When the Magisterial Reformation appeared on the scene in the Sixteenth Century it was followed by many episodes of iconoclasm. Protestant mobs would rush into Catholic buildings and tear out and smash art, statues, relics, and architectural elements that they found objectionable.
There was a theological
element to what they were doing. They wanted the Church purified of all
idolatry and false worship. But it was more than that. There was a social or
cultural element to their actions as well. They weren't content to break away
from Rome and start their own congregations in peace. No, at the heart of the
Magisterial Reformation was the impulse to control and appropriate the cultural
symbols. They wanted those big church buildings with the steeples that
dominated the skyline. Though they objected to some of the extra-Biblical paraphernalia,
they didn't object to the extra- and even non-Biblical sacral imagery that had
come about in the aftermath of Constantine's transformation.*
No, they were quite
different than the Waldenses and other groups associated with the First
Reformation. The iconoclasts of the Magisterial Reformation wanted to keep and
appropriate these powerful cultural symbols. But they wanted them cleansed.
Though apologists for the
Magisterial Reformation do all they can to distance themselves from the
concept, the truth was the 'Reformers' were not just theologians but political
revolutionaries. You can be sure they were viewed that way by the social
conservatives (the Catholics) of that day and still are by today's
Traditionalists. And remember the Reformers were not just men like Luther and
Calvin, but the Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, more than one King
of England, and the magistrates of Geneva. And it must be remembered that
Zwingli died in battle – his project was as much political as it was spiritual.
The project, led by the likes of Calvin, Luther, Bucer, and others rested upon
magistrates legislating Protestantism and then defending it with the sword.
Hardly the recovery of the New Testament gospel, the movement represented a
re-casting of Constantinianism, coupled with some theological rollback and in
other cases a fair bit of doctrinal innovation – though its apologists will not
admit this and labour with great zeal to manipulate the historical record in
order to make their narrative claims stick.
And so with the Reformers
and in particular the zealot-iconoclastic wings of their movement (which
certainly includes the likes of John Knox) we see a group that is ideologically
driven but also motivated by political application and concern. Wishing to
challenge and even break the status quo they realise that they must seize control
of the culture, its rites, forms, bureaucracy, and narrative. It should be
noted that not everyone agreed with the iconoclasts. They wanted the buildings
and wanted them purged but they didn't agree with the riotous and destructive
behaviour of the iconoclasts. It was a disagreement more in terms of style
rather than substance.**
But for the iconoclasts,
they were simply applying the principles of the Magisterial Reformation – they
were deriving their ethics from the outworking of its anti-Catholic ideals and
reformist claims. The same is even true with regard to the 1524-1525 Peasants'
Revolt. The Twelve Articles of the Swabian League are not the rantings of an
undisciplined rabble. They are cogent expressions of Christian ethics applied
to the feudalist context and in many respects are the outworking of Luther's
own principles in terms of conscience and principled values challenging a
corruption that was both political and ecclesiastical.
But of course Luther
famously turned against them. He had not yet fully understood the implications
of what he had unleashed – or what his ideas might produce if allowed to evolve.
The Reformers were revolutionaries vis-à-vis Rome and the Papacy but not
against the notion of Catholic Christendom. Hence the tension and the rival
claims by both the proponents of the Magisterial Reformation and the Catholics
that condemn the movement and blame it for the woes of modernism.
The Peasants' Revolt
threatened the order – the very order and system the Magisterial Reformers were
reliant upon for the implementation of the programme. This is where the fatal
flaws inherent in the project are first discovered. Abandoning the New
Testament's Kingdom ethics they turned to politics and warfare but in terms of
actual reform and rejection Rome – they didn't go near far enough as they
retained the Christendom model which gave birth to all that Rome was – and has
produced the contemporary ecclesiastical monstrosities we are all too familiar
with.***
Over time the Magisterial
Reformation would go further off the rails and drift back into Scholasticism.
It would eventually succumb to its own failings in this regard and in terms of
mammon.
That is a long and
painful tale and one further (if ironically) confused by later generations'
attempts to find commonality between the Magisterial Reformation and the
American insurrection of 1776 and yet (as before) the apologists of this school
wish to emphasize the non-revolutionary aspect to what was being done – as if
rejecting the authority of the king and erecting a new nation on a wholly different
ideological foundation wasn't revolutionary.
