Dr. Anders,
I realize there are inherent difficulties with writing short blog posts on complicated subjects. You say that I misunderstood certain aspects of what you wrote (which indeed may be the case). Couldn't it be that perhaps you weren't clear enough to begin with? Or, to complicate matters, both could be true- there could be a lack of clarity on your part and a lack of understanding on my part. Regardless of which it is, I appreciate that you took the time to read what I put together. After going through your response, I have three points of concern.
First, based on the fact that you've written your entry for the CTC website I'm assuming that on a basic level, your entry on the Reformation was, in some sense, a defense for the Roman church. You end your entry by stating your gratitude for your "corrupt Church," and that you "would never think of leaving it because of corruption." That leads me to the conclusion that, in your opinion, whatever it was the Reformers did, their protest was not ultimately done in the best interest of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Reformers are not be heralded today as those who fought for the true Spirit of the church universal. In your post you ask, "So why does this matter today?" What the Reformers did, according to you, appears to matter- and should be responded to by the defenders of Rome, in order to.... defend Rome, not to herald the Reformers as those who championed the Gospel and Scriptures against a corrupt institution.
I mention this basic point because as I worked through your entry, one question that concerned me was exactly what you thought of the Protestant Reformers. And here, my basic criticism (in response to your concerns that I didn't treat your thesis accurately) was that you provide very little to work with. I note the following:
So why does this matter today? It matters because we need to be alert to how we frame our discussions about the Church and how we respond to propaganda. The Reformation era was not the worst in Church history, but people at the time became convinced that it was. People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering.
And also:
Reflecting on this, it is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made “absence of corruption” a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30) And every attempt to create a perfect Church in this life has always ended in disaster. The Donatists tried it in North Africa. The Puritans tried it in New England. We could list other examples, but the result is always hypocrisy or tyranny.
The first statement appears to characterize the Reformers as "people with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." The second statement (which I noted in my blog entry) may infer you think the Reformers sought to create the perfect church, and that anyone who has this goal will achieve the results of "hypocrisy or tyranny" (as I noted originally, I was not sure you were making this point). This is all you left to be worked with. In your response you cite Farel and characterize him as using the language of inflammatory propaganda. You then go on to say that I was in error in my synopsis of who you thought the Reformers ultimately were ("I certainly did not say the Reformers were “simply disseminating propaganda.” They were propagandists, to be sure, but with real grievances that had been the subject of discussion among Catholics for decades if not centuries").
I think this criticism is unfair based on what you originally wrote. The overall tenor of your post is that church corruption did not cause the Reformation. You say that explicitly. You clarify this with "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it. " Well, how the Reformers felt about it, according to what you've written, is that they responded "with a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." I stand by my original summary statement of your words and my use of the word "simply."
Second, you went on in your response to clarify that "The Reformers were clearly motivated by the perception of corruption" as opposed to my synopsis of your position that "Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t motivated to reform due to church corruption." Here may again be a lack of clarity in your original post. Your opening two paragraphs argue "corruption" proper was not the ultimate cause of the Reformation. In your second to last paragraph you state, "'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation." Even in your response, it isn't "corruption" proper that caused the Reformation, but the perception of the Reformers. I stand by my synopsis of your position, that ultimately, according to you, corruption was not the ultimate factor for the Reformers, but rather, the Reformers used corruption to advance a "personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." So, again, according to you,whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t ultimately looking to reform the church due to corruption. They used corruption as a means to an end, a different end (a personal or political agenda).
Third, in regard to my statement that puzzled you ("factual data")- this also ties in to your characterization of the Reformers as those "with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." As I read through your entry, I observed that you compared the Reformers to others whom you appear to think actually worked toward responding to corruption without a personal or a political agenda and without exploiting the popular mentality and without disseminating propaganda causing centuries of bloodshed:
One man who gets a lot of the credit for this is Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085). In his day, the Church was absolutely rife with corruption and he wanted to do something about it. He fought hard to eliminate simony (buying Church offices) and clerical incontinence. He strove to free the Church from the control of secular rulers. But he did something very radical, too. He called on laypeople to oppose corrupt clergy, absolving them of their obligations to obey.
In the aftermath of Pope Gregory’s reform, we saw centuries of religious movements and lay reforms both inside and outside of the Church. The most famous examples are St. Francis and St. Dominic, who rose up in answer to the Church’s call for Reformation." " What all of this means is that the Church created the expectation that things should be better. Religious carried out centuries of catechesis and preaching. Books like The Imitation of Christ flooded the popular market once Guttenberg invented printing. The Church created such a demand for good religion that she couldn’t keep up with the demand.
