One of the things I look for in history are recurring patterns. In particular, I'm intrigued by the idea that what we call "progressivism" or "leftism" is not a recent phenomenon, but is actually a contemporary expression of an archetypal behavior which repeats over and over, at least in the West.
Formerly, I was aware of Thomas Müntzer only as a indistinct walk-on character in the drama of the Protestant Reformation. But Olasky, a former Communist himself, added to the picture when he mentioned this difference between Müntzer and Luther:
When one of the madmen, Thomas Müntzer, led a communist uprising in 1524 and 1525, Luther argued that "the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts IV. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others—of a Pilate and a Herod—should be common, but only their own goods"
A little bit of digging turned up the full set of symptoms. There's the typical emphasis on a "living, breathing" re-interpretation of whatever document stands in one's (um, excuse me, God's) way:
While early attracted to Luther, Müntzer later attacked him, rejected the formal principle of Protestant reform based on Scripture alone... [1]
Müntzer believed and taught of the "living word of God" (i.e., continued revelation and prophecy)... [2]
Like modern "liberal" Christian theologians, he was apparently fond of the charge of bibliolatry -- that is, that one's opponents are 'worshiping' the words in the bible and instead of the true God (that is, whatever pops into one's head):
When given an epistemological twist, the living Word heard in the soul could be directed against too close an identification of Word with Scripture. Behind the Lutheran emphasis on the written and preached word, Müntzer came to suspect the self-interested bibliolatry of the preacher-exegete, who hoped to replace the priest as the privileged officeholder in the church.
He also apparently preached the same kind of belief in "institutional sin" that informs people like Ron Sider and liberation theologists:
Modern scholarship has been fascinated by Müntzer's theological integration of individual and collective salvation. His engagement on the side of the commoners makes it tempting to see in him a forerunner of liberation theologies. His intuition about the interconnection between institutional structures and ideological legitimation appears provocatively modern.
We also have a desire for a classless society:
Münzer began proclaiming his vision of a purified Christianity, devoid of ecclesiastical and social hierarchies... [3]
And the usual utopian desire to bring about heaven on earth -- by any means necessary, including violence:
His increasingly radical position was made clear in his famous sermon to the princes of Saxony in 1524, in which Münzer urged the temporal rulers to lead God's chosen people against the "forces of antichrist." Forced to leave Allstedt later in the same year, Münzer joined the Peasants' Rebellion, which had broken out in June 1524.
The rebellion was the result of a complex series of social, legal, and theological disputes, and it soon swept up many peasants in what is now southwestern Germany. Demanding considerable social and religious reforms, the peasants practiced an apocalyptic Christianity and, with Münzer's influence, came to regard themselves as God's purifying army and Münzer as the "sword of Gideon." Münzer, from his base in Mühlhausen, issued broadsides proclaiming his completely radicalized theological and social views. He urged the destruction of all religious images, the sharing of property in common, and the immediate establishment of God's kingdom on earth. [4]
[I]n the winter of 1523-1524 he founded the Allstedt League, a strange conspiratorial society which was to carry out the Prague program, if necessary even with violence. Here Müntzer lost altogether his sense of reality and embarked on a road of romantic fanaticism. Luther recognized this correctly when he called Müntzer a Schwärmer (fanatic). The new church should be radical; "ungodly people" should not be allowed to exist. Soon a nearby Catholic chapel went up in flames. [5]
And of course, he and his followers believed they were an elite who would be part of the new ruling order:
It is true that at times Müntzer also taught that the true reign of Christ could come only by genuine "kenosis," that is, emptying oneself of all worldly desires and humbling oneself to the will of God. Rut then he contradicted himself by claiming (at another place) that those who were prepared by the "fear of God" were now entitled to reign and rule, for they alone knew the will of God. [6]
As usual among revolutionaries, the crime Müntzer charges others with is not positive (doing something bad) but negative (failure to do something good) -- that is, his opponents (or mere non-followers) are evil because they fail to fall in line behind whatever new idea or program is being cooked up:
In criticizing the Roman Catholic clergy who did not believe in continued revelation from heaven Müntzer stated, "These villainous and treacherous parsons are of no use to the church in even the slightest manner, for they deny the voice of the bridegroom, which is a truly certain sign that they are a pack of devils. How could they then be God's servants, bearers of his word, which they shamelessly deny with their whore's brazenness? For all true parsons must have revelations, so that they are certain of their cause."
("The voice of the bridegroom" is a reference to Christ's coming, but also a claim that rejecting Müntzer's teachings amounted to a rejection of the very voice of God.)
Unsurprisingly, Müntzer also redefined other basic Christian doctrines away from their orthodox meanings. The "second coming" was not Jesus arriving in the clouds with angels behind him, but a collective movement:
Rulers who set themselves against the second coming in its individual and collective expression forfeited divine approval...
He also turned "the cross" -- which in biblical Christianity refers to forgiveness of sins (an essential doctrine), or paying a penalty for following Jesus -- into a symbol of material suffering and social alienation:
To Müntzer the cross meant two things: outwardly human suffering through sickness, poverty, and the hostility of people; and inwardly Anfechtung, i.e., doubt, error, and unbelief.... suffering for the sake of truth, the idea of a "church under the cross" (Grebel) never occurred to Müntzer...
Objections
I imagine a common objection to the above is that since Müntzer was a Christian "fundamentalist" (meaning he resorted to violence and believed he spoke for God, and called his enemies "the antichrist"), it is unfair to categorize him as a kind of liberal or progressive.
For quite a long time, I bought into this sort of view also: but it eventually dawned on me, through actually studying such people, that they were not "fundamentalist" at all -- in the sense of sticking to the bible -- but were, in fact, quite "liberal" with their theology, as the above example amply demonstrates. Little-o orthodox Christian beliefs forbid using force or violence to advance one's religious views, and provide quite a number of safeguards against cult-like leadership -- so would-be cult leaders must teach their followers other things.
I've read a fair amount of contemporary apocalyptic literature, from fringe "Christian" movements. Contrary to the usual expectations, they often hate the US, dislike George Bush, oppose the war in Iraq, demand or predict God's kingdom here on earth, soon (envisioning they'll be in charge, of course), teach that the second coming of Jesus is actually a social/political event, and breathe fire and eternal damnation against anyone who fails to see things their way.
If they were secular, they'd be Communists or radical environmentalists.
And there are, even today, many who are called "Christian" who are also deeply leftist -- again "liberation theology" is a form of Marxism dressed up in explicit claims to be ushering in the kingdom of God. So the objection that a person who claims to be religious, or speaking for God cannot be leftist seems unsustainable. The words "prophetic" and "discernment" are quite hot among the religious left right now, both being an implicit claim to speak for God.
Finally, even in this secular era, calling one's opponents "antichrist" is hardly the exclusive domain of religious conservatives. Senator Ken Salazar, for example, recently unloaded the epithet on Dr. James Dobson, rather than vise-versa.
Here's a similar charge being promoted by "Hope for Peace and Justice" (a left-leaning "interfaith" group):
Since September 11, 2001, the Religious Right has used fear to manipulate America. It has used 19 terrorists to make us so afraid that we are willing to abandon our values and do things that are virulently anti-American and un-Christian. The sale of millions of books in the Left Behind series, which portrays the Religious Right’s apocalyptic vision, is just one example of how fear-based religion is foundational to what is going on in this country. That demon has to be named and called out if we are to be free of it. “There IS an antiChrist and it isn’t Russia or Osama bin Laden,” Rev. Piazza says. “It isn’t even George W. Bush. I believe the real anti-Christ is the way in which America, and in particular the evangelical church in America, has come to embody a vision and values that are diametrically opposite of Jesus, therefore, ‘the Real antiChrist.’”
Thomas Müntzer is gone, but the religious and political ideas he promoted continue to appear over and over again.
I've heard discernment used a fair bit. But how is it a claim to speak for God? Interesting article, but you lost me there.
