1 of 2

Last summer, I received an essay from a friend—a leading Evangelical intellectual—who said that the label Protestant should fade out in favor of the label Evangelical because, in part, Protestant was "negative."

In many people's minds, it certainly is. It sounds like it is about dissent and disagreement. It evokes images of picketers carrying poorly made signs back and forth in front of a factory. Indeed, it sounds disagreeable.

More recently, another friend published an engaging account of his exploration of Catholicism. The book is Jon Sweeney's Almost Catholic, and you can read an excellent review of it on my wife LaVonne's blog.

The book is a good read, but its argument rests in part on his contrast between the "universal" character of Catholic faith and the negative Protestant captionernative:

To be Protestant is to define yourself as protesting against certain forms of religion. … there is little need for Protestants anymore. What are we still protesting? The Reformation of the sixteenth century was a European event.

So many seem to think that the essence of being Protestant is to conscientiously object to what is or was Roman Catholic. A little history and a little linguistic research shows Protestant to be a much more positive word, referring to what the original Protestants stood for rather than what they stood against.

Sweeney rightly ties Protestant to the Second Diet of Speyer (1529), and the response of the German evangelical princes to its decision to restrict their freedom. But he misleadingly labels Protestant "a political moniker," when the cultural context thoroughly mixed religion and politics. The word religion certainly existed, but it remained for the Enlightenment to create it as a distinct category of thought and experience. Sixteenth-century people were more likely to think in concrete terms of the overlapping authorities of king and pope, bishop and prince, priest and magistrate. Neither religion nor politics was an abstract category for them.

What do the major historians of Protestantism say? Like almost all their colleagues, John Dillenberger and Claude Welch link the origin of the word Protestant to the 'Protestation' of the German evangelical estates in the second Diet of Speyer. But they see in that term "the duality of protest and affirmative witness." That protest, they write, was

from the standpoint of affirmed faith. Few churches ever adopted the name "Protestant." The most commonly adopted designations were rather "evangelical" and "reformed." … [W]hen the word Protestant came into currency in England (in Elizabethan times), its accepted significance was not "objection" but "avowal" or "witness" or "confession" (as the Latin protestari meant also "to profess").

That meaning lasted for another century, say Dillenberger and Welch, and it referred to the Church of England's

making its profession of the faith in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Only later did the word "protest" come to have a primarily negative significance, and the term "Protestant" come to refer to non-Roman churches in general.

Writing about the second Diet of Speyer, the esteemed Luther biographer Roland Bainton called the word Protestant

unfortunate as a name because it implies that Protestantism was mainly an objection. The dissenters in their own statement affirmed that "they must protest and testify publicly before God that they could do nothing contrary to His word." The emphasis was less on protest than on witness.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

RSS Feed   RSS Help