Here I think your argument is not a factual argument per se, but rather an argument of the heart, or rather, you're starting with a basic unproven presupposition: certain people are real reformers of the church, certain people are not real reformers of the church. Who decides which are which? Well, if one is a defender of Rome, certain historical personages will be seen as reforming the church, others will not.
In conclusion, you mentioned to my friend Ken Temple that "the Protestant Reformation took the form of a Protest against doctrinal corruption in the Church." You also said that "whether or not that protest was justifiable" was not the point of your entry. I think it's very easy to read between the lines of what you've written to conclude the Reformation was not a justifiable protest with long lasting positive results. You then state:
The thesis of the article is that corruption alone, whether doctrinal, moral, institutional, or what-have-you, is not a sufficient explanation of the Reformation. But, rather, a change in religious mentality (along with other social, political, and technological developments) was required before claims of corruption could have the force necessary to move an entire culture the way they did.
This is an adequate thesis, as far it goes. But it appears to me your entry says a bit more. It particularly downplays the element of corruption within the Roman church and places a negative value on the protest of the Reformers. If I had to summarize your entry in a few words, I'd say your entry was an apologetic effort to defend the Roman church against the Protestant Reformation.
Posts
13 comments:
Regarding the allegation that the Protestant Reformers "disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed"...
i) At the risk of stating the obvious, didn't the Church of Rome foment centuries of bloodshed prior to the Reformation? Violent suppression of "heretics" and "schismatics"?
ii) During the Counter-Reformation, didn't Roman Catholic authorities foment bloodshed against Protestants?
Put another way, didn't the bloodshed require Roman Catholic as well as Protestant combatants?
Hi James,
I've read your response. Thanks, again, for taking the time. I think I have settled on one question that seems central to your rejoinder. Do I think that Corruption was the ultimate factor for the Reformers themselves? Or, do I think that they cynically manipulated the popular perception of corruption for their own personal agenda?
I think this is a fair question, but one that is addressed implicitly in the original article. I say, explicitly, that the cause of the Reformation was "how people felt about corruption." I would think it obvious that "the people" in question here includes the Protestant Reformers.
3 paragraphs later, I do mention exploitation and propaganda, but in the context of media reporting on the Church. Why bring this out? Because there are analogies to the 16th century. Surely you would not deny that there was political maneuvering or propaganda in the 16th century? Even so, today there are those who cynically manipulate the perception of corruption for political purposes. That doesn't mean I deny the existence of corruption, or that something ought to be done about it.
In a post this short, one can't do everything, but, since you ask . . .
I think that Luther's motivations were very different from Queen Elizabeth's. Calvin very different from King Henry. I think the Genevan city council had very different motivations from Calvin. I think the consistory and the civil authorities had very different motivations. And I know that Calvin, Pierre Ameaux, Bolsec, and the countless lay genevans called before the consistory also had different motivations. The early Reformation in Geneva doesn't look like the later. The Reform in Meaux under D'Etaples and Farel doesn't look much like the Elizabethan. Perkins is not Chemnitz. We could go on.
In all these cases that I have examined, "The corruption of Rome" emerges as a constant trope and a justification for schism. For some, the language may have been purely rhetorical, cynically exploited for political or personal reasons (think Henry). But in others, like In Luther's case, I have no doubt that the man was as sincere as sincere gets. From my study of Calvin, I'm sure he was sincere. I'm also sure he wielded theology in deeply political ways that his contemporaries found exploitative - whatever his motivations.
My point in writing the article was to single out the way cultural mentality and media perception color our interpretation of ecclesiastical events. In the 16th century, popular mentality had evolved in such a fashion that the Reformation became a possibility. It was not a possibility in the 7th century even though - I would argue - the level of lay and clerical spirituality was far, far worse. (I once read a dissertation on Saxon elf Charms, used by clerics to expel malicious elves from people's houses and fields. I read about a village that venerated a dead dog as a saint, and a confessional manual that explained what to do for mice in your beer.)
You correctly note that I favor the Roman Church over the Protestant Reformers and that I take a dim view of much of their theology and apologetics. I also credit the Papacy with injecting the reformist zeal into medieval discourse. The former you might dismiss as prejudice. The latter is a matter of historical record.
In any event, I appreciate your attention to the post. I'm glad you have written about it. I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
God bless,
David
Guy,
Are you asking me if I think Luther's mental state had anything to do with his thinking? I should say so!
-David
Guy wrote:
. . .about his doctrine of Justification by faith alone devoid of good works, love of God, commandment keeping or obedience.
You honestly don't seem to know what the doctrine of justification by faith alone is.
Genuine faith results in good works, love of God, and commandment keeping and obedience; and Luther wrote on that truth also.
steve said...
Regarding the allegation that the Protestant Reformers "disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed"...i) At the risk of stating the obvious, didn't the Church of Rome foment centuries of bloodshed prior to the Reformation? Violent suppression of "heretics" and "schismatics"?
Indeed. In my earlier entry I stated, "Further, during her history have not the forces of Rome been responsible for political agendas, propaganda, bloodshed and suffering? Certainly she has, so it's a double standard to claim the Reformation exhibited this devious behavior and is therefore not ordained by God, whereas the Roman church exhibits this behavior and is ordained by God, able to ferret out corruption."
i) During the Counter-Reformation, didn't Roman Catholic authorities foment bloodshed against Protestants?
Put another way, didn't the bloodshed require Roman Catholic as well as Protestant combatants?
Good point.
guy fawkes said...
Dave,What about Luther's mental state? Does it have anything to do with the doctrine of JBFA or not?
While Dr. Anders may have an opinion on this, I've addressed this quite often over the years. It's an interesting question, but not particularly relevant to the blog entry Dr. Anders posted.
IOW, is not all of Protestantism built upon one man's mental state?
No, it isn't. I would say that boiling down "Protestantism" to "one man's mental state" is just as myopic to me as corruption being the cause of the Reformation is for Dr. Anders.
I think I have settled on one question that seems central to your rejoinder. Do I think that Corruption was the ultimate factor for the Reformers themselves? Or, do I think that they cynically manipulated the popular perception of corruption for their own personal agenda?
Dr. Anders,
If I understand your answer correctly:
1) Those under the broad banner of "Protestantism" in the 16th Century had different motivations in regard to their protest. Some were sincere, some were not. All were united though in Rome's corruption being the ultimate justification for their protest.
2) the "cultural mentality" of the 16th century made the Reformation possible, even though there were times previous to the 16th century that were more corrupt.
Therefore, you appear to me to be saying that the "corruption" charge planted against the Roman church during the 16th Century was essentially a propaganda campaign in which a large number of people who did not agree with each other all joined together (perhaps in a collective unconscious sense) in the conclusion that the Roman church was corrupt and needed to be defeated- and it was only initially possible to pull this off in the 16th century. All used the charge of "corruption" for whatever their purposes were. The Roman church during that time period was caricatured and portrayed as worse than she was. On a broader historical level, the Roman church is still subjected to propaganda campaigns- hence your California public school example in your initial post in which you point out that the Roman church is portrayed worse than she actually is.
If you think I've accurately summarized your position, then I'd like to comment on it.
Hi James,
Thanks again for the conversation. I'm a bit wary of being drawn into a reductionistic account of the Reformation in which it is depicted as "essentially" a propaganda campaign, or a response to Church corruption, or a political revolt, or an economic revolution, or what-have-you. The Protestant Reformation was a complex, multifaceted, broad-based movement that took the form of a revolt against the Catholic status quo. Its most articulate proponents were theologians who framed the movement around sometimes subtle theories (providence, freedom, depravity, imputation, etc) and othertimes hackneyed stereotypes. Politicians, intellectuals, and the rank and file appropriated their arguments to greater and lesser degrees.
By the 16th century, the evolving Catholic mythos had permeated Western society to an unprecedented extent. Theories of anything were bound to take the Church into account and Catholic hegemony could not fail to elicit critical scrutiny. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable and understandable that "corruption" emerge as a potential defeater to Catholic claims of divine authority.
Personally, I am as wary of Catholic historical triumphalism as I am of Protestant prmitivism or apolalyptic. I resist "golden age" myths, utopianism, and various other forms of idealism. I am skeptical of the Protestant narrative that sees a pristine early church descend into medieval superstition and corruption. I am equally uncomfortable with a Catholic narrative in which unscrupulous Protestant opportunists exploit popular disatisfaction for personal gain.
I don't think corruption was "the cause" of the Reformation. But I don't deny that there was an observable gap between Catholic ideology and the lived experience of early modern Christians. The gap begged for critical analysis in much the same way that people reject the religious life of their family or their local religious community today when it fails to meet their expectations. A thorough understanding of the phenomenom demands more than an analysis of the behavioral gap (the corruption), but also those expectations (mentality), the origins and form of the analysis, the mode of its dissemination, its success or failure, and accuracy. When seeking to understand the Reformation, one should be wary of ideology - Protestant, Catholic, or secular.
Again, was there corruption in the 16th century church? Of course. Did this provide a motive to resist Catholic claims to divine authority? Of course. Was corruption, per se, a unique feature of 16th century Catholic life? By no means. And we should be wary of eschatological, primitivist, or apolaclyptic theories that would distort the data to say otherwise.
When I became Catholic, I had Presbyterian friends and relations who tried to explain away my conversion by arguing I had been mistreated by my former coreligionists. I always thought this was unfair both to me (because I had explicitly argued otherwise) and to those supposedly abusive Presbyterians. Whether or not I was mistreated, they were complex human beings with varied motivations and sometimes with rich theological theories worthy of consideration. My own motives for becoming Catholic were likewise complex (but no less theological). If one man's journey resists monocausational explanation, how much more an entire society.
Thanks again for the dialogue,
David
Dr. Anders,
Knowing that the Reformation is a complex topic, I've been trying hard to avoid commenting on your entry for what you did say rather than what you did not say. This though is being met with quite a number of qualifications and clarifications from you, making it a bit more challenging to not only understand your point of view, but also to comment on that point of view. What I normally try to do is boil out the main points somebody is making, then look to see if it's cogent or contradictory. As I've read through your responses to what I've put forth, I think I'm seeing a number of qualifications that take the wind out your original post, particularly this last response.
You've gone from the unqualified statement that the Reformers were "people with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed," to Luther being one who was "as sincere as sincere gets" and you're also "sure" Calvin was "sincere."
I can certainly understand and appreciate avoiding reductionistic accounts of the Reformation. Your CTC blog post though was, in a sense, just that: your fundamental point (as I see it) is that the corruption thesis is not true. Now we've gone back and forth and you've explained and qualified your original post. In your original post you concluded saying, " “Corruption,” as such, was not the cause of the Reformation." Now in your last response, you state, "was there corruption in the 16th century church? Of course. Did this provide a motive to resist Catholic claims to divine authority? Of course."
Based on these two things- that in your clarifications you've said not all the Reformers were devious propagandists and that corruption was indeed at least a motive to provoke the Reformation, I'm content with the thrust of my original response to your entry.
Again, thank you for the dialog- and as an aside about "golden age" thinking, I'm quite fond of Woody Allen's movie, Midnight in Paris (2011). It may be one the best movies he's ever done. Worth seeing if you have not already.
Hello James,
Thanks again for the dialogue.Your initial review of my post ascribed to me the following position:
Those involved in the Reformation had "a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." They were not responding to corruption.
As I have been at pains to point out, your conclusion (they were not responding to corruption) contradicts the explicit argument of my post. In that initial post I wrote:
"The real cause of the Reformation was not [the existence of] Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it . . . In the aftermath of Pope Gregory’s reform, we saw centuries of religious movements and lay reforms both inside and outside of the Church . . . what they all had in common was an eager desire to reform the Church. Sometimes, even good religious would gin up popular agitation by decrying corruption in Church and state. "
I do not understand why you conclude from this that I deny corruption as a motive for the Reformation. The entire argument of the post and my explicit statements confirm that" response to corruption" was the one constant across religious movements of the late medieval and early modern periods. What I deny is that the presence of corruption in the Church marked off the Reformation era as somehow unique.
Also, I think you have characterized my position as an uncritical dismissal of the Reformers as pure propagandists. You arrive at that characterization from the following statement in my original post:
"So why does this matter today? It matters because we need to be alert to how we frame our discussions about the Church and how we respond to propaganda. The Reformation era was not the worst in Church history, but people at the time became convinced that it was. People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering."
Nowhere in this text do I deny that corruption existed in the Church. Nowhere in this text do I imply that the major reformers were simply propagandists. I say, only, that propaganda existed, that it fomented bloodshed and suffering, and that if fed on the popular mentality, which was characterized by reforming zeal and the "corruption narrative."
