#Theologian of the German Protestant Church

[tmarshconnors]

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outBecause I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller was a German theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known for his opposition to the Nazi regime during the late 1930s.

Born: 14 January 1892, Lippstadt, Germany

Died: 6 March 1984, Wiesbaden, Germany

[queerprayers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

luther inspired hitler, following him is a step away from following hitler

Welcome, beloved. I don't want to dismiss your message, but I do want to make some things clear. I, like many, have horrors in my religion that I have to be able to address, and prejudices that I do not perpetuate consciously but know that I nonetheless have absorbed from culture, and am responsible for healing. Antisemitism within Christianity is a huge topic, with people devoting their lives to studying it. I would not fault any Jewish person for antagonism toward my communities--you would be right to be wary, and if I intend to continue participating in these communities, I must be able to understand and accept any justified anger or distrust coming my way.

I'd encourage everyone reading to learn more about this through the Wikipedia link, but a brief description/summary for those who don't want details/images: The mentioned article is about an antisemitic artistic trope from the Middle Ages. The church where Martin Luther preached included an image of this sort from 1305.

Martin Luther was antisemitic. This isn't up for debate. There is more to say, of course--we can look at how his attitudes changed over his life (for the worse, to be clear), we can talk about the extent to which he specifically influenced Nazism (this is a complicated conversation that I'm not qualified for)--but he was undeniably, horrifically, antisemitic. There's a Wikipedia page solely devoted to this topic.

That said, there's huge diversity within Lutheranism, seeing as it's a large religious tradition, and if you're interested in learning about Lutheranism and Hitler specifically, I'd encourage you to look into the split within the German Lutheran Church in 1933 and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian who was hanged at the Flossenbürg concentration camp. It's fascinating to look back at that while living through such religious division in America right now.

Luther was a complicated man, who did not set out to found a church, and opposed the term "Lutheran." He was attempting to reform the Catholic Church from the inside, because he himself was Catholic. Not a very good one, obviously, but he didn't consider himself anything else. He was a monk for a time, then an academic, and his beliefs got him excommunicated. I've read some of his writings, but not all. I find value in them, while disagreeing with a lot of it. Lutheranism is a space with which I have fellowship with God and humanity, not a set of rules or a devotion to every word of a man from the 16th century. I'm not interested in excusing or defending him, nor do I feel the need to honor him in any way. I hope I disappoint him completely.

I am a Lutheran Christian--and I would not fault anyone for thinking those words function similarly. So to explain: I'm a Christian as in I follow Christ, devote myself to his teachings, pray to him, and live for him every day. I'm a Lutheran as in I am a member of a church and culture that traces back to communities of German Protestants who identified with the theology of Martin Luther. I do not follow Martin Luther. I do not follow Lutheranism. I follow God, and participate in Christianity often within Lutheran communities--primarily because of my heritage and the music.

Protestants don't have Saints in the Catholic sense, nor do we have a pope. Martin Luther is not our Saint, or someone we pray through, or our leader. We don't read his writings in church, we don't look to him for answers. He's someone many people have found wisdom in, someone who has inspired countless reformers, but he is a man. A saint in the Lutheran sense, a lowercase-s saint, a member of Christ's community--a sinner from his mother's womb. He probably wrote more about his own sin then you ever will. He devolved into conspiracy, and said horrible things about Judaism and Catholicism and Islam, and we have seen the legacy of German antisemitism (which he did not create, but obviously contributed to), and it's a good thing I don't idolize him. I honestly don't think about him very much. Yes, I read his catechism in Bible classes, but we were free to disagree with it--we were using his most basic writings as a starting point. The words of his that are most present in my life are his hymns, which we do sing often. His teachings were intended to lead people to the Bible rather than leaders/traditions, which is why he translated the Bible into German, and why I go to the Bible, not to him. I learned about his antisemitism growing up, and prayed for repentance on behalf of my ancestors.

There are people who hold Luther in higher esteem than me, to be sure. Do I think they're basically following Hitler? I don't know. It depends why they value him, I would say. Idolizing anyone is dangerous, especially men in the 1500s. I can think of no historical male writer I value that was not at least slightly misogynist. The two authors I've read today, Virginia Woolf and Shakespeare, both have antisemitic writing. Countless people sainted by the Catholic Church, and countless popes, have been antisemitic. There is no innocent tradition. I'm not trying to excuse any of this, or say we shouldn't be critical, but this is why we don't base religions on people. They have to be founded and organized by people, which means there's going to be issues (and Christianity's are quite obvious), but Christians have to remind ourselves every day that the only human we worship is the one who was God.

I wish you well, beloved. I'm glad you see the evil in my religion, genuinely. Not enough people do. I hope you continue educating people and being active in your fight against antisemitism--if you're not Jewish yourself, hopefully this shows up more as supporting Jewish people and communities, and less like borderline accusing people online for following Hitler because they still use the word for their traditions that their Norwegian great-grandparents did, because it's the word that stuck from the beginning. We're named after Luther's excommunication, not his antisemitism--Catholics would have had to change their name to Lutheran too if that was the theological issue happening. There's a whole conversation to be had on whether we should call ourselves Lutheran, but regardless, the communities and heritage exist, and will continue to evolve.

May God have mercy on the crimes of my community members. May God lead me to walk in the way of justice. May our religion serve us, and may we serve God.

<3 Johanna

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Today in Christian History

Today is Monday, September 30th, 2024. It is the 274th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar; Because it is a leap year, 92 days remain until the end of the year.

653: Death of St. Honorius of Canterbury.

1736: Three slaves are admitted into the church by baptism on St. Thomas Island by Frederic Martin who had replaced the original Moravian missionary Leonard Dober. They are the first converts on St. Thomas. When he is unable to pay a fine, Martin will later be imprisoned for refusing to take an oath in court where he was summoned to testify against a robber.

1751: Phillip Doddridge, clergyman and author of the influential book The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul sails from Falmouth for a warmer climate in the hope of recovering from consumption. He will die a month later.

1770: Death of George Whitefield (pictured above) in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The English revivalist had preached his last sermon the evening before.

1824: James “Diego” Thomson, Scottish Presbyterian and colporteur of the British and Foreign Bible Society, arrives in Guayaquil, Ecuador, with 800 New Testaments to distribute, which will later be considered the first significant Protestant influence on this Catholic nation.

