Saving Denck

For the benefit of those who attended the conference but are not entirely familiar with the body of scholarship on the subject, I have attempted to provide the literature to which the speaker has referred in order to direct the reader to otherwise unrecognized work.

“Saving Denck” - Rolf Schowalter, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

            This is a presentation that I had anticipated because of my own interest in Hans Denck as a figure in which few traditions can find comfort. Both historical Anabaptists and contemporary Baptists disparaged Denck’s doctrine of Scripture, which Denck taught was subservient to and not identified with the Word of God, and his teaching of universalism. That Denck taught the latter doctrine has been challenged in the second half of the twentieth century, but these challenges are as of yet cursory and unconvincing.[1] However, I believe it is possible that Denck did not teach universalism but rather annihilationism or even the possibility of post-mortem conversion. In neither case could it be said that his doctrine of hell was orthodox. Nonetheless, I was mistaken in my assumption that Schowalter would be trying to “save” Denck from the accusation of teaching doctrines that had endeared him to nineteenth- and twentieth-century liberal theologians. Rather, the plight from which Denck needed deliverance turns out to have been the lack of clarity of the origins of Denck’s thought.

Schowalter began his presentation with an overview of the biography of Denck and a perfunctory reminder to value primary sources over secondary literature. Neither of these needs recounting here. The argument of the presentation began detailing the historical debate over the placement of Denck within the broader Radical Reformation movement. In the early stages of modern Anabaptist scholarship, theologians such as Harold Stauffer Bender viewed Anabaptism as legitimate heirs of the Reformation but were unwilling to admit Denck into the Anabaptist camp, primarily because of the teachings mentioned above. They viewed Denck more as a member of the Spiritualist movement. Jan J. Kiwiet, however, assigned Denck a more normative status, stating that Denck was neither a mystic nor a liberal but rather truly a partner with the Anabaptists.

This is contrasted by the scholarship of scholars like James Mentzer Stayer, Werner O. Packull, Klaus Deppermann and Hans-Jürgen Goetz. The first three of these, Schowalter claimed, attributed the source of Denck’s thought to Thomas Müntzer.[2] Packull in particular ascribed to Denck the theological tradition of late medieval mysticism[3] In doing so, this set of scholars reaffirmed the conclusion of Karl Holl from before the revival of Anabaptist scholarship, which was that the entire Radical Reformation was derived from the branch of Müntzer and Andreas Karlstadt.[4] Unfortunately, Schowalter’s presentation of this material on this point is at best confused.[5] Inaccuracies aside, Packull’s determination that late medieval mysticism was the wellspring of Denck’s thought remains–a determination that Schowalter reported had not yet been challenged. Such a challenge is Schowalter’s current project.

His method was to test the characteristics of Denck’s theology against the characteristics of self-professed mystics of the medieval tradition. Indicative of this tradition would be Bonaventure, Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch.[6] Schowalter outlined ten characteristics of Bonaventure and six between Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch. At this point the presentation was mostly cursory since it is, I believe, a preview of his dissertation work, which would of course deal with the matter more in depth. As such, a complete interaction is beyond what can be undertaken at present, but there are some serious questions that Schowalter will have to answer in order to present a convincing case. Is it appropriate to use Bonaventure, a French/Italian mystic, as a representative of the strain of mysticism with which Denck would have been familiar? Schowalter is quite bold in taking on the dissimilarity of Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch to Denck since these are the primary markers that Packull had chosen as indicative of medieval mysticism. Schowalter’s analysis will have to be immaculate and I look forward to reading this if indeed it is his dissertation. Also, how possible is it to deny that the Theologia Deutsch was formative for Denck if Denck is the author of the appendix to one of its editions?[7] Even if Denck were aligned with the mysticism of the Theologia Deutsch, does this fact discount Schowalter’s direction toward grounding Denck in the Reformation rather mysticism since Luther himself had early on drawn inspiration from that work? Would Denck thus be merely retaining a facet of the Reformation’s inception that Luther had later abandoned?

