Münster: It's relationship to Anabaptism.

[Soloist]

I think that the blatant disregard for what the Scriptures teach would prevent that.

Prevent that as in that they were too far off the deep end and would never have been able to pull anything stable together? Or that their disregard for the scriptures wouldn’t ever allow people to assess them more favorably. If it’s the second one… I have some bad news for you concerning several highly regarded historical groups.

I don’t know, the obvious taking of multiple wives, the prostitution promoted, the prophecies… I know what you mean though. It just seems like anyone truly following Jesus would have rejected it even if they had it won.

[PetrChelcicky]

Some things were rather widespread:
- apocalyptical thinking, we live in the end times. That was even the feeling of Luther.
- we can take an active part in the end times, as holy warriors.
But this was definitely more widespread in the South German "Peasants' War"
We must see that "North West Continental Europe" was more like a cul-de-sac where new ideas came belatedly.
Some curiosities of Muenster were rather soon criticised by people like Menno. Like the idea of "prophecy" or polygamy. The idea to be a Holy Warrior was somewhat more frequent and was also cultivated in Oldeklooster and with the Batenburgers. But Menno proabaly was right when he said that Oldeklooster and the Baterburgers were more a reaction to persecution experienced, not so much a revival of the Muenster heresy.

[Ernie]

Whenever people talk about the zeitgeist or religious climate of a particular era/region, and they extend "grace" to people who did not follow Jesus's teachings due to the climate of that era, I am not able to buy into that reasoning.

Anyone who had access to the New Testament has no excuse for behaving differently than what is promoted there.
and/or
Anyone who had the privilege to observe or know about true followers of Jesus has no excuse for not following the goodness they observe in these followers of Jesus.

In addition, there is the moral law that is written on the hearts of every man and woman that comes into the world.

Jesus and Paul make it clear that a person's response to all of these things will judge a person when that person stands before the Judge of all the earth.

[Ken]

Whenever people talk about the zeitgeist or religious climate of a particular era/region, and they extend "grace" to people who did not follow Jesus's teachings due to the climate of that era, I am not able to buy into that reasoning.

Anyone who had access to the New Testament has no excuse for behaving differently than what is promoted there.
and/or
Anyone who had the privilege to observe or know about true followers of Jesus has no excuse for not following the goodness they observe in these followers of Jesus.

In addition, there is the moral law that is written on the hearts of every man and woman that comes into the world.

Jesus and Paul make it clear that a person's response to all of these things will judge a person when that person stands before the Judge of all the earth.

If we are talking about Munster which happened in 1534 we would have to ask the following questions:

1. What was the literacy rate in the region? Hard to find an exact answer, but during a comparable time period in England it was estimated to be about 20% in cities and about 5% in the countryside.

2. What did literacy mean in an era when books were not widely available? It probably means that people could read and write messages on paper to each other (letters, bookkeeping ledgers, etc. This was long before modern times when children learn to read and to textual analysis at an early age. So what percentage of the population was capable of reading and interpreting long complicated Bible passages that were probably written in a more academic tone or completely different language from the common vernacular they used on a day to day basis.

3. What kind of Bibles were available, in what language were they written, and how widely available were they? Latin and German translations of the Bible were available by the 16th Century but how widely where they available to the masses? And to what extent did ordinary people read and study the Bible? In the 1530s how common would it have been for a peasant farmer to have a Bible in his house that he was capable of studying and reading?

4. Most or all of early Anabaptist leaders were educated scholars of some sort. Menno Simons was an educated priest who knew Latin and Greek. Michael Sattler was a Benedictine Monk who was similarly educated. Conrad Grable was an academic who studied for years in Vienna and Paris. So they were all educated and literate men, unlike the bulk of ordinary citizens from that time who made up the bulk of the Anabaptist movement. We have a picture of what leaders were reading and writing. How well do we know what the average peasant was reading if anything at all?

5. How did ordinary illiterate or marginally literate actually receive their religious instruction? I would guess that for the bulk of Anabaptists in the 1530s in Munster or elsewhere it was mostly from sermons and traveling preachers of various sorts. Not from their own study of the Bible. And so would obviously be susceptible to whatever biases, points of emphasis, and points of omission their leaders chose to give them.

Point being, just because Bibles were technically available in the 1530s, doesn't mean that the bulk of the population had access to them or the skills to read and interpret them. Or that reading the Bible was how they received their religious instruction.

[Pelerin]

4. Most or all of early Anabaptist leaders were educated scholars of some sort. Menno Simons was an educated priest who knew Latin and Greek. Michael Sattler was a Benedictine Monk who was similarly educated. Conrad Grable was an academic who studied for years in Vienna and Paris. So they were all educated and literate men, unlike the bulk of ordinary citizens from that time who made up the bulk of the Anabaptist movement. We have a picture of what leaders were reading and writing. How well do we know what the average peasant was reading if anything at all?

I’m not sure that there were a whole lot of Anabaptist peasants, especially at this stage of things. Peasants tend to be pretty religiously conservative (“pagans” etc.). Rather my impression is that Anabaptism at this time was made up mostly of the up and coming urban middle class. Pamphlets and tracts were one of the major ways the ideas were spread. The same would be true of Protestantism, though having the backing of the State helped make inroads to the lower classes. To the extent the Anabaptists had adherents who weren’t personally literate, they would have been the type of people with social connections to those who were—they were exposed to Anabaptist ideas somewhere. Furthermore they would have been the kind of people who were interested in religious ideas—otherwise they wouldn’t have just joined up with the most radical group. So I think it is fair to expect them to have reflected on biblical ideals to a certain extent. Maybe it isn’t fair to judge them in hindsight and we ought to consider the whole whirlwind of religious ideas in the air, but on the other hand there were others who did come to the right conclusions in that time.

Back to peasants: When did the association of Anabaptists with rural agriculture begin? Around 150 years later when Swiss Anabaptists started settling in the Palatinate? The Russian Mennonites started a little while after that. The ability to move to a new area suggests a certain amount of wealth to enable that and you’d almost have to skip a planting/harvest cycle. Maybe Neto has some input?

[Josh]

Anabaptism in the 1500s spread primarily through pamphlets, so we can safely assume most of its adherents were literate.

[Neto]

4. Most or all of early Anabaptist leaders were educated scholars of some sort. Menno Simons was an educated priest who knew Latin and Greek. Michael Sattler was a Benedictine Monk who was similarly educated. Conrad Grable was an academic who studied for years in Vienna and Paris. So they were all educated and literate men, unlike the bulk of ordinary citizens from that time who made up the bulk of the Anabaptist movement. We have a picture of what leaders were reading and writing. How well do we know what the average peasant was reading if anything at all?

I’m not sure that there were a whole lot of Anabaptist peasants, especially at this stage of things. Peasants tend to be pretty religiously conservative (“pagans” etc.). Rather my impression is that Anabaptism at this time was made up mostly of the up and coming urban middle class. Pamphlets and tracts were one of the major ways the ideas were spread. The same would be true of Protestantism, though having the backing of the State helped make inroads to the lower classes. To the extent the Anabaptists had adherents who weren’t personally literate, they would have been the type of people with social connections to those who were—they were exposed to Anabaptist ideas somewhere. Furthermore they would have been the kind of people who were interested in religious ideas—otherwise they wouldn’t have just joined up with the most radical group. So I think it is fair to expect them to have reflected on biblical ideals to a certain extent. Maybe it isn’t fair to judge them in hindsight and we ought to consider the whole whirlwind of religious ideas in the air, but on the other hand there were others who did come to the right conclusions in that time.

Back to peasants: When did the association of Anabaptists with rural agriculture begin? Around 150 years later when Swiss Anabaptists started settling in the Palatinate? The Russian Mennonites started a little while after that. The ability to move to a new area suggests a certain amount of wealth to enable that and you’d almost have to skip a planting/harvest cycle. Maybe Neto has some input?

The Dutch 'baptism-minded" who (much later) became known as "Russian Mennonites" had fled persecution in the low countries already by the mid 1600's, settling in an area of Prussia (now a part of Poland), in the Danzig area. They were welcomed there because of their expertise in draining flood plains, and built windmills and drainage systems to recover the land for farming. So I would say that the move toward an agrarian lifestyle came very early in the Dutch Mennonite groups. (Incidentally, there are still some of those windmills standing there in Poland, as well as some old farm houses that date back to that period. The Plautdietsch house style was a house, carriage house, and barn all in one building. The carriage house was in the center, between the living area and the barn. The animals were kept in the far side of the barn, with grain and other storage next to the carriage house.)

Munster does continue to be an embarrassment to Dutch Mennonites (at least to me), but if I didn't already say so, there are other diversions from the main path in both Dutch Mennonite history, and in the Swiss Brethren group as well. (We also had Claus Epp, who led a number of people away to Siberia, where Christ was to soon appear. Then there are the "Barbershop Amish" here in Ohio....)

[Ken]

Anabaptism in the 1500s spread primarily through pamphlets, so we can safely assume most of its adherents were literate.