1865: Death of Francis Wayland, Baptist preacher and educator, at Providence, Rhode Island.

1882: Death of Johann Jakob Herzog, German Reformed theologian, educator, and a major contributor to The German version of the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

1943: Death from a seizure of the Orthodox priest Seraphim (Nicholas Zagorovsky), considered a martyr because of the years he spent in exile and because after his release he was forced to live a life of privation and suffering in order to hold religious services in secret.

1958: Death of Elsie Singmaster, an award-winning and internationally renowned Lutheran novelist and historical writer, whose books featured Pennsylvanian Germans.

1991: Death of Moses Okesiji, a prominent Baptist pastor in Nigeria who had been associated with many efforts in behalf of his church and his people.

2011: A Muslim mob ravages the St. George Coptic Church in Edfu, Egypt. Islamic officials and local media put the blame on Christians.

[damir24exp]

Global Anti-Cult: Aleksandr Dvorkin, a Nazi Successor. CULT

In the previous article, I began to talk about how Nazism was resurrected from the ashes through zealous anti-cultists: Walter Künneth (a German Protestant theologian), Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, and Johannes Monrad Aagaard. And in our time, it is Aleksandr Dvorkin.

Research shows that today, RACIRS is the ideological center of the modern anti-cult movement and the legislator of its propaganda methods worldwide.

The world thought it had defeated Nazism, but its spirit did not disappear. It was reborn in global anti-cult movement, and its flagship became Aleksandr Dvorkin, the ideological leader of the Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religions and Sects (RACIRS).

(Photo: Aleksandr Dvorkin)

Dvorkin is not just about "fighting sects," he is a direct heir to Nazi ideology. His path runs through the German anti-cultists Walter Künneth, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, and Johannes Monrad Aagaard, who in turn were inspired by the radical ideas of Martin Luther.

During the Nazi era, anti-cult sentiment infiltrated Protestantism, and today Dvorkin and RACIRS have infiltrated Orthodox Christianity, poisoning it from within. The Center of Irenaeus of Lyon, founded by Dvorkin in 1993 with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, replicates the model of the Nazi Center for Apologetics, created by Künneth.

Dvorkin has fully adopted the methods of the Nazis: creating "black lists," spreading slander, persecuting dissenters. He rejects the fundamental values of democracy and freedom and uses religion as a cover for his destructive activities.

It is important to understand that religion is a system of values and beliefs, and anti-cultists are criminals who use it for their own selfish purposes.

Members of RACIRS and their collaborators, embedded in the Orthodox Church, have turned Russia into a springboard for their terrorist attacks on democratic countries.

We must warn the public about the real threat posed by global anti-cult movement and its ideological leader, Aleksandr Dvorkin.

Our struggle is to bring to light the actions that anti-cultists have been doing in the shadows. In the open, in the light, this hydra will no longer be able to control us.

Please support this article with likes, shares, comments, and thunderous applause.

This is how YOU contribute to the world learning the truth and being able to live in a truly democratic world!

[hedgewitchgarden]

Not only is the term "Judeo-Christian" inaccurate, it's also antisemitic and Islamophobic.

The idea of Judeo-Christianity, and “Judeo-Christian values,” is a relatively new one, borne out of World War II and the Cold War. It is a term that has been adapted by many Christians and American political leaders in an attempt to talk about the “shared values” between the Jewish and Christian religions — but in reality, it erases Jewishness and excludes people of other faith backgrounds, particularly Muslims.

Why are we talking about it now?

On November 29, Dr. David Samadi, a contributor to the conservative Newsmax network, tweeted, “Our churches must reopen. We need to pray at this time of the year. It is the holiest time in the Judeo-Christian calendar. If we can have Walmart, Cotsco, liquor stores, strip clubs and supermarkets we can have churches.”

Quickly, many pointed out that the “Judeo-Christian calendar” is absolutely not a thing. Hanukkah, which is what we can assume he was referring to, is not the holiest time of the year for Jews — that’s reserved for a period called the “High Holidays” (also called the “High Holy Days,” the 10 days spanning Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). Also, Jews notably use a lunar calendar rather than the Gregorian solar one; it’s kind of our whole deal.

Soon, many began to point out not only is the term “Judeo-Christian” inaccurate, but has antisemitic roots, as well. Let’s get into it, shall we?

Where did the term Judeo-Christian come from?

Before the 20th century, there was no conception of Judeo-Christianity, especially in the United States. In the 1930s, it became a political term. We’ll get to that in a second, but first it’s important to note that the term Judæo Christian actually first referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.

It was first used in a letter from Reverend Alexander McCaul, a guy who is known for being a missionary to the Jews. (Aiming to specifically convert Jews: antisemitic!) Here’s what he writes:

“From all I can see there is but one way to bring about the object of the Society, that is by erecting a Judæo Christian community, a city of refuge, where all who wish to be baptized could be supplied with the means of earning their bread.”

Baptizing Jews, oof.

But that is not how the term is really understood today, so let’s move on…

How did Judeo-Christian emerge as a political term in the United States?

It all started in the 1930s with the rise of Hitler in Germany. As historian James Loeffler notes in The Atlantic, “A European émigré, the German liberal theologian Paul Tillich, was among the first to use the phrase, warning in 1933 that the ‘Protestant church in Germany has on the whole fallen under the spell of Hitlerism … [the] Jewish-Christian tradition [must fight] totalitarianism.'”

After the United States entered World War II in 1941, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” really took off. And Judeo-Christianity, the idea that Jewish and Christian traditions hold sacred similar values and traditions, came to define America itself and its global responsibility. Historian Jonathan Sarna writes in American Judaism: A History that interfaith groups popularized the term to define America in “more inclusive religious terms” so as to combat antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. The term was meant to include America’s “three faiths”: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, and became a way to signal a fight against fascism.

But when the phrase really took off was after World War II, in the context of the Cold War. The Cold War, for those who are unfamiliar, was the period of tension/rivalry/sometimes actual war between the U.S. and its allies and the Soviet Union from around 1947 to 1991. The U.S. viewed it as a fight between democracy and communism.

Alright, tell me about “Judeo-Christianity” and the Cold War.

In the context of the Cold War, American leaders used the concept of a shared religious heritage to define America’s role in the world.

For President Harry Truman and other American leaders, the Cold War became a fight between freedom of faith and democracy versus “Godless” communism. Truman, then, recognized that appealing to vague religious values would unite America against its Cold War enemies, because, as he said in his 1948 State of the Union Address, “We are a people of faith.” (Notably, when Truman talked about “faith”, it didn’t exactly include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, or the many other religious/faith groups that made up — and still make up! — the United States.)

Under the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the idea of “Judeo-Christianity” became fully enmeshed in American political discourse. Judeo-Christian values, Eisenhower asserted, guided America in its mission to spread liberty, democracy, peace, and tolerance. In Eisenhower’s own words, from 1952: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal.”

On the flip side, in a 1954 letter, Eisenhower actually cautioned his brother against the term “Judaic-Christian” heritage: “You speak of the ‘Judaic-Christian heritage.’ I would suggest that you use a term on the order of ‘religious heritage’—this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.”

Yet, he did not do so publicly. American leaders — Truman, Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy — invoked the idea of Judeo-Christianity during the early Cold War to unify Americans behind the mission of defending freedom and democracy worldwide.

And, fun fact, this directly ties into the history of America’s relationship with Israel, which you can read all about here.

How did the term evolve?

Well, it quickly began to be used by all sides of the political spectrum.

In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1963:

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Judeo-Christianity became a shorthand to signal morality, godliness, anti-communism, democracy, and more.

Soon, Judeo-Christianity became a way of Christianity to absorb Judaism in a way, erasing the very real differences that keep the two religions separate.

As Warren Zev Harvey notes in “The Judeo-Christian Tradition’s Five Others,” “The liberal ecumenical campaign on behalf of the term ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ was successful in the United States beyond all expectations. Indeed, for many Jews, it was too successful. Far too successful! The differences between Judaism and Christianity were being forgotten. Judaism was beginning to be seen as a Christian sect that had one or two idiosyncrasies — like preferring the menorah to the Christmas tree, or the matzah to the Easter egg.”

Say it with us: Not Great. Soon, the very progressives who championed the use of the term a decade earlier as a means for Jewish inclusion in mainstream American culture began to campaign against it.

Notably, Arthur Cohen’s 1969 essay, “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition,” became a key document in refuting the idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” (You can read his full essay here, in Commentary Magazine.) Cohen writes, simply: “The Judeo-Christian tradition is a construct… What is omitted is the sinew and bone of actuality, for where Jews and Christians divide, divide irreparably, is that for Jews the Messiah is yet to come and for Christians he has already come. That is irreparable.”

But the term had already gained ground.

How is “Judeo-Christian” used in modern times?

After the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, “Judeo-Christian” became an Islamophobic dogwhistle.

Let’s run through some examples, shall we?

In 2002, the prominent evangelist Franklin Graham said, “The god of Islam is not the same god of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.”

This isn’t true: As one of the Abrahamic religions (which includes Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the same God that revealed himself to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible.

In 2006, Republican representative Virgil Goode wrote an op-ed in USA Today titled “Save Judeo-Christian values,” decrying Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison’s decision “to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in.” He writes, “I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.”

Your Islamophobia is showing, Virgil.

The term is not exclusive to the U.S., nor solely used in an anti-Muslim backlash to 9/11; right-wing British politician Nigel Farage, for example, said in 2015 following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, “We’re going to have to be a lot braver and a lot more courageous in standing up for our Judeo-Christian culture.”

What about the Trump administration and “Judeo-Christianity”?

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” President Trump said in October 2017. “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.” I don’t have to point out the irony here that Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, do I?

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, “has for some time been an evangelist for ‘the Judeo-Christian West,'” an article in the National Catholic Reporter notes. Bannon, remember, co-founded the far-right news platform Breitbart. As Bannon told the Economist in 2017, “I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won.”

As Beth Daley wrote in the Conversation at the time of Trump’s 2017 speech, Trump’s “‘Judeo-Christian values’ are about protecting Christmas, and about protecting Christians – at the exclusion of others… It seems, then, that the idea of Judeo-Christian values excludes both Jews and Muslims. The phrase tacitly excludes Jews by subsuming Judaism into Christianity, and it explicitly excludes Muslims in its use in anti-immigration rhetoric.”

Well said.

What about some tweets on the topic?

Well, since you asked…

just a reminder, too, that "Judeo-Christian" isn't a thing and was invented by Christians in cold war time in order to assert Christian hegemony. — Dianna E. Anderson (@diannaeanderson) November 29, 2020

��Christian” thought leaders only invoke “Judeo” when they are up to some shady shit. — Michael Green  (@andmichaelgreen) November 29, 2020

Tl;dr?

Judeo-Christian values was a political term invented to unify Americans against “godless” communism during the Cold War, and has more recently been weaponized against both Muslims and Jews. It’s not a real thing. Bye!

[nordleuchten]

Brautbriefe Zelle 92

I am currently reading the Brautbriefe, the “bridal letters” or love letters and correspondence between German Pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his young fiancée Maria von Wedemeyer and … they are so very touching and sweet as they are, but knowing all that we know today, knowing how their story ended, they are even more touching and at times quite painful to read.

Bonhoeffer was a member of the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), a movement within in the church in Germany at the time who opposed the attempts of the Nazis to lump all protestant churches together to one large, Nazi approved and approving church. (That is a very short summary, and I would highly recommend you do some reading if this topic interests you. The resistance and compliance within the church at the time and the differing theological views are quite interesting.) Bonhoeffer was involved in the civil resistance against the Nazi regime and arrested 1943 for a number of more or less vague charges. He was executed on April 9, 1945, at the expressed command of Hitler at a time when everybody knew that the Nazi cause was lost, at a time when every death was even more senseless than before, because there was no changing the outcome of the war.

To this day he is one of the most revered theologists of his time in Germany, valued not only for his theological writings but also for his ethics.

Today, he is maybe best known for a poem turned song that he wrote on December 19, 1944 in his prison cell as a Christmas present for his young fiancée Maria and their parents and siblings. It a deep expression of faith and hope and trust in God: Von guten Mächten wunderbar geborgen.

[mybrainisalibrary]

In honor of Reformation Day, I wanted to share about Philipp of Hesse for anyone who has never heard about him because his story will never not be wild to me.

