I am currently reading Carlos Eire’s A Very Brief History of Eternity (Princeton, 2009). Eire is the author of the memoir Waiting for Snow in Havana: Confessions of a Cuban Boy, which won the National Book Award for nonfiction in 2003, and a number of works of religious history, including From Madrid to Purgatory: The Art and Craft of Dying in Sixteenth-Century Spain and War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin.
In this intellectual and cultural history of eternity, Eire addresses, among other things, how the Protestant Reformation demystified mysticism. If you are searching for invectives to use against your theological enemy, Thomas Müntzer (1488-1525) should be your guide. The excerpt below produced mischievous amusement when I read it:
Mysticism as Delusion
Needless to say, if monasticism was a waste of time and resources, so was its prime objective, contemplation of divine eternal realities. Aside from a few radicals, such as Thomas Müntzer, who joined the peasant revolts of 1524-1535, and Melchior Hoffman, whose followers took over the city of Münster in 1534, Protestants tended to reject all claims to extraordinary mystical experiences. Müntzer, in fact, held Luther in contempt for his worldliness and lack of mysticism. “All true pastors must have revelations,” Müntzer exclaimed. But very few did, indeed. Convinced that God spoke through prophets who had been tried in the mystical furnace of spiritual self-abandonment, like himself, and sure that the end of the world was at hand, Müntzer raged against them all, calling them “diarrhea-makers,” “straw doctors,” “scrotum-like doctors,” and “donkey fart doctors of theology.” He saved his worst invectives for Luther, whom he called
Doctor Liar . . . Doctor Mockery . . . Brother Soft-Life . . . the godless flesh at Wittenberg . . . Malicious black raven . . . Father pussyfoot . . . poor flatterer . . . godless one . . . over-learned scoundrel . . . arch-scoundrel . . . new pope . . . Hellhound . . . clever snake . . . sly fox . . . arch-heathen . . . arch-devil . . . crook . . . rapid, burning fox . . . ambassador of the devil . . . .
Müntzer was an exception, not because of his vitriolic crassness but because he was one of the very few Protestants who thought it possible for time and eternity to intersect, not just in an imminent apocalypse but also within the souls of the faithful. The same was true of the mystically inclined radicals who tried to establish the New Jerusalem at Münster, convinced as they were of their prophetic gifts and of the approaching end of human history. But their tradition would vanish like a puff of smoke with their defeat and executions.
The overwhelming majority of Protestants rejected the possibility of mystical intimacy with the divine in this life, even in the radical Anabaptist tradition (pp. 140-141).
March 10th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #1
Müntzer was the Jim Jones of his day.
March 10th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #2
“Müntzer raged against them all, calling them “diarrhea-makers,” “straw doctors,” “scrotum-like doctors,” and “donkey fart doctors of theology.” He saved his worst invectives for Luther”
I’ve read elsewhere that Luther was pretty good at hurling invectives too.
If they did this in Christian blogs today… both of them would be banned or have their comments deleted.
Christian Correctness uber alles!
March 10th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #3
“Your comment makes me wonder whether contemporary Christians have improved or injured their witness-bearing because of what you call “Christian correctness.”
So what are your thoughts so far?
Do you think Christian Correctness is substantively different from Political Correctness?
If so, how?
March 10th, 2010 | 5:10 pm | #4
Of course, our Lord referred to some as “whitewashed tombs” and “brood vipers” and called the Samaritan woman a dog, etc.
March 10th, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #5
Your response is facile, Mr. Benson.
The fact is our Lord and His Apostles used very harsh language, appropriately, at the right place, at the right time, for the right reasons.
The easy way out on these issues is to assume the “Precious Moments” position of saying that any kind of harsh language is sinful [obviously, it is not], or to simplistically say: “That’s the way Luther and Calvin and others spoke in the 16th century, so it is ok for us to imitate them.”
March 10th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #6
Christopher,
I wonder if there are any Evangel readers who would defend Müntzer. First Things does not seem to attract Anabaptists.
Not many Anabaptists would defend Muntzer either. Muntzer is hardly representative of the vast majority of Anabaptists.
March 10th, 2010 | 5:26 pm | #7
Christopher Benson,
Defend Muntzer on what? His name calling?
Not that I’m an anabaptist. We have made pains to clear up the idea that infant baptism is baptism at all. ;)
March 10th, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #8
Is anything substantively lost when “Political Correctness” is seen as a key/primary virtue in communication?
Analogously, is anything substantively lost when “Christian Correctness” is seen as a key/primary virtue in communication?
