This study presents a series of finely tuned, careful studies of archival materials and printed works that trace Melanchthon's roles in electoral Saxon ecclesiastical affairs and in the larger picture of the politics of managing the church in the German Empire, involving both imperial actors and those of the Smalcald League and the Wittenberg reform movement, between the Saxon visitations in 1527 and the composition of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in 1530/1531. The assessment of the documents is placed in the framework of larger questions regarding Wittenberg ecclesiology, the maneuvering of the ecclesiastical parties in the empire for an enduring settlement to differences in theology and practice, and the relationship of Luther and Melanchthon in defining Wittenberg theology and plans for reform.

Andersen traces the events and the expression of ideas in these critical years for German public life on the basis of the thesis that Melanchthon, along with Luther, pursued two coordinated projects or strategies regarding the larger church: a “confession project,” dedicated to the presentation of Wittenberg theological teaching, and a “reconciliation” project, aimed at establishing a firm legal place for Luther's and Melanchthon's adherents within the framework of the imperial republic and the Western church. Andersen explores the developments that led Melanchthon to shift his weight away from the latter to the former in mid-August 1530 and suggests that, along with the hardening Roman Catholic stance, his Wittenberg colleague Justus Jonas may well have played a key role in that shift (270).

Andersen depicts in detail the tensions within the Evangelical leadership, both political and ecclesiastical, as these leaders struggled to find the right path to achieving the goal of teaching their understanding of scripture to the Roman Catholic party while winning recognition of the legal right of followers of the Wittenberg Reformation to serve in the public ministry of the church. Andersen identified Jonas as chief advocate of what he labels “confession” (the explicit setting forth of Wittenberg theology) and placing efforts at “reconciliation” (his term for making peace with the emperor and papal party) through the summer of 1530. Andersen carefully assesses both Luther's support for Melanchthon's efforts to attain legal recognition for the Evangelicals and Luther's criticisms that he voiced at times of their Roman opponents. These criticisms grew out of his suspicion that the papal party would continue to contradict what he believed scripture teaches.

Andersen demonstrates that, while the two leading Wittenberg reformers struck different accents in their teaching, they were in basic agreement on the core of their theology. For instance, he places the two in accord on the nature of the church, though they had different estimates of the papacy “and thus the church's integrity and unity. While Luther uses the concept of the church to distance himself from Rome, Melanchthon does the opposite” (234). Andersen affirms the judgment of several scholars that there was “basic agreement between the two reformers with respect to their teaching, and this not least in the dialectic between law and gospel, in the doctrine of justification and in the ecclesiology at that time. A joint Wittenberg theology takes shape though the accentuation can be somewhat dissimilar” (325). Where Andersen sees differences in their anthropologies (442–446), it may well be that there is more fundamental agreement than he highlights here; again, different accents and epistemological frameworks were nonetheless dealing with similar images of what it means to be human.

Andersen's analysis is somewhat clouded by his failure to leave completely behind the theory that humanism and Reformation were at least in some ways incompatible. The work of Helmar Junghans, confirmed in studies by Heinz Scheible, Timothy Wengert, Irene Dingel, Nicole Kuropka, and several others, has shown that alleged discordance between humanistic methods and Luther's way of thinking did not exist. Melanchthon incorporated and enriched Luther's theology at the same time that the older Wittenberg professor was continuing to use the tools of Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Lefèvre d’Étaples that he had begun to employ in the early 1510s. Therefore, it does not help at all to try to introduce remnants of this old analysis into such a skillful exploration of documentary evidence about this critical period.

Andersen sets the stage for further investigations—for example, the further role in the Wittenberg circle of Matthias Alber, pastor in Reutlingen, who from afar urged a hard line in Augsburg, and of Margrave Georg of Brandenburg-Ansbach. Like Luther, Melanchthon practiced the discipline of theology as a continuing laboratory of experimentation. His suspicions of and opposition to the Sacramentarians, not only from Zurich but also from Strasbourg, must be integrated into the story of his later efforts to find common ground with Martin Bucer and his Strasbourg colleagues (79–87). The further development of the thinking of Melanchthon and Luther over the following fifteen years can be assessed with the help of Andersen's work, as can the relationship of Justus Jonas and others to the two of them.

Andersen has presented a helpful and, at points, provocative contribution to the continuing reassessment of Melanchthon's thought and his diplomatic and theological modus operandi. The study's careful reading of a vast amount of documentation will elicit fruitful discussion as it serves as a basis for further exploration of the dynamics of Melanchthon and his place in the Wittenberg circle.