You have also accused me of being reductionist in my account of the Reformation because I identify "how people felt about corruption" as the key development. However, I go on to say in the original post that, "There were many, many factors leading to the Reformation: economic and political changes, demography and societal attitudes, technology (printing), intellectual developments (scholasticism and the renaissance), religious sentiment, and the contributions of colorful personalities. It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation. These all came together at a critical moment in western history. "
At this point, I think I might fruitfully pose a few questions to you about your interpretation of the events of 16th century and perhaps we might find some common ground. Do you think the spiritual condition of the average Christian in the 16th century was substantially worse than it was under the Merovingian's? Or in Saxon England? Or in the Holy Roman Empire under Henry IV? It seems to me that if you buy into the corruption thesis (that the Reformation occurred because of a steady worsening of spiritual/moral conditions) then you would have to think so. Do you think there was propaganda in the 16th century (from either or both sides)? Do you take all the Protestant polemical texts at face value? What do you make of the explosion of religious literature in the 15th century? The Catholic catechetical movements? The proliferation of lay associations, confraternities, and third orders? The mendicant evangelistic campaigns? Weren't these things contributing factors to the Reformation? Didn't they distinguish the late medieval Church from the early medieval church?
Thanks again,
David
Dr. Anders,
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I've appreciated the interaction, especially since I've been critical and placed you on the defensive. It's actually refreshing to dialog with a defender of Rome that goes beyond "Luther had mental and problems" and "Calvin killed Servetus."
You say you do not understand why I conclude that you deny "corruption as a motive for the Reformation." First, I would say I arrive at that based on the waters of your entry I had to navigate through. I've read your initial entry quite a number of times now. I find that it begins with the corruption theses described in paragraph one as "it's just not true," then "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it," to "It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation," to “'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation."
Second, there may be something semantic going on between us. Perhaps it's because what you describe as motive, I see as a cause. Recall in your entry, you state explicitly: “'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation." If corruption was perceived by 16th century people, and corruption provoked 16th century people, therefore corruption was a cause to motivate people towards reform.
I would agree with you that "There were many, many factors leading to the Reformation." But when you then go on to say, "'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation," I would say if you do indeed believe that corruption was a motive for the Reformation, you should consider changing your entry to say "'Corruption,' as such, was not the only cause of the Reformation, but it played a crucial role and was a significant cause among many." You also say, "It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation." I would revise that to say "it is possible to point out one major cause of the Reformation: church corruption." In other words, saying there were many causes of the Reformation does not mean that corruption was not a significant cause of the Reformation.
In regard to what I perceived as an unqualified characterization of those who did respond to how "they felt" about church corruption as "people with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed," you've gone on the comments here to qualify what you meant. I think that also should be revised in your entry. The question I would have for you then is as follows: are you accusing the major Protestant Reformers of duplicity because they were cherry-picking the era of corruption?
In regard to the questions you asked me, I'm out of time for the evening, so I'll have to get to it another time. Because of trolls, I've had to put comment moderation back on, so if you choose to respond, your comment may not appear immediately.
Hi James,
Thanks again.
I think it's more fruitful to discuss the substance of the Reformation than the merits of my writing. If I have communicated that the Reformation was a complex event, that attitudes towards corruption changed over time, that those changes in popular mentality were very significant to the timing of the Reformation, and that corruption per se did not make the 16th century unique, then I suppose I've done what I intended.
I came to Reformation history as a die-hard partisan (Calvinist). I was initially strongly disposed to take the Reformers at face value. One of the things that struck me, though, after years of studying Geneva, was just how diverse the population was. The ideas of a Fromment, a de Ecclesia, a Farel, a Bolsec, a Viret, or of countless men and women called before the consistory whose stories Robert Kingdon has preserved, differed sometimes quite radically from Calvin's. Anticlericalism was rampant - sometimes aimed at Calvin himself. Calvin had a tendency to read theology right off the pages of personal conflict in Geneva. Was he duplicitous? Well, think he was sincere. He believed his own PR, if you will. But do I think he was fair to his opponents? Even his Protestant opponents? No, not really.
I'll never forget one anonymous Genevan called before the consistory who asked, "Do we have to believe the ministers if they say there is no water in the Rhone?"
That question spoke volumes to me about the political tensions in Geneva and the way the pastors comported themselves.
Have you read Karen Spierling's work on the controversy over baptismal names? Or Naphy's work on the Genevan Reformation? Or Holtrop on the Bolsec controversy? It was a tumultuous age. I'm glad I'm alive today.
God bless,
David
Post a Comment