Talk:Reformed Protestantism

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Formatted for readability and links. BoArthur 09:18, 21 July 2016 (PDT)

Is there some way to un-Episcopalise the Protestants/Calvinists in England and Scotland? I'd rather prefer that the episcopalising in the Queen's Dominion be left to the Catholics (and England's Protestant Church is apparently named the Presbyterian Church), but if it's QSS/canon that English and Scottish Protestants are Episcopal, that's fine--I won't fight QSS unless everyone else is in favour of some sort of change, and Episcopal Calvinists have real-world precedent anyway. (*cough*Hungary*cough*) Juan Martin Velez Linares 13:13 22/07/2016 CDT

It's been stated that they're Espicopalised -- is there a compelling reason (aside personal desire) that we shouldn't have them be that way, given it's QSS? BoArthur 11:57, 22 July 2016 (PDT)

So this is something that I wanted the person on our Facebook group to see that I hope someone could pass along for me. England's page says this, about Scottish Protestantism: "Successive monarchs married into the dynasties of France and Castile creating a strong alliance that stemmed the impact of Protestantism. The Stuarts remained in Edinburgh, permitting the existence of an episcopal reformed church in Scotland. Conversion to Protestantism spread to create a influential minority, and after a period of savage conflicts a substantial number choose emmigrantion to the New World as the only peaceful alternative..."

Jean Cauvin/John Calvin's religio-political system did away with bishops, yes. I proposed that the Church of Scotland was Calvinist but I didn't say it was a good Calvinist faith community. It seems like the Catholic Stuarts realized that they couldn't stem the tide of the Protestant movement in Scotland so they allowed it to exist as a movement that was Catholic as possible, with bishops included. I'm picturing it like the Church of England during the Elizabethan Era; an episcopal church that believes in sola scriptura, sola fide, predestination, the depravity of Man, extreme original sin, the works. It just couldn't implement Calvin and Knoxs' belief that a presbyterian polity over an episcopal polity because the state wouldn't let it exist in that case. Here's a website I found that fits well with this compromise-ecclesiastical body. I'd just swap out "The Episcopal Church" for "The Church of Scotland:

"The Episcopal Church, our branch of the Anglican Communion, retains the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, but, from its inception, the role of bishops in the Episcopal Church has differed from the role that they had in the Church of England. In particular, legislative authority in the Episcopal Church as to doctrine, discipline, and worship resides in the General Convention, which in turn is composed of two houses, the House of Deputies (laity, priests, and deacons) and the House of Bishops. Both houses must approve any legislative action of the convention, thus the power of the bishops is significantly less in the Episcopal Church than in the Church of England. The bishops, as a group, can take no action without approval of the House of Deputies except to the extent that the General Convention has previously delegated authority and responsibility to the bishops. Those delegations of authority and responsibility are found in the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution, and the Canons." From: http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/812/FAQ_The_Role_of_a_Bishop.pdf


So, here's what I'm thinking. Now, because Calvinism abolished a priesthood, no one would be called a priest. I'd just swap out the concept of the "elder"/"presbyter" in this Church for the word "bishop". "The Kirk o Scotland retains the threefold ministry of bishops, ministers, and deacons. In particular, legislative authority in the Church of Scotland as to doctrine, discipline, and worship resides in the General Committee, which in turn is composed of two houses, the House of Deputies (laity, ministers, and deacons) and the House of bishops/elders. Both houses must approve any legislative action of the convention, thus the power of the bishops is significantly less in the Scottish Church than in the Papal Church. The bishops, as a group, can take no action without approval of the House of Deputies except to the extent that the General Convention has previously delegated authority and responsibility to the bishops. Those delegations of authority and responsibility are found in the Institutes of the Christian Religion by the founder Jean Cauvin, the Constitution, and the Canons. While there is increasing authority with each level of gathering, ('Session' over a congregation, then possibly a synod, then the General Assembly of the two Houses), there is no hierarchy of elders. Each bishop in the House of Bishops and each member of the House of Deputies has an equal vote at the court on which they stand." Now, from there, it's easy. Now all I have to do is take really generic statements from Wikipedia and swap out "elder" for "overseer." "Bishops are usually chosen at their local level, either elected by the congregation and approved by the House of Bishops, or appointed directly by the House of Bishops. The Church of Scotland identifies those appointed by the laying on of hands to serve in practical ways (Acts 6.1–7) as deacons. In many congregations, a group of men is thus set aside to deal with matters such as congregational fabric and finance, releasing ministers for more 'spiritual' work. These persons are known as 'deacons', 'board members' and 'managers.' Unlike elders and ministers, they are not usually 'ordained', and are often elected by the congregation for a set period of time. Other Presbyterians have used an 'order of deacons' as full-time servants of the wider Church. Unlike ministers, they do not administer sacraments or routinely preach." More radical Calvinists who wanted only a presbyterian-polity or even a congregationalist-polity fled to the New World where they flourished, and even probably sent missionaries back to Europe once religious freedom was legalized.

