Erik Peterson's Apocalyptic and Public Witness against Christian Embourgoisement1-4pt

13 Pages·2017·0.24 MB·English

by  Patrick Ryan Cooper

religions
Article
Poor, Wayfaring Stranger: Erik Peterson’s Apocalyptic
and Public Witness against Christian
1
Embourgoisement
PatrickRyanCooper
SaintMeinradSeminary&SchoolofTheology,200HillDrive,StMeinrad,IN47577,USA;
[email protected]
AcademicEditor:JustinSands
Received:3February2017;Accepted:20March2017;Published:23March2017
Abstract: With the present collection of essays reflecting upon the complex convergences and
divergencesbetweenEschatologyandgenuinetranscendence,thereisperhapsnogreatermodern
Catholicfiguretorecallthanthatofthegreat,GermanCatholicconvertErikPeterson(1890–1960).
AsanimmediateforerunnertotwentiethcenturyCatholicressourcement,eschatology,forPeterson,
notonlyfactorsasthecentralarcwithinhisdiversecorpusofwritings, yethehimselfisequally
creditedforhavingcoinedthephrase,‘theeschatologicalproviso’indescribingthecomingofthe
Kingdomasboth‘already’and‘notyet’. Fundamentally,Peterson’sprovisopresentsahistoricalview
ofthesufferingChurchasnecessarilybeyondpoliticalconfinementandideologicalcapture. Asa
pilgrimcommunityin-betweenthe“earthlyJerusalem,whichisatoncepolisandtemple”andits
“everdrawingclosertotheeschatological,heavenlytempleanditsown... polis”,Petersonbears
witnesstothisonticdifferenceinhiswritingsbyframingtheChurch’sdistinctlypublicact,theliturgy,
asthesiteofatransversalcommericum. Thatis,anangelicparticipationwithintheearthlycultas
wellasher“participationintheworshipthattheangelsoffertoGod.”Inthisfollowingcontribution,
Iwillexaminethiseschatologicalprovisionastheprimarygoverningopticbyfirstcontextualizing
Peterson’s critical reception of historicism and its methodological atheism (Troeltsch, Harnack)
withinGermanliberalProtestantismandtheReligionsgeschictlicheschuleasthenecessaryprecursor
to his conversion. Secondly, I will build upon these critiques in view of Peterson’s concise and
influential1950essay,“KierkegaardundderProtestanismus”thattheologicallyfocusesspecifically
uponhisattackagainstBarthiandialecticanditsinabilityinapproachingtheveryconcretissimum
ofrevelationanditsecclesialextensionofdogmaasnoneotherthanthe“concretecontinuationof
Christ’sassumptionofabody”. Lastly,inviewofgenuinetranscendence,theambivalentinfluence
ofKierkegaardwillbemorepositivelyassessedintermsofPeterson’slongheldattackuponthe
bourgeois character of much of modern Christianity. As an immediate parallel to the critique of
secular,historicalimmanentism,focuswillcenteruponthemartyrologicalwitnessofthepoorasaptly
encapsulatingPeterson’stheopoliticalvision.Herein,theinvisiblepoorfunctionasan“eschatological
symbol”thatlaysattheporousthresholdofgenuinetranscendence(Lk. 16,19–31)whereinChrist
recognizesthedepthsofhisverydivinepersonandinwhomthepoorareintegrallyinseparable
throughtheirwitness.
Keywords: ErikPeterson;apocalyptic;eschatology;martyrology;Kierkegaard;theo-politics;poverty
1. Peterson’sApocalyptic: FutureandPresent
Withthepresentcollectionofessaysreflectinguponthecomplexconvergencesanddivergences
betweeneschatologyandtranscendence,thereisperhapsnogreatermodernCatholicfiguretorecall
1 Inthefollowingessay,alltranslationsofPeterson’sworksaremine,unlessstatedotherwise.
Religions2017,8,45;doi:10.3390/rel8040045 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions2017,8,45 2of13
fromunwarrantedobscuritythanthatofthegreat,GermanCatholicconvert,ErikPeterson(1890–1960).
AsanimmediateprecursortotwentiethcenturyCatholicRessourcement,thecomplexityofPeterson’s
writingsandinterestsareexceptionallydiverse,yetneverbecomeoverlyspecializedanddisparate
andinsteadevinceanabidingattentiontothe“wholeoftheology”.2 Thiswouldincludehisprimary
formation as a notable Church historian formed in Göttingen ([1], p. 20)3, focusing especially on
earlyandNear-EastChristianantiquity[2]. Peterson,however,wouldultimatelygrowtobeatodds
withitsfamousReligionsgeschichtlicheSchuleandtheneutralityofits“methodologicalagnosticism”
initscomparativeresearchofhistoricalreligions,whichintheendwouldproveformative. Equally
formative,themysticalbentofPeterson’sGermanPietismfromhisstudentyearswouldcarryover,
andmorespecifically,hisuntiring,albeitcriticalfondnessforKierkegaard(whichweshallexplore
lateron)asultimatelylayingthegroundworkinimmediatelypredatinghisconversion.
Today,withinEnglishlanguagescholarship—whichhasgreatlybenefittedfromthescholarship
andtranslationsofferedbyMichaelHollerich—Petersonisperhapsbestknownforhispoliticaltheology
anddivergenceswithCarlSchmitt,asseeninMonotheismasaPoliticalProblem(1935)([3],pp.68–105).
