The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Brief history of universlaism in the C of E

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.)

Thanks Caleb :smiley: Your thoughts are excellent and well worth a ponder. And yes I think Tom writes very well on the matter of belief in hell and how it can correlate to religious intolerance (I also hectored Tom recently – and I hope he too has forgiven me because it was only hectoring and I really have loved Tom’s books and articles– but hey ho :smiley: I’m sure he; hasn’t had to forgive me because he doesn’t know me and therefore has just forgotten my comments and me too :smiley:). It doesn’t have to. Funnily enough I’ve recently been reading an essay by an Islamic scholar who is a Muslim exclusivist and a strong believer in hell in a symposium of Islamic wide hopers and Universalists ( I find it fascinating that these debates should be taking place now amongst Muslims and think the fact should be of interest to Christian universalists – at least those who can handle it. This very erudite scholar begins his essay with the thoughts of the eighteenth century Deist philosopher and political theorist John Jacques Rousseau.

Well I need to give a bit of background here. Now Rousseau was raised a Calvinist and learnt his politics in the Canton councils of Geneva. He developed the most authoritarian notion of democracy out of his experiences in the Cantons by which the people’s council come together and deliberate on whatever issues are troubling the body politic. After deliberation they arrive at a consensus about this issue – and this consensus has absolute biding authority. The voice of the people now is the voice of God and those who dissent from the consensus must be ‘forced to be free’ – this is the social contract. So in this most illiberal idea of democracy there is no room for continuing loyal opposition and the state must make windows into souls to see that all agree with the consensus of the voice of the people. This idea inspired the Terror in the French Revolution and indirectly the terror of later Marxist regimes.

Rousseau was also what Pog would call an ‘anti hellist’ - he was appalled by the doctrine of hell and Marie Huber the female Swiss Calvinist universalist theologian had been a cousin of his grandmother. But unlike Marie he was not a Christian Universalist. He thought the idea of people believing in hell was inimical to the body politic. How could people be loyal to the general will if they thought so many of their fellow citizens were to be tormented eternally in hell. So his view was that people who believe in hell should not be tolerated in a democracy that functioned as he thought ad democracy should and as he thought was the only way of ensuring liberty and the good of the people.

The Islamic exclusivist argues rightly that Rousseau’s ideas are illiberal – as the French philosopher Albert Camus observed they resulted in slave camps under the flag of freedom and all manner of topsy turvydom. He acknowledges that strong belief in hell can also lead to intolerance and iliberalism (‘liberal’ being used here in the broad sense of love of freedom here – freedom from oppression rather than freedom to do as we wish no matter how harmful it is to our neighbours). But he says that strong belief in hell (rather than notional belief in hell) doesn’t have to result in these consequences. It can make people redouble efforts to do good to others to impress them so that these convert to the ‘true’ faith. Well fair enough – but good done to coerce others even in what seems to be the best of all possible causes - often has unintended consequences in my experience. And also the competitive purveyors of goodness to the end of rescuing as many as possible from the eternal fires may function well in a time of relative peace and social harmony; but it’s when there is a breakdown of order that strong believers in hell tend to turn tyrants if history is anything to go by.

The Anabaptists are hard to generalise abbot – because the movement was so disparate, But in the and IMHO they made a significant contribution to the emergence of tolerant pluralistic democracy during the seventeenth century – and they had scripture on their side (there is no record of people begin forced to be Christians in the Apostolic Church). The central idea behind their belief in believer baptism was that there should be no compulsion in religion. This was also central to those who fought for religious freedom in the seventeenth century - often inspired, at least indirectly, by the writings of the Anabaptist Spiritual which was in turn inspired by indirectly by Erasmus. Universalists played a big part in this struggle for freedom.

The Islamic scholar of whom I speak, towards the end of his essay, does concede that in a pluralistic democracy, belief in hell tends to be eroded gradually because democratic pluralism fosters respect across divides in politics and belief.

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?