Why I Don't Say, "Protestant Reformation"

A while ago I did a post called "Why I Don't Say Non-Denominational".  Well, today I want to continue with that theme and also tie it into the 500th anniversary of the "Protestant Reformation."

I want to discuss three reasons why I - as a Catholic and a person who cares about accuracy - don't say the term "Protestant Reformation".

Reason 1: Not a Singular Thing

First, we refer to "The Protestant Reformation" as a single event.  This gives the impression of a single, cohesive movement from one state of affairs to another.

For instance, if I referred to "The 2010 Healthcare Reform", you'd know I was referring to the bill which was passed in 2010.  The health insurance market worked one way before, and another way after.

But when one studies the "Protestant Reformation" one immediately has to begin breaking it down by geography.  You must speak of the reformation in Sweden, England, Bohemia, Austria, Denmark, etc.

While there was clearly communication between these different places, each of these reformations proceeded autonomously.  That is to say, the German Reformation was not the Swiss Reformation.  And the results of these movements were divergent from one another..

Thus, my first reason is that it'd be more accurate to refer to the "Reformation" in the plural.  Not as a singular event.

Reason 2: Positive Connotations 

As the saying goes, "History is written by the victors".  This is particularly true when it comes to the naming of historical events.

Suppose the South had won the American Civil War... they'd probably still be calling it the "War for Southern Independence".  That is, giving it a name which suits their interpretation of what happened.

Thus, the second reason I don't use that term is because the word "reform" tends to have positive connotations.  At the very least, we rarely use the word "reform" to refer to negative events.  For instance, if we say a man "reformed his life", we typically mean he changed his life for the better.

Now, there is no doubt that during the 1500's there was a need for changes within the Catholic Church.  Everyone knew that.  There was an unhealthy collaboration between the Church and secular rulers, there was immoral clergy, nepotism, abuses of indulgences, bad preaching, and tons of other issues.

So, yes, the Church needed reform in many areas.  But what it absolutely did not need were the kinds of doctrines which emerged from that era.  Things like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the Limited Atonement.  

I view all of those changes as being completely negative.  So I don't want to honor them by ascribing to them the word "reform".  It was reform in roughly the same way that a front-end crash reforms your car's radiator.


Reason 3: Not Even a Reformation

The last reason is that in looking at the event, we're not even looking at a "reform" properly speaking.

Think about how we use the word "reform" as it relates to institutions.  If we say we "reformed the Senate" or "reformed People magazine" it means changes were made to the Senate or the magazine.  It's still the same Senate/magazine, but now things are going to run differently.  The point is that there is institutional continuity before, during, and after the change.

So if we were looking for a "reform" of the Catholic Church, we'd be looking for a movement which makes the bishops act differently.  Or even having those bishops replaced through official channels.  Or something which maintains the integrity of the institution itself.

Well, that's not what happened in the "Protestant Reformation".  For instance, in Germany the "reformation" worked like this:

"This drive from below, further nourished by traditional anticlerical sentiments, was met from above by the eagerness of territorial and urban governments to utilize Lutheran ideas as legitimation for the extension of political control over the church. Thus, by the mid-1520s a number of German cities and states had formally turned Lutheran, meaning that they had severed their legal and administrative ties to Rome and its prelates and were building new ecclesiastical institutions and framing new doctrines." - Encyclopedia Britannica, "The Reformation"

Notice something there?  The local authorities cut ties with Rome, ordained its own clergy, and instituted a new, Lutheran ecclesial institution.

Something similar can be said for the way it worked in Zurich during the Swiss "reformation":

"When Hofmann left the city, opposition from pastors hostile to the Reformation broke down. The bishop of Constance tried to intervene in defending the mass and the veneration of images. Zwingli wrote an official response for the council and the result was the severance of all ties between the city and the diocese." - Wikipedia, Huldrych Zwingli

Again, the city council cut ties with the Catholic Church and instituted its own ecclesial entity in its place.  That is many things, but a reform is not one of them.  That's a reform of the Church in roughly the same way that the secession of the state of South Carolina was a reform of the US.

Thus, the term "reformation" isn't just biased - it doesn't actually describe what happened.  What really happened was a series of schisms.

Alternative Phrasing:

Now.... you've got to call it something.  And that's where it gets tricky.  I want to call it something I regard as accurate, but do so in a way which won't confuse people or come off as super-partisan.

So when I'm referring to the period of time its, "Early Protestant Era".

When talking about the "reformers" themselves, its "the Protestant leaders."

When talking about the historical event itself, I use "the Protestant Movement" if I'm trying to be super-duper neutral.  Other times I may say "Protestant Revolutions" or "Protestant Schisms".

All of those are alternatives which I believe are more historical accurate and agreeable to me as a Catholic.