.

Gregory sees the fragmentation of Protestantism as a significant contributor to the secularization and fragmentation of American society.  The Bible – a complex collection of ancient texts – is interpreted in many different ways, and Protestants lack any shared authority to settle disputes.

Darwin is introduced as the figure in history that also defines the split in liberal vs. fundamentalist Protestants.  This is reasonable if one is considering the Bible as literal regarding creation.  But Gregory then offers that these two camps – defined this way – “typically hold rival political, social, and moral views….”

The context of Gregory’s discussion is the division in America that was made most visible in the 2016 election.  It isn’t clear to me that the division is along the lines that Gregory offers, that one’s view on creation (Young Earth vs. Old Earth) was the defining characteristic of those who voted for Trump vs. Clinton, respectively.

According to Gregory, this division (Young Earth fundamentalists vs. Old Earth liberals) is explanatory regarding views toward abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and many other social issues.

As a result, Protestantism can no longer inform American society in any coherent way.

This much is true, but the way Gregory defines the split seems too convenient and simplistic – it sounds very liberal and Enlightened (as opposed to conservative and deplorable): the dummies (Young Earth) voted for Trump, the intelligent (Old Earth) voted for Clinton; the dummies have the wrong view on many social issues, the intelligent have this right.

In fact, Gregory skips over the Enlightenment entirely, yet it seems to me that the divisions we see in society today are reflected more in rival views of the long-term effects of Enlightenment, as it was here that God was removed fully and finally from public life.  Of course, one can trace a string from the Enlightenment back to the Reformation; Gregory doesn’t do this.

I don’t write this to suggest that it takes away from my view of Gregory’s historical analysis; I just think he makes a strong political point in his closing chapter without meaningful factual basis or evidence.

Returning to Gregory: secularization was further driven by the influx of non-Protestants (Catholics and Jews) at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries.  These eventually would be in a position to object to Protestant views and values reflected in laws, schools, and many institutions. 

Yet it seems to me that the die was already cast by then – the Civil War happened already and Protestants did a good job of arguing both sides of slavery and war.  I don’t discount the impact of introducing even more diverse voices (and the diversity, such as it is defined popularly, today is infinitely more stifling), but I return to the thought that a discussion of the impact of the Enlightenment is more explanatory than an influx of Catholics and Jews.

Gregory describes the legacy of state support for churches in Europe, making it “almost impossible for members of the clergy to stand apart from the imperialism and military involvements of their respective countries.”  It seems to me that, at least in the US, the state has figured out how to accomplish pretty much the same thing.  In fact, much of the strongest support for the military and interventionism will be found in Protestant churches.

Once Christianity was put under the control of the king (desired by Luther) as a result of the Reformation, it was certain to be made a tool of the state.  Religion no longer informs the state; the state informs religion.

Religion no longer informs society either; it is an individual, internal matter.  What has replaced Christianity in this secularized society?  More stuff:

To judge by most people’s actions today, they believe that the goods life is the good life, and they devote themselves to this whether or not they also believe in God or engage in worship or prayer.

Throughout the West, consumption of goods and pursuit of enjoyment has replaced religion. 

This would have horrified – if perhaps not surprised – Luther and Calvin and other sixteenth century Protestant reformers.

What the Dutch identified as the method by which they could get past religious division, the British extended and the Americans perfected.  Trade brings on peace: there are many who believe this, including many libertarians.  But it seems to me that something more is necessary.

The decades before World War One in Europe epitomized the realization of this liberal view.  If one wants to read the dictionary definition of classical liberalism and liberty applied, one would find this era.  Yet extended peace was not the result.  Europe consumed itself.

The New World

The Reformation is a paradox: a religious revolution that led to the secularization of society.

Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World, by Brad S. Gregory

What does Gregory mean by “secularization”? 

…[secularization] refers specifically to the declining influence of religion in public life…politics, law, economics, education, social relationships, family life, morality, and the culture at large.

This secularization is described by Gregory as the broadest and most far-reaching outcome of the Reformation.  A major impact of this secularization is the loss of any ability for the Church (or some form of unified Christianity) to stand as a decentralizing force in governance. 

Gregory points to two other unintended consequences: first, the proliferation of versions of “Protestants.”  I would say that they multiplied like rabbits, but then one of you would make a Catholic joke and all hell would break lose in the comments section.  So I take that back.