Nevertheless, his dogmatic, fundamental and liturgio-mystical theological writings all deserve
equal attention, as found in compilations such as Theological Tractates (1951/ET 2011) [3] and
Marginalien zur Theologie (1956) [4]. These collections exhibit a wide-ranging fluency in subject
matters that include: his defense of Kierkegaard and attack upon Barthian dialectic in the early
polemical“WhatisTheology”(1925)([3],pp.1–14);exploringthesecularizingofthemainProtestant
principles in Heidegger from which Kierkegaard’s pietism ultimately occludes in later essays
such as “Kierkegaard und der Protestantismus” (1947) ([4], pp. 56–62) and “Existentialismus und
Protestantische Theologie” (1947) ([4], pp. 52–55); his published Correspondences with Adolf
von Harnack (1932) ([3], pp. 15–29) that eloquently demonstrate the “Catholic principle” of the
hermeneutics of Tradition; his unique approach to the grace/nature question in “Theology of
Dress”(1934/1946)([4],pp.10–20;[5],pp.558–68);tothatofhisliturgicalandtheo-politicalmysticism
evincedinhisexquisiteangelology,“TheBookontheAngels”(1935)([3],pp. 106–42). Ofthislatter
text,itmustbesaid,thatperhapsalongsidethesophianicmetaxologyofBulgakov’sJacobLadder[6],
thattogether,thesetwotextsconstitutethemostinnovativeandconstructiveretrievalsofthislargely
eclipseddiscoursewithinthepastcentury.
Despite, however, such wide diversity of scholarship, it is undoubtedly Peterson’s apocalyptic
eschatology—perhapsbestattestedtoinhisprophetic“WitnesstotheTruth”(1937)([3],pp.151–82)—which
evidencesapocalypticasnoneotherthanthecentralarcwithinhisdiversecorpusofwritings.4 The
convergenceofeschatologyandtranscendenceishereinconsistentlyframedinPeterson’sApocalyptik
asaparticularformofeschatology,whichoverallentailsbothimmanentandtranscendentdimensions,
as well as public and personal resonance in its unflinching, yet hopeful anticipation towards the
climaticendofhistoryandthesecondcomingoftheChrist.5 Apocalypticeschatology,letusbeclear,
2 Cf. PopeBenedictXVI,“AddressofHisHolinessBenedictXVItoParticipantsintheInternationalSymposiumonErik
Peterson”(25October2010):“IdiscoveredthefigureofErikPetersonforthefirsttimein1951... Ireadthebook[Theological
Traktates]withincreasingcuriosityandletmyselfbetrulyimpassionedbyitbecauseinitIfoundthetheologyIwasseeking:
itisatheologythatusesalltheseriousnessofhistorytounderstandandstudytexts,itanalyzesthemwiththefullgravity
ofhistoricalresearchanddoesnotrelegatethemtothepast.”Benedictlatergoeson,“ThusIlearnedfromhim,inamost
essentialandprofoundway,whattheologyreallyis.AndIevenfeltadmiration,becauseherehedoesnotonlysaywhathe
thinks,butthisbookisanexpressionoraquestthatwasthepassionofhislife.”
3 Also,tobenotedisPeterson’sassociationswithGo¯ttingen’smovementofRealistphenomenologyanditsresponseto
Husserl’sfamous,“ZudenSachenselbst!”Cf.([1],p.20)
4 Peterson’sofficialbiographerandhistorianofideas,BarbaraNichtweiß,convenedaninternationalsymposiumonthis
precisequestionin2001thatresultedinthepublication,[1].VomEndederZeit:GeschichtstheologieundEschatologiebeiErik
Peterson.Seealso[7].
5 Inthisregard,aconversantcontrasttoPeterson’sapocalypticcanbefoundinReneGirard’s“OnWarandApocalypse”,[8].
Herein,Girard’sapproachisdistinguishedfromPetersonbyagreaterimmanentizationofapocalypticurgencyashe
contendsthat“Christianityistheonlyreligionthathasforeseenitsownfailure.Thisprescienceisknownastheapocalypse.”
Withprovocativeinsightandfinesse,Girardsubstantiateshisappealforgreaterimminenturgencyinhisreadingofthe
famousPrussianmilitaryanalyst,CarlvonClausewitzandhistreatiseOnWar,aspossessinggreaterrangethanmere
Religions2017,8,45 3of13
doesnotentailafancifulflightfromhistory. Rather,itseriouslyandintegrallyapproachestheChurch’s
faith and revelation’s concrete and intrinsically historical character by approaching transcendent
ultimacy through analogical and symbolic discourse. Generally, apocalyptic eschatology engages
with the eternal and history’s dramatic terminus in part to meaningfully discern the spirit of the
timesandone‘sownsituatednesswithinsuchhistoricalunfolding.6 Morespecifically,Peterson’sown
apocalypticcombinesclearpropheticstrands,alongwithaclearsenseofeaseandfacilityofthought
that at times penetrates the visionary and symbolic in a manner that is altogether ““public”” and
distinctlynon-idiosyncratic,inkeepingwiththebestofthePatristictradition. Thesedefinitivefeatures
areinturnaccentuatedbytheverydecisivenessofthemartyr,whowitnessestothewholeoftheology
itself,asthe“concreteactualizationofthefactthattheLogosofGodhasspokenconcretelyofGod,so
thatthereisthusconcreterevelation,concretefaith,concreteobedience.”([3],p.11)
Commentingupontheimportant,yetnuanceddifferencesbetweeneschatologyandapocalyptic,
BernardMcGinn—oneofthepre-eminentscholarsofthehistoryofChristianmysticism—wasand
remainstothisdayanequallynotablehistorianof(late)medievalapocalypticthought(whichmust
be said, bares significant overlap with the mystical theological tradition in many respects). In his
earlyanthology,VisionsoftheEnd: ApocalypticTraditionsintheMiddleAges,McGinnhelpsclarifythis
nuanced,yetintegraldistinctionbetweeneschatologyandapocalypticandtheissuessurrounding
immanenceandtranscendence,presentandfutureapocalypticthatareattheheartoftheseliterary
andtheologicaldiscourses:
AmoreseriousconfusionhasbeencausedbythefactthathistoriansofChristianthought
have sometimes used eschatology and apocalyptism as interchangeable terms. This is
misleading. Every Christian view of history is in some sense eschatological insofar as
it sees history as a teleological process and believes that Scripture reveals truths about
its End. But it is possible to be orthodox and deeply eschatological and yet distinctly
anti-apocalyptic, as the case of Augustine shows. It is true that the apocalyptic author
frequentlydiffersfromthemerelyeschatologicalonemoreindegreethaninkind, and
itisnotalwayseasytosaywhenaparticularwriterortextisoneortheother. Butthere
isstillanimportantdifferencebetweenageneralconsciousnessoflivinginthelastage
ofhistoryandaconvictionthatthelastageitselfisabouttoend,betweenabeliefinthe
realityoftheAntichristandthecertaintyofhisproximity... betweenviewingtheevents
of one’s own time in the light of the End of history and seeing them as the last events
themselves.”([10],p.4)
With these important distinctions in mind, Peterson’s apocalyptic eschatology, despite its clear
prophetictendencies,neverthelessretainsacertainunshakablereserve,groundedultimatelyinthe
liturgythatforegoessolefocuson‘presentapocalyptic’,asseenforexampleinthefollowingpassage
from The Book on the Angels: “amid all the suffering of this worldly age, amid all the turmoil and
demonicstruggleswiththisAeon,thereremainseternallyandunshakablythatworshipthattheangels
render to the Eternal One, in which earthly worship takes part.” ([3], p. 110). Peterson elaborates
upon this prioritization in commenting upon the Book of Revelation’s peculiarity in frequently
presenting eschatological visions, only then to be “interrupted by liturgical-hymnic ‘insertions’“.