Schowalter finished this portion by approvingly quoting Kenneth Davis to say that Denck could be in no way considered a spiritualist or heir of mysticism.[8] Again, Schowalter, at least as this presentation conveyed, may not have captured the complete nuance of the cited work. One reason for this is that Davis’ discussion of the intellectual origins of Anabaptism predates Packull’s; so, Davis would not have had the full weight of Packull’s contention in mind when denying what Packull would later conclude–that Denck drank heavily from the well of medieval mysticism. More importantly is that Davis’ rejection of Spiritualism or mysticism as progenitors of Denck’s thought was not made in a vacuum but rather was a part of Davis’ own project of nominating yet another predecessor to the role of intellectual catalyst for Denck and indeed for the whole Anabaptist movement–asceticism.

Schowalter concluded by turning to identifying a possible interpretive key to Denck’s thought, namely “Conversational Theology,” a concept derived a believers’ church account of doctrinal development that drew from the theological formulation of the later Anabaptist, Pilgram Marpeck.[9] This conversational theology was described of being composed of four dimensions: conversation and judgment within the local church, conversation and recommendation within one’s own tradition, conversation and proselytism with those outside, and conversation as adoration. Schowalter, in the brief time afforded him, could only give short evidences in defense of each Denck’s conformity to each of the for points. This brevity unfortunately gave the impression of proof-texting and the chosen text did seem a bit forced into the mold of the dimension they putatively supported. In addition to the danger of anachronism in applying conversational theology to Denck, it also seems unhelpful to use the schematic to help identify the tradition to which Denck belongs. The second dimension describes conversation with one’s tradition, but the identity of Denck’s tradition is exactly what is in question.

            Schowalter has brought up an array of interesting and challenging ideas concerning Denck’s theological inheritance. However, much work needs to be done beyond what was presented today. I’ll keep an eye out on ProQuest for his dissertation when he is done and I’ll try to remember to post an update to whether he in that fuller forum made a more convincing case. As thus far presented today, however, it has not yet met my satisfaction.

---

[1]Alvin J. Beachy, The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica vol. 17 (Nieuw-koop, Netherlands: B. de Graaf, 1976), 17, 48.; Jan J. Kiwiet, “The Life of Hans Denck,” MQR 31 (1957): 242-243.; William Klassen, “Was Hans Denck a Universalist?” MQR 39 (1965): 152-154.; Morwennaa Ludlow “Why Was Hans Denck Thought to Be a Universalist?” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55, no. 2 (Apr. 2004): 257-274. This last article, though longer, does little more than repeat the earlier arguments to greater length.

[2]“From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins,” MQR 49, no. 2 (Apr. 1975): 83-121. Schowalter’s citation of this, as will be shown, was mistaken.

[3]Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 19 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977) ch. 2.

[4]“Luther und die Schwärmer,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I: Luther (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932), 420-467.

[5]The polygenesis thesis was actually directed against Holl’s conclusion; not in agreement with. Holl had indeed claimed that Anabaptism of both the South German and Swiss varieties had their foundation in Müntzer but the polygenesis thesis argued specifically against one origin for both movement and that both varieties, and additionally the Dutch variety, had unique, distinct origins. To give Schowalter the benefit of a doubt, he may have meant to convey instead that the polygenesis thesis agreed with Holl insofar as South German Anabaptism was derived from Müntzer. If this was Schowalter’s intent, then it still demonstrates a muddled understanding of the monogenesis/polygenesis debate since the origin of South German Anabaptist in Müntzer was not Holl’s conclusion but rather only the starting assumption to conclude that Swiss Anabaptism also had been derived from Müntzer as opposed to Holl’s foil Ernst Troeltsch, who had argued (Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912.]) that both movements were based on the Swiss variety.

[6]Reprints of this wok abound, but the copy in my library is Susanna Winkworth, transl., The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther (Mineola, New York: Dover, 2004).

[7]Some Propositions, in The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts, trans. and ed. Clarence Baumann, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, no. 47 (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1991), 260-267.; „Etliche Hauptreden“, Anhang zur „Theologia Deutsch“ 1528, in Hans Denck Schriften: 2. Teil - Religiöse Schriften, ed. Walter Fellmann, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer Vol. 6.2 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1956), 111-113. According to Baumann, the authorship of this appendix is not entirely certain and it may be useful to Schowalter’s claims if he can show this to not be genuinely a work of Denck.

[8]Most likely, Schowalter was referencing Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 16 (Kitchener, Ontario: Herald, 1974).

[9]Malcom B. Yarnell, III, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville, Tennessee: Boadman & Holman, 2007).