Talk:Radical Reformation

message: I am a historian by training, not an encyclopaedist; the two disciplines are clearly very distinct, as you correctly state yourself.
However, the whole premise of Wikipedia is that it was a collaborative venture: in other words, one person contributes a piece, other people then edit it as they see fit, until the end result is something which is a valuable entry for the benefit of everyone.
I do not deny for one moment that the piece I contributed could be described as an "opinion essay" (it is a work of history, after all) but it was a very good starting point for a good entry into the encyclopdaedia in an area which is currently merely a "stub".
Removing it from public view altogether means that it is unlikely to evolve into a valuable community entry, which I still maintain is unfortunate. I can appreciate that you might not have the time nor the inclination to work on it yourself, but why not at least leave it visible for others to work on if they feel inclined to do so?
----------
One solution is to publish your essay/research elsewhere, in a journal or even on another website, and then we can cite it or even quote it. But original research is not allowed in Wikipedia itself. Mdmcginn (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: If you or anyone else wishes to do that work, please feel free to go ahead. I have worked hard enough on it already, however, and I'm not motivated to give up more of my time on it when the original contribution was removed from the main site altogether (and by someone whose profile states that "I would prefer for others to edit and improve my contributions rather than revert them, so I will do my best to do the same for everyone else"!)
:I'm sorry what I did seems to have hurt your feelings, but I consider my actions in putting the information here quite charitable.  The work was not laid out in an encyclopedic fashion, hopelessly violated Neutral Point of View policies, and didn't contain a single reference or citation.  In other words: it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article.  
:I did not simply move the information right away, either.  I started off by trying to edit the information where it stood, but decided to move it after working on it for quite a while and still finding myself dissatisfied the edited sections.  I did not plan on stating it this way, but since you seem to feel mistreated, I'll be blunt: the addition I moved is a decent opinion essay, but a terrible encyclopedia article.
:Despite your attempts to portray me as a hypocrite, I stand by my decision. Sxeptomaniac 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to comment below from original author

message: While I appreciate that the essay was probably a lot of work, it's not very encyclopedic.  I'm removing it from the article and inserting it below, so then we can work on adding the information.  The goal is verifiable facts without the analysis. Sxeptomaniac 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The theology of a number of major evangelical sects in the United States descends in part from the radical reformation through the English reformation and English revolution. In particular adult baptism is widely practiced in the United States. And these sects are not descendants of Anabaptists. In essence, there were two strains that emerged from the radical reformation. There were priests in England who went to the continent in the Marian period, and picked up a number of radical reformation doctrines them still in circulation, and reintroduced them back to the English reformation. These priests formed the nonconforming churches who later wound up in the United States. On the other end, there were those sects who survived in Germany itself throughout this period of persecution, mostly by adopting an intense pacificism. These became the Mennonites and Amish. 2601:140:8900:61D0:F4A9:EF30:45D8:EFE7 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay addition