Bythisobservation,Petersonproceedstoarguethatthesehymnsdonotevidenceadisparitybetween
theoriginal,eschatologicaltextanditslatterredaction. Instead,thesehymnsdemonstrateagreater
“urgency”: namely,thepubliccontrastoftheliturgywiththatoftheeschatologicaleventsandthe
terroroftheirunfolding:
strategy;instead,GirardarguesthatClausewitz’smimeticaccountisrootedina“stunningintuition”aboutmodernity’s
“accelerationofhistory”asnoneotherthanareciprocal“trendtoextremes”,aswitnessedtodaybya“newstageinthe
escalationtoextremes”amidtheever-increasingbrutalityofmodernwarfareandterrorism.
6 See([9],p.xiii):“ThehistoryofChristianApocalypticrevealsonethingveryclearly:thedesireofthehumansoultofinda
significantplaceforitselfinthetimeprocess.”
Religions2017,8,45 4of13
Moreurgentthananycommunicationsontheeschatologicaleventsisthereportonthe
visionoftheheavenlythroneroomandoftheheavenlydivineliturgy... .Aportrayalof
theeschatologicaleventsinthecosmosthereforehastomakemanifestthebackdropofan
‘eternal’world,andtheportrayaloftheterriblesufferingoftheeschatologicaltimelikewise
hasasitsnecessarybackdropthedescriptionofaworldthathasbeensnatchedawayfrom
sufferingandonlyknowsthepraiseofGod([3],p. 110).
ForPeterson,theconsistencyofsuchliturgicalinterruptionsrendershisprioritizationuponsucha
transcendentbackdropasneitheraloofnorblithelyindifferenttothepolitical. Rather,itliturgically
attestsbothtotheruptureandalwaysgreatersovereigntyofGod’sgloryasmuchasitconstitutesthe
Church’smostpublicandthereforeperfectresistancetootherwisebeingcapturedanddefinedbysuch
eschatologicalsufferings.
However,emphasislaiduponthesetwodistincttendenciesdonotamounttotwodialectically
conflicting poles. In this respect, it is important to recall that Peterson himself is equally credited
forhavingcoinedthephrase,‘theeschatologicalproviso’,whichwaslateronpopularizedbytheNew
TestamentscholarErnstKäsemann. BydescribingthecomingoftheBasileiaofGod—asboth‘already’
and‘notyet’—Käsemannisequallywell-knownforhavingdeclaredapocalypticasthe“motherof
all Christian theology” ([11], p. 121).7 In a similar vein, Peterson’s lack of a certain schizophrenic
polarityisagainattestedtobyKäsemann,asheframestheveryhistoricityofapocalypticasutterly
centralinproducingnotonlyahistoricalconsciousnesswithinearlyChristianityitself,yetequallyand
thoroughlyconteststhehistoricalconsciousnessofsecularmodernityanditsattemptsatunreservedly
movingbeyondapocalypticandits“mythicalcharacter”asnoneotherthanunwittinglyensconced
in “preserv[ing] history’s eschatological character” ([11], p. 96). Theologically, Käsemann equally
contendsthatthedialecticbetweeneveryage’srenewedenthusiasmfor“present”apocalyptic,its
socio-politicalobjectandthemitigated,Augustinianreserveof“future”apocalypticnoneotherthan
soteriologically “mirrors the cosmic contention for the lordship of the world” as “man’s life can
onlybeunderstoodapocalyptically”. Thatis,betweenthesacramentaleconomyofredemptionand
“ultimate salvation which lies yet ahead [and] is nothing else but the projection into the human
conditionoftheChristianoftherelationshipofthelordshipofChristtothesubjectionofallcosmic
principalities.”([11],p.136). Hence,anyandallsecularizationand/orimmanentizationofthe‘present’
apocalypticalone,bothofwhichmaneuverstoelide‘future’apocalypticofitstranscendentalcharacter
arebothhistoricallyandtheologicallyquestionableatbest.
Thatsaid,inthepositiontakeninthisfollowingessay,underPeterson’slead,whatmattersmost
is how we conceive of this co-implication between present and future apocalyptic and the radical
characterofitsultimate,eschatologicalsignificance.
2. EschatologicalDecisiveness
Theappealandindeed,urgencyofapocalypticliterature—fromtraditional,canonicalsources
such as Daniel and the Book of Revelation—in addition to the innovative texts on the “Son of
Perdition”asfoundintheTiburtineSibyl;theeschatologicalpromiseoftheLastChristianEmperor
in Pseudo-Methodius; Joachim of Fiore’s exceptionally influential view of the ages of history; the
Franciscan Spirituals adherence to Francis’ primitive rule on holy poverty and its apocalyptic
fervor ([10], pp. 43–49, 70–76, 126–42, 203–25); to the failed millenarianism of Müntzer and the
peasantrevoltinGermany[13,14];thesophianicityofSolovyov’sAShortTaleAbouttheAntichrist[15];
tothemorepopularized,apocalypticMariologiesofFatimaandLaSallette,aswellasthe“dayof
Mercy”beforethe“DayofJustice”inthediariesofSt. FaustinaKowalska[16]8—allattestthatinterest
7 Seealso([12],p.151).
8 C.f.([16],n.1588):“TodayIheardthewords:IntheOldCovenantIsentprophetswieldingthunderboltstoMypeople.TodayIam
sendingyouwithMymercytothepeopleofthewholeworld.Idonotwanttopunishachingmankind,butIdesiretohealit,pressingit
Religions2017,8,45 5of13
inapocalypticeschatologyisalwaysrenewedintimesofhistoricalupheaval, unrest, crisisandin
particular,religiousviolence.
Itisthusentirelyappropriatetoreengageinsuchscholarlyreflections,bothintermsofthemany
submerged,secularizedapocalypticnarrativesthatpervadethecurrentculturalimagination: fromthe
pendingdemiseoftheWesternorderofneo-liberalismandtheresurgentfaceofneo-Fascistnationalism
inadecidedly“post-truth”milieu;tothatofthewell-entrenchedenvironmentalapocalypticandits
forecastedcataclysm;tothatofthemoredecidedlyreligiousapocalyptic[17]. Concerningreligious
fundamentalist violence, terrorism and the political propagation of “persecution” and religious
freedom,apocalypticnarrativeshavealwaysbeeninvestedwiththefigureofmartyrdom,andpar
excellence, the martyrdom of Christ, who sought not his “ own will but the will of him who sent
me. IfIbearwitnesstomyself,mytestimonyisnottrue”(Jn5,30–31). Suchwitnesscontinueswell
intothisday,thisnewcenturyofmartyrsofthemargins[18],whoembodythevulnerableextension
andbrutalsufferingofhisbody,theChurch. Thecountlesswitnessofsuchmartyrsregularlyexpose
thattheChurchtodayhoweverpersistswithoutacompellingtheologicalapproachtotheodiumfidei
thatisatonceinseparablefromtheconcretissimumoflifeandthepublicwitnessoftheirgruesome
glorythatresistspoliticalcounterfeit. Forthemartyrs’silentwitnessisnonethelessoftenperversely
swallowedupandco-mingledwiththeideologicallypossessed,politicalcounter-witnessofthose
distinguishedbytheirviolentself-determinacyandendlessself-promotionofglorytotheextentthat
thesevastdifferencesappearlargelyindistinguishabletoday. Thus,itisinthisrespectthatPeterson’s
writings,especially“WitnesstotheTruth”,constitutesamajorcontributiontothisotherwise“marginal”
theologicaldiscourse.9
For Peterson, the charism of the martyr is an absolutely necessary dimension for any and
every genuine ecclesiology, as he remarks: “Is it not necessary that the Son of Man suffers these
things?’“(Lk.24,26),whichhelateronclarifiesisnotsolelyofanexclusiveChristologicalreference,
butisitselfexpansive,suchthatit“appliestothewholeChurch”([3],p. 156). Thetruthofthemartyrs’
charism,inotherwords,isthetruthoftheChurchinherfoundationsandinherholinessasacountless
multitude. Forsuchamultitudebecomes‘contemporaneouswithChrist’,asPeterson’secclesiologyof
themysticalbodyviewsthis“eschatologicalfellowship”ofsufferingnotmerelyinmoralterms;that
is,asasuffering‘for’Christ. Rather,Petersonseesitasfarmoreontologicalandtrans-historical;that
is,asasuffering“with”,bothindividuallyandcollectivelyandthus,“demonstratesthepublicclaim”
oftheChurch10. Inthisregard,itisconstructivetocontrasttheradicallyapocalypticandontological
thrustofPeterson’sviewofmartyrdomwiththatofAquinas’moralqualificationofmartyrdomasone
of‘intentionality’indyingforahumangood: “Humangoodcanbecomedivinegoodifitisreferredto
God;thereforeanyhumangoodcanbeacauseofmartyrdom,insofarasitisreferredtoGod.”11
DespitesimilaritieswithAquinas’more“expansive”designationofwhoconstitutesamartyr,
theradicalcharacterofPeterson’sapocalypticeschatologybreaksanypresumptionofanimmanent
naturalorderthatissomehowbracketedapartfromsuchultimacy. Asweshallseelateroninour
discussionconcerningtheblessedpoor,Peterson’sstressresultsinneitheraconfinednorrestrictive
designationofmartyrdomitself;rather,emphasisismadeuponthenecessarily“public”characterof
themartyr,overandaboveanyprivateintentionality,inwitnessingsuchaneschatologicalporosity,
toMyMercifulHeart.IusepunishmentwhentheythemselvesforceMetodoso;Myhandisreluctanttotakeholdoftheswordof
justice.BeforetheDayofJusticeIamsendingtheDayofMercy.”
9 Seegenerally,([19],p. vii): “InordertoseeandunderstandthecontemporaryChurchasaChurchofthemartyrs,one
mustobservethatthereissomethinglikeahistoricalandculturalshiftinthepatternofmartyrdomandtheimageofthe
martyr.Thereissomethinglikeashiftfromthe‘heroic’tothe‘anonymous’martyr,fromindividualmartyrdomtoakindof
collectivemartyrdom.”
10 Seegenerallytheprisonwritingsofthe20thCenturyAustrianmartyr,FranzJägerstätter([20],p.180),whoatonepoint
writes:“Byhisharshsufferingandearthlydeath,Christhasredeemedusfrometernaldeathbutnotfromearthlysuffering
anddeath.Christdemandsfromusalsoapublicacknowledgment[confession]ofourfaith,exactlyastheFührerAdolf
HitlerdemandsfromhisVolk.”
11 See2a.2ae.Q.124ad3,asquotedfrom[21].
Religions2017,8,45 6of13
atearingopen,asmuchasitdemonstratesacompellinghistoricalresistancetothereigningpowers
andprincipalities. Bythis,themartyrmakesvisibletheChurch’spilgrimaticnatureasnecessarily
betweentheheavenlyandtheearthly. Fromthisbetween,themartyr,Petersonwrites,“leapsbeyond
thisworld’sconceptof‘public’anddemonstrates... thepublicclaimofanother,acomingworld”,
yetdoessoalwaysconcretelyandimmanentlyfromwithin([3],p. 157). Herein,thetheo-politicsof
Peterson’seschatological“public”,bothinitsporousbreakingin,andresistancesignalsnoneother
thantheeschatologicalultimacythat“dissolves”anypretenseofautonomyofthenaturalorder,such
asthebondsoffamily,race,classandstate;thecompromiseoftheircounter-weightaretornbythe
criticaltimeofthemessianicagethatrequiresdecision([3],p. 152).
Thedecisivenessoftheeschatologicalrulesoutneutralityasmuchasitdiscernsthepoliticalas
eitherasourceofGod’sgloryorasanidolatrous,culticobjectofitsownworship. Petersoncontrasts
theseduelingpublics,betweenJerusalemandBabylon,whereinhestates:
Babylon,thegreatwhore,hasfallen,themerchants,tradersandshipmastersraiseasong
ofgreatlament(Rev18,11–19). Thebrillianceofthepoliticalisexposedafterthefallof
Babelasinrealitytheeconomicprofitofinternationalcommerce... .WhereJerusalemis,
thereissimplicity,yes,evenpossiblypoverty,yetthesplendorofthevirginisinheaven,
withGodandtheLamb;shethereforehasnoneedofasplendorborrowedfromtheearth,
whichinthefinalanalysiscanonlyservetoenrichinternationalbusiness([3],p. 168).
TheseduelingcontrastsofthepoliticalandPeterson’sradicaltheo-politicsfosterauniquelyrobust,
liturgicalcritiqueofcapitalismitselfandconcentratedintheintrinsicallypublicdimensionsofthe
martyr. Forinthemartyrs’sufferingflesh,thegloryofChristbecomesbrutallyconcrete;itbecomes
“revealed”andthuspossessesimmediate“public”significanceinunveilingtheenduringmetaphysical
conflict between Babylon and Jerusalem. In the martyr, and precisely due to the porosity of its
in-breaking,thegloryofChristthusbecomesradicallypoliticalinitscounter-sovereignty(Jn18,36)to
thereigningpowersandprincipalities([22],pp. 67–114).
ForPeterson,asweshallseeshortlyinexploringhisrelationtoKierkegaard,itisthetestimony
of the martyrs as a “Witness to the Truth” that exemplifies the fullness of both human and
Christianexistenceitselfintheir“contemporaneitywithChrist”preciselyintheirdeterminatelack
ofself-determinacy.
We become man to the extent that in our existence we draw near to the Son of Man.
But the highest form of appropriation to the Son of Man in discipleship is that of the
martyr... .what Kierkegaard called ‘contemporaneity with Christ.’ Of the martyr (the
saint)canwethussaythatheismosttrulyman([23],p. 171).
The weak strength of this kenotic witness none other than confirms the mystery of man and that
of the Church as ecclesia martyrum—beyond reductive confinement and institutional, bourgeois
capitulation—asitunveilsthe“eschatologicalmystery”itself. Forthenecessarypublicdimensionsof
themartyr’sdeathiconically“manifestsGod”and“alwaysopenstheheavens”—asitwaswiththe
proto-martyrStephenandhisstoning,whointheeloquenceofhisfrailty,OHeiland,reißdieHimmelauf,
revealsanopenporosity,atransversalcommercium12thatimbuesthepoliticalwiththeeschatological.
Forsuchacommerciumresists“degenerating”intoHeideggerianfinitudeandconfusingsuchwitness
withthe“fleetingcommitmentofahistoricalorpoliticalresponsibility”([4],p. 55).
Thismartyrologicalfigureofdeliberaterenunciationandabsolutedependence,initsidiosyncratic
manner,resistsfacileglorification,yetisperhapsbestconveyedbytheancienteschatologicalsymbol
12 Seetheliturgical,Eucharisticanddeificationthemesin:TheMartyrdomofPolycarp,([24],n. 15.1–15.2):“Andwhenhad
offeredupthe‘Amen’andfinishedhisprayer,themen[attending]thepyrelitthefire....Forthefiremadetheformof
avault,asaship’ssailfilledbythewind,wallingaroundthebodyofthemartyr.Anditwasinthemiddlenotasflesh
burning,butasbreadbaking,orasgoldandsilverrefinedinafurnace.Forwealsoexperiencedsuchstrongfragrance,like
awaftofincenseorsomeotherofthepreciousspices.”
Religions2017,8,45 7of13
oftheChurchasa“Ship”whichPetersonwritesuponinFrükirche,JudentumundGnosis.13 Theship
here,ofcourse,iswhatwaslateronunderstoodasthebarqueofPeter,thoughnottobeconfused
with the later ships of imperial glory and colonial conquest, but far more akin to the miserably
overcrowded vessels that today, migrants and refugees aboard to their frequent, terrible peril in
crossingtheMediterranean.14 Incharacteristicfashion,PetersondrawsupontheJewishtypological
andearlySyrianicrootsoftheimageoftheChurchasaship,asseen,forexampleinthe3rdCentury
baptisteryofthewell-knownDura-EuroposhousechurchinpresentdaySyria. Petersontheologically
expoundsuponthesediversehistoricaloriginsbylinkingittoatellingasidemadebyTertullianinhis
Debaptismo(n. 12)whereintheChurchFatherimmediatelyabandonsdiscussionofwhetherornotall
oftheapostleswerebaptizedandinsteadinserts,asthoughitwereofanoldertraditionand/orsource,
adescriptionoftheChurchwitha“decidedlyeschatologicalcoloring”,describingtheChurchasa:
littleship... tossedaboutbythewaves,whichmeanspersecutionsandtemptations,while
ourLordinhislong-sufferingisasitwereasleep,untilatthelasttimesheisawakenedby
theprayersoftheSaintstocalmtheworldandrestoretranquilitytohisown([2],p. 92).
From this interesting aside that so suddenly emerges within Tertullian’s text—hence prompting
speculationashavingderivedfromanearliersource—Petersononceagainimmediatelyexpandsupon
thiseschatologicalsymbolismoftheseastormandthefigureoftheChurchasa“littleship”,thrustupon
itswaves.Howeverdoingsothistime,Petersonmakeswhatisseeminglyafarmoreinnovativelinkage:
namely,asformulatinganimmediatecounterresponsetoanotherreoccurrenceofthissymbolicfigure,
thistimefoundinClementofAlexandria’sshortwork,Quisdivessalvetur[Whoamongtherichmight
besaved]. Forunliketherichmanwhovainlysoughtoutperfection(Mk10,17–31),ofwhomClement
himself immediately allegorizes15, while refusing the more “humanly literal” interpretation,16 we
canconstructivelyextrapolatePeterson’ssubtlecontrastasitselfemphasizingtheverydecisiveness
thattheeschatologicalushersin, atoncecounteringthesolely‘spiritualizing’biblicalhermeneutic
well-established within the Alexandrian tradition, all of which is insufficiently “ruled out” by the
eschatological([3],p. 154). Whilebycontrast,seekingacertainneutralityand/orcompromise,thusin
turnrisksthelittleshipbecoming“submerged”underthewaves,“onlytoonceagainbecomeafloat”
asitis“guidedsolelybythe‘prayersofthesaints’”([24],n. 34). TheconnectionthatPetersondraws
outisnotmerelytoillustratethethemeofdependence,oftheshipmercilesslybeingtossedaboutthe
waves,aidedonlybysaintlyintercession. Rather,thecuriosityoftheselinkagesisnoneotherthanthe
profoundconnectionthatPetersonisherealludingto,namelytheeschatologicalsignificanceofthe
poorandtheirownuniquelyprivileged,martyrologicalwitnessinwhomChristrecognizeshimself.
Attheconclusionofthesereflections,wewillreturntotheeschatologicalsignificanceofthepoorasa
unique,martyrologicalsymbolinPeterson’swork. Butfirst,moreneedstobesaidaboutoneofthe
13 Cf.ErikPeterson,“DasSchiffalsSymbolderKircheinderEschatologie”in([2],pp.92–96).
14 Seeforexample,Francis.“AddresstotheJesuitsontheoccasionofitsBicentennialReestablishmentSeptember27,2014.”
Availableonline:http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/september/documents/papa-francesco_
20140927_vespri-bicentenario-ricostituzione-gesuiti.html(accessedon12December2016):“Letusrememberourhistory:
“theSocietywasgiventhegracenotonlytobelieveintheLord,butalsotosufferforHissake”(Philippians1:29).Wedo
welltorememberthis. TheshipoftheSocietyhasbeentossedaroundbythewavesandthereisnothingsurprisingin
this.EventheboatofPetercanbetossedabouttoday.Thenightandthepowersofdarknessarealwaysnear.Itistiringto
row.TheJesuitsmustbebraveandexpertrowers(PiusVII,Sollecitudoomniumecclesiarum):rowthen!Row,bestrong,even
againstaheadwind!WerowintheserviceoftheChurch.Werowtogether!Butwhilewerow—weallrow,eventhePope
rowsintheboatofPeter—wemustprayalot,“Lord,saveus!Lordsaveyourpeople.”TheLord,evenifwearemenoflittle
faith,willsaveus.LetushopeintheLord!LetushopealwaysintheLord!”[25].
15 C.f. ([24],n. 5): “AndasweareclearlyawarethattheSaviorteachesHispeoplenothinginamerelyhumanway,but
everythingbyadivineandmysticalwisdom,wemustnotunderstandHiswordsliterally.”
16 C.f.([24],n.11):“’Sellwhatbelongstothee.’Andwhatisthis?Itisnotwhatsomehastilytakeittobe,acommandtofling
awaythesubstancethatbelongstohimandtopartwithhisriches,buttobanishfromthesoulitsopinionsaboutriches,
itsattachmenttothem,itsexcessivedesire,itsmorbidexcitementoverthem,itsanxiouscares,thethornsofourearthly
existencewhichchoketheseedofthetruelife.”
Religions2017,8,45 8of13
principalsourcesthatframePeterson’sapproachtotheeschatologicalitselfasinitiatingthistimeof
‘decisiveness’.
3. AgainstBourgeoisCapture
Tounderstandthefigureofthemartyrinhisdecisiveeschatologicalsignificance,forPeterson,one
mustcontendwiththecentralityofKierkegaardwho,alongwiththemysticalleaningsofPeterson’s
studentdaysandhisinvolvementintheGermanPietistmovement(DeutschechristlicheVereinigung)[1]
these two influences formed a bridge over the Tiber both in terms of its continuity and rupture
amidPeterson’sownconversion. Petersonhimselfconfirmssuchaninfluence,asseeninthenotes
ofhisEpiloguetohispublishedcorrespondenceswithAdolfvonHarnack: “Seenpsychologically,
Pietism and Kierkegaard have perhaps given the decisive impulse to [my] return to the Catholic
faith.”([3],p.193,footnote10)
Such a “bridge” frames Peterson’s view of the eschatological beyond as rightfully intensifying
the dramatic within of historical existence, which he evaluates concerning the vocation of holiness,
thecommunionofsaintsandthewitnessofthemartyrsetagainstman’sdemonicsicknessandthe
institutionalChurch’sotherwisebourgeoiscapture.17 “Ifthereisanythingoppositeofthespiritof
bourgeoiscomfort,”Petersonremindsus,“itisprimitiveChristianity,whichinthemouthofthemartyr
inRevelationblastsuslikesomefierybreath.”([3],p. 171).
Itisespeciallythismartyrologicalwitnessoflifeandfaith,this“ZeugnisderWahrheit”,thatrecalls
bothPeterson’sownhighlyinspiredapocalypticeschatologicalwritings,aswellasKierkegaard’sown
rebuttaloftheincreasinglybourgeoischaracteroftheDanishLutheranChurch.18 AsseeninhisAttack
uponChristendom,KierkegaardpublicallyengagedinaserialofrelentlessattacksuponMartensen,
the Danish professor, who in 1854, publically eulogized the recently deceased Bishop Mynster of
Seelandasa“witnessofthetruth”—apublicoccasionthatbecamealightningrodofantagonismand
whichrepresentedforKierkegaardtheinescapableparadoxoforthodoxLutheranism’sownHegelian
compromise[27].
InKierkegaard’sanalysis,thesolafideoftheDanishChurchhadbecomeabstractly“idealized”
and overly gnostic in its duality and thus increasingly and paradoxically divided from the
concretissimum of life and intentional religious forms of life and the decisiveness of vocation and
the call of holiness. Instead, Kierkegaard strongly inveighs against what Peterson later calls this
“Vermittlungstheologie”—thistheologyofmediationandcompromisewiththeworld;inotherwords,
anaccommodationist,contextualtheologicalapproachthatbothBishopMynsterandMartensenhad
embodied.Morespecifically,the“compromise”betweenHegelandorthodoxLutheranismresulted,on
couldsay,inanoverlyjuridical,nominalisticviewofinteriorgracethatfirmlyexcludessuchwitnessin
thefirstplaceasanythingotherthanbland,piousrhetoricthataimstoreconcile‘spiritualmartyrdom’
withinstitutional,bourgeoiscapture.Hence,Kierkegaard’sprotestsimultaneouslybecomesPeterson’s,
intheirmutualrefusaltoabandontheconcretissimumofthemartyr.
ForKierkegaard,thecharismofthemartyrasa‘witnesstothetruth’isbothentirelydecisive
and utterly opposed to what he—having grown up with a father withsimilarly strong Pietist
leanings—regardsasthenearlyinescapabletheologicalimpasseandconsequentialembourgoisement
oftheDanishPeople’sChurch.19 ForKierkegaard,thisdecisivenessisentirelyevident,ashedescribes
themartyrologicalwitnessasoneof
17 See([12],p.156):“[Peterson]hadreadKierkegaardintensivelyatanearlierstageofhiscareer.Despitehisreservations
aboutKierkegaard’sexaggeratedsubjectivism,theDanishphilosopherremainedforhimaprototypeofChristianalienation
fromtheembourgoisementofmodernChristianity.”
18 Seegenerally([26],pp. 86–91)forJoshuaFurnal’ssummaryanalysisofPeterson’sformidable,theologicalreadingof
Kierkegaardanditsconsiderableinfluenceinthepost-waryearsleadinguptotheCouncil.
19 ForageneraldiscussionoftheinfluenceofPietismonKierkegaard,Seegenerally,[28].
Religions2017,8,45 9of13
[P]overty, lowliness, inabasement ... forhimtherewasneverpromotion, exceptinan
inverse sense ... the last promotion, as defined by the Christian protocol ... at last
crucified, or beheaded, or burnt, or roasted on a gridiron ... his lifeless body thrown
bytheexecutionerinanout-of-the-wayplace ... orburnttoashesandcasttothefour
winds,sothateverytraceofthe‘filth’mightbeobliterated([27],p. 7).
WewouldbeentirelymistakentoseeinKierkegaard’simpassionedrhetoricsomeperverse,heroic
romanticization. Rather, in the man who “wanted to make Christianity difficult for his idealist
contemporaries” ([4], p. 56), his words are completely and utterly foreign to his contemporaries,
who have both practically (morally), as well as theologically eliminated the role and historical
consciousnessofthecultofthemartyrsandsaints. AsPetersonmaintains,“rejectionoftheconceptof
themartyr”asancillarytothatoftheoriginalapostlesandmoregenerally,Christiandiscipleship,in
fact“eliminatessufferingfortheChurch—thoughsufferingisnecessarilylinkedwiththepreaching
of the apostles—and thereby deprives the concept of the preaching of the gospel of its original
meaning.”([3],p.155). Afterall,apostolicwitnessandthepropheticmuneraofpreachingtheGospel
arenotbeingreceived,asPetersonremarks,bya“neutrallydisposedmankindthatwithitsreligious
yearningmightbereadytoreceivetheapostles’proclamationofthekingdomofGodwithopenarms.
No;theyaresentlikesheepamongwolves”([3],p. 153).
By contrast, the presumption of a certain neutrality that recoils from such eschatological
decisiveness becomes symptomatic, as Kierkegaard argues that the diffusiveness of this scenario
isinfactmoredangerousthanall‘formal’heresies—whichatleasthistoricallyretainedaclearerdegree
of partisan decisiveness—as he then diagnoses the times as largely “playing Christianity” that is
entirelyalientomoralasceticism,ecclesialsufferingandinstead,substitutes“power... worldlygoods,
advantages,luxuriousenjoymentofthemostexquisiterefinements... toplayitwithsuchfrightful
earnestness that one cannot bring the game to a stop.” ([27], p. 8). Such charges thus concern far
morethansimplematerial,luxuriousexcess. Instead,wehearKierkegaard’sradicalpropheticcritique
concentratedlateroninBerdyaev’sowncritiqueofmodernity’s“bourgeoisconsciousness”,whichin
itsexplicitlyidolatrouspreferenceofthevisibletothatoftheinvisible,ultimatelyleadstoarejectionof
theCross,pursuinginsteaditsowncalculativeendsindirect“oppositiontothetragicconsciousnessof
life.”([29],p. 17). Herein,suchacalculativerationalityandoutlookinnowaydiscriminatesbetween
religiousaffiliation,orthelackthereof. Rather,“whenheisabeliever,belongingtosomereligious
denomination,heisagainthesameartlessrealist... .hedoesnotconnectthis‘faith’ofhiswithhis
outlookuponlifeandtheworld.”([29],p. 18). Thisutternominalisticseparationoflifeandthefaith,
thelossofsacramentality,thedenialofthecommunionofsaintsandultimately,thatofthevocationof
holinessitselfareallindicativeofthisbourgeoisreligioustemperamentthatKierkegaardrepeatedly
inveighsagainst. Foritisheldcaptivesolelybythe‘earthlyandtemporal’,asKierkegaardcites,for
example,thecompletelyabstract,yetall-too-realcalculativepowerof“number”,andits“exerciseover
theimagination”([27],pp. 30–31)inassessingthehealthandviabilityofChristianreligiouslifetoday.
