Calvin, England, and Scotland

[@skwbtm1]

The problem with putting so much stress on single individuals such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others is that it minimizes every other individual except them and their friends. There are no chosen few in Christianity.

[@RyanReevesM]

***** // For sure. The intention of a close study like this is not to make them chosen few, per se, but rather to use them as case studies (as I say in the video) for wider Reformational engagement. Luther's significance needs to defense, and Calvin's in England under Elizabeth is equally important. The Institutes were the theological bestseller during this time. Still, I state categorically at the outset of the video that the issue is seeing how different countries receive different voices differently. There will never come from my mouth that X or Y person is the only one who should be considered. But also the stature of Calvin, Luther, and Knox were sufficient to bring the direct wrath of the Queen and several of her key advisors and even the Archbishop of Canterbury. That tense relationship led to increased hostility amongst non-conformists, who in turn began to stamp their feet about the pace of change. Knox was effectively banished from the kingdom and he went on to orchestrate the takeover of the Scottish church. In England non-conformity spilled into Puritanism, which had a dramatic impact on the Civil War. So I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle. I do not go for the 'Great Figures' method of history, but I can appreciate case studies of significant voices that impact turning points in a country. The big issue with Calvin is noting how the English speaking world has had a varied reaction to him, and that reaction is conditioned by Elizabethan England, etc. This reaction in part explains the tendency of some to love him and some to find him dangerous.

[@skwbtm1]

Ryan Reeves Thanks. I've been reading Kierkegaard and he thinks that saying Calvin said, Luther said, or so and so said, is not what Christianity wants. Christianity wants each single individual to have the opportunity to have a say before God in this life time. And to decide in the depths of the soul.

[@RyanReevesM]

***** // Wow way to go over my head and cite Kierkegaard, dude...:) Well certainly within the context of his world the calcification of Reformed and Lutheran circles was made silly by the collapse of the culture where they could take for granted that everyone was on board with Christian faith (or at least few were openly hostile). It's a bit like how contemporary Protestants are open to befriend and work with Catholics since the wider cultural debates make them quicker friends than enemies.

[@skwbtm1]

Ryan Reeves It seems to me that historians and other seekers of the past tend to present their ideas in such a way that simpler people come to think that the times haven't changed at all.

[@RyanReevesM]

***** // Yeah it can be hard on some historians (depending on where they teach) because everyone treats their subject as a strange Narnia where everyone was a cave man. Quite a few develop this tendency to make it sound as if their world was no different from ours. I always sue to be in the middle: they are humans with similar instincts to live our their worldview in a consistent way. Some of their impulses are strange, some just need explaining to see how they are similar to our own.

[@AliceMarieM]

Wonderful! I hope you will do a video, at least one, on the Reform Church and the Dutch Revolt. Also on the cross pollination of the Dutch Reform Church, the English Puritans and the Reform Churches in New England.

[@RyanReevesM]

AliceMarieM // I will. Starting in May I'll begin creating a course on history from the Reformation to modern world and all those amazing times will be part of it.

[@AnishChari]

Could you comment on the life of Thomas Moore with respect to Kramer and Henry VIII?

[@redwine65]

wycliff, the lollards, tyndale and wishert should have got a shout out. but I guess it's hard to connect all the pieces in one video. I wonder if calvin ever commented on them much? calvin's theology in the westminster confessional was pretty huge, and influence on other thing that came out of geneva was huge like capitalism.

[@benson0509]

I think Elizabeth's Protestantism is a bit overstated here. She was certainly a Protestant, but the Religious Settlement is just what it is called, a "settlement," and hardly reformed. The liturgical practices of the laity and clergy were not so calvinistic. For example, the sign of the cross was still used, not uniformly but it was used, much like Anglicanism today. The eucharist was performed every sunday, prayers were said by the laity, and extempore prayers were not widely used. This is a strict liturgical form, unlike that of the Scottish Church. So, while she was Protestant, she wasn't Edward by any stretch of the imagination. While there may have been pockets of very reformed Anglicanism during this time, the tradition has always been quite motley, so there were certainly high church Anglicans with quasi-catholic practices. Elizabeth herself prayed before a crucifix in all her royal chapels, which at the time was seen as very conservative. I'm probably being waaaayyy too picky, but as an Anglican, the settlement is quite important for the background of the tradition.

[@RyanReevesM]

+NoName // yeah as with anything it comes down to defining terms. In the terms you lay out here, I'm totally with you. But for me do no hear 'calvinistic' or 'Scottish' as the same as 'Reformed'. Reformed as I'm using it is the name for the wider Protestant movement that was not Lutheran and it itself was quite diverse. But a lot of the things you mention as differences were actually not differences for Reformed churches under Elizabeth. Formal prayers were said in all Protestant churches. All at least wanted weekly eucharist, though Calvin never got his way in Geneva. The crucifix became a sticking point for some but it had not really been a debate anywhere in Protestantism, so it's not as if Elizabeth is praying to Mary or something, and she never required anyone else to use one. She does seem to love to do things like this to stick it to those complaining about her church, though! But the bishops selected under Elizabeth were from this wider reformed perspective. Where they differed was against the hardliners who wanted everything purged (the so-called proto-Puritans). What's interesting is that both sides on fights, say, over vestments cite the exact same sources for their position (overwhelmingly Reformed writings, including Calvin). What happens under Elizabeth is the harder sort of Protestantism becomes increasingly at odds with the Anglican church and you see this precisely in the Scottish church, where they go almost anti-Anglican in places in their liturgy. So the split is happening, but not yet in a way that I would describe as 'high church', which is a conceptualization that only arises the next century under William Laud. But a lot of this verbiage for me is carried along from my earlier lectures on the wide variety of early Reformed perspectives, so again I think I'm essentially in the same boat you are, only with different ways of expressing it.

[@benson0509]

+Ryan Reeves Awesome, thanks for the response. No qualms with anything there. The Scottish church certainly went anti-anglican and vice versa; things got a little dicey when the crown got involved.