Bonus Blog

But then my mind was struck by light that flashed
and, with this light, received what it had asked.Here force failed my high fantasy; but mydesire and will were moved already – likea wheel revolving uniformly – bythe Love that moves the sun and the other stars. (Par. XXXIII, 140-145)


I absolutely love this quote. It's the one I chose to read at colloquium, and overall, I feel as if it summarizes my thoughts towards all of the Divine Comedy. Dante, after such a long and arduous journey through the inferno and purgatorio, has finally reached the perfection he had been lacking. And not through a triumph of virtue over his will and desire, but rather, a reshaping of his will. The same God that so powerfully moves the heavens, and continues to do so, moved Dante's will and formed it to match that of his own. This is what he strove for, and is highly reflective of what every Christian has to look forward to: the culmination of our sanctification.

What is Caliban?

Caliban confuses me because I don't know whether he is a man or a creature. And, I appreciate Shakespeare doing this characterization because it reflects the characters of Greek mythology that we read all last semester. Part of the beauty and mystery of and epic is disgusting who is man verses who is creature, who is good verses who is evil. Cal causes that same dilemma in each of us. At points we sympathize and empathize with him. Yet, at other points we see elements of his character that feel barbaric and ugly to us.

Battle Language

This semester I have really enjoyed how clear all of the authors make their dislike for one another. Muntzer goes as far as to refer to Luther as, "Father Pussyfoot." First of all, what is that even supposed to mean? Secondly, he is a very bold man to use such derogatory and vulgar language when talking of a fellow theologian. There must have been some pretty heavy blows through in his direction for him to have such strong distaste for Luther. However, I do admire his honesty and sometimes wish theologians and teachers were this honest now. Although, more academic language would be a lot classier.

P.S. I commented on Collin's blog

Water. Spirit. Blood.

           Baptism is a ritual that serves as a  public confession of faith.  It is symbolic of their rebirth in Christ. Hubmaier depicts  the three distinct baptisms: water, Spirit, and blood. I found it interesting how he depicts the significance of each. And, he makes a separation between baby dedication and baptism. I truly appreciate this because it contradicts the theology that you are saved by your baby dedication.  Hubmaier also places emphasis on spiritual baptism saying that it should occur subsequent to the water baptism. 

i commented on Brydon's. 

Soapbox

The trial of the Anabaptist made me uncomfortable. It reminded me of the type of religious discussion I often observe. In this trial you have two parties and each party has a differing opinion. The Anabaptist argue their case, and their proposal is met with indignation and a refusal to compromise. The judges do not take the points they are making seriously. To them any opinion that is different than theirs is invalid. The purpose of honors is to seek the TRUTH in love and this trial is a glaring reminder of just how important this is. I hope to remember this next time someone poses a thought that I might disagree with because the consequences of stubbornness can be deadly. 

p.s. I commented of Zessin's

Love or Lack Thereof

The message behind most of these handouts was frightening. Mostly because, though they were written by nominal 'Christians,' almost nothing that they said sounded like Jesus' commandments.

Where were the exhortations to love your enemy as yourself? What did they think Jesus was doing when he ate lunch with prostitutes and tax collectors - was he just waiting for them to hit the third strike so he could publicly humiliate them and then shun them for being imperfect? What kind of church growth did these people hope to accomplish? A church where no one is comfortable with the grace of God, where the members are too scared of doing something wrong to even think about what Jesus did perfectly right?

The most unsettling part about these tracts is that I can still see their effects on the Protestant church today. Churches can get so focused on being good people, and not getting around "the wrong people," not "getting brainwashed" by entertaining different mindsets. Nothing about this is Christlike - it's all much too human.

PS I commented on Kayleigh-Marie's post

AGH

I feel like a heretic! Munster is being tried for dissing infant baptism. And then he's tortured and burned along with his family. And I agreed with his points. I feel like such a heretic. But regardless I the judges didn't handle it correctly at all in my opinion. They presented no counter arguments and Munster was coming straight from scripture.

James

My Way or the Highway

There are people like Muntzer in every religion, not just Christianity. People who see themselves as part of an elect group and everyone who is not with them is definitely against them. I understand that Christians are set apart and are God's children, but I don't see any need in persecuting people who believe differently than I do. Their salvation is between them and God and, though we are called to witness to them, we are not responsible for their decisions and are in no position to punish them for them. I personally never understood that mindset. If you kill or ostracize everyone who doesn't share your beliefs, how can you ever expect for you religion to grow and prosper. Conversions require unbelievers, after all.

P.s I commented on Brydon's post

Michael Sattler

Ok. The Trial and Martyrdom of Michael Sattler broke my heart. As I read, I found no fault with him. He had scripture to support his every claim. The theme in his defense for leaving the catholic tradition was simply that he was following the scriptures rather than the traditions of the church. He found the traditions to be contrary to what the Word instructed. And for this he was horribly murdered. Unjustly murdered in my opinion. Yet through it all he did not protest but simply stated "God's will be done" after hearing his sentence. The whole account made me cringe with disgust and indignation.