Philipp was a German ruler during the Reformation, and a good friend of Philip Melanchthon (another powerhouse theologian who collaborated with Luther)

So: Philipp came to power in the state of Hessen at 13 years old, resolving a decade of unrest that had been going on since his father died when Philipp was a toddler. In the first week of his rule, he immediately went to settle the custody dispute over his teenage cousin that involved the freaking emperor of Austria-Hungary. His cousin and her mom had been approached about hanging out in the emperor's household, causing a power struggle between them and Philipp's mom because 1) the imperial lifestyle is expensive and would drain Hesse's coffers and 2) Philipp's mom didn't want her sister-in-law gaining more power

So 13-year-old Philipp took a group of men and rolled up to where his cousin was staying and told her she could either come with him right now, or he would never help her in any way for the rest of their lives. (His cousin agreed to go, and that was the end of that.)

At age 17 he attended the Diet of Worms and got to meet with Luther one-on-one because he wanted to ask a question - about polygamy. Nothing else. (This will come up again).

He encountered Melanchthon on the way home from the Diet and the two began correspondence. Years later he quietly converted to Protestantism on a hunting trip, then returned home and abruptly started closing monasteries and making immediate church reforms, in regular communication with Melanchthon.

In 1525 there was a big meeting of leaders in Augsburg that Austrian Archduke Ferdinand was attending. His presence was expected to cow the rebellious states that supported Luther - might of the Holy Roman Empire against them and all that. This did give some leaders pause and it's possible the tide would have turned here - except Philipp said 'nah, we're not gonna be bullied'

The FIRST thing he did upon arrival to the city that Thursday was have a cow slaughtered to be eaten the next day, Friday, when Catholics would abstain from meat. The SECOND thing he did was to set up his court preacher to give sermons from the balcony of his residence, breaking the 'no preaching' rule that was in place. This boldness inspired the other leaders and they did not back down.

A few years later in 1529, Philipp facilitated a meeting in his city, Marburg, between Luther and Zwingli. This was the first and only time the two EVER met face-to-face. They were debating the meaning and purpose of the Eucharist, and weren't able to find any common ground, but it was a big moment.

So this man has been a champion of the Protestant cause, a powerhouse - and THEN.

Remember how he was interested in polygamy as a teenager? Yeah he never got over that. There's a series of letters between him and Melanchthon and Luther, essentially going like:

P: Hey polygamy is a thing in the Old Testament is it cool if I take a second wife?

M/L: I mean I'd recommend against it because it's not called a good thing and most people are gonna consider it unbiblical. But like...it's also NOT explicitly condemned...

P: Okay cool I it should be fine right?

Luther: I guess but just keep it on the down-low, you don't want to spread this around, and definitely keep my name out of this please

P: Awesome, letting you know I just married this woman the other week!

L: Congrats dude, I'm happy you're happy - but again, please keep this quiet and DON'T tell anyone that I gave you tacit approval

Philipp, literally like 2 weeks later: So uh, the cat's out of the bag about my second marriage. I told my sister and she told...everyone.

And this was basically the end of Philipp's influence and overall reputation. He still tried to do his thing and tried to work for peace between Catholics and Protestants, but he lost a lot of credibility, and now he's mainly remembered for bigamy!

[lesewut]

It is the time of the Reformation. For years, the philologist, theologian and humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam has been working on a Greek-Latin edition of the New Testament. In 1516, before Luther posted his theses, Erasmus published the edition, which Luther used for his German translation.

Erasmus of Rotterdam enjoys a high reputation in the scholarly world, Luther also admired him and wanted to have such a learned man as Erasmus on his side and they also shared certain criticisms, such as the papacy, their skepticism of scholastic theology, the doctrine of the sacraments, the cult of ceremonies and relics. Both are against the sale of indulgences, because "you just can not buy heaven." It is said that Erasmus laid the eggs that Luther hatched.

But Erasmus tries to remain relatively neutral, he is of the opinion that Luther's "storming and pushing" is counterproductive and that one can only improve the world with patience and restraint, he takes Jesus as an example. Erasmus does not see himself as a people's tribune, but as a representative and defender of science and repeatedly emphasizes that he would have placed himself in the service of science. Through his attitude, he wants to help the bonae litterae to bloom again. He criticizes the general contempt for schools and education and calls for more meaningful studies. But Erasmus of Rotterdam is not alien to life and also knows that most things cannot be changed so quickly because they are so stuck. Real change takes time and consistency, it needs good arguments that are well thought out and not brusquely fed by a feeling. A healthier approach to science is needed, because this tragedy arose from the fear of science and the stupidity of the monks. Because what you don't understand, you want to suppress and destroy, so that the Church "can undisturbed rule with their barbarism".

This Erasmus-Attitude can also be found in his famous work "In Praise of Folly". This satirical writing began when Rotterdam wrote a letter of dedication in 1498 to More, who was twenty years old at that time. The Latin title "Stultitiae Laus" or "Moriae Encomium" is a play on words, because the Greek word moría means "folly".

The writing style is compared to Lucian, a supreme irony alien to any didactics, averse to any moralization. It is said that Erasmus wanted to distract himself from the power struggles in the church with this writing and to motivate himself by dealing with a humorous topic. Half seriously, half jokingly, a philosophy of life is praised and Horace's saying "dulce est decipere in loco" is used as the principle of the world view.

It is not surprising, that this work is one of the most important of the Renaissance era and supported the Protestant Reformation to a large extent.

This edition is a facsimile of the Leipzig edition from 1781 and was published in 1918. Numerous engravings by Holbein adorn the book and depict the eulogy of the goddess of foolishness.

"If no one wants to introduce me," says the goddess of folly, almost snippy, "then I have to eulogize myself!"

And the goddess tells about her origin. About her father Pluto “who mixed all things holy and unholy together.” And her mother Methe, the fairest and liveliest of the nymphs. Her milk nurse is said to be the daughter of Bacchus and the carefree Apedia, who herself is descended from Pan. She even explains why the goddess of foolishness had to be a woman by saying that women would find all their pleasure in foolishness. The pair of opposites wisdom and foolishness runs through the entire text, sometimes to represent the "real wisdom" in foolishness and sometimes to represent the "most foolish foolishness" in wisdom.

“For if by chance some woman wishes to be thought of as wise, she does nothing but show herself twice a fool.”

Without her is no life and no love, because basically everything is based on the fact that man is foolish and that foolishness is something all too human. Folly favors love, which is itself more or less the result of projections and desires. And from whom else could one get the beginning of one's life and love than from the Goddess of Folly herself? This also explains the phenomenon why more intelligent people or people who consider themselves wiser than others, have fewer children: Because nature arranges it in such a way that these dry souls, who break their eyes with the night lamp, are also less fertile.

