the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ... the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
pledged to uphold and promote—but one from which his divergent beliefs left him alienated, fearful of what might happen to him if he were to voice questions about its theology and how it functioned as an institution. This is why indifference are key concepts for understanding Weigel’s writings: Gelassenheit and apophasis are both forms of indifference and both constitute Weigel’s response to confessionalization. That Weigel signed the Formula Concordiae was part of a larger pattern of attempting to keep a low profile to avoid being censured by the Lutheran ecclesiastical authorities. He did not publish his works during his lifetime (with the exception of one sermon), which is sensible considering the disputatious culture of Streitschriften of his time. Also, in his works he gives positive examples of people not taking action, which he values as a way of fulfilling a truer form of Christianity than defend-to-the-death martyrs. Luther, on the other hand, felt the need to take action, and more importantly, to defend his beliefs no matter what the cost, famously remarking that he would rather see the world reduced to chaos and nothingness than go back on what he believed to be the truth. What sets Weigel apart from Luther is not his strength of character (or lack thereof), but rather that he has a different attitude altogether towards the value of the earthly church. For Luther, the church ought to exist in some form and so ought to be the best that it could be, whereas Weigel did not believe that the church ought to exist at all, and that therefore all churches, even a thoroughly reformed one, would be equally undesirable. He thought that churches were by definition un-Christian, and as such, saw no point in taking personal risk to defend this church—or indeed, even taking personal risk to attack the church and militate in favour of secularism and abolishment of the church. For Weigel, reforming the church would be like tying a ribbon over a gangrenous wound—it may 258
improve appearances but, because it fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem, it would do nothing to cure the patient. As it happens, the decision not to publish his writings was a good instinct for somebody trying to keep a low profile and avoid causing controversy. When his writings were published after his death, they caused a great uproar, a panic about Weigelianer plotting against the Church, and a raft of anti-Weigelian Streitschriften by more establishment-minded Lutheran theologians. What so exercised Weigel’s critics was the fact that Weigel did not believe in the very idea of ecclesiastical institutions, which goes beyond simple anticlericalism or a dissatisfaction with a particular institution. Those who attacked Weigel saw clearly that his writings deprived the church of all of its functions, such that it had nothing to offer the laypeople it claimed to serve. Sermons, sacraments, theology, doctrine, interpreting the Bible: all of these Weigel said laypeople could perform, write or interpret themselves because these things were simply the created correlates of the uncreated original, which every person possesses as God’s most precious legacy to humankind, the gift of God himself. Each person, regardless of which church she belongs to, or even if she belongs to no church at all, carries within her a priest to perform sacraments, as well as a heavenly Book that is the source of all wisdom and saving knowledge. Moreover, although this precious treasure might be buried under deep layers of ignorance after the Fall, people’s faculties have not been so corroded by sin that the relationship to God is functionally severed. The uproar about Weigelianism, to put the matter another way, stems from the fact that Weigel represents a peculiar limit-case of heresy. The idea he embraces— namely that no earthly Church can possibly be truly Christian—is not accidentally 259
- Page 211 and 212: and so did not dwell on the fact th
- Page 213 and 214: Names, as the title suggests, is ba
- Page 215 and 216: animals, through plants and non-liv
- Page 217 and 218: of being.” 580 As we will see lat
- Page 219 and 220: (“God is a rock”) or even a neg
- Page 221 and 222: This is admittedly a nonsensical as
- Page 223 and 224: compositions, most likely dating to
- Page 225 and 226: Dionysius to show that, just as God
- Page 227 and 228: efer to Greek and Hebrew, the bibli
- Page 229 and 230: argues that there cannot be more th
- Page 231 and 232: dicitur una.” 616 The stress that
- Page 233 and 234: Weigel suggests will allow the soul
- Page 235 and 236: saving sacraments by means of which
- Page 237 and 238: Melanchthon’s Defence of the Augs
- Page 239 and 240: alternative—namely prayer. 643 We
- Page 241 and 242: Dionysius writes that the summit of
- Page 243 and 244: leibet er illimitatus.” 658 Weige
- Page 245 and 246: work, Weigel had written explicitly
- Page 247 and 248: Luther did not ever use the exact p
- Page 249 and 250: as opposed to an office-holder, an
- Page 251 and 252: writing. By calling his Layman der
- Page 253 and 254: Others are loyal to mere men (the P
- Page 255 and 256: zuerzeigen einen rechtschaffen vnd
- Page 257 and 258: and ceremonial ones at that. 694 Th
- Page 259 and 260: himself returning gloriously from H
- Page 261: all being. In relinquishing any cre
- Page 265 and 266: than resolve it, because the proble
- Page 267 and 268: parcels God, who by rights is supre
- Page 269 and 270: Appendix • The Works of Valentin
- Page 271 and 272: BIBLIOGRAPHY Abad, J. M. (1999). Th
- Page 273 and 274: Chenu O.P., M.-D. (1968). In M.-D.