Second is the relationship of Magisterial Protestantism (Lutherans and Calvinists) and Catholicism; they agreed that non-Lutheran and non-Calvinist Protestants had to be done away with.  Neither Catholic nor Protestant leaders intended to divide Christendom or bring on recurrent violence.  It seems to me that this could be true of much of the clergy given the number of councils and other attempts at reconciliation over many years.

The Reformation cemented heresies as far as the Catholics were concerned; it also gave new life to the Antichrist (as far as Protestants were concerned) in Rome.  It resulted in religion being controlled by politics, as opposed to informing politics and providing a check on power.  Religion became an individual matter, which meant it would play no institutional role in society.

Intellectually, theology had to be separated from philosophy and the investigation of the natural world.  I don’t even know how the former is possible; as to the latter, it only means artificially limiting the definition of the term “natural world” by introducing the concept of the supernatural (as if all of the “natural” in the universe can be comprehended by man).

It is no accident that modern philosophy and the Enlightenment emerged in the seventeenth century as intellectual reactions to the problems of the Reformation era.

Two of the major thinkers of this Enlightenment, René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes, were directly and adversely affected by the so-called wars of religion: the former as a soldier during the Thirty Years’ War and the latter who took refuge in Paris during the English Revolution.  They would attempt to base morality on reason alone – reason devoid of religion and tradition.  As Gregory describes this effort: “Or at least that was the plan.”

The plan has seen its fruits in the twentieth century, and is now being replace by a new plan – a post-modern plan, where there is never such a thing as a knowable objective truth.  New atheists are attempting to combat this with the same tools used by Descartes and Hobbes: reason devoid of religion and tradition.  Edward Feser has examined the claims of these new atheists and found them lacking.

In the Dutch republic, religion was restricted and in its place commerce was unleashed. 

According to the Union of Utrecht (1579), the Dutch republic’s most important founding document, each province is allowed to address religion as it sees fit, without interference from other provinces, “so long as each person shall be permitted to remain free in his religion and that no one shall be permitted to be investigated or persecuted for reason of religion.”

Shortly thereafter and as a result of the continuing wars with Spain, Catholic worship is outlawed altogether.  Meanwhile, the southern provinces establish the Union of Arras, which mandates Catholicism as the established religion.  Protestant refugees flee to the north.

With numerous religions and sects present, the one thing that binds the Dutch community is trade.  Trade is open to all: Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, Mennonites, Catholics, and Jews are all represented in the wealthier class.  Yet magistrates continue to monitor religion, out of a concern that some might decide to get overly political.

It turns out that regardless of their religion, almost everyone likes more and better material things.

This mix still works as at the time, because for the most part, Christians are Christian.  They share much more in common than they are divided by their differences.  Marriage, family relationships, responsibilities to others, civic duties, and a common sense of morality remain; differences regarding interpretation of scripture, grace and salvation, the sacraments, etc., are pushed to the rear – at least as far as political life is concerned.

Within about a century, the Dutch are replaced by the English as a global trading empire.  The English have learned something about religious toleration and commerce from the Dutch, with London replacing Amsterdam as Europe’s leading commercial city.

John Locke publishes his Tolerations, arguing for a sharp separation between church and state; Isaac Newton’s discoveries inspire a new variety of Protestantism – Deism: God created the universe and set its laws in motion, then took a long nap from which He is yet to wake.  Scripture might be useful for moral teaching, but nothing more – even here, it is good for moral teaching that conforms to reason derived absent scripture!  Which eventually pretty much renders scripture useless.

America’s founding documents make clear that religion is completely separable from the rest of life.  There is no publicly supported church – at least at the federal level; many states, for a time, offer such support.  Madison and Jefferson continue in the Dutch tradition:

Religion has to be construed as something that will not disrupt public life or divide citizens.  That means its scope has to be restricted, and what it applies to has to be limited.

Jefferson famously offered: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  Easy enough to say when virtually all Americans were Christian of some sort, although it took the horrors of almost two centuries of European conflict to get to even this point.

The modern Western understanding of religion succeeds in the early decades of the United States, but not because Americans are rugged religious individualists, each eager to go her or his own way.  It succeeds because most of them are Christians, especially English-speaking white Protestants, who continue to share so much in common despite the disagreements that divide their churches.

It is best that I have no comment to any of this….

Conclusion

We look at the founding documents as establishing some form of common culture: “America is an idea,” we are often told.  This is not correct.  The founding documents presupposed a common culture; it was this common culture that was the foundation for the ideas in the documents.

What happens to the ideas in the documents when even the remnants of this common culture are lost?  Are the documents any longer of functional use, or are they merely museum pieces?  And then what?

War

What started as a reform of one Church produces an open-ended array of competing churches, which virtually no one at the time considers a good thing.

Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World, by Brad S. Gregory

The Reformation played out differently in Germany, France, England, and the Low Countries.  Gregory examines each in turn.  This post will run a bit long; I am treating it more like a history lesson (for me) and I want to get through it in one post.  If this isn’t of interest for you or is otherwise unnecessary, feel free to stop here.

Germany

Gregory spends some time on The Council of Trent – spelling out the Church’s views on various aspects of Reformation theology and practice.  I will spend no time on the details of this – a mine field I would rather not traverse.  For those interested, I offer three sources: one Catholic, one Reformed, and Wikipedia.

According to Gregory, Catholic leaders reject the most fundamental Protestant premise: The Church offers false doctrines.  On a second and also important premise, there are plenty of Catholic leaders that recognize that there are and have been sinful abuses and a lack of holiness among both clergy and laity.

Further attempts are made at some sort of reconciliation between the Reformers and the Church.  The final meaningful attempt was made at Regensburg in 1541, the Colloquy (or Diet) of Regensburg.  A summary:

…a conference held at Regensburg (Ratisbon) in 1541, during the Protestant Reformation, which marks the culmination of attempts to restore religious unity in the Holy Roman Empire by means of theological debate between the Protestants and the Catholics.

Agreement was easily reached on some articles, tenuously reached on a few, and not at all on others.  Even where agreement was reached, it mattered little if Luther did not also accept these positions.  Before Luther offered any formal rejection, Rome rejected the formula for justification.  That was that.

Returning to Gregory: then come the wars.  Catholic against Protestant; Catholic and Magisterial Protestants against other Protestant sects.  Next comes the Peace of Augsburg, “a Holy Roman Empire with two religions, Lutheran and Catholic.”  Wow.

Noticeably missing from this peace is Reformed Protestantism (Calvinism).  This is a problem as one and then more princes convert from Lutheranism to Reformed – sometimes referred to as Germany’s Second Reformation.  However, there is generally peace for some decades after Augsburg.  This peace would end with what is now known as the Thirty Years’ War, beginning in 1618.

The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. One of the most destructive conflicts in human history, it resulted in eight million fatalities not only from military engagements but also from violence, famine, and plague.

This war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, creating a framework for Protestant and Catholics to coexist – in neighboring principalities.  Religion and politics will align within any given political border.  This basic structure would persist until the nineteenth century.

By 1650, it looks as though all the political leaders who were confident God was on their side were wrong.  Perhaps God had never been on anyone’s side.

 France

There is no Lutheranism in France.  Calvinism arrives in the form of the Huguenots.  Pamphlets, trials, executions.  As late as 1554, there are still no established Calvinist churches in France – although the number of underground believers is growing.  By 1562, perhaps 800 such churches exist.  Most are far from Paris, in the south.  The growth emboldens the Huguenots: they destroy church art, deface alters and harass clergy.

They make up perhaps ten percent of the population, but a much larger proportion of the nobility – a problem because still in the sixteenth century no ruler could rule without noble support.

In 1561, Catherine de' Medici, queen-mother and regent of the eleven-year-old King Charles IX, called the Colloquy of Poissy.  It was an attempt to reconcile the Catholics and Protestant Huguenots.  Gregory describes the meeting as an utter failure.

Beginning in 1562, a series of eight civil wars ensue; from start to finish, these last longer than the Thirty Years’ War with perhaps 3 million deaths.  As in Germany, what is described as French Wars of Religion might be better described as wars for political power: a dynastic power struggle between powerful noble families in the line for succession to the French throne – one Catholic and the other Reformed – with the reigning royal family trying to stride the middle in the form of Catholic conciliation. 

Massacres, conversions, refugees, assassinations, acts of revenge.  After thirty-six years, in 1598, King Henry IV signed the Edict of Nantes, granting the Huguenots substantial rights but leaving them with no army.  Fearing an erosion of these rights – as would soon enough prove a rational fear – hundreds of thousands of Huguenots flee France for Calvinist territories in England, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Carolina Coast of the New World.

England

During the sixteenth century, England was religiously whipsawed more than any other major kingdom in Europe.  Henry VIII authored a Latin defense of the Catholic faith; within a decade he would denounce the “Bishop of Rome” as a usurper and declared himself head of the Church of England.  A few years later, he started severing the heads of those who wouldn’t take an oath confirming this status.

