24-11-2004 14:41									#1
	Was Protestantism a reactionary movement? Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Take three leading protestants of the time of Reformation. Luther, Calvin and Cromwell. It seems to me that they were quite harsh.
Cromwell imposed a cruel dictatorship. Calvin took his guilt-trip to excessive ends leading to mass hangings of 'sinners'. Luther of course was an ardent nationalist. Especially the publication of a Bible written in German lead to other nations following suit.
They all wanted to return to a supposedly purer form of Christianity.
It can also be said that Protestantism was an important factor in the development of Capitalism, which it has turned out was simply a shortlived inter-regnum between feudalism and Communism.

	24-11-2004 14:42									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yes. im a rebel through and through.

	24-11-2004 14:46									#3
	Re: Was Protestantism a reactionary movement? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Luther of course was an ardent nationalist.

Wait - not a fascist? I'm disappointed.

	24-11-2004 14:48									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, he did have some interesting views on Jews and Turks. And of course he condemned the peasant uprisings.

	24-11-2004 14:51									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

And that was something special at his time?

	24-11-2004 14:55									#6
	Put an end to popups!

Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

At the time, yes. Not so much anymore.

	24-11-2004 14:56									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I thought it is the other way around

	24-11-2004 14:57									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It was hardly progressive. I would also say that at the time it seemed as if the worst excesses of Catholicism in Europe and the Middle East had subsided.
The catholics later continued in Amercia, but that is another issue.
Protestantism lead to wars and anarchy, and a suspicious religious doctrine.
It is hardly a co-incidence that the Renaissance had a bigger impact in Catholic countries.

	24-11-2004 14:59									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I thought it is the other way around

Yes, it seems that protestantism is THE reactionary movement right now, in the Western World. I am wondering if has always been reactionary - I guess it has.

	24-11-2004 15:02									#10
	Support Apolyton

How comes, that the inhabitants of Bavaria (my neighbors of choice) are both arch-reactionary and catholic then?

	24-11-2004 15:38									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

Protestantism was not reactionary -- quite the opposite. It argued against the dominant power of its day, it argued for the importance of individuals over institutions, and it paved the way for democracy by insisting that individuals could find their own way to truth.

Ironically, Protestantism's elevation of the individual paved the way for Western Modernity, from which Red-State Protestants now recoil in reactionary horror.

	24-11-2004 15:41									#12
	Re: Was Protestantism a reactionary movement? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Take three leading protestants of the time of Reformation. Luther, Calvin and Cromwell. It seems to me that they were quite harsh. Cromwell imposed a cruel dictatorship. Calvin took his guilt-trip to excessive ends leading to mass hangings of 'sinners'. Luther of course was an ardent nationalist. Especially the publication of a Bible written in German lead to other nations following suit. They all wanted to return to a supposedly purer form of Christianity. It can also be said that Protestantism was an important factor in the development of Capitalism, which it has turned out was simply a shortlived inter-regnum between feudalism and Communism.

To answer your question: yes.

quote: It can also be said that Protestantism was an important factor in the development of Capitalism, which it has turned out was simply a shortlived inter-regnum between feudalism and Communism.

	24-11-2004 16:04									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Certainly not. It's interesting that peasants used Protestant theology as a vehicle for economic resistance, often in defiance of the Protestant theologians (see English peasants running with Wyclif's ideas, or German peasants running with Luther's ideas). The Church was typically a more abusive landlord than lay aristocrats, and dispossessing Church lands easily changed into the idea of a more general land reform. The idea that the RCC wasn't the ultimate religious authority paved the way for not only secularism, but individual initiative in other realms of society - politics (leading to democracy), the economy (leading to socialism), etc.,

	24-11-2004 16:08									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, my answer was based more upon what Luther, etc. was trying to do rather than how it turned out. Since Protestantism was a reaction to the "worldliness" of the RCC, since it was an attempt to get back to a more pure form of Christianity, it was reactionary.

However, that did go a little bit awry. Oh well... the best intentions of mice and men and all that...

I wonder if, if they could see the West today, if Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin would recoil in horror and realize that to prevent this, they'd better STFU.

	24-11-2004 18:16									#15
	Re: Was Protestantism a reactionary movement? Put an end to popups!

Duh.

EDIT: They were trying to return to a literal (or at least more literal) interpretation of the Bible, feeling that the RCC's sacrements etc. that were not in the bible had messed up the faith. Of course it's reactionary.

	24-11-2004 18:38									#16
	Remove this text

quote: since it was an attempt to get back to a more pure form of Christianity, it was reactionary.

Yep. I agree with that 100%. Luther was reactionary in that he wanted to go back to the Christianity before the Catholic Church.

	24-11-2004 18:45									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It just didn't really go the way he planned. Phew!

