The Reformation is recognized as one of the most important historical events of the modern era, praised in many fields, not only religious but also political and academic. And indeed, they are not wrong.

For many, in a positive sense, they view this period as an event permitted by God Himself to liberate “the church” from the clutches of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman “empire.” In this essay, we will demonstrate that there was actually more human influence than divine, although some important steps were made regarding religious freedom, causing drastic changes within society and Catholicism itself.

It is important to note that this work does not aim for a deep or exhaustive analysis of the topic; we will only attempt to connect some lesser-known and less-evaluated points, mainly by the general Christian religious community. To carry out this analysis and outline paths to other conclusions, we will touch upon another period that influenced those centuries, the Renaissance, and finally, focus on our main topic.

As has been shown numerous times in Way UP, one of the greatest damages done to the church has been the separation of politics and religion. Similarly, when evaluating the Reformation, its supporters only consider the religious consequences without understanding that it is necessary and obligatory to extend the analysis to all possible social spheres. Because, as in all of human history, nothing happened overnight, but rather through various processes. In this sense, the Reformation also occurred as a consequence of a process that had already been brewing in Medieval Europe.

In the Middle Ages, a period historically placed after the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church, Europe experienced significant changes due to the Crusades to reconquer the Holy Land, bringing development in fundamental areas such as the economy and politics. During these military campaigns, European leaders identified a great source of income through the existing trade routes between Europe and the Mediterranean, greatly developing relations between the two regions. Although the matter is not as simple as this, and we know that there were many conflicts, such as military invasions not only by the Crusaders in the Mediterranean but also Ottoman invasions of Europe, all this contributed to a drastic change within the sociopolitical organization of Europe, feudalism. In it, the clergy and nobility held absolute control and power, but the aforementioned economic boom led to rapid growth in many social areas. With the growth of economic power, military power also increased, and with it, political power expanded, making social, political, and religious reform only a matter of time. And this is where the Renaissance comes in.

The Renaissance is usually defined as a cultural movement in Medieval Europe around the 15th century. It has been called this because it is assumed there was a rebirth of classical ideas, particularly concerning logic and reason, based mainly on the teachings of Aristotle. However, we have indications that these ideas were never completely eliminated or banned, except in the lower social strata. It is known that the University of Paris in the 13th century used Aristotle’s teachings. We have the example of Thomas Aquinas, a great Catholic teacher and philosopher who became a fundamental figure in France and Italy. These two regions would later be essential because they would give rise to two of the most influential thinkers who marked this era, namely Niccolò Machiavelli in Italy and René Descartes in France. It is therefore logical to think that Aristotelian teachings never ceased to exist in the ecclesiastical peaks of the Catholic Church. They were simply limited in their use. There is therefore a question to be asked at this point: if the Renaissance is the supposed rebirth of Aristotelian ideas, but at the same time we see that they never really stopped being present within the Catholic leadership and very possibly within the political and social peaks, what really reborn?

Before answering this question, it is important to consider other elements. Many historians position this Renaissance period from the discovery of America. This means that by this point, the development resulting from all the aforementioned factors, economic expansion, infrastructure development, and cultural growth stemming from the spread of Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on Aristotelian reason and logic, were creating a mindset that began to fragment and crack the system established for so many centuries. Inevitably, the process began that included various schisms within European society. All this would also be reflected in the technological development that in turn allowed the rapid expansion of communication and information regardless of the distances. The creation of the printing press and the growing democratization of information also helped in many ways to the independence of individuals who could now share their ideas to regions unknown to them.

Undoubtedly, these processes were exerting an influence on the common European individual never seen before. Each person now had more opportunity to be informed, to know beyond their functions, and even more, to exert some influence even if they did not hold positions defined by nobles, kings, or ecclesiastical leaders. The possibility of mass mobilization took on another level, being useful to reform any old system like feudalism, which limited the potentials that new technologies and their consequences were showing, resulting in gains for those who saw these processes as an opportunity to rise within the closed European society thanks to the purchasing power that expanded to men outside the social peak. Therefore, and trying to answer the previously posed question, we can say that what was reborn was not precisely Aristotelian ideas, but the social impulse that due to an evidently necessary and perhaps even caused “awakening” gave rise to Aristotelian teachings, creating human independence without the need to depend on clerics or nobles.