Given that the United
States represented the first government since the times of Constantine and
Charlemagne to reject rule by the grace and authority of God and instead place
rule in the Enlightenment-born concept of the Consent of the Governed, the
connection would be comical if it weren't so tragic in its consequence. It
certainly had nothing to do with what Calvin was attempting in Geneva. The would-be
totalitarian apparatus erected by John Calvin had nothing to do with social
contracts or a regime of democratic rights.
Once one grasps these
patterns of history and the nature of political challenge to the status quo one
can view such attempts at 'cancel culture' and iconoclastic statue removal in a
slightly different light. This is not to say that we as New Testament
Christians need agree with or sympathise with those engaged in such (largely
foolish and less than constructive) conduct. Indeed New Testament Christians
necessarily rejected the larger project and ideals associated with the 1776
Rebellion and the Enlightenment foundation upon which it was constructed.
Likewise, adherents of New Testament Christianity must also cast a dubious and
wary eye on the Magisterial Reformation and certainly the fruits it bore.
Rome's arguments blaming modernity on the Reformation are overly simplistic and
often false but they do contain a hint of truth.
At the time of the
Magisterial Reformation and American Revolution the Evangelicals and so-called
Patriots were (in terms of the political spectrum) the progressives, or the
Left. The Catholics and British Crown (respectively) represented social
conservatism – they were the defenders and preservers of the reigning order,
the status quo.
Today, it's the
Evangelicals who are the social conservatives (in some respects) at least vis-à-vis
the iconoclasm of the contemporary Left.† The Evangelicals want to preserve the
order – though the order they wish to preserve was not even the dominant one in
American history. Their 'conservatism' is tied to a specific narrative that
arose in the late 19th century and is connected to the growth of
America's continental and international empire during the period ranging from
the end of the American Civil War and the conclusion of World War II.
This larger understanding
of the liberal-conservative dichotomy and the way in which it can change over
time – and even reverse itself should be taken into account. The same is true
of iconoclasm whether with regard to Catholic religious buildings in sixteenth
century Europe or in reference to the symbols of the British Crown in
eighteenth century North America. Either way, these historical references and
analogies should cause the honest assessor to pause and certainly question the
absolute cultural, historical, and ethical claims being made by today's Right
and certainly the Christian Right so-called.
Christians cannot
participate in iconoclasm. That was true then as well as now but those who
decry contemporary manifestations of such zealotry are in many cases found
wanting in their claims and a historical examination and perhaps a little
reflection reveals they have little moral or historical foundation to stand upon.
----
*Steeples and cathedrals
are the architecture of sacralism. The impulse is found in the assumptions of
Christendom and in theological terms represent a Judaizing impulse – the
buildings are turned into temples – marking God's presence within the society
(akin to a ziggurat or obelisk), even though that's not how the New Testament
delineates God's presence, nor is it ever tied to a cultural or political
entity. It's basically a pagan notion syncretised (or dressed up) with
Christian meaning.
**Later Protestants would
lament iconoclasm and the destruction of 'Christian Culture', all the more in
light of secularism. Finding connection with Roman Catholic medievalism and its
art, contemporary Protestants largely wish to appropriate these cultural elements
– even if done so on a disingenuous basis. And yet there is often a bifurcation
in their thinking on these points. On the one hand they view these artifacts
and cultural treasures as 'sacred' but on the other hand many would rather see
them in museums (secular space) as opposed to in the 'sanctuary'. But even this
is changing in our present day.
*** And yet ironically
the Enlightenment wreaked havoc on the theology of Protestantism. They retained
many aspects of Roman thought and still do, even while Enlightenment thinking
and epistemology has affected hermeneutics and theological prolegomena –
leading many contemporary conservative Protestants to move far to the
theological Left of the Reformers. Today the scene is dominated by Baptists and
baptistic influence even among those who would otherwise claim theological
descent from the likes of Calvin. There is a fog of rationalism which dominates
today's theology and thus in addition to baptistic views of the sacraments we
also find hyper-Calvinism in a position of dominance when it comes to issues
like soteriology and questions surrounding assurance.
† In other respects
Evangelicals are not conservative. Many if not most have embraced Right-wing
categories but considering the group's embrace of feminism, divorce,
consumerist materialism, birth control and the like – one must question just
how socially conservative they really are. Even when conservatism is cast
within the framework of Classical Liberalism their status is still somewhat in
doubt.
In theological terms,
there's also a great deal more that could be said in terms of their
ecclesiology, embrace of textual criticism, and the like. But for argument's
sake we can say they are conservative – certainly when placed in an analogy
with contemporary Leftist and identity politics.