What exactly was the Reformation?

Why did Luther challenge the church? And why did his challenge succeed philosophically and politically? I mean, the Puritans' motives are somewhat easier to siphon out. But even if you limit the Reformation just to Luther, who can say why it happened or what it was?

Was it about "freedom to study the Bible and take its authority first?" (a la "know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"). Well, yes; and no. Luther wanted everyone to read the scriptures, certainly. But the spirit of the Reformation is in its essence revolution and not anarchy. Luther didn't want the removal of ecclessiastical authority, he wanted its replacement. Luther, again, opposed many doctrines (see: the deutero-canon) that had been decided by church councils a thousand years before. In many ways, Luther wanted to replace the Pope, arbitrarily deciding the truth about Christianity.

Was the Reformation primarily an attack on corruption and self-serving church primacy? Well, kind of ... ? Initially, he did not want to change the hierarchy of the church. As he became angrier and angrier, he increasingly directed his invective against Popes, Cardinals, authorities, etc. and fought the concept that Salvation was not available outside of the Pope's blessing (quite in contrast to the policies of the Puritans, who executed members of rival denomenations, such as the Quakers). But was the Reformation really about exclusivity or corruption? Probably not. The Catholic church no longer claims exclusivity, but that has hardly served to end the feud. Recent scandals aside, the Catholic church is hardly more corrupt than any Protestant branch, but I haven't yet heard of any Protestant denomenation seeking to be re-introduced into the Catholic fold.

Another dynamic that I've heard mentioned in my various readings is that of the conflict between the more ancient, more scholarly and less populist orders and the rising trend of the "Mendicants". In some ways, Luther is both a manifestation of and reaction to the Mendicant orders. To plumb the murky depths of this issue, I would need to hold my breath for too long. Therefore, suffice to say that while conflict between the orders and their philosophies might have played a part, it could not have been the central issue, as it rarely played out upon strict sectarian lines.

What about political expression? There is certainly some truth to the statement that the Reformation rose out of Northern Europe's desire for independence. The Lutheran church is certainly a German church. The Reformation could not have succeeded except as a power play between two equal opponents (see John Huss), and those princes who defended him would probably not have done so if they had not increasingly resented Roman influence on their nascent sense of national identity. There is also something very nationalistic about the translation of a German Bible. But at most, this could only constitute the enabling factor, the historical component of a philosophical movement. I don't think anyone approaching the Reformation as a Christian would argue with that.

Probably the main factor that a hard-core Calvinist / Puritan / Reformed / Evangelical / Conservative /etc. theologian is going to point to is the concept of justification by faith through grace. Certainly an interesting point. I think this post is long enough already, so I won't go into a lengthy discussion of this issue -- but I will finish with a story related to it.

What Luther considered the crowning achievment of his theological career was a series of literary discourses he engaged in with the still-Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus on the determination of the will. Luther himself, in these discourses, claimed that the sum total of the Reformation and all that he had done boiled down not to papal authority or anything else, but to this: he believed that man had no free will.

A) Is that Biblical?
B) How Biblical?
C) Is that important?
D) Is that what Christ taught?
E) Is that what Christ prioritized?

P.S. Don't hate me. If it wasn't for my incendiary posts, there wouldn't have been any action on this blog for a month and a half. And besides, this is important stuff for us to think about; it has a lot of implications for the church today. Well, kind of.