{"id":1256,"date":"2026-09-14T20:42:56","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T18:42:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/bishops-and-rural-deans-seniors-where-does-the-hungarian-reformed-hierarchy-come-from\/"},"modified":"2026-09-26T13:42:16","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T11:42:16","slug":"bishops-and-rural-deans-seniors-where-does-the-hungarian-reformed-hierarchy-come-from","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/bishops-and-rural-deans-seniors-where-does-the-hungarian-reformed-hierarchy-come-from\/","title":{"rendered":"Bishops and rural deans\/seniors\u2014Where does the Hungarian Reformed hierarchy come from?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A rare peculiarity of the Reformed Church in Hungary is its episcopal, hierarchical church structure.[1]<\/a><\/sup> The idea recurs again and again that<\/p>\n\n

it might be worthwhile to review and possibly reform this structure, which is by far not typically Reformed. But how did we arrive at a situation in which we are almost the only Reformed church in the world with an episcopal system? And is the problem confined solely to the office of bishop? Might it not be that the structure, indeed our entire outlook, contains elements that stand in need of review, or at least of reconsidering it together?<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n

At the beginning of the Reformation, and indeed almost throughout the entire 16th century, society only very slowly became conscious of the fact of the church schism and the emergence of new denominations. The institutionalization of the Hungarian Reformed Church began during the 1560s, yet many still hoped that the Reformers would be able to transform the Roman Church as it was. Of course, this way of thinking also influenced attitudes toward the church\u2019s institutional structure. Thus, on numerous occasions, even among those who already regarded themselves as representatives of the Reformation, many accepted the salary that came from the relevant bishopric, as in the case of G\u00e1sp\u00e1r K\u00e1roli, who received the octava.[2]<\/a><\/sup> This also meant that although these pastors consciously joined the Helvetic (Calvinist) direction by accepting Reformation teachings, in practice they did not call into question the existence of the bishop and, consequently, of the episcopal organization.<\/p>\n\n

Clearly, the persistence of this uncertainty regarding hierarchy was also aided by the fact that, despite the increasingly intense Lutheran\u2013Helvetic doctrinal disputes from the 1560s onward, it remained difficult in many places to distinguish clearly between those following Luther and those adhering to the Swiss (Reformed) direction. This can be seen in the cases of M\u00e1ty\u00e1s D\u00e9vai B\u00edr\u00f3 or Istv\u00e1n Szegedi Kis. On the one hand, uncertainty surrounded whether to remain within the medieval church structure or to break away from it; on the other hand, even the two Protestant denominations that became most significant in Hungary had not yet fully separated, and their conflicts centered primarily on doctrinal articles rather than on institutional hierarchy. At the same time, amid the ongoing theological disputes, the \u201clower clergy\u201d also felt a need for the protection and support of a \u201cstrong man.\u201d This self-defensive reflex was present even among the citizens of Geneva, which is precisely why they asked Calvin, whom they had previously expelled from their city, to return.<\/p>\n\n

Those living in the Kingdom of Hungary, which had been divided into three parts, experienced different levels of threat\u2014more so than other European nations who had come under the influence of the Reformation. It is therefore no surprise that the clergy was also seeking some form of protection, which they found in organizing themselves and in the development of a hierarchy. What is more, Hungarians had still preserved medieval structures that, compared to conditions in Western Europe, were considerably more stable.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n