P.S. Commented on Brannen's

Did he cross a line?

    So this past weekend, I went on a mission trip to the Dakotas and Minnesota, and one of the missionaries I talked to mentioned having to adapt to where you are located. Like he has a gun and isn't all lovey dovey. He can't be or the Natives will walk all over him. I get that. My first thought when I read Thomas Muntzer's 34 was Mr. Matthew's words; however this guy crossed a line. He was not adapting to his location. What I understood from this is he is talking about the rich, and how they are at fault. Then when he mentioned burning flesh! Now perhaps he meant spiritually, but that was not the vibe I got as I read this.

P.S. I commented on Sydni's!

Baptism

           Baptism is a beautiful ritual (I use that word in the loosest terms). It is a public confession of faith, and for some is important to mark their initial spiritual renewal.
           I love how Hubmaier writes about the three baptisms: of the water, Spirit, and blood. He explains from scripture the significance of each and refutes infant baptism because the infant is not capable of making a vow to God or a confession to the public. I think that baby dedication is acceptable, because the principle is different.
           Hubmaier goes on to explain the role of the church in brotherly correction which seems to be fairly cohesive to 1 Corinthians teaching. All in all, I think this guy has his head on mostly straight.

-Mr. Collingsworth

Muntzer and Revolts

I thought it was really interesting how Muntzer used scriptural references to justify a call to arms. In referring to passages like "Thou shalt not suffer evildoers to live" and describes instances where God used his power to conquer, but the means was human swords. His call to violent revolt seems incredibly harsh in its "show no pity" approach to reform. It doesn't sit well with me in light of gospel-grace. It seems really extreme to deem those who don't revolt with him "martyrs for the devil"
But at the same time, maybe such a time called for extreme measures.

Commented on Abbey's

Legalism much?

The articles from last week and these articles make me wonder just how far across the lines of legalism these theologians lived. Ignatius Loyola's establishment of the rules on how to act in the church, although good in principle, the rules may cause nonbelievers or even believers to believe that these rules are required in order to stay a Christian. Also some of these beliefs are considered in modern day times to be slightly outrageous. Law number 8 for example, regarding the church building, states that we ought to praise the church building as well as the symbolism that it represents. This is idolatry, pure and simple.

Abbey's

Splatter Painting

I love how thoughtful the counter-reformists are concerning the things they talk about, especially around points 15-17. I feel that being careful with truth is something that we modern Christians often throw around flippantly in our worship songs and conversations and lessons. The truth is a powerful thing, and yes, ought to be shared, but with much care and attention. The concepts of grace and faith and works create a beautiful painting of the Christian life, but that image is skewed when we hastily throw the paints onto the canvas, or use all red and no yellow or blue. This attention to detail and thoughtfulness is almost a form of worship in itself, and to me that is a beautiful thing.

PS on Ashley's :)

Blog-April 13

I truly admire the reverence that the Roman Catholics had/have for the Eucharist.
I wish that Evangelicals would partake in this sacrament more often, because it is
very powerful.  In this, I admire what Ignatius and many other of the authors we
have read teach regarding this.

Michael Sattler's eighth article, in which he distinguishes the Turks and the violent
Christians is powerful.  That idea of a power-hungry, harsh, forceful group of Christians has been present in virtually the whole life of the Church.  (Did Sattler read Aquinas?  I think he would have been justified in resisting the Turks.)

*** Abbey G.

At least she has reasoning.....

My favorite part was close to the beginning when the Wife was trying to rationalize her marriage "behaviors." Her line of thought makes sense, sort of. She says God never commanded virginity, and if he did, then there would be no marriage, which would lead to no children, which would lead to no virgins. She states that God, then, accepts her way of marriage. I like her train of thought and the fact that she was able enough to come up with it, but it still does not really help condone her lusty ways. I guess this is why people think interpreting the Bible is bad.

I commented on Caleb's

The Wife of Bath

Flawed logic and false intelligence everywhere. First she claims that she doesn't know much, and I don't really believe she thinks that anyway, and then she starts quoting all sorts of scriptures and authorities.
Her story then, was also super strange. Apparently, the answer to what women want is power over men. Chaucer is satirizing the commonly held fear by men that their wives would want power over them. However, if given the choice between marrying a kind ugly person, and a hateful pretty one, I would hope I would be that smart as to choose correctly if the situation was reversed.
Commented on Matt Henson's

Thenardier

The first thing that really struck me about the beginning of the wife of baths prologue was the way she warped scripture to suit her needs. We have talked a lot about how medievals thought that any love that led to a love of God was good, but this honestly just seemed a bit messed up to me and twisted from that end goal.

Also, merely the way she described her actions and thoughts for some reason reminded me tons of Madam Thenardier from Les Mis. Not exactly sure why, but I think she really wouldn't mind singing "Master of the House" herself. Anyhow, it was all a tad garish to me. Interesting though. I do however think that it was a good critique of the one who justifies the way they want to live life by whatever means they can. It also shows that a little truth in the wrong hands can lead to a lot of confusion.

Commented on Abbie George's :)

The Joys of Marriage

The Wife of Bath terrified me. I've heard some pretty terrible things in my day about women in general, but it's interesting that the Wife of Bath says those things about herself. She uses the Bible to defend her view of marriage, but does not hold herself to a Biblical view of wifehood. Out of all the things I've heard and read of marriage and women, this was probably the worst.

*Tori Parris's blog.

The Wife

Wommen desiren to have sovereyntee
As wel over hir housbond as hir love,
And for to been in maistrie hym above.”


The old hag is intended to represent the Wife of Bath herself, or rather as she would like others to see her. Though the hag is old and aged, she is very capable of displaying all of the humor, strength, vigor, and inner beauty of her youth if the right man comes along.  This is what the Wife did with her fifth and favorite husband, the youthful Jankyn. Although the old hag becomes a beautiful young woman in response to the young knight’s well-timed response, it is unclear whether he truly had enough respect for the old woman that he allowed her to choose for herself, or whether he had simply learned how to supply her with the correct answer. So, is it better to give the answer you know will make your wife happy? Or, to tell the truth?

I commented on Ashley Harding's. 

Feminism and misinterpretations

This story makes me sad. The wife of Bath angers me so, because she exemplifies the worst of the female sex. I imagine her as the selfish house wife who has always received her hearts desire. She also takes a drastic feminism stance on just about every issue. For instance, if a man can have multiple wives then why can a woman not have more than one husband. Not to mention the fact that she takes the bible horribly out of context. She twist and manipulates the scriptures as a defense for her culturally unacceptable actions. I can't imagine how this was taken by a medieval audience given its abrasive and often brutal honesty from this feminine perspective.  

P.S. I commented on Caleb's post thingy.   

"God never really said I couldn't"

There's something wonderfully comical about trying to justify living loosely with (at least) five men with arguments like, "Well, what else are genitals for?" and "God never really said I couldn't". She argues like a five year old! She was defending herself so forcefully, it was almost like she was trying to convince herself (not everyone else) that she was right. I read everyone else's blogs first so I went into it with the express intent of liking this woman (just because I tend to be hardheaded) but I found her logic so flawed that I couldn't bring myself to get on here and defend her. All and all, an amusing read and a great example of how to abuse every logical fallacy in the book in under 30 pages.

P.s I commented on Kelli's post

The Wife's Tale

As many have already stated, the wife of everybody is ridiculous. Yet that's why I enjoyed this reading so much. I also found the tale to be extremely humorous. As the knight goes about his quest and eventually finds himself in the dilemma of having to marry this "ugly, elderly, poor" woman. His reply to her request of marriage says it all, "Take all my goods and let my body go!" The tale as a whole was enjoyable in that the conclusion was tied into the quest. Because he let the wife make the decision, all ended up being well for him. I liked the continuity of themes. Just a few comments. I liked the tale overall.

P.S. Commented on Caleb's post.

This Wife of (Everyone? Somewhere?)

The title is dedicated and reminiscent of the two blog posts preceding mine. They were quite enjoyable, you should read them. (Short and sweet too!)
I did find this Wife of 'Bath' lacking in her knowledge. Not only was her reasoning flawed (as previously mentioned by others) but her knowledge itself is quite awful. She tells the wrong story of King Midus, it was his hairdresser he told about his donkey ears not his wife, and I believe she refuses to tell the end because she herself is not sure of what it is. At first I thought maybe Chaucer had a differing version of Ovid's myths, but now I'm pretty sure he was trying to convey the lack of knowledge in Mrs. Wife.

commented on Mary Kate's.

Flawed Logic

"For then, the apostle says that I am free 
To wed, in God's name, where it pleases me" (Chaucer). 

Very interesting logic you have here Mrs. Wife of Bath, or better yet, Wife of Everyone. This hits upon a very interesting trend that is sometimes seen within the church. The Bible lays out a law for the people of Christ and then someone out there takes it and makes it applicable to whatever they want it to apply to. "Oh, the Bible says marriage is good. Okay, I'll marry everyone I think is cute." She is super annoying, and I disapprove of her decisions in life. 

P.S. I commented on Caleb's blog.   

Oh Bathy.

Alright chick. You are deaf in both ears, and still you ramble ceaselessly. You launch into this knight's tale, and then take to talking about King Midas. Really? And after Gawain and all of our discussion on being true, The Wife is such a culture shock. Unless it's on matters of romantic love, I don't think she can be taken as being a true person. Even from the opening line of her prologue, "There was a housewife come from Bath, or near," so we aren't even totally sure where she's from? Ok. That's fine. I get that. Get married first at twelve. Ok. Normal. But then she launches into her theology on marriage. 'I shouldn't have gotten married more than once because Jesus only went to one wedding.' What kind of sense does that make?? I just laugh. I cannot take her seriously.