The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Brief history of universlaism in the C of E

Hi again [tag]Caleb Fogg[/tag]

As every I forgot to answer part of your question - about nudity. And since I haven’t been censored here :_D I feel happy to proceed. Well it will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow but as far as I know Anabaptist baptism were not occasion of nudity - not at all; and this was just part of the persecution myth/fatal smear against them. But like all smears there is often a tiny wee grain of truth in it - on rare occasions among some very minor radical sects of Anabaptists and other sects (even in Russia, which is very chilly - see next) there have been outbreaks of a phenomena known as ‘going naked as a sign’. As far as I know this phenomena has mostly been completely non sexual and not connected with licentiousness at all - but sometimes libertines and anti antinomians have also adopted this practise. Well it looks like I’m going there - and you have to tyre and understand everything to grasp the big picture - so I will post on it. And UI have never, ever felt tempted to go naked as a sign. I’m the sort of person who always keeps his swimming trunks on in the public showers at the swimming baths - always :smiley:

History contains puritans aplenty; but the study of history is not for puritans I guess :smiley:

Fascinating stuff Dick.

Ideas certainly do have consequences, sometimes more directly, and sometimes less. Often times in a more nuanced way than is first understood.

Going naked as a sign? Well you did ask [tag]Caleb Fogg[/tag]:smiley: and I need to begin with some context – so bear with me.

I don’t know whether you ever had Sumptuary Laws in America. We certainly had them in benighted England an Europe – they were there to dictate what people should wear (types of cloth, colour dyes, ornaments etc) and even what they should eat according to their rank in society. They were in operation from the Middle ages up until the seventeenth century – so I guess by the time the project of American Liberty got off the ground there were just becoming obsolescent which is why you may have avoided them. They were an easy way to identify social rank and privilege, and often were used for social discrimination. This frequently meant they were used to prevent commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats and sometimes also to stigmatize disfavoured groups. Ironically Elizabeth – in many, many ways a lover of liberty and no tyrant – beefed up the English sumptuary laws – but this was mainly to keep the rising Calvinist middle classes in their place by a fairly gentle measure (akin to her insistence that Calvinist Anglican pastors had to wear fine vestments at holy communion and not the stark black Genevan gown – although at first sight the tow edicts may seem contradictory)

Michel de Montaigne the Christian Humanist despiser of all cruelty and religious strife and proto universalist wrote of the French version of these laws -

‘The way by which our laws attempt to regulate idle and vain expenses in meat and clothes, seems to be quite contrary to the end designed … For to enact that none but princes shall eat turbot, shall wear velvet or gold lace, and interdict these things to the people, what is it but to bring them into a greater esteem, and to set every one more agog to eat and wear them?’

Well the poor and the rich live alongside each other at these times and not in ghettos – so the regulations of clothing was something that meant that the poor knew their place (even peasants knew this from the distinctions between their humble dress and the clothes of the landowners and clergy they interacted with). Not that the poor had much time for fantasies of living in fine palaces and dining on mince and slices of quince when they were always vulnerable to starvation from a flied harvest. No the idea of heaven for many of the poor in medieval and early modern Europe was the fabled land of Cockaigne where salamis hung from trees for the picking, and where there were barrels of salted tripe and bilge beer aplenty, and meat pies grew upon the rooftops. Peter Breughel the Elder, the Christian Humanist painter, who was a member of the proto universalist Family of Love Anabaptist Spiritual sect painted peasant scenes with wonderful and earthy compassion…But look out for those pies on the rooftops in his moral paintings – he’s satirising the land of Cockaigne gently here for he believed that we are justified not through faith but through love alone and that love is its’ own reward.

