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.”