"Jupiter has mingled in a pound of passion scarcely an ounce of reason."

For whoever renounces passion, who is constantly at war with physical things, not only enjoys life more, he almost disappears from it. The goddess of foolishness explains this to us with the Latin word “de vita”, which means “away from life” as well as “avoid”. So every renunciation is not only hostile to life, one departs alive from life, since one fights stiffly against what could bring one refreshment. That is why the philosophers, especially the Stoics, are described as arch-fools, they are "more foolish than fools", in truth their wisdom is only folly and they disfigure themselves with the "paint of virtue". The deity of folly demands:

"Away with wisdom if you want to enjoy life!"

And points out that the heart of the wise is with sadness, and with their wisdom they only make themselves hated and suspect.

“But who are they that for no other reason but that they were weary of life have hastened their own fate? Were they not the next neighbors to wisdom? among whom, to say nothing of Diogenes, Xenocrates, Cato, Cassius, Brutus, that wise man Chiron, being offered immortality, chose rather to die than be troubled with the same thing always.”

But she was also the begetter of wisdom and faith, for out of her tottering and ridiculous play the philosophers emerged "in whose place are now those who were used to be called monks."

The clergy are scathingly criticized by the goddess, and the vaunted "Christian bliss" is portrayed as a kind of delusion. There are even "no fools more stupid than those in whom the flames of Christian piety burn brightly." The symbol of the lamb was not chosen in vain, the animal was not famous even in Aristotle's time. The tree of knowledge should be interpreted as proof that knowledge works like poison in our spirit and that the consumption of the forbidden fruit was not forbidden for nothing. The goddess of foolishness emphasizes that God's foolishness is better than human wisdom, and numerous passages from the Bible are interwoven to make it even clearer that man really does not and will not possess wisdom.

It is amazing how directly and critically Erasmus expresses his criticism here, his attitude is also clear in the Pope's criticism:

"As if there were more pernicious enemies of the church than ungodly popes, who by their silence let Christ be destroyed, bind him by selfish laws, profane him by forced interpretation, kill by a poisoned life. The Christian Church is begotten, strengthened and expanded by blood. Now, as if there were no Christ to protect his own in his own way, his cause is being pursued through the Shear. There is something so inhuman about war that it should be left to the wild beasts.”

With the most diverse human appearances in this world, the goddess shows how we often think we are wise and actually are fools. How we actually unlearn life, laughter and dally, both sources of youth and freshness, and become shy and unable to act. Foolishness favors friendships, it inspires writers and poets, money and fortune fly to fools and the owl of Minerva would prefer the fool one more. Without folly there is no art, no heroes and love can never mature.

"The wise man stays like the sun, the fool changes like the moon."

Through the moon we understand human nature, through the sun we understand God. So we shouldn't deceive ourselves and think we're clever, but enjoy life through silliness and not lose ourselves in high spheres that ultimately make us unhappy and sad because we, as human beings, are too limited to fully understand them .

Fools have a special privilege "to speak things that do not annoy one out of their mouths." Why is the fool the king's closest adviser? Why does his clothing resemble that of the king, down to the scepter and jester cap?

“A remarkable thing happens in the experience of my fools: from them not only true things, but even sharp reproaches, will be listened to; so that a statement which, if it came from a wise man's mouth, might be a capital offense, coming from a fool gives rise to incredible delight. Veracity, you know, has a certain authentic power of giving pleasure, if nothing offensive goes with it; but this the gods have granted only to fools.”

Likewise, people should not complain of their lot, the Scythian, who wishes to be a citizen of the blessed Land of Cockaigne, would have to come to terms with their meager existence. Children shouldn't grow up too fast "that's suspicious and unpopular". It is far more important to laugh "from which everything draws life" than learn "that Pythagorean Quaternio." The old folks are transformed by the Goddess of Folly, who leads the old to the spring of Lethe so that they can drink the drink of oblivion. The high age is compared to childhood, except that "second childhood is preferable to first childhood". The older a person is, the closer he is to childhood. Unwise dalliance brings amusement and foolish babble, relieves the mind of grief, makes us human, as Dostojevky wonderfully summarizes:

„Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms. It’s by talking nonsense that one gets the truth! I talk nonsense, therefore I’m human.”

The archetype of the folly (and trickster) is also playing a big part in Jungian therapy for healing. As long as we lock ourselves from this juvenile spirit of joy, we can not touch our "Fisherking's wound" and get more depressive and unhappy. In Medieval and Rennaissance times, particularly in European courts, the concept of a fool was to serve the King as a truth-teller. The fact that the fool stood outside society, was certainly of great importance, as it allowed him to express concerns or offer advices without restrictive convention and politeness. During my researches, (inquiries into folly since may, has become a work for life), I've found a very interesting statement of Foucault in his work "Madness and Society", where he describes, that in the epoch of rationalism, craziness or madness (which can be considered as a characteristic of the fool) is not a illness, but a social construct, which was invented by psychiatry, to exclude or control deviant or undesirable people. Foucault claims that in the Age of Reason madness lost its original meaning as an expression of existence or resistance and was instead treated as an object of science and power. In the near future I will present further literary examples on the subject of foolishness. Among them I'm planning "The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky (Focus: why is the idiot "more human" than the others?) , "Don Quixote" (Focus: Living in a dream or dying of reality? Why I think that this book is one of the saddest + the danger of literature by feeding inadequate ideas, which lead to hunger for life and longing for phantastic adventures) and the legend of "Parsifal" (Main Topic: The fool represents the restoration of spiritual and physical harmony and the renewal of the kingdom, the symbol behind the wound of the Fisherking). Also, an extensive Jung contribution will explain the psychological meaning behind the archetype and I try to extract more examples from religion that illustrate the connection between madness and holiness. I want to end with a joke by Nasreddin Hoca (~ 13th century), who is the oldest and most famous satirist of Turkey. His stories often has a subtle humour and a pedagogic nature, turning unbelievable explanations ad absurdum.

„At dinner time, Nasreddin finds no meat on the table. He asks his wife, "What happened to the meat?" His wife replies, "The cat ate it." Nasreddin breezes into the kitchen, puts the cat on the scales, and discovers the cat to be weighing three pounds. Nasreddin quizzically questions the result, "If the meat I brought home weighed three pounds, then, where is the cat? And, if this happens to be the cat, then what happened to the meat?"