- Page 275 and 276: Eckhart, M. (1993). Werke I (Vol. 1
- Page 277 and 278: Israel, A. (1888). M. Valentin Weig
- Page 279 and 280: MacCulloch, D. (2010). Christianity
- Page 281 and 282: Payne, R. J. (Ed.). (1981). Meister
- Page 283 and 284: Schindling, A., & Ziegler, W. (1990
- Page 285 and 286: Verkamp, B. J. (1975). The Limits u
pledged to uphold and promote—but one from which his divergent beliefs left him<br />
alien<strong>at</strong>ed, fearful <strong>of</strong> wh<strong>at</strong> might happen to him if he were to voice questions about its<br />
<strong>the</strong>ology and how it functioned as an institution. This is why indifference are key<br />
concepts for understanding Weigel’s writings: Gelassenheit and apophasis are both forms<br />
<strong>of</strong> indifference and both constitute Weigel’s response to confessionaliz<strong>at</strong>ion.<br />
Th<strong>at</strong> Weigel signed <strong>the</strong> Formula Concordiae was part <strong>of</strong> a larger p<strong>at</strong>tern <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>at</strong>tempting to keep a low pr<strong>of</strong>ile to avoid being censured by <strong>the</strong> Lu<strong>the</strong>ran ecclesiastical<br />
authorities. He did not publish his works during his lifetime (with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> one<br />
sermon), which is sensible considering <strong>the</strong> disput<strong>at</strong>ious culture <strong>of</strong> Streitschriften <strong>of</strong> his<br />
time. Also, in his works he gives positive examples <strong>of</strong> people not taking action, which he<br />
values as a way <strong>of</strong> fulfilling a truer form <strong>of</strong> Christianity than defend-to-<strong>the</strong>-de<strong>at</strong>h martyrs.<br />
Lu<strong>the</strong>r, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, felt <strong>the</strong> need to take action, and more importantly, to defend<br />
his beliefs no m<strong>at</strong>ter wh<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> cost, famously remarking th<strong>at</strong> he would ra<strong>the</strong>r see <strong>the</strong><br />
world reduced to chaos and nothingness than go back on wh<strong>at</strong> he believed to be <strong>the</strong> truth.<br />
Wh<strong>at</strong> sets Weigel apart from Lu<strong>the</strong>r is not his strength <strong>of</strong> character (or lack <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>), but<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r th<strong>at</strong> he has a different <strong>at</strong>titude altoge<strong>the</strong>r towards <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earthly church.<br />
For Lu<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> church ought to exist in some form and so ought to be <strong>the</strong> best th<strong>at</strong> it<br />
could be, whereas Weigel did not believe th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> church ought to exist <strong>at</strong> all, and th<strong>at</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>refore all churches, even a thoroughly reformed one, would be equally undesirable. He<br />
thought th<strong>at</strong> churches were by definition un-Christian, and as such, saw no point in taking<br />
personal risk to defend this church—or indeed, even taking personal risk to <strong>at</strong>tack <strong>the</strong><br />
church and milit<strong>at</strong>e in favour <strong>of</strong> secularism and abolishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> church. For Weigel,<br />
reforming <strong>the</strong> church would be like tying a ribbon over a gangrenous wound—it may<br />
258
Change language