An anthropological examination of the reformation: egalitarianism versus hierarchy
Public Deposited- Resource Type
- Creator
- Abstract
Anthropology and sociology for the most part have neglected an in depth examination of the Protestant Reformation. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the debates and differences between Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anabaptism in terms of the ideas concerning the nature of the religious community and in terms of the dichotomy between egalitarianism and authoritarianism. On one side of the dichotomy Roman Catholicism which over time moved away from autonomy and egalitarian principals of the early Christian Church and towards hierarchy and authoritarianism. On the other side of that same dichotomy are the Anabaptists who promoted communal living, sharing and egalitarianism. Luther(anism) within my theoretical framework is somewhat of an anomaly because clearly this new interpretation wanted change and opposed some aspects of Roman Catholic practice and beliefs: Luther(anism) questioned the role and legitimacy of papal authority; the role and authority of the priesthood (and their worldliness, ignorance, cormption and apathy); the nature of the sacraments; the appropriateness of selling indulgences, and the interpretation of the sacraments and Bible. But Luther did not promote egalitarianism. The thesis concludes that a study of the debates and differences between Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anabaptism is a helpful contribution to understanding the ideas concerning the nature of the religious community in terms of the literature concerning the dichotomy between egalitarianism and authoritarianism.
- Subject
- Language
- Publisher
- Thesis Degree Level
- Thesis Degree Name
- Thesis Degree Discipline
- Identifier
- Access Rights
This work is available on request. You can request a copy at https://library.carleton.ca/forms/request-pdf-copy-thesis
- Rights Notes
Copyright © 2003 the author(s). Theses may be used for non-commercial research, educational, or related academic purposes only. Such uses include personal study, research, scholarship, and teaching. Theses may only be shared by linking to Carleton University Institutional Repository and no part may be used without proper attribution to the author. No part may be used for commercial purposes directly or indirectly via a for-profit platform; no adaptation or derivative works are permitted without consent from the copyright owner.
- Date Created
- 2003
Relations
- In Collection: