"If Christianity hadn't taught anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened." Barnett quotes Elie Wiesel here..ouch. I have to say, I can't disagree. No one can really know I suppose, but the evidence seems to be there. Hundreds and Hundreds of years of Christian tradition taught anti-semitism without hesitation. Is it because I live in a post-holocaust world that this seems absurd? I guess not really since there are many Christians today that are anti-semitic and believe the Jews need to be converted.
Christians certainly are not guiltless when it comes Holocaust. The Church failed to resist and rescue. If only it had been more vocal early on, what could have happened? What if more Churches pulled together and did as the Le Chambon? AT least more lives have been saved. Many professed Christians campaigned for the Nazi party, worked in the camps, and even helped to murder their Jewish neighbors. It is disturbing.
I do, however, have to disagree with Arthur Cohen when he says, "For the non-jew the genocide of the Jews is an objective phenomenon which, on the face of it, by its definition appears to exclude him." It is true, Christians were not the object of genocide and I do not mean to demean the vicious attack of the Jewish people, the horrid things they endured or the meaning of their suffering. I think, however, it is important to remember there were Christians, and other non-jews who suffered in the death camps. It is important that they are also remembered. There were Christians, who, though not the victims of genocide, were the victims of injustice. Additionally, as I said before, the Christians of the time were not guiltless. They failed. I as a Christian suffer the Holocaust as any sinner suffers the guilt of the consequences of sin. The Holocaust is not only historically real for Jews, though the scars may be more physically evident through tattooed forearms and the annihilation of a population, but it is historically real for those Christians who ask themselves after the Holocaust the same questions as Jews. How do we talk of God after this? Where was God? and Why didn't more Christians do something to intervene?
I am shamed. Christians are shamed by what didn't happen and what did happen during the Holocaust. And we are more shamed because most of us cannot say confidentally that we would have acted differently.
It is not the same Burden, or pain, Jews now must carry. They were victimized ruthlessly. They were betrayed by their neighbors. They were left alone.
Christians had strength in numbers, the strength of the Gospel, but not the strength of heart to do what needed to be done, and that is our burden to carry.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Best of a Bad Lot?
Not quite. Dietrich Bonhoeffer far surpassed most in his moral standing considering his context. Sure, he is anti-semitic in the beginning and I'm disheartened upon this discovery, but he was on the right track. Toward the end of his life I'd say he had it almost right. He was often ambivalent in his standing on the Jewish Question, but he was not ambivalent on his opinion regarding Hitler and the Third Reich.
What if more people had been like him?
Individual Behavior
I find it interesting, that whether it was a perpetrator, a bystander, or a rescuer there is not one pattern that determines what the pre-existing charactersitics of each person was that motivated them to act one way or the other. It seems that th perpetrator and they bystander both claim to have acted out of fear or duty. Fear of what may happen to them or duty to the nation or their job. I'm inclined to sympathize. But when Barnett brought up the rescuer of the resister a light bulb went on in my head and I said, "oh yea, them!" The rescuer.
The rescuer shows that we are individually responsible for our actions. Not matter what the motivating circumstance is, people can still decide for themselves. They don't have to sacrifice morality or compassion.
I do find it interesting that many of the rescuers came from homes where they were taught to think independently. I also find it interesting that the majority of those rescuers were women. Barnett suggests this is because women were treated as minorities/marginalized. I'm sure a gender study could be done on this (if there hasn't been already).
But I'm thankful to be reminded of those who did not sit and do nothing. But stood and resisted on behalf of their endangered neighbors.
The rescuer shows that we are individually responsible for our actions. Not matter what the motivating circumstance is, people can still decide for themselves. They don't have to sacrifice morality or compassion.
I do find it interesting that many of the rescuers came from homes where they were taught to think independently. I also find it interesting that the majority of those rescuers were women. Barnett suggests this is because women were treated as minorities/marginalized. I'm sure a gender study could be done on this (if there hasn't been already).
But I'm thankful to be reminded of those who did not sit and do nothing. But stood and resisted on behalf of their endangered neighbors.
After reading the first chapter of Bystanders I'm feeling, well, torn. I appreciate Barnett's provision of definitions, and this opening chapter is certainly challenging.
I am torn because I keep thinking about those in Sonderburg, who had neighborly relationships with the Jews of their community. Over night, Barnett says, some of them changed their attitudes toward the Jews whom they'd had a history of friendly relationships with. It seems that in a community such as theirs, where there was no nearby concentration camps, that as a solid group of people could have protested the mis-treatment of their neighbors. That perhaps it would have made a difference. Then I think of those near Mauthausen and I, so sadly, see myself in them. These people saw the horrors of what went on. They saw people killed. They saw them marched through their village, malnourished, mistreated, shadows of the people they once were, and they did nothing. I keep asking myself. Why didn't they do something? Then I ask, what would I have done? Then I ask, what could have been done? And then I find myself thinking like them. I detest it. I cannot go easy on them simply because I wonder if I would have become a not-so-innocent bystander. I wonder if I would have done something...anything. Would I have looked away as priosoners were brought through town? Would I have looked away from the shootings that took place in my very town?
They were afraid. I know I would have been afraid.
It seems the Nazi party backed away if there was too much protest. What if everyone protested? I wonder if more in Sonderburg would have done more if they'd seen what those in Mauthausen saw? Or perhaps they would have done less out of fear. Those 12 jews left in Sondergurg in 1939 perhaps would not have received food, and letters, and support from their neighbors if those neighbors saw what Mauthausen saw...I don't know. I hope I would have done something.
I am torn because I keep thinking about those in Sonderburg, who had neighborly relationships with the Jews of their community. Over night, Barnett says, some of them changed their attitudes toward the Jews whom they'd had a history of friendly relationships with. It seems that in a community such as theirs, where there was no nearby concentration camps, that as a solid group of people could have protested the mis-treatment of their neighbors. That perhaps it would have made a difference. Then I think of those near Mauthausen and I, so sadly, see myself in them. These people saw the horrors of what went on. They saw people killed. They saw them marched through their village, malnourished, mistreated, shadows of the people they once were, and they did nothing. I keep asking myself. Why didn't they do something? Then I ask, what would I have done? Then I ask, what could have been done? And then I find myself thinking like them. I detest it. I cannot go easy on them simply because I wonder if I would have become a not-so-innocent bystander. I wonder if I would have done something...anything. Would I have looked away as priosoners were brought through town? Would I have looked away from the shootings that took place in my very town?
They were afraid. I know I would have been afraid.
It seems the Nazi party backed away if there was too much protest. What if everyone protested? I wonder if more in Sonderburg would have done more if they'd seen what those in Mauthausen saw? Or perhaps they would have done less out of fear. Those 12 jews left in Sondergurg in 1939 perhaps would not have received food, and letters, and support from their neighbors if those neighbors saw what Mauthausen saw...I don't know. I hope I would have done something.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Martin Niemoller
(one of those guys is supposed to be Martin Niemoller although I'm not sure which)The thing I have to recognize about Niemoller...and really all of the theologians and pastors involved in the Confessional Chruch, is that he was a product of German Nationalism. The idea behind the German Evangelical Church's collaboration, really did not have much to do with speaking out against Germany, only speaking out against the absurdities of the German Christians. So I find it disappointing that he doesn't so much speak out against anti-semitism. But he does in a sense speak out against the Nazi government. When meeting with Hitler and a few others, attempting to have the Reich Bishop removed from Power, Hitler accused them all of being disloyal and Niemoller said to him, "Neither you nor any power on earth can remove the responsibility placed on us by God to care for our people." OOOOHhh it gives me chills. Especially having hindesight, knowing the effects of Hitler's regime on the whole of history, it's amazing Niemoller said what he said. And I'm thankful for it. Thankful to know someone spoke against Hitler. Niemoller certainly served his time spending 8 years in a concentration camp but it's a great story. I also love Conway's quote on page 546 about how Niemoller's view on war and nationalism changed. Where before he venerated fighting for one's country, he became anti-violence after his time in the concentration camps, and Conway says this, "rather now affirmed that dying for one's country must be changed to living for all mankind."
I think what's been most haunting about learning this Germany history is learning about the level of German's nationalism. How it was all about Germany, and Germany's place in history, instead of concerning itself with humanity. It's so egocentric and I see some of that in Americans. Perspective is a bitch.
Barmen, Asmussen and Heim
All of this reading starts to get overwhelming. There's so much of it, and then when it's time to journal there's so much to say, and so much I'm thinking that I'm never really sure what exactly to put down.
So some positive thoughts first.
Reading about the German Evangelical Church was so baffling that I have to say, reading about the Confessional Church seems refreshing. It is good to know that there were Christians in the 30s that refused to go along with the charades of the German Church...throwing out the Old Testament, calling Jesus aryan, it was all so absurd and I'm glad there were those willing to see it as such. I am pleased they saw the "German Christians" as a threat, as the Barmen constiution says under Article 2. "This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis in which the German Evangelical church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the 'German Christians' as well as on the part of the Church Administration." AMEN.
I also find Heim's argument against the German Faith movement interesting. It's kind of hard to follow, but essentially he's saying Hauer (on the Side of the German Faith movement) is essentially giving no liability to mankind in regards to moral responsibility. So I'm pleased that there was willingness to both speak against the German Faith Movement and the German Christians. Especially becuase it could enable others to see the German Evangelicals as traitors or anti German. I'm sure that was a huge risk and I find it somewhat encouraging there were those willing to make the risk.
So I also like Heim's article because it seems to speak against what I do not like about Asumssen. Yes, Asmussen speaks against the German Christians and is in support of the German Evangicals (bravo for that) but he seems to say that man can not be expected to make proper moral judgement and therefore all should be left to the judgement of God on the day of judgement (p. 263). It's like an anti-call. It's a call to do nothing. What's that famous quote?..." all that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing"..something to that effect. Asmussen's quote seems so...anti church? anti-gospel? not of Jesus? I'm not sure what but definitely not correct? Perhaps if more people did something in 1934 less would have died later?
Which leads me to the negative aspects of what I read in these three articles...and that is that there is no objection to the anti-semitic actions of both State and the Church. So, I'll bite. 100s of years of German tradition and 1000 plus years of Christian tradition cultivates anti-semitic attitudes in both state and church populace. I've now read the history, I know the delicate emotional state World War I had on Germany. So I understand, in a sense the anti-semitism. At least I understand where it comes from. But there is a difference between understanding and justifying something. The anti-semitism of the 1930s in the church is not in anyway permissable. Sure I have hindesight and I live in another culture blah blah blah. But in no way does tradition justify hateful prejudice against jews (or any group of people for that matter). I am disappointed that the Confessional Church did not more verbally speak to that. The Bible is there. Jesus is there. Consciences are there. There are no excuses for hatred.
So some positive thoughts first.
Reading about the German Evangelical Church was so baffling that I have to say, reading about the Confessional Church seems refreshing. It is good to know that there were Christians in the 30s that refused to go along with the charades of the German Church...throwing out the Old Testament, calling Jesus aryan, it was all so absurd and I'm glad there were those willing to see it as such. I am pleased they saw the "German Christians" as a threat, as the Barmen constiution says under Article 2. "This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis in which the German Evangelical church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the 'German Christians' as well as on the part of the Church Administration." AMEN.
I also find Heim's argument against the German Faith movement interesting. It's kind of hard to follow, but essentially he's saying Hauer (on the Side of the German Faith movement) is essentially giving no liability to mankind in regards to moral responsibility. So I'm pleased that there was willingness to both speak against the German Faith Movement and the German Christians. Especially becuase it could enable others to see the German Evangelicals as traitors or anti German. I'm sure that was a huge risk and I find it somewhat encouraging there were those willing to make the risk.
So I also like Heim's article because it seems to speak against what I do not like about Asumssen. Yes, Asmussen speaks against the German Christians and is in support of the German Evangicals (bravo for that) but he seems to say that man can not be expected to make proper moral judgement and therefore all should be left to the judgement of God on the day of judgement (p. 263). It's like an anti-call. It's a call to do nothing. What's that famous quote?..." all that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing"..something to that effect. Asmussen's quote seems so...anti church? anti-gospel? not of Jesus? I'm not sure what but definitely not correct? Perhaps if more people did something in 1934 less would have died later?
Which leads me to the negative aspects of what I read in these three articles...and that is that there is no objection to the anti-semitic actions of both State and the Church. So, I'll bite. 100s of years of German tradition and 1000 plus years of Christian tradition cultivates anti-semitic attitudes in both state and church populace. I've now read the history, I know the delicate emotional state World War I had on Germany. So I understand, in a sense the anti-semitism. At least I understand where it comes from. But there is a difference between understanding and justifying something. The anti-semitism of the 1930s in the church is not in anyway permissable. Sure I have hindesight and I live in another culture blah blah blah. But in no way does tradition justify hateful prejudice against jews (or any group of people for that matter). I am disappointed that the Confessional Church did not more verbally speak to that. The Bible is there. Jesus is there. Consciences are there. There are no excuses for hatred.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Storm Troopers of Christ - Doris Bergen
The German Christians. Man what a group.
I feel like I'm short on words, though there is an abundance of disappointment streaming through me. We're supposed to (as historians) try to understand. But I don't know if I want to understand. Everything they believed in seems so counter to what Christianity stands for. In a way I understand how b gets to c, but I do not understand how a gets to b. What I mean is, given their ideas on the concept that Germany's faith needed to be strictly German, I can see why this would lead to their idea of dejuduazing Germany and the German Church. But what I don't understand is how the get to the idea of the idea that Christianity can anyway be racially exclusive. Does that make sense?
And the whole idea of decanonizing the Old Testament in order to fit Christianity into their German Church is baffling. Why? It just doesn't make reasonable sense to me, at all. And how can one say that Jesus was not Jewish!? Historically isn't that one of the very few things we know to be fact about Jesus (maybe I'm getting my facts wrong?) There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theory within the German Church regarding Judaism. Jews are trying to take over the world? Weren't the Germans in essence trying to take over the world?
It's all eye opening certainly. The German Church wasn't short of intellect or devotion, what it seems they were short on was humility.
I feel like I'm short on words, though there is an abundance of disappointment streaming through me. We're supposed to (as historians) try to understand. But I don't know if I want to understand. Everything they believed in seems so counter to what Christianity stands for. In a way I understand how b gets to c, but I do not understand how a gets to b. What I mean is, given their ideas on the concept that Germany's faith needed to be strictly German, I can see why this would lead to their idea of dejuduazing Germany and the German Church. But what I don't understand is how the get to the idea of the idea that Christianity can anyway be racially exclusive. Does that make sense?
And the whole idea of decanonizing the Old Testament in order to fit Christianity into their German Church is baffling. Why? It just doesn't make reasonable sense to me, at all. And how can one say that Jesus was not Jewish!? Historically isn't that one of the very few things we know to be fact about Jesus (maybe I'm getting my facts wrong?) There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theory within the German Church regarding Judaism. Jews are trying to take over the world? Weren't the Germans in essence trying to take over the world?
It's all eye opening certainly. The German Church wasn't short of intellect or devotion, what it seems they were short on was humility.
"Assesing the Heritage," Robert Ericksen
"How could this be?" I keep asking myself. Althaus, Hirsch and Kittel - all of whom were Chrstians, made up of the same faith DNA as myself. These were people who loved Jesus, prayed daily, read their Bibles- these were Christians. Further, they used theology to reach the point of their anti-semitism and their support of Hitler. Theology. I plan on getting my Ph.D in theology. At some point these 3 theologians could have been my colleagues.
How could this be?
Ericksen tells us that Kittel said, "We must not allow ourselves to be crippled because the whole world screams at us of barbarism and a reversion to the past...How the German Volk regulate its own cultural affairs does not concern anyone else in the world." (p 35) Yikes! I always felt that it had to be a sure sign to the Germans that what they were doing was wrong based on how the rest of the world looked at what they were doing, and how it was labeled. Then I see this quote and I'm corrected in my thinking--it was not a sure sign. This frightens me, because I think about my own country. I trust in my government, in our leadership and I don't ask too many questions. I hear on NPR etc that most other nations think very little of us, they say what we are doing in Iraq is wrong etc. Yet, Our country continues to go on and do as it sees fit not concerning itself with what other nations think. Hmmm...the resemblance here is unsettling.
What I'm learning from this, is that nothing is sure. The moment we think something is sure, then stuff like the holocaust happens. Perhaps this is what Barth was talking about in the article we recently read. We have to always ask questions because to not is death. The question of ethics is always in question and it must always be, or people die...unjustifiably.
The hardest part, is that Hirsch and Kittel and Althaus used a direct line of logic. The used Enlightenment reasoning to support what Hitler was doing, to support war, to support the dejudaizing of Germany. And yet...it all seems completely irrational. How can that be?
How could this be?
Ericksen tells us that Kittel said, "We must not allow ourselves to be crippled because the whole world screams at us of barbarism and a reversion to the past...How the German Volk regulate its own cultural affairs does not concern anyone else in the world." (p 35) Yikes! I always felt that it had to be a sure sign to the Germans that what they were doing was wrong based on how the rest of the world looked at what they were doing, and how it was labeled. Then I see this quote and I'm corrected in my thinking--it was not a sure sign. This frightens me, because I think about my own country. I trust in my government, in our leadership and I don't ask too many questions. I hear on NPR etc that most other nations think very little of us, they say what we are doing in Iraq is wrong etc. Yet, Our country continues to go on and do as it sees fit not concerning itself with what other nations think. Hmmm...the resemblance here is unsettling.
What I'm learning from this, is that nothing is sure. The moment we think something is sure, then stuff like the holocaust happens. Perhaps this is what Barth was talking about in the article we recently read. We have to always ask questions because to not is death. The question of ethics is always in question and it must always be, or people die...unjustifiably.
The hardest part, is that Hirsch and Kittel and Althaus used a direct line of logic. The used Enlightenment reasoning to support what Hitler was doing, to support war, to support the dejudaizing of Germany. And yet...it all seems completely irrational. How can that be?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Lots of history today and the reading, I'm not sure I quite kept up. Although, I like Dahm's writing (or perhaps it's a translation and I like the translator?) It was all very easy to follow, and I like that. Especially when reading history. It was a helpful "big picture." So this whole German Church thing starts to get pretty complicated, right? Dahm does a great job, but I had a hard time keeping up with this socialist party versus this other one and the Christian-Germans and the German-Christians, it makes a person dizzy really. But Dahm says (as does the short article from the Lutheran Church) that the state of Germany was confusing, and that it was, even in hindsight.
So what I find interesting is that Germany was a romantic. They seemed to romanticize everything to the point where it all seemed fantastical. It would be very easy for anyone to maneuver their way into power (Hitler) when the entire state of a country is daydreaming about better days in the past and future and not paying much mind to current state of affairs except to recognize they were miserable. On top of things they were dealing with disillusionment.
It's a tragic story really. Reading Harnack yesterday, I didn't have much pity for Germany's problems with Great Britain and well I suppose most of Europe preceding and during the first World War. I'm not sure why, I just didn't really find Harnack's points in his rebuttal to the Brits all that convincing. Stepping back however and looking at Germany's history from the time immediately preceding the second reich,leading up to 1939, it's all very sad. Germany, (who seemed to me like a Jim Jones figure almost, brainwashing its countrymen into a false sense of pride...maybe it's presumptuous of me to say false sense) set itself up to be almost seemingly utopic. I wouldn't be surprised if postcards circulated with a "welcome to Germany" sign pictured on the front and in bold italics, "Europe's Pride." But that's an aside. So Germany has all this pride, she believes she's divinely chosen, she convinces her people they're divinely chosen (excuse me, we're talking about the Fatherland...so he). It's their duty to spread the Gospel, bring in the Kingdom of God, let other nations how great he is! Then the war comes, and all is lost. They lose their pride and their sense of unity and no one really knows what to do. So they set up the Republic, the republic fails, more and more problems until we find ourselves in the time of Hitler. But I feel for Germany in a way...more so for its people. I just feel like even 70 years later, reading this, I find it difficult to understand why everything happened the way it happened. It seems like it didn't have to happen that way. All those genius intellectuals.
Then the whole issue with the Church. I have to agree wit Dahm. Protestantism failed the people of Germany. I'm not really sure whose fault it is, if it's the fault of anyone at all.
On to Barth.
Interesting article. I'm supposed to lead the discussion.
I have a few questions regarding "The Problem of Ethics Today."
The first question being, what is the question of the problem of ethics?
The most I can gather is from page 148. Barth says, "For us the urgent ethical questions are reduced to one: how we may be impartial to the truth of the Creator."
Ultimately what he gets at is that the question of ethics is never solved. The problem of ethics is when one stops asking the question.
Barth says that the problem of ethics is solved by Paul and the Reformation by forgiveness. Barth ultimately says the solution is Jesus Christ.
It's all rather abstract if you ask me. But I'm assuming it has some place in the grand scheme of this history or we wouldn't be reading it. During this time Germany is on the brink of economic crises. And the church's response to the political and economic crises was to merge Church and Government again as it was before the first world war and perhaps you have a rise of the German Church? Which the Lutheran and others were against. This is the backdrop to what Barth is writing. Barth keeps begging the question what ought we do, what ought we do regarding ethics...perhaps he means it as well in Germany in general since that seemed to be the question many people were asking! There were also those waiting for a Messiah figure. Romanticizing a future German Government but otherwise not doing anything... so maybe that's why he says about when we stopping asking the question of ethics that leads to our death?
Also, what does this say about Germany. What is Barth saying about Germany? I'm going to leave myself with that question because I'm tired.
So what I find interesting is that Germany was a romantic. They seemed to romanticize everything to the point where it all seemed fantastical. It would be very easy for anyone to maneuver their way into power (Hitler) when the entire state of a country is daydreaming about better days in the past and future and not paying much mind to current state of affairs except to recognize they were miserable. On top of things they were dealing with disillusionment.
It's a tragic story really. Reading Harnack yesterday, I didn't have much pity for Germany's problems with Great Britain and well I suppose most of Europe preceding and during the first World War. I'm not sure why, I just didn't really find Harnack's points in his rebuttal to the Brits all that convincing. Stepping back however and looking at Germany's history from the time immediately preceding the second reich,leading up to 1939, it's all very sad. Germany, (who seemed to me like a Jim Jones figure almost, brainwashing its countrymen into a false sense of pride...maybe it's presumptuous of me to say false sense) set itself up to be almost seemingly utopic. I wouldn't be surprised if postcards circulated with a "welcome to Germany" sign pictured on the front and in bold italics, "Europe's Pride." But that's an aside. So Germany has all this pride, she believes she's divinely chosen, she convinces her people they're divinely chosen (excuse me, we're talking about the Fatherland...so he). It's their duty to spread the Gospel, bring in the Kingdom of God, let other nations how great he is! Then the war comes, and all is lost. They lose their pride and their sense of unity and no one really knows what to do. So they set up the Republic, the republic fails, more and more problems until we find ourselves in the time of Hitler. But I feel for Germany in a way...more so for its people. I just feel like even 70 years later, reading this, I find it difficult to understand why everything happened the way it happened. It seems like it didn't have to happen that way. All those genius intellectuals.
Then the whole issue with the Church. I have to agree wit Dahm. Protestantism failed the people of Germany. I'm not really sure whose fault it is, if it's the fault of anyone at all.
On to Barth.
Interesting article. I'm supposed to lead the discussion.
I have a few questions regarding "The Problem of Ethics Today."
The first question being, what is the question of the problem of ethics?
The most I can gather is from page 148. Barth says, "For us the urgent ethical questions are reduced to one: how we may be impartial to the truth of the Creator."
Ultimately what he gets at is that the question of ethics is never solved. The problem of ethics is when one stops asking the question.
Barth says that the problem of ethics is solved by Paul and the Reformation by forgiveness. Barth ultimately says the solution is Jesus Christ.
It's all rather abstract if you ask me. But I'm assuming it has some place in the grand scheme of this history or we wouldn't be reading it. During this time Germany is on the brink of economic crises. And the church's response to the political and economic crises was to merge Church and Government again as it was before the first world war and perhaps you have a rise of the German Church? Which the Lutheran and others were against. This is the backdrop to what Barth is writing. Barth keeps begging the question what ought we do, what ought we do regarding ethics...perhaps he means it as well in Germany in general since that seemed to be the question many people were asking! There were also those waiting for a Messiah figure. Romanticizing a future German Government but otherwise not doing anything... so maybe that's why he says about when we stopping asking the question of ethics that leads to our death?
Also, what does this say about Germany. What is Barth saying about Germany? I'm going to leave myself with that question because I'm tired.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Further reading for tomorrow
Alright, so I'm not sure why I'm reading about China? Am I not paying close enough attention? I understand there was a conference but who is Dr. Michaelis? So I'm not going to write much about this, because I don't understand what I just read. As far as I gather, there was a conference in Peking in 1923 where Christians gather to talk about the war (WWI). Christians were called to not participate in any future wars. Apparently, Christians from (I'm assuming) Germany, France, England and Italy refused to make such a promise since they saw war as a way to promote peace and to end international disputes. Then some how, the structure of China comes up? I'm not sure why, but the YMCA is mentioned a few times. I'm hoping class discussion proves helpful tomorrow. That's all on that.
Now, regarding Harnack.
This guy seems pretty interesting. He's a German Theologian and he writes this letter to Americans. I'm not quite sure what he's calling them to do...or is it even a call? Is it a letter of disappointment? Is he asking for support. I never quite got the point. Is it a call to intercession. He is clear that Germany is being threatened on both borders. But what does America have to do with anything? I find Great Britain's response (or the response of some british theologians) quite interesting! They are certainly polite, very diplomatic, but don't see that they've done wrong, for them Germany has done wrong and Harnack is wrongly accusing them. I have to say, I'm siding with GB on this one, their arguments seem slightly more convincing. Germany, specifically Harnack, of course felt they were rightful in their invasion of Belgium, they were doing "God's work." Britain is slightly more convincing in this one. They showed aggression only in the protection of another European state. They were not the ones attacking. Of course this is only my perspective...but that's what the whole point of this journal is to write down my persepective. Harnack is smart, in his right mind, but he kind of sounds like a whiny 9 year old who's angry because he didn't get his way. I'm definitely going with GB on this one, as articulate and logical Harnack's arguments are, I still don't think it's right to invade another country when unprovoked.
It's hard putting myself in the mind of a German from this time. I'm just going to have to try harder I suppose.
Now, regarding Harnack.
This guy seems pretty interesting. He's a German Theologian and he writes this letter to Americans. I'm not quite sure what he's calling them to do...or is it even a call? Is it a letter of disappointment? Is he asking for support. I never quite got the point. Is it a call to intercession. He is clear that Germany is being threatened on both borders. But what does America have to do with anything? I find Great Britain's response (or the response of some british theologians) quite interesting! They are certainly polite, very diplomatic, but don't see that they've done wrong, for them Germany has done wrong and Harnack is wrongly accusing them. I have to say, I'm siding with GB on this one, their arguments seem slightly more convincing. Germany, specifically Harnack, of course felt they were rightful in their invasion of Belgium, they were doing "God's work." Britain is slightly more convincing in this one. They showed aggression only in the protection of another European state. They were not the ones attacking. Of course this is only my perspective...but that's what the whole point of this journal is to write down my persepective. Harnack is smart, in his right mind, but he kind of sounds like a whiny 9 year old who's angry because he didn't get his way. I'm definitely going with GB on this one, as articulate and logical Harnack's arguments are, I still don't think it's right to invade another country when unprovoked.
It's hard putting myself in the mind of a German from this time. I'm just going to have to try harder I suppose.
Sate, War, Revolution and the German Evangelical Church
by John a Moses.
Lots of history in just a few pages. I guess this is the hard part about the short term. We're covering large chunks of years in one day and I can't seem to keep names and chronology right because they keep getting piled on.
This article was enlightening. What I'm discovering is that I know next to nothing about European history, so I kind of wish I knew more so that I could place everything that's happening in Germany that we're learning about, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that would be helpful, but it seems like it would. Thank goodness for Google!
For me it seems like Germany's history just prior to, and during, World War I is a good argument for the separation of Church and State. Although I have to wonder if the church had stayed in control if everything would have gone down as it did during the 30s and 40s. But the idea Moses discusses regarding the Kaiser as divine agent seems so, well, ancient minded. Which is odd to me since Germany at the time of its unity was all about being a Modern nation state...if it wasn't modern, then it wasn't German. Egypt and Israel, those are nations one thinks of when thinking about the monarchy as divine agent (although Egypt took it further and said the monarchy was divine, additionally Rome and others). But not a modern nation state like Germany. Germany largely modeled its autonomous state after that of France (I think that's what we learned in lecture, but I don't much feel like digging for my notes). And it is true, the coronations of French kings took place in the church, as did the other nations with monarchies (England, Austria, etc.), which linked religion and state leadership. However, Much of that ended with the various revolutions of other nation states. No longer did France have a king who was coronated in the church. So I found that striking about the German Kaiser.