So into a very unequal and hierarchical society, often shot through with terrible injustice regarding the distribution of food, the New Testament was whispered in the common tongue again. ‘He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble and meek. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.’ ‘In Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, slave nor bondsman…’ And every now and then –amongst Christina radicals there have been displays of Adamic nudity as a sign that those involved had regained Eden through Christ and now all distinctions of rank and service were redundant. I don’t think we should imagine these occasional outburst as lascivious at all, There may have been a lovely young body or two, but the ranks would have been swelled with naked old men and women, naked mothers who had just ,say, weaned their umpteenth child, men with starved bodies broken by hard labour etc. The first recorded outburst in the Reformation – which we only know of from the Anabaptist defamer Verlinde but is probably true – was that of the Naaktloopers of Amsterdam who in 1535 ran naked through the streets proclaiming the wrath of God upon the powers that be. Verlinde also recounts the story of rich Anabaptists who in the same year gave up their possession and clothes and climbed naked into trees to await the heavenly bread. Such stories of Anabaptist enthusiasts were I believe the origin of the slander that Anabaptists did baptising naked (and even if they did it would have been done with great dignity and modesty in the major sects).

Going naked as a sign recurred during the English Civil War – the Ranters and people on the wilder fringes of the movement that was to b become the Quakers sometimes did it. However, the mainstream a Quakers used more modest but just as socially offensive signs. First the men refused to take their hats off /give hat homage to their so called superiors – which often lead to them being set upon by angry mobs. Second they addressed all without distinction only with the familiar ‘thee’ and thou’ – the equivalent of ‘how are you doing mate’ in today’s parlance. In those times ’you’ was the dignified respectful form of address to a social superior; they refused to use this… This was not meant as an insult but as a levelling sign that all are equal in Christ.

Radical nudity was still going on in England in the eighteenth century – John Wesley had a disputation with some Ranters who were preaching in the nude. In Russia – quite independent of the European radicals (as far as i know) – Orthodox sectarians known as the spirituals because they claimed direct inspiration grew up among the peasantry in the troubled times of the nineteenth century. Nicholas Berdyaev the Orthodox Christian universalist has written a sympathetic but critical history of these sect – they included the sect that drank milk during Lent, the self castrators, the libertines, and the Doukhabors. The Doukhabors practiced and still practise radical nudity. They were persecuted under the Tsars and Tolstoy pleaded their cause and got then transferred en masse to Canada where there is still a community today. Every now and then they get restive and go naked as a sign in wider public places and sensitive policing is required :smiley:.

Very interesting!

BTW Footnote on ‘Thee and Thou’ (to drive a point home for those interested)

These days, schooled as we are (at least some of us :smiley:) in the Authorised version of the Bible and various prayer books from the seventeenth century, we mistakenly think that Thee and Thou are titles of high dignity because God is addressed thus in the language of our forefathers. But the reason why God is addressed with these pronouns is because they show familiarity – God is our ‘Abba’; so we’ve completely lost this understanding with the passage of time.
By way of contrast, gentleman of the nobility would address each other publicly as ‘you’ to show respect for each other’s title – and as ‘thou’ only in intimate settings. Commoners would address gentlemen as ‘you; to show their abject, forelock tugging subservience. A gentleman would only address another gentlemen publicly as ‘thou’ when challenging him to a duel as part of the insult in the letter or with the glove of contempt slapped across the face.

In Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleopatra At the close of play and before she has resolved no ‘noble’ suicide in the high Roman tradition Cleopatra has tried to make an ignoble deal for her safety and for retaining her titles as Queen of Egypt to unsmiling Octavius Caesar (soon to be Caesar Augustus). The letter of reply shows to her that Octavius has no intention of negotiating terms with her but rather will lead her in chains in humiliating Triumph through the streets of Rome with mocking and saucy boys dressed as her and her dead lord Anthony tormenting and mimicking her, before having her killed or enslaved. AND Cleopatra cries out to her handmaids in angry despair ‘He thous me girls - he thous me!!!’

I wonder what we should make of Elizabeth’s multiculturalism today? I mean - it was risky. Border controls were almost non existent in those days (apart from the barrier of the English Channel). You had Catholics and Protestants travelling abroad to fight in the terrible and bloody religious wars on the continent. And then there one famous Catholic who came back from fighting for the Pope’s cause in the Netherlands after Elizabeth had died actually - and he came back radicalised (he was also radicalised by Elizabeth’s own reluctant measures but eventually illiberal against her Catholic subjects and disappointed that her successor James - in whom he had based great hopes - showed no preferences for the Catholics either). His name was Guido Fawkes - or more commonly Guy Fawkes.

‘History is a dialogue between present and past’ in one rather good definition coined by the historian E.H. Carr. Any thoughts here anyone?

I’ll hold this question open for all budding historians for a bit :slight_smile: It is relevant to today - very relevant.

I came into contact with a large number of History majors when I was studying philosophy. They seemed to think there is a natural affinity between the two disciplines. I don’t know, not being much of an historian at all.

What are the two ends of the ‘spectrum’ on how to approach history?

Not sure I have much to say here, but that I agree with the above Carr quote. Reminds me of the quote by George Santayana, " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." You also continue to help me see how pathetic my knowledge of history is. :laughing: Which is a good thing.

And I love the notes on You, Thee, and Thou. I live in the American South, so what about “Y’all”? :wink:

And I do faintly recall that Antony and Cleopatra quote from when I saw it some years back.

Now that’s a difficult question Dave :smiley: Socratic method Philosophy is about questioning or assumptions about everything under the sub n – what is truth? What is honour? How can we know anything etc (the unexamined life is not worth living). And academic history is about questioning our assumptions about the past. The past is to the community what memory is to the individual. But much of what we receive as certain knowledge about the past is encased in myth. ‘Myth’ in its technical historical sense is a version of the past the may well contain a kernel of truth but is encased in the chaff of error and distortion – some of it made originally for propaganda reason – a version of the past that serves the interest of power The historian challenges myth by going back to the primary sources – the evidence/echoes left from the time of study – and proving a valid interpretation ( reconstruction plus assessment of causes of and interconnections between events) based upon this. Na historian’s interpretation is not scientific – you cannot study the past under laboratory conditions – but its is still a valid quest for truth based on a careful distinction from the evidence between what is impossible to assert about the past, what is possible, what is probable and what is certain.  History in one sense is a conversion without end – but there are good reason and bad reasons with which to assert ‘weak’ truths about the past.

Had a lovely chat, drink and pizza and olives with Chris tonight btw :slight_smile:

Caleb - I have no idea about ‘y’all’ - but it sounds like a levelling address to me :smiley:

Sounds like a well-nigh impossible task Dick, for those who are asking for an unbiased report of ‘what happened’. Now I understand better why so many history majors also majored in Philosophy - not so much the history of philosophy, but epistemology and hermeneutics especially. Very interesting.

It’s not impossible - historians worth their mettle of every shade can still agree upon what is impossible, what is possible, what is or probable and what is certain to say about the past. This is where holocaust deniers like David Irving come unstuck when they talk nonsense, The methods of source criticism are well tested and well established. When it comes to interpreting of evidence - looking for causes and connections between events etc. - there will be disagreements. But there is a genuine quest for truth going on - its not the same as scientific empirical truth - a theory in history does not have the same ‘truth status’ as a theory in science. But her is still a real quest for truth going on a quest of critical realism going on in the historian’s ‘language game’ - mid way between subjectivity and objectivity, mid way between sconce and art. And that’s the way it is and that’s the way it always will be :slight_smile:

Likewise - and I’m not sure how it works in the USA - law is no the same as empirical science - although the forensic evidence produced may be assessed according to the methodologies of empirical science - but it still has truth claims. In criminal law in the UK a case must be proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ if the defendant is to be found guilty - and this may mean their imprisonment (and there is always the right to appeal); however in civil law - where a fine is the severest penalty - cases need only be proved ‘beyond the balance of probabilities’. This we find victims of rape and murder who cannot get justice in a criminal court sometimes getting compensation in a civil court here.