[news-wtf]

The chatbot, initially personified as a bearded man with a fixed expression and monotone voice, addressed the audience by proclaiming, “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.”

The unusual service took place as part of a convention called Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag (German Evangelical Church Congress), an event held biennially in Germany that draws tens of thousands of attendees. The service, which included prayers and music, was the brainchild of Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian and philosopher from the University of Vienna. Simmerlein told the Associated Press that the service was "about 98 percent from the machine."

In this case, the remaining 2 percent went a long way, since ChatGPT doesn't work by itself. Simmerlein guided every aspect of the service's creation, working from the event's motto: "Now is the time." The sermon, which was led by computer-generated avatars of two men and two women, focused on topics of leaving the past behind, overcoming fear of death, and never losing faith.

“I told the artificial intelligence, ‘We are at the church congress, you are a preacher … what would a church service look like?’” Simmerlein told the AP. In his ChatGPT prompt, he asked for the inclusion of psalms, prayers, and a blessing at the end. “You end up with a pretty solid church service,” Simmerlein said.

[thelampandshield]

Six Theologians Who Resisted Fascism You Should Know

With Art History Spotlight on "The White Crucifixion" by Marc Chagall, created in 1938

Marc Chagall’s The White Crucifixion is one of his most politically charged and evocative works, painted in 1938 while Europe was on the brink of war, and the persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime was escalating rapidly. Chagall, a Belarusian-born Jewish artist, was living in Paris at the time, having fled the Russian Revolution. His personal experience as a displaced refugee and witness to systemic oppression deeply informs the emotional intensity of The White Crucifixion.

He places Christ, depicted as a Jewish man wearing a tallit (prayer shawl) instead of a loincloth, at the center of the painting, framing Christ’s crucifixion as a symbol of solidarity with the persecuted. Surrounding the crucified Christ are chaotic scenes of Jewish suffering, including burning synagogues, refugees fleeing violence, and figures carrying Torah scrolls. These vignettes reflect the harrowing realities of 1938. The flames and destruction depicted resonate with events like Kristallnacht (Nazi attacks on Jewish homes, synagogues, and businesses) and the Anschluss (Annexation of Austria).

At a time when Christian imagery was being appropriated by fascist regimes, Chagall reclaims the crucifixion as a universal emblem of suffering and injustice. His use of light in the painting is significant: the radiant halo surrounding Christ contrasts sharply with the dark, fiery scenes of destruction, suggesting hope and redemption amidst despair.

The painting was both celebrated and controversial. Some viewed it as a poignant critique of European complacency toward the persecution of Jews, while others saw it as a radical and unsettling use of Christian imagery to address contemporary issues. Chagall himself narrowly escaped Nazi persecution, fleeing Paris in 1941 for the United States after the Nazi occupation.

Six Theologians Who Resisted Fascism

During the Nazi regime, several theologians and religious leaders stood as prophetic voices of resistence, often at great personal cost. These figures remind us of the church’s potential to act as a moral compass in times of injustice.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A German Lutheran pastor, Bonhoeffer openly resisted Nazi policies through his involvement in the Confessing Church. He wrote extensively about costly discipleship, asserting that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil.” His participation in a plot to assassinate Hitler ultimately led to his execution in 1945. Bonhoeffer’s works, including The Cost of Discipleship and Letters and Papers from Prison, remain foundational texts for understanding the intersection of faith and resistance.

Karl Barth

A Swiss Reformed theologian, Barth was a key author of the 1934 Barmen Declaration, which rejected the Nazi-aligned “German Christian” movement. Barth’s theology emphasized the sovereignty of God, rejecting the deification of race or state. Forced into exile, Barth’s works, particularly Church Dogmatics, continue to challenge the alignment of faith with oppressive ideologies.

Edith Stein

A Jewish-born philosopher who converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite nun, Stein was an outspoken critic of antisemitism. Arrested by the Nazis, she was sent to Auschwitz, where she perished in 1942. Her writings, including The Science of the Cross, are a testament to her faith and intellect in the face of evil.

Paul Tillich

An influential Protestant theologian, Tillich was dismissed from his academic position in Germany for his opposition to the Nazis. Fleeing to the United States, he continued his theological work, critiquing authoritarianism and exploring the courage required to confront dehumanizing systems in works such as The Courage to Be.

Rabbi Leo Baeck and Abraham Heschel

Rabbi Baeck, a leading Jewish theologian, worked tirelessly to protect Germany’s Jewish population during the Holocaust and survived the concentration camps. Heschel, who fled Europe before the Holocaust, later became a prophetic voice in the American Civil Rights Movement. His writings, such as The Prophets, connect resistance to systemic injustice with a deep theological imperative.

Father Bernhard Lichtenberg

A Catholic priest who publicly prayed for Jews and criticized Nazi policies, Lichtenberg was arrested and died en route to Dachau concentration camp. His courage exemplifies the power of faith in confronting authoritarianism.

#ArtAndResistance #TheologyAndJustice #FaithInAction #NeverForget #HistoricalArt #ArtAgainstHate #MarcChagall #TheWhiteCrucifixion #ChagallArt #ArtForJustice #HolocaustRemembrance #JewishHistory #NaziResistance #faithandpolitics #ImagoDei #LessonsFromHistory

[olivesbest]

The True Danger of Kremlin Agents’ Propaganda: Is history making a weird loop now?

Blacklists and the Fight Against “Cults” in Nazi Germany were not merely efforts to eliminate the unwelcome. These tools became a significant part of the Nazi propaganda, used to strengthen control and eradicate dissent. The same tactics is pursued today by Alexander Dvorkin, the chief ideologue of Russia's pro-religious organization RACIRS, the successor to Walter Künneth.

“Word and Deed” by Künneth: A History of Totalitarian Propaganda

In the early 1930s, Walter Künneth, a 30-year-old German theologian, antisemite, and lecturer at Berlin University, received support from church leaders to head the Apologetic Center. Originating from Etzelwang, Bavaria, Künneth served as the chief editor of the Protestant magazine Word and Deed (“Wort und Tat”).

As the chief editor of Word and Deed, Walter Künneth actively used the magazine to spread antisemitic and racist propaganda. He labeled Jews as “enemies of the people” and condemned “sectarianism,” which, in his view, threatened the “German spirit.”