I also find it striking that Germany's part in the first world war, was seen, by Germany, as holy war. The expansion of the German empire was seen as a way to spread the Gospel. Hmmm, sounds similar to various crusades during the middle ages. I find it interesting that again, Germany, is finding internal unity as a result of tension. First in the 19th century with French occupation, and then during World War I. Moses quotes the Kaiser as saying, "I recognize no parties any more, only Germans." So I guess then, there was a shift from the importance of Germany's place in the installation of the Kingdom of God, to the solidarity of Germany. That's where Harnack comes in I suppose? It all seems rather complicated, and I suppose most of history is.
Eventually, when the Germans lose the war, there is a definitive separation of Church and state. I'm never one to side with anyone who claims holy war. At least ideologically. I think it's a weak excuse and a lame cover for power hunger. Certainly interesting though how much of a role the church had in the rise and establishment of Germany.
Lots of history in just a few pages. I guess this is the hard part about the short term. We're covering large chunks of years in one day and I can't seem to keep names and chronology right because they keep getting piled on.
This article was enlightening. What I'm discovering is that I know next to nothing about European history, so I kind of wish I knew more so that I could place everything that's happening in Germany that we're learning about, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that would be helpful, but it seems like it would. Thank goodness for Google!
For me it seems like Germany's history just prior to, and during, World War I is a good argument for the separation of Church and State. Although I have to wonder if the church had stayed in control if everything would have gone down as it did during the 30s and 40s. But the idea Moses discusses regarding the Kaiser as divine agent seems so, well, ancient minded. Which is odd to me since Germany at the time of its unity was all about being a Modern nation state...if it wasn't modern, then it wasn't German. Egypt and Israel, those are nations one thinks of when thinking about the monarchy as divine agent (although Egypt took it further and said the monarchy was divine, additionally Rome and others). But not a modern nation state like Germany. Germany largely modeled its autonomous state after that of France (I think that's what we learned in lecture, but I don't much feel like digging for my notes). And it is true, the coronations of French kings took place in the church, as did the other nations with monarchies (England, Austria, etc.), which linked religion and state leadership. However, Much of that ended with the various revolutions of other nation states. No longer did France have a king who was coronated in the church. So I found that striking about the German Kaiser.
I also find it striking that Germany's part in the first world war, was seen, by Germany, as holy war. The expansion of the German empire was seen as a way to spread the Gospel. Hmmm, sounds similar to various crusades during the middle ages. I find it interesting that again, Germany, is finding internal unity as a result of tension. First in the 19th century with French occupation, and then during World War I. Moses quotes the Kaiser as saying, "I recognize no parties any more, only Germans." So I guess then, there was a shift from the importance of Germany's place in the installation of the Kingdom of God, to the solidarity of Germany. That's where Harnack comes in I suppose? It all seems rather complicated, and I suppose most of history is.
Eventually, when the Germans lose the war, there is a definitive separation of Church and state. I'm never one to side with anyone who claims holy war. At least ideologically. I think it's a weak excuse and a lame cover for power hunger. Certainly interesting though how much of a role the church had in the rise and establishment of Germany.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Nietzsche
Yikes.
This is my first time encountering Nietzsche's work. Prior to reading the assigned text the most I had experienced Nietzsche was in random in-class discussions in under grad. Normally someone would pretentiously name drop Nietzsche into the conversation which was always seemingly irrelevant. It only ever seemed to accomplish making the person seem learned in Philosophy but unable to understand the idea of relevancy. So naturally, from these few experiences put a bad taste in my mouth regarding the infamous philosopher.
I can't see that I my mind about Nietzsche was much changed after reading. What I gathered from the reading is that Nitzsche venerates manipulation and overpowering as a proper means to power. He seems to not really be pesismistic regarding humanity, but somewhat or a realist. Every person/empire brought successfully to power did so by doing harm and aggressively over powering weaker nations or people. Often people of peace or "mellow civilisations" as Nietzsche refers to in section 257. Nietzsche argues that those of noble castes (who are always the ones overpowering the lesser castes) were more "complete men" than those whom they conquer. Rough. I'm not fully sure what he means by complete, but I don't like it.
Nietzsche has it right in one sense. The nobles, the higher ups, etc. do overpower through means of manipulation and awful aggression...but I do not agree that this the right (for lack of a better word) to do this. It is true, my own country came into existence through this means (think the new American habitants versus the Native Americans) but I don't like it. I don't like that shadowy part of our American history. Although I have to say, I enjoy living in America and many I suppose would argue, more than likely, this was the only way to come to be here. So Nietzsche observations are in a way correct (which I neglectfully admit).
So I guess the question is what is this text doing in our class? Why is it here. I'm not sure why yet. Perhaps it will be made more evident in hindsight. But I guess what I do know about Hitler and his socialist party and all the horrendous things they did it would make sense that we read a work some what venerating the over-powering of another people, a lesser people, a less "complete" people. Which in actuality is what the Nazis did. Not that Jews are lesser people, but that's how they were thought of.