Y’all is definitely a leveling address. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington DC, in Northern Virginia, NOVA, where there is no southern accent or y’all’s to be heard. But I married a Tennessee bride and now live in Southwestern Virginia and say y’all all the time! :laughing:

Well ya’ll :laughing: briefly, regarding the Gunpowder plot etc, and its message for multi cultural Britain today:

Well Elizabeth did her best to be very tolerant towards Catholics. I remember reading a not very good article( in fact a very poor article) by a journalist in the UK liberal Guardian newspaper which stated that Bloody Mary her Catholic sister burnt above and beyond 300 Protestants and Elizabeth killed the same number of Catholics and dissenters – so let’s not get too glowing about Elisabeth. This is true – but it is a completely false comparison – risible in its retrospective self righteousness. Mary ruled for three years only – Elizabeth for over forty years. Mary came to power determined to cleanse England of the Protestant Heresy and re-establish the Old Catholic faith with instant fire and menaces. When Elizabeth the Protestant queen came to power she carried out no retaliations for the persecutions under Mary and for fifteen years no one died for their faith . The persecutions - when they began in 1580’s - were actually concerned with a concern to root out religious terrorism rather than a concern to force people’s consciences; at this time a fatwa had been proclaimed against Elizabeth by the Pope which made her assassination the duty of all Catholics at least in theory - there had been serious Catholic uprisings in the North of England, there had been terrible massacres of Protestants in Catholic France with huge loss of life, and a number of attempts son the Queen’s life; and there was the constant threat of Mary Queen of Scot’s becoming a rallying flag for Catholic terrorism, and the threat of invasion from mighty Spain. And in the English Jesuits colleges in Italy – which were a bit like the Islamic fundamentalist Madrassas of today – Englishmen were being trained to foment revolt against the Protestant Queen and they were landing in England to do this.

But the majority of English Catholics - in the light of all the evidence that is available - seem to have remained loyal to Elizabeth and many were wrongly persecuted during these terrible times

The situation today may seem bad – but nowhere near as bad as this. And long may it remain nowhere near as bad as this. That’s my Intro to multiculturalism in the UK in historical perspective – will post again later in the week.

Regarding multiculturalism - I’m falling into old habits so I’d better change the subject (but suffice to say that I have the greatest sympathy with the post of my old friend [tag]corpselight[/tag] on that thread. There’s bits in it I’d like to unpack – because I know that multiculturalism as an ideology has sometimes had some very bad unintended consequences, very bad indeed – and I know this from first hand professional experience as well as thought reading the academic data and scrutinising the media debates from several angles)) But multiculturalism meaning people from different cultures living together in amity is strongly to be desired - and it sometimes happens well in London these days, the neighbour love across divides and difference as opposed to distrust and fear sometimes leading to blind hatred or even charitable hatred – and it sometimes happens very well. We’ve come a long way since the 1970s when fascist marched openly and unchallenged in English streets and vicious attacks upon ‘Pakis’ by skinheads were epidemic. But it doesn’t happen at all well in France these days or in some other European countries – and sometimes it is those countries that see immigrants as a threat to their ‘liberalism’ where the most hatred is being stirred up.

Regarding Elizabeth and what happened with the Catholics in her reign and in James’s reign – well the Catholics were from a different culture – an older culture that was passing away. It is instructive to look at their fate and the wise and unwise ways in which the real and terrible general Catholic threat was dealt with by Elizabeth and James. Culture can also mean power blocks with different ideologies. Power block culture is mixed up with cultures in the softer sense of the word but not identical with it. Cultures in terms of– cooking, language, contributions to human knowledge etc tend to enrich each other; whereas power blocks seek to annihilate each other.

