The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Brief history of universlaism in the C of E

Yes I meant ‘not’ :smiley: - I have only the vaguest memory of the erotic scenes - so I was not offended (and I do get upset by gratuitous in your face sex scenes). I remember when I was young if there was any nudity on the telly in my friend John’s house his Mum used to get up and stand in front of the TV until it was over. So there’s always that option open :laughing:

I’ll give you some examples of the earthiness of those times. Sir Thomas Moore 9now St Thomas Moore the Catholic martyr and close friend of Erasmus) had several daughters. He had them all educated as Christian Humanists – as Elizabeth was to be - and when the sociopathic King Henry came to visit they debate d with the King in Latin – and he was much impressed. Thomas Moore had the unusual idea – that he sets forth in this fantasy novella Utopia that if any man was going to marry a girl they should first see the girl in the nude. So when a suitor called about when of his daughters who was in bed in a room with her other sleeping sisters,. Sir Thomas took the young man upstairs, uncovered his highly educated and much cherished daughter (and they didn’t wear clothes in bed) and then patted her on the bottom so she turned over and the suitor could see her front. And the suitor was satisfied and the betrothal went ahead.

Luther’s scatology mentioned above? Well I’ve posted it in its full force elsewhere – but still feel loath to post the stuff here. It is very alarming indeed and had destructive consequences too.

Back to Henry VIII for my last example; the science of a balanced diet was not good in his days and influenced still by medieval bestiaries – see above. A lion – the bestiaries claimed – lived only on meat. A King should be as a Lion so Henry only ate meat – and this was very bad for him. So in later life he had huge problems with digestion and uncontrolled bowel movements etc – obviously so. He always had a sociopathic streak but in later life he also became paranoid and being a courtier was very dangerous. And there was one task that we might think should be given to a menial but was much coveted by courtiers and lords and knights of the realm. Namely wiping the king’s bottom – the role was called ‘The Groom of the King’s Stool. And it was coveted because in the privy while ministering to the King’s stern needs the fortunate official could also have the King’s ear – like a privy counsellor :smiley: -and ask favours for friends and family and spread rumours about enemies in the hope that the King would destroy them. Quaint old fashioned ways :smiley:

Johns mum would not have had to stand in front of the telly much Dick. As I recall nudity on the Beeb at least was just about as rare as hens teeth in the days of yore! You mention that things seem to have got better since good queen Beth was on the throne. Not withstanding terrible wars etc which still plague us. I was wondering about starting a thread to discus the issue of “total depravity” in the context of theological matters. It’s the “total” part which I find hard to understand. I need to look on the board and see if it’s already been done to death - I expect it has maybe?

Cultural note: Beeb = British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

I wonder how far we can go about discussing the finer points of Cate Blanchet’s wonderful charms before Jason or some other authority commands us to get back to the point?

I’m not sure that things have got better all round Chris - and who knows we could have public executions back again; there is no reason why the things our more loving kind forefathers fought so hard for - like tolerance and minimization of cruelty in public life - should not get reversed if we are not vigilant; so we must always be vigilant. And the Terrible Thirty Years Wars of religion that England avoided but convulsed and devastated Europe form 1608 onwards - terrible, soul numbing slaughter and massacre upon massacre of Catholics by Protestants, Protestants by Catholics, and different Protestant sects and parties against each other- are so very similar to what is happening in Arab countries today (and both were ceased by a seeming new dwam - the first the Reformation, the second the so called Arab Spring). Our times are as bad as other times have been - but they also contain their own unique seeds of hope as other times have. We must look for those seeds of hope and cherish them

I’m a not a progressive liberal - I don’t think progress is inevitable or that human nature is essentially good. I’m a hopeful but realistic human frailty liberal in my politics and more general outlook. Total depravity is bunk in my view - human beings are image of God bearers - but we are also prone to error, weakness and even deliberate fault through the rivalry in our desiring. Our task is to nurture the image of God in ourselves with God’s grace to help us so that it overcomes the darkness and the fragmentation. Our task is not to hate ourselves - this we cannot bear in the end and have to hate others in order to cope; no that is not helpful nor is it good theology or psychology IMHO. :slight_smile: Erasmus used slightly different words - but his theology ( or more properly his ‘anthropology’) was very much in line with what I have just written. Hope that helps Chris:-?

btw Chris - I grew up in the seventies. I guess my friends’ Mum had a little more cause to stand in front of the telly than in previous decades :laughing: - with the occasional Wednesday Play and even one very brief scene with Keith Michelle in the Six Wives of Henry VIII with Judy Dench’s husband. But it didn’t; happened a lot - so she wasn’t up and down like a Mexican jumping bean as she would be today I guess (but I don’t watch a lot of telly - apart from the odd detective series - hate to say but I am a great fan of Poirot, Miss Marple (the seventies version) and I eve like the new series of New Tricks with Tamsin Outhwaite playing the woman in the boys world (I’m enjoying it better than the old series actually). Well I used to watch all the other stuff - the historical channel and Dr Who etc (no connection by the way); but when I moved back to look after my Mum she still had sight in one eye and could sit up and we only had one Telly. So when I first returned I put on Doctor Who the first Saturday and it was like - well being in your Mum’s territory again in your own very early middle age (just my luck) :smiley: ‘Oh I don’t like all of this modern nonsense. And there’s something I want to see on another channel - Poirot!!!’ So she liked detective series and I gradually grew to enjoy them - so that’s what we’d watch together. And although she is now blind - I’m a creature of habit :laughing: And my Mum’s far more severe form of censorship that my friend John’s mum indulged in has got me reading a lot more and writing a lot more; and at first it even got me playing the piano a lot more (but I grew tired of that because no one was listening when my Mum became rather deaf). So it’s all good - we all lose our faculties in the end - but I’ve gained some lost/neglected faculties through sharing my Mum’s loss I guess:-)

This is Elizabeth’s Speech at Tilbury Docks to her Troops rallied Philip of Spain (with his massive Armada) and the Duke of Parma (Philip’s lieutenant who had amassed a large army n the Netherlands – then controlled by Spanish tyranny – for the purposes of invasion). Both seemingly had massed overwhelming odds against her and her tolerant Protestant polity – and thus her own life was in great danger once again and those of her subjects – Philip and Parma would certainly have introduced the Spanish Inquisition to England

My loving people
We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you on a word of a prince, they shall be duly paid. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

Nearly all historians accept the text as authentic Elizabeth - at two steps removed but still authentic)

Today I have read Erasmus’s short but wonderful tact The Complaint of Peace (which means the quarrel for or argument for Peace). It is well worth reading. Erasmus hated religious strife and saw war as antithetical to the Gospel – but he was not a pacifist. Likewise Elizabeth loved peace and always went the extra mile for peace. She also loved religious tolerance and the persecutions in her reign were very reluctant persecutions and need to be seen in the context of historical circumstances – which were dire – and her lack of enthusiasm for cruelty is unquestioned. She was a remarkable woman.
If anyone wants to see my nuanced thoughts about Luther’s sustained gale of violent scatology in contrast to these two Christian Humanists – I can post them here. But I would need permission :slight_smile:

I do love graceful rhetoric. Not flowery per se, but measured, sober, and well said.

Dick,

Got chills reading Elizabeth’s words.

I for one would like your measured words on Luther’s scatology, even though I don’t know what scatology is. :laughing:

Caleb

Well it concerns talking explicitly about the products of the human bottom :smiley: Are you still keen? Oh I know people have posted worse stuff here - and it’s Luther’s words and not my own and they are relevant as a contrast to Eramsus, and he did use scatological rhetoric to violent ends. If you OK me and if Dave OK’s I will post it here on the condition that I will delete the post if it upset people - but the truth should not hurt us I say.

Did you really write : A-butt the human bottom? :laughing:

Hey, I can take the scat but I’ll leave it up to the scat moderation team. :laughing:

Ok were going there - Luther and Scatology (with warm thanks to my interlocutors elsewhere and thanks to the bottom inspectors here too :laughing: ).

Part 1

One man, whose writings and legacy have often troubled me – with good reason – had a lifelong battle against the satan (I always write the word with a lower case ‘s’ so as not to big up the adversary, whatever that means to you :smiley:); namely, Martin Luther. He once reputedly threw an inkpot at Satan and used a great deal of strong scatological language to make Satan flee when he was assailed – ‘here is one of my turds Stan – take a bite on it!’. And although he wrote very affirmably about the joys of sexual congress he must go down in history as having given the most un-gentlemanly reasons for having married – he said that he ‘wedded a nun to spite Satan’.

There is one thing I really like about Luther’s idea of how Satan tempts us. Luther, recovering from the late medieval pessimism about the natural world and the human body, loved the good things of life; music, good wine and company, and the scent of flowers. Late in his life, each morning he would walk in his rose garden and forbid Satan to interfere with his enjoyment. When he was a younger, at a debate where he argued the cause for Reform - and if he’d not gained support in this he would have lost his life - he nonchalantly smelled a rose flower when listening to the counter arguments. And when he survived the debate he went outside giving the open handed sign of victory that the triumphant jouster would make at a medieval tournament – and he cried ‘I have come through’.

Luther was a very brave young man – and was a champion of freedom until he became powerful. But later he went far too far with his battle against an external satan – especially in his revolting attacks on the Jews – ‘ Do not let a foul Jew utter the name of Christ. Smear pig’s shit in their faces and burn their synagogues. And of course there is a defamatory Lutheran woodcut of a Lutheran solider dropping his breeches and farting in the Pope’s face – which did much to dehumanise Catholics. . And when he was dying Luther cried ‘I am ripe shit, the world is a great arsehole and we are soon to part company’. Charming:-D As for me – I think we should wage our wars within rather than looking for outward enemies to throw shit at. People still throw shit today at their enemies – an not all of them are religious people by any means. Throwing shit is the lowest form of humour.

Part 2

I’ve read two biographies of Luther - one by Martin Remarius the Erasmus scholar who is pro Erasmus and so is not fond of Luther; the other by Heiko Oberman who is very pro Luther. Most of the stuff above actually come from Oberman’s thoughts about Luther preaching ‘God’s Word in filthy language’ :confused: Luther was up against the whole late medieval tradition of flesh hating and world hating (part legacy of the experience of the black death/great plague)- as well as a Church grown corrupt, arid, and authoritarian - and he was very brave in taking all of that on. There is the old story that before he realised he was justified by faith - that is when he thought he had to be good and mortify his flesh to earn salvation - he thought that God in his anger could see him all of the time even when he was on the toilet - and therefore he was permanently constipated through terror. And once he felt justified by faith he had a healthy bowel movement. Not sure whether this is fact or myth but its a common story.

Luther did make one contribution towards Christian universalism - he loved the Theolgia Germanica - a book of medial German mysticism that Calvin later termed ‘pure poison. It is a lovely book IMHO and contains the words - This world is the forecourt of paradise’; but more importantly for universalist it also contains the words ‘Nothing burns in hell but self will’- and these words were to influence the Pietists and Moravians who became Lutheran universalists. Bonheoffer was also a hopeful universalist and a Lutheran - and a defender of the Jews. He believed that Luther was a very sick man when he made his terrible comment about the Jews - and Bonheoffer was probably right about this.

Part 2

Well I’ve said some positive things about Luther now - and find him easier to love than John Calvin certainly because he was passionate rather than cold and unsmiling (and I’m even still working on trying to see the good in unsmiling John ). We can’t see into Luther’s soul - but to be discerning about his behaviours is not the same as condemning his soul (and Christian’s often make this category error I find unlike their Lord who was ‘humble to God and haughty to man’). I think many evangelicals have issues with this one. Luther was a great liberator breaking chains - a bit of a punk rocker so to speak - but he fell down on the side of rage when disappointed, and violent rage at that.

Erasmus living at the same time took Luther to task for these very things just as Castellio, Erasmus’ follower later took Calvin to task over the judicial murder of Servetus - ‘you think you’ve burnt a heretic , but in reality you have simply killed a man’.

I think we can and should make judgments of discernment - it is out moral duty to do so. But these are different from judgments of ultimate condemnation (which we cannot make because we are all imperfect). In Luther’s mitigation for example I note that when he presided over the execution of Anabaptists he was moved by their bravery - Calvin just wanted the ‘vermin’ exterminated. Also Calvin’s few anti-Semitic sayings are merely cold. Luther’s many of the same spew hot with rage But according to one account he died with tears in his eyes for the Jews.

However, the voice of Luther in hot rage against the Jews reverberated through history in terrible ways that Calvin’s did not. This is what I call tragedy. And tragedy too has a moral dimension.

Well done, Dick. And interesting to boot - what was the problem ML had with the anabaptists?

Interesting stuff about Luther. I appreciate your word’s about discernment and trying to be a bit gracious with him.

I certainly never read any of this stuff in Roland Bainton’s “Here I Stand”, that I read in college. It didn’t make the recent Luther movie either, surprise, surprise. :wink:

I walk by a Lutheran church on my lunch-time walk every weekday, and work a block away from a historically Lutheran college. Today, even before this most recent post today, I looked at the church a bit differently on my walk today…I know nobody’s perfect, but a lot of this is pretty sad.