First Entry
One of our major assignment for this class (The German Church Struggle) is to keep a journal. I find it easier to type thoughts sometimes as my hands don't write as fast as my brain works. I'm a much faster typer so this seemed the best way to keep this journal. Plus it's always accessible by keeping it on a blog no matter where I am, whether at home or the library, or wherever. Note that the purpose of this journal is to make personal notes on the reading and other materials given in class. So it may be disorganized, jumpy and inarticulate, but the idea is to work out what I'm learning on paper (or screen in this case) instead of letting it build up in my mind.
The first reading I did was "Religion, Denomination and Nationalism in Nineteenth-century Germany" by Wolfgang Algeld (Translated by Mike Bohn).
I find it helpful already to be starting in 19th Century Germany. It makes obvious sense I suppose seeing as how the context for anyone's worldview begins before they even exist. But YIKES there was a lot in this article. I hate to pass judgement so liberally but I have to say the rise of German Nationalism is kind of creepy. I understand the idea of wanting a community to be unified. It makes perfect sense in fact. I think people thrive in a nurturing united community. And I think people like to have an identity in something that seems bigger than themselves, but is party of themselves. So the idea behind German Nationalism seems natural. According to Altgeld's article though, it seems that the concept of "German" became sort of an obsession. German religion, German government, German people...German, German, German. Yet they didn't even know what German was, so they had to start to define it. Essentially once they decided that German meant protestant and not Catholic or Jewish, then anyone other than Protestant couldn't possibly be German. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to me since I'm an American. The whole idea behind Americanism in some ways is the whole idea of a melting pot (although some would say American means Christian). There's no declared state religion. I know people from all sorts of religions, colors, ethnicities, etc. that are definitely American.
What I found striking is that the Nationalists were slightly tolerant of Catholics, but Jews would not be able to have full citizenship. They could not be considered German at all, even though they may have been living in German land for centuries. Their nation was the nation of Israel. Which, although was boundaryless, was nonetheless a nation, and since Jews allegiances were to the nation of Israel it couldn't be to Germany as well. I suppose this makes sense. It's certainly logical..but it doesn't seem to be rational.
Further, what I find incredibly exasperating, is that the protestant theologians denounced Judaism as the origin of Christian orthodoxy. I'm sorry but I fail to see neither the logic or rationality behind that. It doesn't even make sense. The Hebrew Bible makes up the first part of the Christian Bible. Jesus, Christ himself, was Jewish. All he taught was based on Judaism. I would love for this concept to be explained to me because I really just don't get it.
This article was certainly enlightening. The importance I took from this is that mainstreamed anti-Semitism didn't originate with Hitler in Germany. This is something I really didn't know. So Hitler seems to come from a context of Anti-semitism. At least so it seems...we're not really talking about Hitler yet. But it's helpful to know.
The first reading I did was "Religion, Denomination and Nationalism in Nineteenth-century Germany" by Wolfgang Algeld (Translated by Mike Bohn).
I find it helpful already to be starting in 19th Century Germany. It makes obvious sense I suppose seeing as how the context for anyone's worldview begins before they even exist. But YIKES there was a lot in this article. I hate to pass judgement so liberally but I have to say the rise of German Nationalism is kind of creepy. I understand the idea of wanting a community to be unified. It makes perfect sense in fact. I think people thrive in a nurturing united community. And I think people like to have an identity in something that seems bigger than themselves, but is party of themselves. So the idea behind German Nationalism seems natural. According to Altgeld's article though, it seems that the concept of "German" became sort of an obsession. German religion, German government, German people...German, German, German. Yet they didn't even know what German was, so they had to start to define it. Essentially once they decided that German meant protestant and not Catholic or Jewish, then anyone other than Protestant couldn't possibly be German. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to me since I'm an American. The whole idea behind Americanism in some ways is the whole idea of a melting pot (although some would say American means Christian). There's no declared state religion. I know people from all sorts of religions, colors, ethnicities, etc. that are definitely American.
What I found striking is that the Nationalists were slightly tolerant of Catholics, but Jews would not be able to have full citizenship. They could not be considered German at all, even though they may have been living in German land for centuries. Their nation was the nation of Israel. Which, although was boundaryless, was nonetheless a nation, and since Jews allegiances were to the nation of Israel it couldn't be to Germany as well. I suppose this makes sense. It's certainly logical..but it doesn't seem to be rational.
Further, what I find incredibly exasperating, is that the protestant theologians denounced Judaism as the origin of Christian orthodoxy. I'm sorry but I fail to see neither the logic or rationality behind that. It doesn't even make sense. The Hebrew Bible makes up the first part of the Christian Bible. Jesus, Christ himself, was Jewish. All he taught was based on Judaism. I would love for this concept to be explained to me because I really just don't get it.
This article was certainly enlightening. The importance I took from this is that mainstreamed anti-Semitism didn't originate with Hitler in Germany. This is something I really didn't know. So Hitler seems to come from a context of Anti-semitism. At least so it seems...we're not really talking about Hitler yet. But it's helpful to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
