Christopher Ocker presents a compelling case for considering what he refers to as the hybrid Reformation. With acumen, Ocker demonstrates the possibility of three forces evolving to create this hybridity: the first two were the Protestant and Catholic leaders’ polarizing tendencies, and the third was the reactions associated with ambiguity, hesitations, and compromises engaged in by commoners or “bystanders” in the efforts of Protestant and Catholic theologians to create confessional boundaries. Ocker's approach reflects his efforts towards creating a middle way to examine the dynamics of the Reformation that incorporates rather than rejects top-down and bottom-up models of reformational origins and impact. Thus, Ocker still recognizes the importance of the confessionalization thesis, originally espoused by scholars such as Heinz Schilling, claiming that rulers collaborated with theologians in shaping confessional identities as a process in early modern state building. However, Ocker also underscores the importance of both theologians and many commoners who did not fit the confessional mold of orthodoxy being shaped by empowered elites.
The book itself is a collection of essays primarily focusing on the Holy Roman Empire and devoted to elucidating the role of the “third force” (xi) of the Reformation as exhibited by individuals attempting to carve out their own status within the contending forces of religious reform in late medieval and early modern Europe. Several chapters are rooted in previously published journal articles and book chapters. The monograph also follows up on Ocker's last book by Cambridge University Press, titled Luther, Conflict, and Christendom (2018) that addresses the role of unsettled disputes rather than individuals in shaping the Reformation. In this sense, this new book addresses the power of individual agency, especially that of ordinary people, in the creation of diverse reformational identities.
The first part of the book is devoted to the themes of its title, “Indifference and Ambiguity,” and comprises the first three chapters. It primarily challenges traditional assumptions about the Anabaptist movement as a radical manifestation of the Protestant movement with a distinct doctrinal framework. Instead, Ocker argues that Anabaptism should be seen as an umbrella term encompassing an intense piety that often indicated the sentiments of commoners who were not persuaded by either side of the Protestant-Catholic polemic. For example, in the first chapter, Ocker gives an example of Barbara von Fuchstein from the imperial city of Kaufbeuren, who sought to protect her property rights after she was accused of being an Anabaptist during the German Peasants’ war of 1524-1525. Her case reveals the ambiguity of defining someone as an Anabaptist at this early period of the Reformation. Ultimately, she was able to guard her property by renouncing the doctrines defined as Anabaptist that left her legally vulnerable. Among the examples of Anabaptist ambiguity explored in the second chapter is the case of Hen, a blacksmith in the Landgraviate of Hesse, who experienced persecution from the landgrave for Anabaptist beliefs. Hen had, in fact, received adult baptism and supported the German Peasants’ Revolt, yet in 1535 Hen claimed that he was not an Anabaptist, a Lutheran, or a Catholic. He asserted that he just desired to attend “true” sermons. In the third chapter, Ocker offers examples of individuals like the Austrian nobleman Ruprecht von Mosheim, who had years of experience in negotiating between the Habsburgs and various Protestants. In the end, Ocker notes that Mosheim's efforts to find common ground between the different faith traditions mark him as illustrative of “third Germans” (45) who, like spiritualists and those accused of Anabaptism, sought in their own ways an Erasmian middle ground between confessional polarities.
In the second part of the book, Ocker concentrates on what he dubs in its title “Medieval Protestants” and delves into the relationship between the doctrinal and philosophical arguments connected to late medieval scholasticism and the Reformation. Rather than approach this topic in relationship to fundamental arguments shaping the Reformation and even breaking with the medieval antecedents, Ocker asserts that late medieval theology is more reflective of the broader institutional culture of the universities that favored experimentation and sophisticated “play” that only became altered rather than ending with the Protestant Reformation. For instance, in chapter 4, Ocker contends that Matthias Flacius Illyricus was really the first “Protestant Medievalist” (69). This is striking since Illyricus was the leader of the Gnesio-Lutheran movement defending a strict interpretation of Luther's ideas against the Philippists, or those championing Philip Melanchthon's approach to flexible accommodation with Catholics regarding adiaphora (things not necessary for salvation). However, Ocker cogently demonstrates how Illyricus's published Catalogue was quite different from any other evangelical work of his day by including works by medieval writers neglected by his fellow believers. Ocker also notes that Illyricus did not simply refer to late medieval sources as leading to the Reformation but used references to these authors for contemporary theological purposes. Chapter 5 explores the Protestant Reformation's relationship to late medieval nominalism (the scholastic belief that universals are only names and ontologically unconnected to reality). Ocker avers that this relationship is more complex when examining the writings and influence of the late medieval scholastic William Ockham, frequently connected to nominalism. Ocker demonstrates how nominalism was part of a much more diverse intellectual climate of scholastic terminism, a mode of thinking that promoted experimentation. In chapter 6, Ocker further challenges earlier interpretations of Luther's relationship to Ockham's writings and suggests that scholars recognize Luther's own willingness to selectively engage with Ockham's ideas in a manner that reflected the broader intellectual diversity at the universities of his day.
The third and final part of the book, titled “Interpretation beyond Borders,” examines the Bible and the hermeneutical continuity between late medieval theology and Protestant as well Catholic approaches to biblical texts. Ocker convincingly illustrates that, contrary to common claims, the literal reading of the Bible was not just a Protestant project. Indeed, he offers multiple examples of how both Protestants and Catholics continued to flexibly appropriate late medieval approaches to biblical interpretation that included allegorical, spiritual, and literalist methods. For instance, in chapter 7, Ocker argues that Erasmus's approach to biblical hermeneutics reveals humanist adaptations to scholastic antecedents. In chapter 8, Ocker treats the tensions between John Calvin and several contemporaries. For example, Calvin disputed with Sebastian Castellio concerning the meaning of the Song of Songs in the Bible. Calvin defended the allegorical interpretation of the book, inherited from late antiquity and the Middle Ages, by claiming that it was as an allegory between the Church (the bride) and the groom (Jesus). In contrast, Castellio took a literal and historicizing approach to the text to argue that it was representative of a distinctive and historic Middle Eastern cultural manifestation of erotic love poetry. On a related note, chapter 9 extends Ocker's discussion of how biblical allegory could serve to articulate another “third force” in the religious life of the early modern era. This is because literalism could never fully replace the use of allegory and allegory was malleable enough to escape confessional limits set by the people attempting to establish and maintain them. The tenth and final chapter serves to tie together the threads connecting the chapters and recapitulates Ocker's principal arguments in a very thought-provoking manner. Finally, though it is debatable how many people engaged in behaviors associated with the “third force” of the Reformation movements, Ocker makes a powerful argument that the “third force” existed and should be considered in future research on the Reformation era.