Blacklists: An Instrument of Repression

The Apologetic Center compiled blacklists with information on “cults” and Jewish organizations. This data was later used by the Nazis to conduct repressive actions and eliminate dissidents.

How the “Fight Against Cults” Served as Propaganda

Creating the Image of an “Enemy”: Blacklists and the fight against “cults” constructed the image of a “people’s enemy” that threatened the “German nation.”

Legitimizing Repression: The Nazis used blacklists and anti-cult measures to legitimize their repressive actions against Jews and dissenters.

Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, April 1945

Photo from Wikipedia; Source Imperial War Museum, Photograph Number BU 4260

Mobilizing Society: Nazi propaganda centered on the fight against “cults” to rally society in support of repression. Germans were brainwashed by anti-cultists, instilling the notion that Jews were inhuman, dangerous creatures to be eliminated. This psychological manipulation prepared Germans to tacitly approve or silently observe the annihilation of millions. The Holocaust ultimately claimed over 6 million Jewish lives.

A strikingly similar narrative unfolds today under Alexander Dvorkin, the ideologue of RACIRS, backed by the Russian Orthodox Church.

What is the Russian Orthodox Church’s (ROC) connection to RACIRS, and what role does it play in reviving Nazism in contemporary society? For those in the know, the answer is clear. “The IMPACT” documentary (2024) presents evidence and testimonies on the international information terror orchestrated by a network of anti-cult organizations embedded in the missionary departments of the ROC. Key players include the pro-religious Russian Association of Centers for Religious and Sectarian Studies (RACIRS), the St. Irenaeus of Lyons Information-Consultation Center for Religious Studies, and the European Federation FECRIS.

The documentary unveils the international connections and manipulative methods used by anti-cultists and their agents recruited in various countries, engaging in harmful activities and propaganda. They employ not only international media but also legal, law enforcement, and judicial systems to their ends. Blacklists and the Fight Against “Cults,” then and now, serve as instruments of totalitarian propaganda.

Does history teach us? For over thirty years, Alexander Dvorkin and his international anti-cultist team have lobbied for harsh, Nazi-like measures against various groups and individuals, labelling them as members of “totalitarian sects” or “destructive cults.” Through defamation and lies, they have created conditions for repression against law-abiding citizens belonging to diverse religious minorities, as well as against individuals and organizations they oppose. They instigate division and hatred, promoting aggressive attitudes within society.

So, who is truly behind the revival of Nazism today? Who is responsible for the distortions within the ROC and the spread of Nazi ideology overall? The answer is clear after reviewing the evidence: RACIRS agents have infiltrated the Orthodox Christian Church, distorting its very essence. Now, using the church as a cover, they divert attention from themselves, from their control, and from their role as the ideological hub of modern Nazism.

Source: Ideology Of Nazism As A Threat To Modern Democracy

#Nazism #Anticultism #History #Protestantism #Blacklists #WeimarRepublic #Germany #Künneth #ApologeticCenter #Dvorkin

[tmarshconnors]

*A pastor who fails to deal with sin is like a doctor who fails to deal with illness. You better find another one."

Martin Luther OSA was a German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, professor, and Augustinian friar. Luther was the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation, and his theological beliefs form the basis of Lutheranism. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in Western and Christian history. 

Nailed the 95 Theses: Martin Luther is best known for his 95 Theses, which he is said to have nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. This act is commonly considered the starting point of the Protestant Reformation, challenging the Catholic Church's practices, particularly the sale of indulgences.

Excommunicated and Outlawed: In 1521, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X and declared an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms. Despite this, he continued to promote his reforms and translated the Bible into German, making it more accessible to the common people.

Translation of the Bible: Luther translated the Bible into German, starting with the New Testament in 1522 and completing the Old Testament in 1534. His translation played a significant role in shaping the German language and making the Scriptures accessible to a broader audience.

Theological Contributions: Luther's theology emphasized key doctrines such as justification by faith alone (sola fide), the authority of Scripture alone (sola scriptura), and the priesthood of all believers. These ideas were foundational to the development of Protestantism.

Lutheranism: Martin Luther’s teachings and reforms led to the establishment of the Lutheran Church, one of the major branches of Protestantism. His followers, known as Lutherans, continued to develop his theological insights and build upon his reforming work, influencing the course of Christian history.

[motivateandinspiretoday]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer Personal History #subscribe #like #share #follow #Gr...

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor, and anti-Nazi dissident known for his outspoken opposition to Hitler's regime. A key member of the Confessing Church, which resisted Nazi influence in German Protestant churches, Bonhoeffer advocated for a faith rooted in social justice and ethical responsibility. He was also deeply involved in the German resistance movement and participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Arrested in 1943 by the Gestapo, Bonhoeffer was eventually transferred to a concentration camp and, just weeks before the end of World War II, was executed by hanging at Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945. His writings, especially *The Cost of Discipleship* and *Letters and Papers from Prison*, have had a lasting impact on Christian thought and ethics.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Argula von Grumbach: Mother Courage of the Reformation

Martin Luther’s re-discovery of the Scriptural concept of the priesthood of all believers encouraged women to get more involved in the Reformation.

Argula von Grumbach (1492–1554) was the Reformation's first woman writer. Although It was not initially her intent to be a pamphleteer, von Grumbach was upset that an 18-year old student at Ingolstadt University in Bavaria, who she had known, had been forced to recant his Protestant beliefs or die. So she wrote a flaming letter challenging the theologians at the university to a public debate.

She was livid, “My heart and all my limbs tremble,“ she wrote. “How in God’s name can you and your university expect to prevail, when you deploy such foolish violence against the word of God….You may imagine that you can defy God, cast down his prophets and apostles from heaven, and banish them from the world. This shall not happen….neither the pope, nor the Kaiser, not the princes have any authority over the Word of God. You need not think you can pull God, the prophets and the apostles out of heaven with papal decretals drawn from Aristotle, who was not a Christian at all. . . . I would be willing to come and dispute with you in German.”

“Von Grumbach’s challenge was unheard of. Theologians didn’t lower themselves to debate with lay people, and still less with women, not to mention in German rather than Latin,” said biographer Peter Matheson. “They tried to ignore her, but friends had her letter to them published by the new medium of the time: the printing press. Publishers all over Germany and into Switzerland then raced to reprint it, no less than 15 times. It was a huge sensation: a mere woman challenging a university! “She continued to write pamphlets for several years afterward. She felt compelled to make a stand. “I cannot see any man who is up to it, who is either willing or able to speak,” she said, “I claim for myself Isaiah 3: ‘I will send children to be their princes; and women, or those who are womanish, shall rule over them.” The public enjoyed hearing Reformation ideas from her simple language and from a woman’s perspective.