No, it is not safe to assume that. Nor is it safe to assume that reformation pamphlets were necessarily just long passages of scripture as opposed to religious proselytizing that might or might not be accurately citing Scripture. Are we talking about a booklet that is say, the complete text of Matthew? Or a booklet that is the 16th century version of a watchtower tract?

From Gameo: https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Pamphleteering

The early Reformation pamphlets could serve as reminders that the broad public debate of the 1520s does not permit Luther studies, Anabaptist studies, urban studies, peasant studies, etc., to be neatly distinguished. The pamphlets addressed a variety of issues and presented a plethora of views. Illustrated broadsheets appealed beyond the literate to the common people, thus foreshadowing the function of the modern mass media. Colporteurs read pamphlets aloud in the marketplace while literate lay people read to friends and relatives at home. Even herdsmen on Alpine pastures were caught up in the trend. They sent for capable readers. The word had become print, reading a social event, and the study of Scripture a passionate pastime. Without pamphlets there would have been no Reformation, and this despite the fact that only about 10 percent of the people could read.

Also as for the CONTENT of reformation pamphlets? A lot of it was quite overtly political.

A broad survey of the pamphlet literature suggests that many of the original issues agitating the Anabaptists were aired by the pamphleteers prior to 1525. Not surprisingly, artisans-turned-authors brought a practical agenda to the discussion of reform. Anticlerical feelings nourished by economic, social, or moral grievances provided the leitmotif for much of the pamphlet literature. Clergy, it must be remembered, functioned as landlords and as wardens over bondsmen and collected tithes, rent, and interest while claiming immunity from the laws and duties that bound ordinary lay people. The pamphleteers denounced clerics as usurious, parasitic manipulators, alcoholics, adulterous fornicators, and hypocrites; they decried Gelehrten (the learned) as the Verkehrten (the perverted). In contrast the pamphleteers featured the commoner, whether artisan or peasant, as a devotee of the simple gospel, thereby articulating and encouraging lay people to throw off clerical tutelage. They demanded the right for the local community to appoint God-fearing pastors. Some sang the praises of lay preachers who supported themselves by the labor of their hands. Obviously such views had implications for the payment of church taxes (tithe), the taking of interest (usury) on church endowment investments, and the welfare of the poor (common chest), issues inextricably interwoven with early Anabaptist concerns. Calls for a return to the apostolic practice of community of goods (Acts 2) or mutual aid, the strong moral-ethical teaching on discipleship (Nachfolge), and the apocalyptic mood could be singled out as other pamphlet themes pertinent to Anabaptist piety. While the identification of such themes does little to explain Anabaptist beginnings or peculiarities, it does delineate the broader climate of opinion out of which the Anabaptist vision emerged.

Modern classifications of the pamphlets are largely irrelevant to Anabaptist studies. Marxists (H. Entner and W. Lenk) distinguished three groups: (1) catholic-feudal, (2) bourgeoisie-reformed and (3) peasant-plebeian. A. Laube and W. Seiffert distinguished further between a moderate orientation and a radical orientation in pamphlets relating to the "revolutionary peoples' movement" of 1525. Non-Marxist classifications seem hardly more imaginative. H. Scheible classified the pamphlets under (1) reform, (2) reformation and (3) revolution. At best, such designations help classify authors and content; but contemporary readers did not make such distinctions. The known facts about Anabaptists in Zürich and about Hans Hut's circle may illustrate the point.

So in response to Ernie, it is not at all obvious that early Anabaptists such as those who were caught up in Munster, necessarily had the ability to or resources to simply study scriptures unfiltered, and come up with their own interpretations of God's will on their own.

[Ernie]

So in response to Ernie, it is not at all obvious that early Anabaptists such as those who were caught up in Munster, necessarily had the ability to or resources to simply study scriptures unfiltered, and come up with their own interpretations of God's will on their own.

In which case God judges based on the light he puts in each person he created as well as according to any good examples of Christlikeness that such persons may know or be familiar with.

[Josh]

The idea people couldn't study the Bible in the 1500s is basically false (although this is an oft-repeated canard of Protestants, to this day, often used to justify the violent and bloody Reformation). Anyone could waltz into a nearby church and read the copy of the Bible that was there. If they were illiterate or had trouble reading it, they could ask a friar or a priest or a number of other types of people to help them read it and understand it.

Much like the present time, the Bible was available - yet just like today, many choose not to read it nor obey it.

Of course, what happened in 1525 was a few young college students who could read and had access to their library read the Bible and felt called to action to obey it.