One additional reason for the election of bishops may have been the need to ensure a supply of clergy and to have someone to ordain pastors. In the cases of Mih\u00e1ly Szt\u00e1rai and Istv\u00e1n Szegedi Kis, we see that the appearance of the superintendent[3]<\/a><\/sup> is linked to the ordination of ministers. Moreover, the creation of territorial units for the new churches and the convening of synods also depended on the organizational abilities of certain \u201cauthoritative figures.\u201d In the Tisz\u00e1ninneni (Upper Tisza) Reformed Church District, no bishop was elected until the 18th century. At first glance, this might be interpreted as a stricter adherence to the Calvinist model. However, the situation was not like that. Had it been so, the Puritans, led by J\u00e1nos Tolnai Dali\u2014who, following the English and Dutch examples, truly understood the essence of the synodal\u2013presbyterial system\u2014would not have sought to transform the structure of the Tisz\u00e1ninneni district in the 1640s. The example of G\u00e1sp\u00e1r K\u00e1roli, one of the rural deans (as he was then called, seniors) of the Tisz\u00e1ninneni district, shows that even the most respected senior could wield power and organizational strength comparable to that of a bishop. Andr\u00e1s Szab\u00f3, K\u00e1roli\u2019s most important contemporary researcher, demonstrates in detail how the preacher, who, in 1563, moved from the castle of Szatm\u00e1r to G\u00f6nc with the support of the Dob\u00f3 family, became the most respected and powerful dean of the surrounding area and, later, of the entire emerging church district. Thus, it came about that in January 1566, the first major legislative synod of the Tisz\u00e1ninneni deaneries was held at his station, in G\u00f6nc.[4]<\/a><\/sup> The powerful dean also maintained strict discipline in his own congregation. It is perhaps no coincidence that K\u00e1roli received such almost episcopal authority at a time when antitrinitarian doctrines appeared in the region through Luk\u00e1cs Egri, doctrines which had to be fought against.<\/p>\n\n

The Reformed Church that emerged in Hungary, therefore, was far from the synodal\u2013presbyterial model in terms of its hierarchy and institutional structure. The ordination of ministers, the organizational tasks of institutionalization, and the preservation of confessional purity were all seen as more feasible within an episcopal (bishop-led) system.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n

We see the same pattern in the Tisz\u00e1nt\u00fal (Trans-Tisza) region, where, at the very beginning of the institutionalization of the church district, two strong personalities, M\u00e1rton K\u00e1lm\u00e1ncsehi S\u00e1nta and P\u00e9ter M\u00e9liusz Juh\u00e1sz, held the office of bishop. Interestingly, although both were drawn to the Helvetic (Reformed) direction, and the Debrecen Confession is explicitly linked to M\u00e9liusz, after his death the church district continuously elected bishops who had been most influenced during their studies abroad by the Wittenberg perspective, and who thus took the hierarchical organizational order of the Lutheran Church as their model.[5]<\/a><\/sup> It is true, though, that in the second half of the 16th century, those who joined the Reformation still studied primarily in Wittenberg.[6]<\/a><\/sup> Although the students who studied there upon returning home mostly chose the Helvetic direction\u2014indeed, by the end of the century the majority went to Wittenberg already with that commitment\u2014they were more permissive regarding church governance and did not consider it essential to adopt the Geneva model. At the beginning of the 17th century, a pastor with precisely this outlook became the bishop of the Tisz\u00e1nt\u00fal district: Luk\u00e1cs Hod\u00e1szi.[7]<\/a><\/sup> Through his strong personality Hod\u00e1szi significantly expanded the Reformed interpretation of the episcopal office; at the same time he exemplified the temptation that has ever since been a potential attribute of the Reformed episcopacy: in the case of sufficiently strong personalities, a shift toward one-man rule.<\/p>\n\n

At the same time, this conception of the episcopal office was far from the 16th-century Reformers, as the text of the Hercegsz\u00f6ll\u0151s canons clearly shows: \u201cThe superintendent shall do everything in agreement with the seniors; he shall not make decisions about difficult matters according to his own judgment.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/sup> In modern Hungarian: \u201cThe bishop shall not act on his own authority in any matter; if he initiates something, he shall present it to the rural deans and those concerned, and only act if they are in agreement.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/sup> Thus, the Reformers did not conceive the office of superintendent or bishop as analogous to the diocesan bishops of the medieval church and their jurisdiction; they sought to limit the bishop\u2019s actions so as to include the community in decisions. Yet already the canons of 1576 seem to indicate that hierarchy itself was not regarded as evil. A careful reading of the canons reveals that they granted considerable power to the rural deans (seniors), and from the pastors obedience was primarily demanded toward the deans. Until the 18th century, the Tisz\u00e1ninneni (Upper Tisza) Reformed Church District did not elect a bishop; however, in 1725 it had a list drawn up of its church officials,[10]<\/a><\/sup> and during this survey S\u00e1muel Thury, the rural dean\/senior of Aba\u00faj-Torna, described himself as \u201csuperintendens aut senior[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/em>.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/sup> This formulation was by no means accidental. In their own dioceses, rural deans often wielded episcopal power, just as bishops, too, frequently expanded the limits assigned to them during the Reformation era. It is no coincidence, therefore,<\/p>\n\n

that students who had studied at English and Dutch universities repeatedly confronted the church about its hierarchical structure. Among them were Imre Szilv\u00e1s\u00fajfalvi Anderk\u00f3, pastor of V\u00e1rad,[13]<\/a><\/sup> and later the aforementioned Puritans, led by J\u00e1nos Tolnai Dali.[14]<\/a><\/sup> All of them criticized the hierarchical mindset, which stood in opposition to the synodal\u2013presbyterial structure.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n

This naturally followed from the social outlook of Hungarians in that era, but it also made it more difficult to realize the bottom-up organization emphasized by Johannes Althusius, a disciple of Calvin.[15]<\/a><\/sup> Althusius, in his work Politica methodice digesta<\/em> (1603), articulated the idea of a structure built from below, based on Calvin\u2019s covenant theology and synodal\u2013presbyterial system, which he termed consociatio.[16]<\/a><\/sup> This was known about in Transylvania, but it did not become widely known. The 1646 Synod of Szatm\u00e1rn\u00e9meti acknowledged the legitimacy of consociatio but denied the timeliness of its introduction. However, during times of persecution initiatives for this kind of bottom-up organization sometimes emerged in Hungarian Reformed life, and in most cases these bore fruit that contributed to the church\u2019s renewal. Such were the cases in the early modern period or the 18th century when congregations that had been left without a pastor were able, with incredible strength, to maintain Bible classes, build the congregation, and, if necessary, even physically the church building. Another example was the perseverance and survival of the Reformed community in 18th-century Miskolc in the face of the Counter-Reformation.[17]<\/a><\/sup> Thus, from the beginning, Hungarian Reformed church governance bore the marks of top-down organization, yet a counter-movement was also present. Those who made room for bottom-up organization, or recognized its strength, did much to ensure that the church did not become a centralized institution, but preserved its openness to revivals and their integration into the community. After the revival movement of the early 20th century numerous small communities separated from a church that had by then often become inflexible. Even L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Ravasz, who otherwise stood up for centralization, recognized that it was important to integrate grassroots revivals into the church, because it is precisely in mission that the possibility of passing on life\u2014and of renewal\u2014lies. Over the past centuries, many have raised questions that later generations should reconsider, again and again. In our church and congregations there are numerous bottom-up initiatives that could be far more fruitful if our inherited hierarchical reflexes did not stand in the way of their development. The fruits arising from the common work of believers and their pastors are treasures for which the church at present can be grateful, and which deserve to be known about and followed by many more. Movements in this direction can be hindered, or even halted, by inherited clericalism and reverence for authority. In the Reformation era, the primus inter pares<\/em> principle\u2014articulated in relation to the first bishops but barely realized in practice\u2014has become more important today than it was ever before. While giving also thanks for the past, a shared rethinking of the synodal\u2013presbyterial ideal can help us to make room for God\u2019s work among us in the present, and for the future. <\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amid yet another episcopal election, it is worth asking the uncomfortable question: how truly Reformed is the hierarchical way of functioning in the Reformed Church in Hungary? How did such strong episcopal and deanly power emerge alongside the Reformed self-understanding, and what historical reflexes continue to sustain this system today?…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1143,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42,55],"tags":[314,146,316,299,147,318,315,317],"article_keyword":[309,308,311,307,306,312,313,310],"class_list":["post-1256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-article","category-featured","tag-bishop","tag-church-history","tag-church-polity","tag-episcopal-election","tag-reformation","tag-reformed-church-in-hungary","tag-rural-dean","tag-synod-presbyterial-system","article_keyword-ecclesiastical-hierarchy","article_keyword-episcopal-system","article_keyword-reformed-church-history","article_keyword-reformed-church-polity","article_keyword-reformed-episcopal-election","article_keyword-rural-dean","article_keyword-superintendent","article_keyword-synod-presbyterial-system","author_publications-author-706","author_translations-fordito-710"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1256"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1256\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1257,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1256\/revisions\/1257"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1256"},{"taxonomy":"article_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thema21.hu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article_keyword?post=1256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}