The gradual development of all these Hellenic ideas gave rise to what we know today as humanism, which in turn created all kinds of social movements. This development can be seen clearly by simply comparing the two aforementioned philosophers. Machiavelli, with his rise in the early 16th century, and Descartes in the early 17th century. Both are clear examples of this development of ideas. Let us compare only the schools of thought of both philosophers, and we can perceive the rapid evolution in ideas and the complexities that were also created in just one century. On Machiavelli’s part, we can see that he developed within classical realism and republicanism. While in the case of Descartes we have a list: rationalism, Cartesianism, mechanism, innatism, foundationalism, conceptualism, Augustinianism, indirect realism, theory of truth, theological voluntarism, among others. As we can see, the competition of ideas grew incredibly.

It is precisely in this tumultuous century marked by humanism that the religious sphere would not escape its consequences. A radical change would take place at the peak of the leading religious movement in Europe: the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church. Now, one might think that the so-called Reformation began with Martin Luther in Germany with his 95 theses; however, it is known that several religious teachers had already exposed similar ideas much earlier. Such as John Huss and John Wycliffe. If Luther’s ideas, his courage, and bravery in posting those 95 theses in Gutenberg were what caused the diametric change, as many Protestants and evangelicals today quickly assume, why did Huss and Wycliffe not have the same “success” as Luther, being highly recognized teachers throughout Europe? The answer lies precisely in all the complexity explained so far.

This reform did not arise in any way just because Luther was a passionate and zealous person for the word of God, fervently wanting to expose the truth. He lived in an era where he knew how to use mass communication, that is, to the lower classes, while the growing humanism we talked about spontaneously did its work in those dissatisfied, mistreated, and at the same time hungry individuals who put into practice that humanist individualism of the time. Due to technology, all the political changes taking place across Europe, the growth of free thinkers, and the division of powers in all political and social spheres, Luther also saw the possibility of attacking the evident and abusive errors within the Catholic Church. This does not mean, nor am I saying, that Luther’s work was not of great merit, because even with all the moral support he might have received from the lower classes and some nobles who knew the various limitations imposed by the Catholic Church, he risked his life in it. Luther was condemned to death and rescued from his execution by an abduction by one of those nobles who supported him and knew that the change in the power of the Catholic Church was not only imminent but necessary.

Now, why did I start my essay comparing the influence of man with that of God in this whole process? Simply put, because today, four centuries later, the consequences have been that we have reached a point almost similar in the religious field to what the inhabitants of Europe lived in Luther’s time. How many deaths did the Protestant Reformation cause? How many wars between reformers and counter-reformers beyond the framework of healthy debate? How many conflicts among the same reformers that we still drag today? How many divisions were created? Did the Reformation solve the problem caused by the Catholic Church, or did it simply give many groups the opportunity to express their humanism in the way that seemed best to them in the religious sphere?

For my part, I believe, after four centuries of reaping the fruits of the Reformation, that we are very far from reaching the total reform that God really expects and wishes to influence. The Reformation, for what it was and how far it went, has been a political movement that had to happen in all social spheres due to the Renaissance and humanist boom of its time that also influenced it. Proof of this was Luther himself, who never intended to leave the ranks of Catholicism, even when he was aware of many of its inventions and the boot it placed on the heads of its parishioners, crushing them into the mud day after day, and keeping such an important region as Europe in complete obscurantism. Obscurantism that not only stayed there but extended to all continents they reached.

Today, we still live with the consequences of the Reformation. On one side, those who never accepted it but were forced to change many things within their ranks to confront that popular, strong, and democratic movement. And on the other side, those who, assuming the change, created a new Christianity that never returned to its historical and religious bases and that would ultimately be the most evident proof that they were not one hundred percent in God’s will. The latter, happy and content with the obtained freedoms, simply created another system with a little more openness, which would ultimately be one of the causes of ushering in the modern era we live in.

However, and to conclude, that famous response of Martin Luther to the question his mentor would ask him: “Do you imagine what would happen if every individual had a Bible in their hands?” Luther replied, “There would be more Christians.” Today, my opinion as a modern Christian after seeing the real situation we are in is that Luther was wrong in this, although it was a better answer than nothing for his historical context. Having more Bibles available does not produce more Christians because today they have them and do not read them or read them as they see fit. And all thanks to the humanization of ideas and, therefore, of the translations themselves. From my heart, I exhort you to take this complex issue more seriously and realistically, not to assume what is popularly said without considering all the tangled things seen here in a rather superficial way. If we were to delve into each of these points, we could really find the true path needed to walk toward the “Total Reformation Under God’s Guidance.”

Author: William Salazar