[tag]Caleb Fogg[/tag], [tag]DaveB[/tag], and [tag]ChrisB[/tag] – you who are my current regulars for chats here  If you want to think a bit more about how historians go about their work – so that you questions me more closely for one thing and pin me down to details of evidence more… Well I posted my old lecture notes on Source Criticism at EU some time ago here –

Look at the OP and the notes on source criticism (if you want to). They are pretty accessible and are actually the skills that any participant in a democracy with a free press needs to be trained in – and I wish some here had more knowledge of these skills :wink: After the OP I did start to range more widely in a few posts about the nature of History as a field of research – but there was too much else going on

If you are really, really, really interested in this – an excellent short book available in the USA is -

amazon.com/Pursuit-History-J … sh+History

A slightly longer book by my old and now dead Professor of History where I used to work is this one

amazon.com/Nature-History-Ar … ur+marwick

And an excellent essay on Church History and the reasons why it is important to us is this one

amazon.com/Why-Study-Past-Hi … n+Williams

Dick,

Read your class notes on Source Criticism. I do appreciating you thinking about history rigorously, b/c at times, when you’ve shared your historical knowledge, I’m thinking, “how does he know this stuff”? Often times you do share your sources, however.

I enjoyed reading the stories from WWII. I actually went on Google maps/Earth to see where Guernsey is. It was pretty amazing to see some of the panoramic views right there on my screen!

Caleb

That’s great Caleb Fogg – that’s so good that you’ve taken a look at that stuff :smiley: . I there are people highly trained in some branch of philosophy here as it relates to theology – metaphysics is a hot one, ethics less so. But it’s so nice to have others interested in history too. And good research about Guernsey using Google maps to check out Amy’s story - the Nazi’s got a lot closer to the UK than some people realise :astonished:

Yes regarding sources – I do sometimes give them when it’s appropriate; but not always. A lot of the time – as here – I don’t; bother because… well if I always gave sources in detail and gave you my proper source criticism I’d be giving away what i hep to write in my book. It’s the nature of the beast when you post on a website that you don’t; give everything away – and most people won’t; read the stuff anyway.

If you look at the original C of E Universalism thread that Rev Drew started you will see me thinking through specific sources and making conjectures from these and then realising that my conjectures and /or the conjectures of other posters are improbable and coming up with better ones to test against the evidence. Three examples – and note that I couldn’t get to a library when I was first doing that research and so had to depend on Internet primary sources and check that the sources were presented in the same way in at least three independent academic websites –
First it took me a time before I could find the full text of the 42nd article and find any text for the 41st article and 40th article (all were abrogated by Elizabeth’s convocation). When I found all three a lot of things fell into place that were up in the air for me until then; and when I compared the 42nd article closely with the sources it was based on some other surprising/unexpected conclusions occurred to me.

Second, Drew found a passage from Martin Bucer showing what a tolerant man he was which lead heand I to think Bucer had something to do with the abrogation of the 42nd article in terms of his posthumous influence. And this seemed an excellent hypotheses since Bucer had been Matthew Parker’s colleague – the Archbishop of Canterbury who chaired the convocation where it was suppressed. However, I still had to keep an open mind; and it was an unexpected find when I was reading a scholarly article by Morwena Ludlow about whether the Anabaptists Hans Denck was a universalist that started to make me sceptical and check out Martin Bucer more closely– so I now am certain that Bucer would not have advocated the tolerance of universalism - although he would not have approved of the execution or imprisonment of universalists.

Third and final, I was persuaded for a very short time that Elizabeth could not have inclined towards tolerance of universalism – because the Marxist historian Christopher Hill had cited a speech by her made to Parliament in the early 1580s in which she seemed to approve strongly of hellfire and damnation (and Hill of course decided that this was to be expected of manipulative Queen who wanted to keep her people in their place). However, when I checked the source and the context of this speech it is very clear that Elizabeth is actually chiding her Calvinist Parliament over two issue close to her heart at the time – there are very strong reasons indeed for thinking her words are said sarcastically/ironically).

[tag]DaveB[/tag] I’m very happy to have a chat sometimes about where the academic discipline of history fits into the ‘objective truth language game’ - if you’d like that :slight_smile:

Thanks, Dick, I may take you up on that at some point. :smiley:

I’m pretty much in the ‘critical-realism’ camp and I think you are as well? You could probably explain it much better than I, and perhaps some people here would like to hear that explanation?