For his own part, Peterson explicitly takes up the complex legacy of Kierkegaard in his two
relatedessaysof1947: “KierkegaardundderProtestantismus”and“ExistentialismusundProtestantische
Theologie”. Inthislatteressay,Petersonassessessuchcomplexityasconsistinglargelyinthedivided
receptionhistoryofKierkegaard’sreligiousandphilosophicaldiscourses,particularlywithinboth
GermanandFrenchcontexts. WithHeideggerinparticular, Petersonreferencesaletterwrittento
KarlLöwith,Heidegger’sformerstudent,whereinheconfessesthatonlyin1921didhe“nolonger
followtheKierkegaardiantendency”([4],p. 52). Earlieron,however,Petersonrecognizesthedirect
influence of several equivocal thinkers upon Heidegger, which continued to exert a foundational
influenceuponhislaterwritings,allofwhicharerootedinthemaiordissimilitudoofChristianthought,
suchasKierkegaard,PascalandtheyoungLuther,thelatterofwhomruthlesslyattacked“thereason
ofscholasticphilosophy... asawhore”([4],p. 52). AnddespiteHeideggeradmittingthatheisno
longerdirectlyunderneathKierkegaard’sinfluence, Petersonreadshimwithinanopticofgreater
continuityandmoregenerally,asrepresentativeoftheoverallsecularizationoffoundationalconcepts
Religions2017,8,45 10of13
within Protestant theology. For it was precisely under Heidegger’s influence, Peterson maintains,
“thatweneglectedtheChristianandtheologicalbasisofKierkegaard’sthought”,which,ifanything,
more properly belonged to the field of “Catholic asceticism”, as opposed to transforming them
intogeneralizedconceptsof“humanexistence... deprivedofeveryconcretemeaning.”([4],p.54).
Excavatingsuchconcretissimumbecameinsteadageneralizedthinkingofbeing’simmanenthistoricity,
while subsequently removing the martyr’s “contemporaneity with Christ” and one’s decision for
Godwithinaporous,transcendentalhorizonandinstead,replacingitwithadeformeddecisionfor
the‘Führer’.
Peterson’sinsistenceuponKierkegaard’srefusalofsuchasecularizinghermeneuticisfurther
examinedintheessay,“KierkegaardundderProtestantismus”. Ifindeedtheirreducibleconcretissimum
of the martyr stands as a prophetic, irreconcilable counter to such “Vermittlungstheologie”, then at
itsfoundations,themartyrwitnessesagainstthesolafideanditssecularizationthatarisesfromthe
nominalisticsplitbetweenfaithandlifewithinDanishLutheranthought.AtthesourceofKierkegaard’s
propheticire,Petersondescribesthistheologyofgraceincreasinglyseenassolelygratuitous—“simply
a‘favorDei’”—thatisfarremovedfromtheimmanenceofnature,historyandlife. Graceisthereby
considerednolongerintegrallyaseither“infused”or“inherent”([4],p.58).Theresultingparadox
thatPetersondescribesisthatoneisbothasinnerandrighteousatthesametime: “sinnerinhisreal
existenceonthisearth, righteousinhisidealexistencebeforeGodinheaven.”([4],p.58). Herein,
the sola fide becomes an overly idealized, intellectual act that becomes utterly irreconcilable with
the finitude of human agency that “loses all meaning” before the transcendent. Peterson situates
manyofKierkegaard’swell-knownexistentialistconceptsasaimmediaterejectionofthisnominalistic
“Vermittlungstheologie”. Petersonwrites: “Itseemstomethatallthoseconcepts—Existenz,thedecision,
theleap,theindividual—formedbythePietistinKierkegaard,incontrasttoReformedorthodoxy,
onlyhavearealmeaningforCatholics,whofacetheproblemofhis‘vocation’.”([4],p. 59). Likewise,
theworkofliturgyandcharitybecomebothfunctionalizedandlosethespecificityoftheiridentity,
sufferingabourgeoiscapturewithinthehorizonofthevisibleandpolitical. Thus,Petersonreminds
us,Kierkegaard’s“attack”isnotadogmaticoneintheleast,yetamoralone;thatis,itsultimately
anattackagainstaChristiannominalismforwhichintheworld,the“saintdidnotexist”([4],p. 60).
4. Conclusions: TheMartyrologicalWitnessofthePoorasanEschatologicalSymbol
As we have seen in the preceding sections, the radical character of Peterson’s apocalyptic
eschatologyinvariablyexploresthenecessarybetweenoftheChurchinitsrefusalofbourgeoiscapture
andprinciplevocationofholinessasaporousin-breakingofthetranscendentbeyondfromwithin. Such
abetweenandthecentralroleofthemartyrinwitnessingthefoundationsoftheChurch([3],p.151)
in her multitude presents a historical view of the suffering Church as necessarily beyond political
confinementandideologicalcapture. Asapilgrimcommunityin-betweenthe“earthlyJerusalem,
whichisatoncepolisandtemple”andits“everdrawingclosertotheeschatological,heavenlytemple
anditsown... polis”,Peterson’swritingsconsistentlybearwitnesstothisonticdifferencebyframing
the Church’s distinctly public act, the liturgy, as the site of a transversal commericum: an angelic
participationwithintheearthlycultaswellasher“participationintheworshipthattheangelsofferto
God.”([3],p. 107). Herein,Peterson’stheo-politicalmysticismwellanticipatesSacrosantumConcilium’s
own definitive pronouncements on the liturgy’s porous exchange of praise and its eschatological
significancethatrendersthefullnessofChristianexistenceasfundamentally“foreign”,withtheBody
andBride,theChurch,asapoor,wayfaringstranger.20
20 C.f.([30],pp.141–42):“Intheearthlyliturgywetakepartinaforetasteofthatheavenlyliturgywhichiscelebratedinthe
holycityofJerusalemtowardwhichwejourneyaspilgrims,whereChristissittingattherighthandofGod,aminister
oftheholiesandofthetruetabernacle;wesingahymntotheLord’sglorywithallthewarriorsoftheheavenlyarmy;
veneratingthememoryofthesaints,wehopeforsomepartandfellowshipwiththem;weeagerlyawaittheSavior,Our
LordJesusChrist,untilHe,ourlife,shallappearandwetoowillappearwithHiminglory.”