In "Christianese", discernment means the process of trying to figure out what's from God and what's not. When I was going up, a frequent use of the word involved more screening out what was bad or non-biblical, such as noticing cult-like tendencies or unorthodox doctrines in fringe or cult-like groups.
But sometimes the term meant a positive action -- say, trying to pray and figure out if the church should do this or that. A proposal would be brought, and one or more counter-proposals perhaps, and people would be told to go home and pray for guidance and discernment, and then they'd come back and vote -- or use whatever formal decision-making process their denomination adhered to.
It wasn't held that the outcome necessarily represented the very voice of God, just that people had done the best they could to figure it out and use "discernment" within their decision-making, and follow biblical guidelines.
Moreover, "discernment" was done within whatever procedural context -- such as Robert's Rules of Order -- by all the participants. It also didn't imply that a special group of people would be in charge of handing down God's will from on high: formed, as they were, in reaction to Roman Catholic hierarchical problems, most the old-line Protestant had rather democratic leanings and processes.
Recently, however, I'm seeing the creation of "discernment committees" (particularly in the Episcopal church) and the use of "discernment" as being a specific kind of decision-making process (in the Presbyterian church).
In contrast to the above, having a formalized "Discernment Committee" tends to imply that a specific group is going to speak authoritatively for God, on all matters brought before them. (See the sample procedural guide here, and these guidelines for applicants.) Both from what is said about their role (applicants will serve in the role of "seeker of God’s will") about need for openness to new doctrinal ideas ("What is your taste for mystery? ... how big is your box for God?" "What is Good News for you?") and what is not said (not a single criteria for familiarity with what the bible says on any subject) one gets the sense they don't expect to be helping the church choose the right building or carpet color, but will instead be handing down new policies, processes, directions, and perhaps even theologies from a "God" who apparently should know no limits or bounds (such as, say goodness, logical truth, or consistency).
(Ironically, this is the standard secular argument about the dangers of religion -- people claiming to say pretty much anything, and claim it comes from God -- but it seems to be truest about their own esteemed fellow political travelers. No surprise, given that they've given up any kind of limits or rule book, which leaves them essentially following the crowd. Which is, of course, the point.)
Similarly troubling, examined closely, the process looks to be an end-run-around the usual, more accountable and open processes. The very use of a small group (instead of a congregation-wide hearing and vote) opens up a lot of room for non-democratic rubber-stamping, as does the screening process, where applicants could be rejected based on the agenda of the existing leadership ("one’s whole life is under review in this process").
Worse still, the less-open, more in-the-dark nature of the decision-making process ("confidentiality and discretion is essential and there should be an agreement, a covenant, that the content of the discussions are not to be shared with anyone outside the group") invites abuse. As Justice Brandeis once said, sunshine is the best disinfectant -- which is why more traditional church processes tended to operate out in the open, where all could see. But apparently, there's a new preference for making body-wide decisions "in the dark", so to speak.
The leadership of the Presbyterian church (famous lately for their invective against Israel) are also replacing their more open, more parliamentary forms of decision-making with a formal process called discernment -- which is essentially a technique called "consensus" given a more religious-sounding name.
"Consensus" sounds nice in theory (hey, who could be against consensus?), and probably works well in small groups. But in a large group, as a replacement for a more open, participatory process, it works out, in my direct experience (various corporate environments), to be, again, profoundly undemocratic.
Rather than allowing the majority to get their way, one dissenting individual (who frequently appears to care the least about negative results) is allowed to control the flow, and make demands -- and can even nullify the group entirely by preventing any decisions from being made at all -- and thus handing power to whoever sits at the top, or whoever is currently acting without the group's approval, or in contradiction to previous agreements.
This second situation isn't so much a claim to speak for God, but I'm mentioning as a recent trend involving the word "discernment", and one which has effect of negating more open and democratic processes.
Probably a lot more (and a lot more technical) than you wanted to know, but there it is.
The words "prophetic" and "discernment" are quite hot among the religious left right now, both being an implicit claim to speak for God.
I've heard discernment used a fair bit. But how is it a claim to speak for God? Interesting article, but you lost me there.
Posted by: Ryan W. on October 21, 2007 02:36 PM