March 10th, 2010 | 5:45 pm | #9
Christopher Benson,
If, and please note the word “IF”, if Frank Turk or Rev. Paul McCain referred to Brian McClaren as a “Donkey Fart Doctor of Theology”, would you (please be honest) be more upset at:
(A) Brian McClaren for his heretically false teaching,
or
(B) Frank Turk/Rev. McCain because they used the vitriolic invective “Donkey Fart Doctor of Theology” which you think violates Christian Correctness because you think it injures witness bearing?
March 10th, 2010 | 5:51 pm | #10
Christopher Benson,
Let me answer your question with a question:
Do you think contemporary Christians have improved or injured their witness-bearing because substance and content was lost or masked or highly de-emphasized because of great concern for “Christian Correctness”?
March 10th, 2010 | 5:51 pm | #11
I have not bothered to read Brian McLaren, thus I must reserve the right to refer to him as a “donkey-fart theologian.”
Would it “injure witness bearing” — I have no idea. It may well help it.
March 10th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #12
Christopher Benson,
Do you think Satan can use “Christian Correctness” for his ends?
March 10th, 2010 | 5:54 pm | #13
Being “Polite” is the highest virtue in many Christian circles, and being “impolite” the greatest vice.
I’ve seen Christians cheer on rank heresy, apostasy and condone sodomites as clergy and killing unborn children, but frown and get upset about people being “impolite.”
Now if that is not a steaming pile of σκύβαλον, I sure don’t know what is.
March 10th, 2010 | 6:10 pm | #14
Rev. McCain, your last comment made me a fan. It was almost Turk-like.
I mean that as a compliment, from one donkey-fart theologian to another. :)
March 10th, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #15
Mr. Benson:
Witness to whom.
Witness about what?
Why do you insist on these kinds of dead-end conversations?
March 10th, 2010 | 8:07 pm | #16
Mr. Benson, I know it is uncomfortable for you, but the reality is that the comment Paul makes in Eph. 4 must be read in light of his remarks elsewhere about skubalon. How do you reconcile that?
Don’t mistake American Evangelical pietism with the Bible. That would be a big mistake.
March 10th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #17
Rev. McCain: “Being “Polite” is the highest virtue in many Christian circles, and being “impolite” the greatest vice.
I’ve seen Christians cheer on rank heresy, apostasy and condone sodomites as clergy and killing unborn children, but frown and get upset about people being “impolite.”
Now if that is not a steaming pile of σκύβαλον, I sure don’t know what is.”
It’s a steaming pile.
This “politeness” you refer to is Christian Correctness in action.
And I do know that in some “Christian” circles, referring to homosexuals as “sodomites” is a distinct and clear violation of Christian Correctness, i.e., a clear violation of what is considered polite and proper Christian speech codes.
Rev. Paul, refrain from use of the word “sodomite”. It’s considered offensive by many folks who adhere to Christian Correctness. They would regard your continued usage of the word “sodomite” as injuring your witness.
Tsk, tsk.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:30 pm | #18
Christopher,
This much, as you said, shouldn’t be controversial:
And generally, I would rather err on the side of Scot McKnight’s treatment of McLaren than on the side of spewing insults wrongly. On the other hand, there’s also room for thinking that McKnight left on the kid gloves too long.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:25 pm | #19
The posts here have gone way far afield from the original blog, but I have serious doubts about the majority of Protestants rejecting medieval mystical traditions and the notion of union. First, It is difficult to account for the emergence of pietist streams in Puritanism and Lutheranism in the 1600s without some confluence. And this does not even get at “left-wing Puritanism” out of which the Quakers came with their priority on the interior light within and thus new emphasis on revelation.
Second, there has been a fair amount of research on the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux on both John Calvin and Martin Luther. Bernard is certainly seen as a medieval mystic who is concerned about union. And, the New-Finnish interpretation of Luther, if it is anywhere close to correct, suggests that Luther was concerned with union (the Christ who is present in faith).
I can only guess that a fairly narrow understanding of mysticism is being employed here.
March 11th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #20
Mr. Benson: I cannot really directly engage Carlos Eire because I have not read him so my confidence in any “critique” of his book is quite small.
I was simply reacting to what appeared to be an overstatement. I see now that the claim is much smaller than I first thought. I would only nuance such a claim about rejecting extraordinary mystical experiences and say that Protestant theologians, especially the Reformed, did a good job incorporating such experiences into their understanding of conversion. Thus, if you read Zwingli’s sermon, “Clarity and Certainty of the Word,” the moment of conversion is such an overpowering revelatory event that one is caught up in it both to see clearly and confidently. This is an important idea in the mystical tradition. Reformed theologians just turned it into the moment of faith as an encounter. Barth really capitalized on this dimension of Reformed theology.
March 18th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #21
Phew, I only wish I had the capacity to be that creative with my insults!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact