CHURCH: History and Today April 7
CHURCH: History and Today • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 9 viewsNotes
Transcript
Handout
Anabaptism Gone Wrong: When Radical Goes Too Radical
Anabaptism Gone Wrong: When Radical Goes Too Radical
Intro
Intro
Welcome back everyone! It’s good to be back after such a long break! I trust and hope that you had a relaxing spring break, however that looks for each of you. As good as the break was, I am excited to get back into our class and keep looking at what the church throughout its history can teach us about God and our faith.
Last class we finished up our discussion on the differences and similarities between the various church streams. We took a look at a few of the big topics, and before that we had just touched on the beginnings of the Anabaptist movement. While there was a lot of opposition to the Anabaptists, the fact is that it kept growing. And because of the way Anabaptism was structured, there wasn’t a central figurehead at the top of the Anabaptist ladder, so to speak. Rather, there were some general principles that they (mostly) all held to; beyond that there were different leaders with different ideas in the various parts of Europe. Today we want to take a look at a few parts of this movement that ended up failing and doing serious damage, not only to the Radical Reformation, but to the church in general as well.
Based on what we know so far about Anabaptism and the Radical Reformation, what are some ways that things could go wrong? How might people take some of these ideas and push them to the extreme?
One more note. What we are going to study today is categorized under the Radical Reformation, and some of these people are linked directly to the Anabaptist movement. That being said, most of the major reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, had to deal with radicals before the Anabaptist movement officially started. So while some of these people aren’t directly linked to Anabaptism, I include them here because the revolutionary radicals were often connected and fed off of each other at times. This is also an example of history showing us what NOT to do!
Thomas Muntzer
Thomas Muntzer
Thomas Muntzer is a very controversial figure and an early radical leader in the Reformation. Muntzer was a German preacher and radical teacher who started with ideas in line with the Reformation under Luther but eventually began apocalyptic teachings.
Born in the late 1400’s in Stolberg, Germany, little is known about Muntzer’s early life. In 1512 he attended the University of Franfurt and got his Master of Arts and Bachelor of Theology degrees. He became proficient in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and was an accomplished scholar. Several years later, he became attracted to the teachings and ideas of a certain German priest and teacher named Martin Luther. At first he was considered a ‘Martinian,’ but eventually this changed.
Muntzer was heavily influenced by mysticism, and blended these ideas with his own version of Lutheran and Islamic teachings, which turned him into an apocalyptic fire-and-brimstone would-be prophet. He believed that God spoke the ‘inner word’ directly to his heart, which was much more important then the ‘outer word;’ the Bible.
On a Side Note
On a Side Note
We should take careful note of something that seemed to heavily influence Muntzer throughout his life. While all of these things were going on, Muntzer was caught up in social tensions between the upper classes in Europe and the common people. He saw lots of difficulties between the two groups and believed that not only did Europe need religious change, but economic and political change as well. “He sided with the common people, who seemed to him to be the executors of the divine law and will on earth...The revolutionary aspect of Müntzer’s theology lay in the link he made between his concept of the inevitable conquest of the anti-Christian earthly government and the thesis that the common people themselves, as the instruments of God, would have to execute this change. He believed that the common people, because of their lack of property and their unspoiled ignorance, were God’s elect and would disclose his will. Indeed, he came to believe that, as God’s elect, peasants would lead the struggle against the enemies of the Holy Spirit in the last days.” (Britannica Encyclopedia - Thomas Muntzer)
Here I’ll read an excerpt from Reeve’s book that describes Muntzer.
Muntzer was killed in 1525, just several months after the first adult baptism in Switzerland.
How do you think Muntzer got such apocalyptic ideas? How did his views change so much if he started following Luther’s teachings?
What are some red flags you found in Muntzer’s teachings? What can/should we do differently?
The Long Road to Munster
The Long Road to Munster
Now we turn to a man name Melchior Hoffman. Hoffman was a furrier (someone who works with furs) who followed first Martin Luther, then Ulrich Zwingli, and then became an Anabaptist. He became involved in religious disturbances in several European cities, so much so that he was forced to leave or left because of resistance many times! Finally, he made his way to the city of Strasbourg. Believing himself to be a prophet of God and the bearer of end-time news, he proclaimed that the Day of the Lord was coming and that Strasbourg was the ‘New Jerusalem.’ Thousands of people made their way to Strasbourg, and Hoffman told them that he would be imprisoned for six months, and then the end would be upon them. While he never suggested using force to ‘help along’ the Day of the Lord, he was enough of a social threat that the city took action and put him in prison. This fulfilled the first half of his prophecy, so even MORE people flocked to the city. However, the city government took repressive measures, apparently enough that they cancelled the Lord’s coming! Either way, Hoffman was still in jail after the six months, and remained there until his death a decade later.
This didn’t stop other people from learning from his ideas and running with them. Here’s an excerpt from Gonzalez’ book about this whole ordeal.
“Then someone suggested that the New Jerusalem would not be established in Strasbourg but rather in Munster. In that city, the existing balance of power between Catholics and Protestants had forced a measure of tolerance, and therefore Anabaptists were not persecuted. The visionaries went there, as did many others whom intolerable oppression had led to despair. The Kingdom would come soon. It would come in Munster. And then the poor would receive the earth as their inheritance.
Soon the number of Anabaptists in Munster was such that they took over the city. Their leaders were John Matthys, a Dutch baker, and his main disciple, John of Leiden. Abandoning the Anabaptist principle of religious tolerance, one of their first acts was to expel the Catholics from the city. The bishop, forced to leave his see, gathered an army and laid siege to the New Jerusalem. Meanwhile, inside the city, there was a growing insistence that everything must conform to the Bible. Moderate Protestants were also expelled. Sculptures, paintings, and all sorts of items connected with traditional belief and worship were destroyed. Outside the city, the bishop killed every Anabaptist who fell into his hands. The defenders, seeing their situation worsen daily as food became increasingly scarce, became more emotional. There were daily claims of visions and revelations. In a military sortie against the bishop, John Matthys was killed, and John of Leiden became the leader of the besieged city. As a result of the prolonged war, and of the constant exodus of males, there were now many more women than men. As a remedy, John of Leiden decreed the practice of polygamy, following the example of the patriarchs of the Old Testament.”
Now I’ll pause here and just let us think about this for a moment. Isn’t it crazy how incredibly bizarre this is! I mean, it’s absolutely mind-boggling that stuff like this even happened! What would happen if someone took over Winkler and proclaimed it to be the ‘New Jerusalem’?
How did John Matthys and John of Leiden get to these ideas? They claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. What is the test if something is of the Spirit or not?
Any other comments or questions?
Here’s the rest of the quote. “Although the besieged suffered increasing deprivation, the bishop lacked the funds to keep an army in the field. John of Leiden then led his followers in what seemed a successful sortie, and they in response proclaimed him king of the New Jerusalem. But shortly after these events some of the inhabitants of the city, tired of the excesses of the visionaries, opened the gates to the bishop. The king of Jerusalem was captured and exhibited throughout the area, jointly with his two principle lieutenants. Then they were tortured and executed. Thus ended the primary outburst of revolutionary Anabaptism. Melchior Hoffman, forgotten by most, continued to serve his sentence in prison, very likely until his death. For generations, in the Church of St. Lambert in Munster, visitors could see the three cages in which the king of the New Jerusalem and his two aides had been exhibited.”
What do we think of the church’s torturing and execution of John of Leiden? How would we respond today to something like this?
What About the Others?
What About the Others?
These represent some of the most radical and apocalyptic Anabaptists and Radicals of the time. We should note though that not all Anabaptists jumped on this bandwagon. There were many who still held to their nonviolent views and held to them through all of this, and did their best to disassociate themselves from the Munster nightmare. While they may have differed greatly in their life and teachings, for most of Europe this was not enough. Muntzer and Munster cast a long shadow over the Radical Reformation, and because of these other Anabaptists faced even more persecution. Most of Europe didn’t differentiate between the extremists and the Anabaptists, they were all bad news (there were some exceptions to this rule though). Here I will read one more quote from Reeves.
What makes a movement extreme? How do we know if something new is good or bad, something to be kept or something to reject?
Are there any final comments or questions?
I would like to end with a passage of Scripture, .
But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”