message: The convenient answer is to say that on the one hand the Radicals in Europe were ultimately a freaky sideshow of no real significance, whilst on the other hand they ultimately drifted to and flourished in the New World. However, this is a rather simplistic interpretation.
It is true that in the USA there are, to this day, flourishing communities of Mennonites. These peace-loving people are the spiritual heirs of the reformer Menno Simons, who had rallied the remaining Radicals after Münster with his sublime "Foundation of Christian Doctrine”. Nevertheless, to argue that the Radicals were the spiritual heirs of the Founding Fathers, as some historians have argued, would be pushing things a little too far.
It is also true that in Europe the Radicals, if anything, became even more divided after the Münster debacle and unable to make a direct impact. Spiritualists such as Caspar Schwenkfeld, Hans Denck and Sebastian Franck  muddied the waters even further by rejecting the Bible ("The Paper Pope") in favour of divine inspiration. This was fatal given the fact that the exploits of “King Jan” had hardened opinion against the Radicals: “God opened the eyes of the governments by the revolt of Münster, and thereafter no one would trust even those Anabaptists who claimed to be innocent” (Bullinger). 
Nevertheless, to dismiss the Radicals as being of little significance on the basis that they were squashed is to miss the point. History is not just about “winners” – if that were the case, historians would hardly bother to study Adolf Hitler. The impact which the Radicals had on Europe was not that which they were hoping for, but that does not diminish the scale of their importance. 
They clarified the battle lines between Protestant and Catholics. 
In the short term, Catholics and Protestants were brought together by their loud and eloquent denunciation of the Radicals. In the long term, however, these denunciations served to clarify the divergent beliefs of each side and so harden the divisions between the two camps irrevocably. Once their common enemy was removed, they had about as much in common as Soviet Russia and the USA after the defeat of Germany in the Second World War. 
They illustrated graphically how organisation was essential for survival. 
The example of the Radicals was not lost on Calvin, the man commonly regarded as almost single-handedly ensuring that Protestantism had a long term future throughout Europe and beyond. Organisation and unity, thought Calvin, were essential for survival, a matter he made clear through the Ecclesiastical Ordinances.
They show, crucially, that Protestants no more than Catholics could rightfully claim the moral high ground in the Reformation debate.
Dickens was of the view that the Radicals “blasted the infant shoots of liberalism which grew upon Lutheran and Zwinglian trees”. In reality, however, Luther’s supposed “liberalism” before the Peasants’ War was really little more than woolly-mindedness; the Reformation was never “liberal” at all, merely ill-considered. Luther, far from being a tolerant visionary, was incapable of listening to anybody who dared to disagree with his views. This was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by his handling of the Radicals. Rather than accept that their relationship with God was just as valid as his own, he instead promoted mass murder of those people who had dared to take his ideas further than he had intended. This was not particularly outrageous by 16th century standards, but it sharply illustrates the hypocrisy of the Protestant denunciation of Catholic “atrocities”.
The Radicals did not kill off the supposed “liberalism” of the Reformation; they merely highlighted that it had never really been liberal in the first place. Johann von Dollinger said that "Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of…everything that stood in their way was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." The Protestants, no less than the Catholics, only preached toleration when it suited them, just as the Radicals were perfectly prepared to use violence when they felt it would be to their advantage. Sadly, it seems, toleration is almost always preached by the disenfranchised rather than the powerful, and out of necessity rather than genuine conviction.
: The theology of a number of major evangelical sects in the United States descends in part from the radical reformation through the English reformation and English revolution. In particular adult baptism is widely practiced in the United States. And these sects are not descendants of Anabaptists. In essence, there were two strains that emerged from the radical reformation. There were priests in England who went to the continent in the Marian period, and picked up a number of radical reformation doctrines them still in circulation, and reintroduced them back to the English reformation. These priests formed the nonconforming churches who later wound up in the United States. On the other end, there were those sects who survived in Germany itself throughout this period of persecution, mostly by adopting an intense pacificism. These became the Mennonites and Amish. 2601:140:8900:61D0:F4A9:EF30:45D8:EFE7 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. What was their legacy?

message: In one section it was stated (without a reference) that most members of the radical reformation rejected a distinction between the "church visible" and the "church invisible". Perhaps that is true, but if so more scholastic support should be provided. I think the point needs clarification because (today at least) many Christian groups accept the idea of a "Church Universal" (i.e., invisible church) while holding that local (visible) church should ideally be composed only of true believers.
Controller143 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  radical reformation views on church universal...? 

message: The section "Later forms of Anabaptism" states "were much smaller" and focus on forming "separatist communities" with Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites as examples.  Two problems with that: 1) Mennonites were not separatists the way Amish and Hutterites were (and still are today); 2) were these later forms really "much smaller" in comparison to the early forms of anabaptism?
1) separatists: One of the main disagreements between the Mennonite leaders and Amman was about the use of shunning, are core aspect keeping the Amish communities separated from the rest of society.  See the section on Jacob Amman in the Mennonite article.
2) smaller: I'm not sure the statement "were much smaller" is an accurate generalization. Is there historical documentation that  the anabapist movement at the beginning of the 16th century involved a significant number of people initially than the Mennonites and other groups that comprised it in the later half of that century, or the 17th?  It would be helpful if the section indicated what time period to which it is making this characterization.  The date referenced in this "later" section is 1536.  The one in the "early" section is 1535.
BenHochstedler (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of Mennonites as separatist communities and a "much smaller" movement 

message: The present article makes several references to "spiritualism", which are WP-linked, but the main "Spiritualism" page and the disambig page under that word don't include the sense implied (i.e., as more or less an English equiv. for Luther's "Schwärmer"): no 16th c.; no Reformation groups of any kind. This is perhaps a problem to be dealt with at "Spiritualism", but "Radical Reformation" needs to be aware of it too! Wegesrand (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spiritualism"