the Reformation's "minimum kit"
I recently began reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s The Reformation, which by all accounts is a magisterial history. And about a hundred pages in, it sure looks like it. But here’s a curiosity: MacCulloch announces in his introduction that he’s going to add, in an appendix, a few central documents that will enable his readers to understand what these people — the objects of his historical scrutiny — cared about, argued about, and fought about. And what are those documents? The Augsburg Confession, perhaps? Documents from the Council of Trent? No: he means the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, the the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds.
MacCulloch calls this “the minimum kit that those caught up in the Reformation would have had at their disposal.” Fair enough, though I suspect that almost everyone’s “kit” was rather larger, though in varying ways. But I can't help wondering what someone would make of this very large book (750 pages in quite small print) who didn't already have a good grasp of those documents. Would someone to whom the Lord’s Prayer is unknown even pick up this book? Would someone who doesn't know the Creeds be able to make sense of the narrative, of the theological arguments that are a significant (though not the largest) part of it?
I understand that writers today cannot assume a level of cultural literacy that was common in the past; and I know from experience that trade publishers are constantly aware of this problem. But the addition of this “kit” to this particular book, which would seem to demand a certain level of historical knowledge from anyone who might happen to pick it up, seems odd. I wonder if the appendix was MacCulloch’s idea or his editors’.
As a Jew who enjoyed MacCulloch’s book immensely, I’ll say that I found the kit somewhat helpful. I am, of course, familiar with the contents of the Lord’s Prayer, etc, etc, but seeing as it’s not exactly my tradition, it was helpful to have handy for more detailed reference.
In other words: non-Christians can be interested in the Reformation, too, you know.
— on the other hand · Dec 3, 06:04 PM · #
I’d add that I’m not sure I’ve ever seen or read the Creeds except during a Church service or when I had a book of worship in front of me. So people who were never practicing Christians may find those worthwhile documents.
The inclusion of the Ten Commandments is a little much, I suppose.
— Justin · Dec 3, 08:54 PM · #
Did you notice the book includes a coupon for the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy at the end of the appendix?
— Joules · Dec 3, 09:00 PM · #
Despite its many merits, I found MacCulloch’s history deeply cynical, ever quick to impute malign motives without adducing evidence in support – but I’ve since been given to understand that this is exactly MacCulloch’s approach to traditional Christianity generally. Anyway, and again there’s a lot there (it’s a huge book), it’s not up to the standard he set with his biography of Cranmer.
— Patrick S. Allen+ · Dec 3, 09:22 PM · #
Thanks for the helpful responses, all.
— Alan Jacobs · Dec 3, 11:39 PM · #
You know, its been said, tongue-in-cheek maybe kinda, that there are many a Catholic who knows Aquinas & Augustine yet have hardly ever cracked open a Bible. If Prof. MacCulloch’s readership for this book is the general public this kit may be useful, for mind you the general public in England (he’s at Oxford I believe), don’t go to church and most have probably forgotten the creeds & prayers if they ever learnt them in the first place.
— Jim · Dec 4, 02:14 AM · #
The Ten Commandments are trickier than the name implies. How many people know that Catholics and some Protestants have different lists? And which list matches the one used by Jews? And which side of the divide Lutherans and Anglicans fall on? Or how they match up with the Islamic version?
— Michael Straight · Dec 4, 08:15 PM · #