Was Protestantism a reactionary movement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Arrian]

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

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

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.

[Harovan]

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.

[BeBMan]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Shi Huangdi]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[chequita guevara]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.