Yes, please tell us about Luther and the Anabaptists. This was a chilling line: “when he presided over the execution of Anabaptists he was moved by their bravery”.

And for your viewing pleasure…


Edit: to clarify, I post this because it is both humorous, but also fascinating historically to me. I certainly bear no ill-will towards Catholics, or Lutherans for that matter. I love it that there are universalist strands in some many denominations of Christianity…Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and so on…

That’s it Caleb - that’s the one :slight_smile: ; and there is another famous one of three Lutheran soldiers relieving their earthy needs in a large and upturned Papal crown. I mean it all seems a bit of a giggle in a very boyish way today - I can’t help but titter at the joke that the revered Father of the Reformation and his upstanding first followers sometimes spoke, wrote and created visual images most unseemly way - and actually the images in context are alarmingly obscene because they are violent and meant to provoke violence too. I seem to remember the according to Josephus, during Jesus’s day when a troop of Roman soldiers were dispatched into the temple for a stand off with young Jewfish hot bloods - everything became tranquil but then one of the Roman soldiers decided to drop his pants and fart in the general direction of the Holy of Holies - and there was terrible bloodshed and loss of life as a result :frowning:

Yes Dave and Caleb :slight_smile: I will get back to you - tonight I hope - with some stuff about why Luther and Calvin (far more so) hated Anabaptist

Let’s face it most of our histories both global, local and personal get a bit grubby on closer inspection. You can probably bet none or at least very few of the lovely folks who go to the Lutheran church you pass have much idea of their churches hIstory or would even care Caleb. My kids both went to a Lutheran school and did very well from it education wise. My sons wife also went to the same school and became a believer while there. The Lutherans are leaders in education in Australia. Nevertheless I did get peed off many years ago when we went to a family camp they organised and and at the Sunday service the minister stopped all non lutherans from taking communion. Very sad! However it did engender some discussion in our house re acceptance of others which was probably helpful. I too am looking forward to a lesson in Anabaptist history Dick.

Chris I agree that there is good and bad in all movements – including Universalism. And the main part of Lutheranism today is very positive and draws on the positive legacy of Luther – his sacramental theology and his theology of sanctification, his great love of music as one of the good things fo life which eventually inspired Bach (Some of Bach’s glorious Chorale’s are arrangements of Luther’s hymns). I had a friend at school – Immo – whose father was the Lutheran Pastor at Bonheoffer’s old Church in Forest Hill – where he presided for a short time before returning to Germany to be martyred – and he was lovely and I went to an advent fair there and it was wonderful. I think we have to face the good with the bad when assessing the past and that helps us to have a more nuanced picture of the present

A question for you all. Who said ‘Food is shut up full seemly as if within a purse and in good time the purse opens full marvellously. And God does this and meets us in our humblest needs?’. Well I need my Yentil here :smiley: but she’s busy with her coursework so I shall not disturb her. So let’s see it as a rhetorical question. And the answer is… wait for it :smiley:… Julian of Norwich thanking God for a healthy bowel movement unabashedly but with a kindly and gentle image. Compare and contrast with Luther :smiley: Both Julian and Martin Luther also spoke of Jesus in chivalric and courtly language – as was natural in those times. But for Mother Julian Jesus is ‘our full courteous Lord’ while for Luther Christ is the jouster who enters the lists and ‘fights for me’ (with ‘me’ being the operative word).

Why did Luther persecute the Anabaptists? Well first perhaps we should ask who were the Anabaptists? – they were not identical the Baptists today believing in adult baptism (the Baptists – defenders of religious liberty with the distinctive doctrine of believer baptism) are descended from largely from John Smyth the Elizabethan Anglican Separatist– although there are some tenuous links with the earlier Mennonite Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptist were the radical wing of the Reformation comprising a number of disparate groups.

They believed in adult baptism – but during the time of the Reformation this was a very dangerous thing sot believe in. Most Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinist all shared one thing in common; they believed that Church attendance should be enforced by magistrates to protect social order. Child baptism was s sign that the child was to be brought into conformity with the magisteruim of the Church State. To make religion a matter of personal choice for an adult was lunacy and an invitation to anarchy. There were also obviously concerns that not having infants baptised would lead to their damnation – as Augustine taught.

They believed in holding goods in common and later Anabaptists were mainly pacifists – which again was seen as being against the sate and a threat to civil order.