It's really not that hard to square this Calvinist Church's circle. I really do hope someone could pass this message on to the inquirer in the Facebook group; I refrained from commenting because I don't like that Facebook advertises everything that people comment on pictures, groups, etc.

Oh and in terms of England, Ben and I were discussing some interesting possibilities for the state of Protestantism there. So England's page lays out that the country is roughly equal parts Catholic and Protestant and that the Bishop of Yorwich is Protestant in this world, but Canterbury stayed Catholic. So, we thought it'd be fun if Protestants in England are split between Lutherans and presbyterian-style Calvinists. Lutheranism did make some inroads in England, so when Yorwich swims the Rhine here and forms the (Lutheran) Church of England, dissatisfied people who like Protestantism but not bishops form their own, Calvinist Church of England without bishops and all that. It just diversifies the state of religion in England a bit, and I like that. Misterxeight 12:07, 22 July 2016 (PDT)

(Partially) Lutheran England? I can work with that... It's quite an interesting idea! Honestly, my main problem with Episcopal Protestantism in England is that it seemed to me too much like an attempt to introduce Anglicanism into IB, something which I don't think it really needs. I guess this sort of solves my problems with all of that, though. Glad you could explain your plans to me! Juan Martin Velez Linares 16:03 22/07/2016 (CDT)

You're not alone; someone on IB said he strongly disagreed with the idea of any Calvinist group using an episcopal model because it goes against John Calvin's work. I only worked with QSS but I thought it was a funny idea to have Calvinists with bishops (I'm not Protestant so I have no stake in the matter), but now that you mention it, I do agree; it's a bit strange that the pages on England made Anglicanism-in-all-but-name living under a Catholic dynasty. I would strongly urge you to bring it up here. Our founder himself is Presbyterian, if I do recall correctly, so he might agree with you and be amenable to change. He did weigh in though to say that IB Hungary's Calvinist Church switched to an episcopal-style polity late in its history, so there is a precedent for the idea in the much more Catholic IB. Misterxeight 09:40, 24 July 2016 (PDT)

Not just IB--in real life, the Reformed Church in Hungary (theologically Calvinist) is episcopalian. So it's not much of a stretch. It's just oddly Anglican for what is *there* a Catholic country. Juan Martin Velez Linares 14:42, 26/6/2016 (CDT)

Stuck on Scotland

So, I was reading John Knox's history and about the Reformation in Scotland, and the vast majority if not all of its details just aren't applicable to IB. For one, Jean Cauvin/John Calvin doesn't have a Protestant theocratic republic set up in Geneva in this world. He did live in Strasbourg for awhile, might we be able to shift the city-state there? That at least is a bit easy to fix, the rest however, is not. During the rise of Protestantism in Scotland, the throne seemed to be in flux what with Elizabeth and Mary and her French mother, etc. Here, it seems like the Stuarts reigned throughout the 16th Century without the troubles that shook our world. That's why they were in a position of power and able to enforce certain stipulations to the creation of a Protestant Church (it reminds me of the Chinese Communist Party's creation of a loyalist Protestant faith group [the Three-Self Patriotic Movement] and a Catholic version, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association). John Knox seems like he would have been absolutely against all of this, so I imagine that he'd end up dying in exile along with John Calvin/Jean Cauvin, unhappy that his movement got hijacked and watered down. So between his rise to power and his death, how on Earth do I fill in the alternate history blank? Misterxeight 16:46, 25 July 2016 (PDT)

I'd support Strasbourg as a theological city-state, given that it has a very heavy Protestant contingent for much of the 17th-19th centuries, so long as it's a temporary thing. (My wife's ancestry is from about 10-20 klicks south of Strasbourg, and I've been diving into parish and church records in my geneological research).
I'm admittedly less familiar with the history of the FK than I ought be. Padraic, however, is very versed in it, and I'd recommend reaching out to him in potential collaboration on the exploration of religion in the isles. BoArthur 09:07, 28 July 2016 (PDT)


That's actually not a bad idea. Maybe the French Revolution or Napoleon brings the theocratic republic of Strasbourg's to an end. Then, during the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Strasbourg is given back to the Kingdom of Jervaine's possession after centuries of operating on its own. Were her ancestors Catholic or Calvinist, by the way?

Is Padraic or anyone else around? It seems like it's just been you, me, and Juan around these parts. Misterxeight 19:13, 28 July 2016 (PDT)

Given that Jervaine has existed more or less continuously since the Roman Empire, I wouldn't recommend a city-state per se. However, considering Jervaine's Enlightenment Humanist bent, it's entirely possible they were more tolerant of differing religious views and allowed the heretical Messrs. Cauvin and Knox to stay in their capital city. Jervaine is something of *there*'s Switzerland, anyway. (Considering the train wreck that is *there*'s actual Switzerland...) Juan Martin Velez Linares 11:18 02/08/2016 (EDT)
Personal tools
discussion