Gillian Clark, Christianity and Roman Society - Huntington University

BOOK REVIEWS 111
by the various electors. The fact that the region did not become staunchly Lutheran,
Reformed, or Catholic is crucial for fully understanding the more ecumenical theology of
the catechism. In its early modern history the Palatinate was never dogmatically Roman
Catholic, but on the other hand, neither was it consistently Lutheran as understood by
Martin Luther, but rather manifested traits of the Melancthonian strain of Lutheranism.
Finally, the region also was influenced by the newly rising Reformed theology. All of
these trends are captured well in this chapter and especially in Gunnoe’s discussions of
the various theological controversies, for example, the Heidelberg Lord’s Supper
Disputation of 1560 and the Naumburg Prince’s Conference of 1561 (40-4). Part of the
issue running through much of the period was that of how to understand the Augsburg
Confession, and this too is important for grasping the emergence of the Heidelberg
Catechism.
Lyle Bierma writes chapter two, which deals with the purpose and authorship of the
Heidelberg Catechism. Here of course the focus of the book is narrowed. Bierma spends
a good deal of time addressing the frequently debated issue of who wrote the catechism,
and his answers are the product of an obviously careful study of both the historiography
of the problem and the sources themselves. His conclusion is that “it seems clear that the
HC was in some sense, a team project involving the leading theologians and church
officials of the Palatinate and, in no small way, Elector Frederick III himself” (74). But
the primary author is believed by Bierma to be Ursinus.
Bierma also writes chapter three, entitled “The Sources and Theological Orientation
of the Heidelberg Catechism.” This chapter was fascinating from the historian’s
viewpoint, in that it dealt with the prickly problem of sources drawn upon and
influencing the content of a given document. Here again, Bierma is a careful researcher
who understands the historiographical issues. In the end, the Heidelberg Catechism is a
product of several theological traditions, designed to promote consensus in the Palatinate,
among Melancthonians, Calvinists, Zwinglians and “Old Lutherans” (102).
The last two chapters are a useful introduction to and list of the early editions of the
catechism (chapter four) and a bibliography of research on the Catechism since 1900
(chapter five). The latter includes works in German and English. Part two contains
translations by Lyle Bierma of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms. The Smaller
Catechism is the primary textual foundation for the Heidelberg Catechism itself (139).
Neither one of these foundational documents has previously been translated into English.
This book is very valuable for at least one huge reason: that is, it helps put to rest the
notion that confessional statements like the Heidelberg Catechism were written as
dogmatic expositions of one narrowly defined theological orientation. The Heidelberg
Catechism, though certainly in the Protestant tradition, more Reformed, and opposed to
Roman Catholicism, is nevertheless something of an ecumenical statement when
understood in its historical context and not in its more narrowly defined and interpreted
modern context alone. For the professional historian this book provides a gold mine of
useful and well-documented information on the Reformation and on the Palatinate region
of Europe during the Reformation (or barely post-Reformation) period. The authors are to
be highly commended for their careful work. English speakers will find it of primary