Although their leaders were often highly educated – and some were even Christian humanists scholars – the majority of the Anabaptists were drawn from the lower classes. So they were seen as potential revolutionaries by the magisterium. In the early stages of the Reformation this fear was sometimes well grounded– but not so in the latter pacifist movements of Anabaptists that were ruthlessly persecuted without cause. Because they were harassed and killed their scholars were always on the move and sometimes thought through their ideas without consultation of adequate thought - so they sometimes came up with ideas that were seen as heresy. For example an influential Anabaptist teacher Melchior Hoffman taught that Christ did not have a human body but only a spiritual body – which is technically the Docetic heresy - and many Anabaptist were arraigned and killed for this belief (often falsely – because not all Anabaptists believed this and not all Anabaptist were Unitarians – another charge on which they were often arraigned).

The origins of the disparate Anabaptist groups are obscure and probably linked to peasant movements in the Middle Ages. And Luther came preaching freedom from the tyranny of the Church of Rome. At first he would have agreed with Erasmus – let the wheat and the tares grow up together – laugh at error challenge error but do not kill the man you call heretic. Then Thomas Muntzer – a former colleague of Luther’s and a charismatic firebrand– fired up the peasants and they rose in violent revolt against the German Princes thinking they were supporting Luther (they’d suffered hard under the Church with its tithing of them when they were starving, and with its selling of Indulgences and Pardoners and it Summoners to ecclesiastical courts that needed to be paid off with a bribe – and there had been many lynchings of these shady ecclesiastical dignitaries by German peasants). But Luther was horrified at the tumult and called upon the Princes to kill the peasants and show no mercy – which they did with terrible savagery. Muntzer was once lionised by Communist as a martyr for justice – but the consensus today is that he had no clear programme to help the peasants at all and he was in fact a reckless nihilist in love with the intensity of the moment. At least some of the peasant insurrections were early Anabaptists and all of them became identified with the amorphous Anabaptist movement in popular imagination.

As for Luther? Well his behaviour was appalling too – but we can see some mitigation in the historical context. Luther was always convinced the time was very short indeed and he last Judgement was imminent (whereas Erasmus took the longer view). This lead him to fits of rage filled disappointment when his programme of freedom which was meant to gather in the Lord’s elect was frustrated. The peasant rising had to be put down with maximum barbarity because by unleashing anarchy they were threatening the civil stability necessary for the spread of the Gospel. Likewise the Jews – who he had hoped would convert in large numbers to the new faith and thereby speed up Christ’s return – by their stiff necked refusal were also frustrating the progress of the Gospel. We can note that he honestly thought these things were true without condoning anything he said or did. And of course it was not only his speeches against the Jews that later reverberated centuries later with the Nazis – the rhythms of Luther are there in Hitler’s speeches even if Luther’s quarrel with the Jews was not strictly on racial grounds – but also in his view of the power and authority of the State. Even Bonheoffer was conflicted about challenging the Nazis at first because of traditional Lutheran doctrine about State authority. But I do note that the liberal Lutheran tradition in Denmark fared very well during these dark times – the Church there organised the total public support of the Jews which made Nazi persecution almost impossible even under occupations

It was also around this time that the Anabaptist began to be identified with Origenist Universalists – although there is no evidence that any but a few of them were Universalists at this time. The stereotype was of the Universalist as violent anarchist inviting Satan to sit and sup at the Kingdom’s feast by believing in Satan’s redemption – and many of the stereotype that informed the witch hunts grew out of the stereotyping of Anabaptist -and most of the so called witches that were killed were actually Christian ‘heretics’ or falsely accused Christian heretics). There was also the stereotype propagated in many prints and chapbooks by the magisterial Christians – Catholic and Protestant – of the Anabaptist adult baptism rite as a time of lewd nakedness and debauchery.

Well mnay fo the Anabaptist movements were entirely peaceful and innocent – but In the 1530’s a group of millenarian Anabaptist ruled over Munster on the continent. For two years, from (1533-1535) it was governed by their ‘Messianic King’ John of Leydon (a sort of David Koresh - of Waco fame - figure). He imposed both communism and polygamy on the people and ruled with great cruelty, especially towards women who would not comply with polygamy, or who were found guilty of adultery. There are rum ours that as the end came he disported with his concubines as messianic King in his banqueting hall while his comrades starved but these are only rumours. The Messianic Kingdom of Munster was ended with enormous and revolting cruelty by a Catholic army that had found common cause with the Lutherans. The aftershock of Munster created fear in a generation of Magisterial Protestants, and persuaded them to sully all Anabaptists with the memory of the Messianic Kingdom. Again these Anabaptists were accused of being Universalists’ – although there is absolutely no evidence for this.
After the Munster debacle Anabaptism dissociated itself from charismatic and messianic leaders and we begin to see the two distinct traditions of Anabaptism proper emerging clearly.
There were the Scriptural Anabaptists – the Mennonites, the Hutterites (and latterly the Amish) – who emphasised the authority of the Word as scripture (interpreted with their own distinctive theology). The first Universalist sect of Scriptural Anabaptist that we know of was/are the Tunkers/Dunkers who originated in Germany in 1708 and later became the Church of the Brethren of Christ (one of the historic Peace Churches in the USA today). The Dunkers were also influenced by the writings of Lutheran Pietists.