-Arrian

	24-11-2004 18:59									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Of course one could say the Catholic Church was in fact the conservative element since they tried to keep the status quo (JohnT's "worldliness" ), and Luther's "back to the bible" had a progressive element given the condition in which the church as institution existed at Luther's times. Calling it reactionary then may be technically correct but still is somewhat irritating when you understand "reactionary" as something directed against progress.

	24-11-2004 19:03									#19
	Put an end to popups!

Of course progress and conservativism don't exclude each other. I remember one of the demonstrations back in the 1990 events, where some CDU folks waved a banner "Choose progress! Elect the conservatives!". It gave me quite some giggles.

	24-11-2004 19:06									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

LOL

I just mean - in case of Luther the progessive side surely wasn't the RCC of his time.

Hm, I have to go offline now. See ya.

	24-11-2004 19:07									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: still is somewhat irritating when you understand "reactionary" as something directed against progress.

Then understand "reactionary" differently .

Reactionaries can react just as forcefully against conservatives as they can against liberals.

	24-11-2004 20:03									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Of course one could say the Catholic Church was in fact the conservative element since they tried to keep the status quo (JohnT's "worldliness" ), and Luther's "back to the bible" had a progressive element given the condition in which the church as institution existed at Luther's times. Calling it reactionary then may be technically correct but still is somewhat irritating when you understand "reactionary" as something directed against progress.

No, the Church being conservative doesn't rule out Luther being reactionary.

And hell, I'd say that Luther wasn't "progressive". He was trying to return to a literal interpretation of the Bible! NWIH is that better for society. Just look at the Puritans.

	24-11-2004 20:05									#23
	Suffering from ads?

btw, I would argue that it wasn't Protestantism itself, but the factionalizing of religion it caused, that led to religious tolerence (such as it was), democracy, etc. - none of which bears any real relation to the Protestant doctrines.

	24-11-2004 20:12									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Theologically, it depends on who you ask. If you ask a Protestant theologian, they would say it was an archeologist movement bringing back how things were in the days of the Early Church. If you ask a Catholic theologian, they would say it was a radical movement doing unprecedented things in the Church.

Politically, if we look it in terms of who had power, it probably would be reactionary as it gave those who had power before, the nobles, even moer power as they now held authority over religion in their realms as well.

	24-11-2004 20:19									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Theologically, it depends on who you ask.

No it doesn't. The label for the movement depends on the intents of those involved in it. They intended to restore values that had been lost. That makes them reactionary.

	24-11-2004 20:28									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Protestantism, when it began, was a revolutionary force, not reactionary. It was an attempt to overthrow the corruption of the Catholic Church. It's earliest adherents not only attempted to use the new religion to overthrow the Church, but also feudalism and create peasant communism. The followers of Hus, Munzer, and dozens of revolts across Europe used the banner of Protestantism to shake the very foundations of Christian Europe.

In England, Scotland, and the Spanish Netherlands, Protestantism was the theology of the rising capitalist class, against the Catholic and Feudal social structures of the day.

The fact that Cromwell set up a nasty dictatorship in its name doesn't detract from the act that even Cromwell was a revolutionary. England's government under Cromwell was the first time that the bourgoiesie established its primacy over aristocracy. It was the overturning of the rule of one class by a new class. That's the definition of revolution.

	24-11-2004 20:31									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Protestantism, when it began, was a revolutionary force, not reactionary. It was an attempt to overthrow the corruption of the Catholic Church.

By GOING BACK to the teachings of the early Christian faith. Sorry, che, that's reactionary. Going back to the good old days is not radical & progressive.

Like wacko Protestants say, Catholicism isn't really Christianity... indicating that they believe that they are the true faith and that they have gone back to the roots of Christianity while the Catholic Church strayed.

	24-11-2004 20:33									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Protestantism, when it began, was a revolutionary force, not reactionary. It was an attempt to overthrow the corruption of the Catholic Church. By GOING BACK to the teachings of the early Christian faith. Sorry, che, that's reactionary. Going back to the good old days is not radical & progressive.

It may have been theologically reactionary, but its effect on Europe was revolutionary, and the way it was used by its adherents was revolutionary.

	24-11-2004 20:35									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: It may have been theologically reactionary, but its effect on Europe was revolutionary, and the way it was used by its adherents was revolutionary.

Its effect and what its adherants did has not bearing on anything. You judge a philosophy by its writings and arguments. This is the problem I have with people who say that the followers of X didn't do that. The followers don't matter, the creators of the movement do.

	24-11-2004 20:36									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Protestantism, when it began, was a revolutionary force, not reactionary.

They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, to be reactionary it almost has to be a revolutionary force, because it's extremely opposed to the status quo.