Free Sects

In every territory and kingdom in Europe, political authorities had to decide for or against the Reformation – including in overwhelmingly Catholic regions such as Spain, where the Reformation was harshly, and violently, suppressed.

Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World, by Brad S. Gregory

City magistrates in Geneva would work with John Calvin; Charles V of Spain helped to foster what has come to be known as the Catholic Reformation or Counter-Reformation; throughout Christendom religion became a diving force instead of a uniting force. 

Whether Catholic, Lutheran or Reformed, clergy inject new life into their sermons and catechisms – there is nothing like competition to awake one from complacency.  However, it is the political impact that is my concern here:

…the net result in the early modern period is that European countries forge the dominant, state-supported religious identities of their subjects and carry them into the modern world.

You don’t need me to tell you that my focus is on the “state-supported” part of the sentence.  Church and king were separate prior to this; after this, there was not church and state.  There was only the state.  Lutheranism took hold in Denmark, Sweden and much of Germany; Reformed Protestantism in Scotland, England (in some respects), the Netherlands, and parts of Germany and Switzerland; Catholicism remained in Spain, Portugal, and the remaining parts of Germany and Switzerland.

Instead of the Bible interpreted by Rome, the Bible was now to be interpreted according to the political leader – be it prince, king, or civil magistrate.  It was the political leadership that gave cover to the sect – and he who has the gold makes the rules, so to speak.

This state-supported religion was desired by Luther: the laity will listen to pastors and support political authority, and political authority will ensure the proper understanding of the Bible.  Luther accepted Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 13; in my opinion, not a valid interpretation. 

Sure, there were dozens of other Protestant sects.  Other than Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism, none would receive state sanction in any sense; most would receive harsh treatment at the hands of political authorities and to the cheers of the Magisterial Protestant religious authorities.

What was once the cohesive force of Europe now became the dividing force.  Christendom became Christianity.  Disagreements between Luther and the Church soon became disagreements between Luther and other Protestant leaders and eventually became disagreements of all against all – even within what was institutional Lutheranism. 

Given the binding role that the Christian religion played in society, these were divisions that would rip society apart.  And it didn’t help that many princes, kings, and civil magistrates were happy to take advantage of the situation.

In the new arrangement, political authorities will exercise all public power and political sovereignty while the Church will exercise none. …the clergy, who depend on the princes for political support, are also their subjects, required to submit to their political control.

Would you complain if you found a way to not share authority? 

These divisions led to war, but to call these “wars of religion” would be a mistake.  Prior to the Reformation, civil society was religion, and religion governed civil society.  Further, as noted above, there was no longer the condition of separate powers of Church and king; religion was now state-supported, state-enforced, and state-controlled. 

In other words, to consider these wars as anything other than wars of state is a mistake.  Keep in mind who had the power during these wars – the monopoly power; it most certainly was not the Church or any of the new Protestant sects.  This should disabuse us from the notion that these were wars of religion.

The result to religious life was, perhaps, counter-intuitive:

Religious life is simplified and streamlined, with less of it left to individual choice than in the late Middle Ages.  Wherever the Reformation is established, the range of permissible religious options contracts in people’s day-to-day lives.

Read that again once or twice.  My recollection of the Middle Ages was one of relative tolerance: few, if any, witch burnings…things like that – even though there were plenty of what could be considered “opportunities” if one was so inclined.  Much of what we hear of witch-burnings and the like come post-Reformation.  Ask the Anabaptists, for example.

This doctrinal harshness is somewhat reflected via this passage regarding Calvinism:

…living under Calvinism is one thing when people who consider themselves among God’s elect embrace it willingly; it’s another thing to endure Calvinist rule if you regard the “godly” as insufferably self-righteous oppressors worse than lackadaisical papists ever were.

Conclusion

…scripture interpreted through the Spirit, as Luther emphasized, could come to mean almost anything.

And in such a situation – whatever one believes of proper interpretation – the benefits of a Church unified enough to stand in the way of monopoly-state-creation is lost.

Epilogue

Some of these new sects took individual Biblical interpretation to places previously unimagined:

…Ranters, like Ebiezer Copp, allegedly take Christian freedom and rejection of the Old Testament law to mean complete sexual permissiveness – for, as scripture says, “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15).  If you don’t think something is sinful, it’s not sinful for you.

“Complete sexual permissiveness.”  I guess these would be known as Homophonic Protestant sects.