This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
(1) No (2) Should all be defrocked (3) Not a fan but he's not Satan or an anti-pope (4) Again, not a fan, but once again that will likely be taken as an excuse by those who would do it anyway to go farther than intended
I think if we brought Luther forward in a time machine, he would recognise the Catholics as much the same as he had been fighting, but he would have no idea what the Lutheran church had become. So yes, I'm sticking to "the Reformers did found new denominations, not just reform the existing church". For one thing, they pretty much 'reformed' in different directions from each other, and the Anglican mess under Henry was "I'm only reforming" so he happily burned at the stake both Catholics for opposing him and Protestants for going further than he wanted. And when his son came to the throne, he had been influenced by the very Protestant nobility around him to take the 'reforms' even further. Then Mary tried reversing that with no success, and Elizabeth (and her spymaster) settled on making it a political question rather than religious - so now you would be executed for treason, not heresy, for not being in line with the state church and the monarch as its governor.
I don't get your point here. Could you elaborate?
This isn't especially true. They were pretty clearly doing a bunch of the same things: administering the Lord's Supper to laity more frequently and in both kinds, read scripture in the vernacular (with more of an emphasis on the preaching of the word, in general), allowed clergy to be married, put an end to the veneration of images and relics (with variation as to whether they allowed those images to continue to exist), ceased praying to Mary and the saints, had two sacraments, and made use of congregational singing (not sure if this was less true of Anglicans), among others.
With regard to doctrine, they all would have affirmed justification by faith alone, distinguished justification and sanctification, contrasted law and gospel, affirmed predestination, denied purgatory, taught views other than transubstantiation (though with considerable variation between those views), elevated scripture above tradition, and not recognized Rome to have authority, among others.
Yes, I recognize that catholics since followed them in a bunch of those practices.
I don't get what you're trying to argue regarding the church of England. Henry should not be considered protestant, and Mary obviously wasn't, but the church of England clearly was protestant under Edward and Elizabeth and following. The 39 articles, for instance, is very obviously protestant (all protestations of Newman to the contrary, laughable), and pretty mainstream. This is less true of modern Anglicanism after the Oxford movement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link