Alongside the Scriptural tradition developed the Spiritual tradition. The Spiritual tradition traces its lineage to Hans Denck – the Christian Humanist scholar who was in Basle at the same time as Erasmus. The Spiritual Anabaptists emphasised both the Authority of the Word as Scripture, and the Authority of the Word as the Logos/Light that is within every human being (a theme that Origen with his emphasis on Christ as Wisdom would have agreed with). One reason for Denck’s Spiritual emphasis was compassion for the poor and the illiterate who had recently been deprived of the comfort of Catholic sacramentalism but did not have the level of education required to comprehend the subtleties of Protestant doctrine. Denck’s emphasis was not on correct doctrine; rather he emphasised putting on the life of Christ in a spirit of Love and living this life gently with all one’s heart. This emphasis is certainly consonant with Erasmus’ Christian Humanism and many think Denck was directly influenced by Erasmus.

Here are some links to defamatory images of Anabaptists

refo500.nl/content/files/Ima … en/113.jpg

artoflegendindia.com/images/ … usalem.jpg

britishmuseum.org/collection … _001_l.jpg

Here is an image of the cruel martyrdom of two Anabaptists they suffered a greater death toll than all other sects and parties put together – these two have not been burnt on a pyre they’ve been slowly roasted by embers at their feet and are still alive at this point (the terrible idea in all of this was to give them a foretaste of their sufferings in hell so as to dispirit them).

realcourage.org/wp-content/u … /f0101.jpg

And here is an image of the handsome and charismatic messianic King of Munster - John van Leyden

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … grever.jpg

Any questions? I’m happy to try and answer questions :slight_smile:

Thanks much, Dick - I don’t know if you have read “Q” - (amazon.com/Q-Luther-Blissett … keywords=Q)? If you have, what do you think of it? There is a lot of history of the anabaptists and Lutheran times; not great writing, but some insights I think into the time period you were writing about, above. The book at least gets the ‘mood’ of the times right, I think.

I haven’t read it Dave; but I will read it - it looks great :slight_smile:

Great stuff, Dick. Why all the naked pictures of the Anabaptists? Did they baptize in the nude, or was that part of the smear campaign against them?

I Googled “Christians killing Christians”, and came up with the following results.
truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html

The second site is by an atheist. The first site is by someone named Acharya S, who appears to be believe Jesus was a myth. You can find more about her on Wikipedia. So I have no idea how accurate these lists are, but at the very least, that’s what Google gave me as the second and third results.

Obviously, this issue of Christians employing violent means has been a bit of a problem for quite some time, 4th century perhaps?

Tom Talbott gets into the beginnings of Christianity turning from persecuted faith to persecuting faith, in Chapter 2 of Inescapable Love, in his section “Heresy and Imperial Politics”. He also addresses the theological advocacy of violence beginning with Augustine. He also mentions Luther and Calvin on his website here: thomastalbott.com/terror.php
He goes into more depth into it in chapter 3 of Inescapable Love, titled: “A Legacy of Fear and Persecution”, here: thomastalbott.com/pdf/chapter3.pdf

I know a lot of this stuff has been discussed elsewhere on this site quite a bit, but I continued to be amazed as I learn more about the sad history of violence in Christianity. What a terrible marriage of politics, violence, hellish theology and fallen human nature (and of course the OT genocide commands don’t help much either).

In our morning prayer group last week my pastor was shaking his head over the state of the world, including the barbarity of Islam, and I just wanted to say to him, do you know your Old Testament? Do you know your Christian history?

It seems that we live in such an unprecedented time when religion can be discussed openly, and information is available to the masses (thanks internet). What an opportunity to share with others this Gospel of Jesus Christ, and a God who’s Love does not Fail. (Special shout out to atheists/agnostics like my brother, who in their criticism of Christianity often offer excellent critiques, that are an opportunity for us to really look in the mirror at ourselves and our history and our doctrine.)