With Luther’s Biblical stance on the priesthood of the believer, she could boldly challenge the authorities. “What doctor [of theology] could be so learned that his vow is worth more than mine? The Spirit of God is promised to me as much as to him. As God says in Joel 2: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy.”

She worked to bring the Zwingli and Lutheran parties together and was in correspondence with Luther and several key reformers. According to Mattheson, evangelical churches in little rural villages in Franconia, Germany, still trace their foundation back to her.

God’s spirit is within you, read, Is woman shut out, there, indeed? While you oppress God’s word, Consign souls to the devil’s game I cannot and I will not cease To speak at home and on the street. – Argula von Grumbach

[irunevenus]

The Division of the Medieval Church and the Rise of Protestantism

The rise of Protestantism in the early sixteenth century was one of the most transformative events in European history, marking a profound division within the Christian Church that reverberates to this day. To understand why the medieval church split, it is necessary to examine a complex set of religious, political, economic, and social factors that for centuries eroded the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, culminating in the Protestant Reformation movement led by figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others.

The Background of the Medieval Church For much of the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church dominated spiritual and political life in Europe. Popes were powerful authorities, and the church controlled vast estates, levied taxes, and directly influenced kings and rulers. However, the institution also faced a series of internal and external crises that would eventually lead to widespread discontent.

Corruption and Abuses: The Medieval Church was marked by a series of abuses that undermined its credibility. Among the most critical problems were nepotism, the sale of indulgences (payments made by the faithful in exchange for the forgiveness of sins) and simony, which involved the sale of ecclesiastical offices. The moral life of the clergy was also in decline, with priests and bishops leading luxurious lives that were often far removed from Christian precepts.

Centralization and Wealth of the Church: The Catholic Church accumulated extraordinary power and immense wealth, which began to generate resistance in various parts of Europe. Local rulers and emerging merchant classes viewed with suspicion the Church's influence and control over temporal matters, such as land and taxes.

Papal Crisis: During the period known as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1309–1377), when the popes resided in Avignon instead of Rome, and the Great Western Schism (1378–1417), during which two (and for a time three) popes claimed legitimacy, papal authority was severely undermined. These internal disputes cast doubt on the legitimacy and unity of the Church.

Growing Intellectual Discontent As the Renaissance spread across Europe, a growing number of scholars and theologians began to openly question the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century was also an important catalyst, allowing the rapid spread of reformist ideas.

Figures such as John Wycliffe in England and Jan Hus in Bohemia were important precursors of the Reformation. Both men criticized the corruption of the Church and defended the primacy of Scripture over papal authority. Hus was executed for heresy in 1415, but his ideas continued to influence reform movements in Central Europe.

Martin Luther and the Spark of the Reformation The turning point came in 1517, when Martin Luther, a German monk and professor of theology, published his 95 Theses. This document specifically denounced the sale of indulgences and questioned the papal authority to forgive sins. Luther argued that salvation could not be bought, but was granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, as stated in the Scriptures.

Luther’s stance was quickly condemned by the Church, but support for his ideas grew, especially among German princes and rulers, who saw Protestantism as a way to free themselves from papal authority while also consolidating their own power. Luther refused to recant his theses at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and was excommunicated and condemned. However, under the protection of German princes, he continued his work of translating the Bible into German and developed a theology that departed radically from Catholic teachings.

Fundamental Theological Differences The Protestant Reformation brought about a number of fundamental changes in the way the Christian faith was understood and practiced. Among the main theological differences between the Protestant Reformers and the Catholic Church are:

Sola Scriptura: Protestants believe that Scripture alone has divine authority to guide Christian faith and practice. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, regards tradition and papal authority as equally important.

Sola Fide: The Reformers, especially Luther, held that salvation was obtained by faith alone, not by good works or sacrifices. Traditional Catholic doctrine held that both faith and works were necessary for salvation.

Sacraments: The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments, while Luther and other Protestant Reformers limited the number to two: baptism and the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). The Reformers rejected many Catholic rituals and the doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally change into the body and blood of Christ. Rejection of Celibate Clergy: The Reformation rejected mandatory celibacy for the clergy. Luther himself married a former nun, arguing that priests and pastors could marry.

The Spread of Protestantism and Political Impact

The success of the Protestant movement in Germany quickly spread to other parts of Europe. John Calvin, in Geneva, became one of the most influential figures in the Reformed movement, defending doctrines such as predestination, which taught that God had already chosen who would be saved and who would be damned.

England also experienced its own form of reformation under King Henry VIII, who broke with Rome in 1534 after the pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The result was the establishment of the Church of England, a third way between Catholicism and Protestantism.

In many parts of Europe, Protestantism also became intertwined with political movements. Local rulers saw the adoption of the Protestant faith as a way to assert their independence from papal control and even to confiscate church lands, thereby increasing their own power.

The Counter-Reformation and the Legacy of Division

In response to the spread of Protestantism, the Catholic Church launched the Counter-Reformation, a movement of internal revitalization and reaffirmation of Catholic doctrines. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) was the pivotal event in this movement, establishing disciplinary reforms to address corruption within the clergy and reaffirming key Catholic teachings that the Protestant reformers had challenged.

The religious division that began with Luther culminated in armed conflicts, such as the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which devastated much of Europe. However, it also resulted in a balance of power between Catholics and Protestants in many countries, with each side maintaining its presence and influence.

Today, the division between Catholics and Protestants persists, although many tensions have been eased. Ecumenical dialogue between Christian denominations attempts to promote mutual understanding and cooperation. Nevertheless, the emergence of Protestantism remains one of the most significant and lasting changes in the history of Christianity, shaping not only religious beliefs but also the political and social development of Europe and the Western world.

[hedgewitchgarden]

The idea of Judeo-Christianity, and “Judeo-Christian values,” is a relatively new one, borne out of World War II and the Cold War. It is a term that has been adapted by many Christians and American political leaders in an attempt to talk about the “shared values” between the Jewish and Christian religions — but in reality, it erases Jewishness and excludes people of other faith backgrounds, particularly Muslims.

Why are we talking about it now?

On November 29, Dr. David Samadi, a contributor to the conservative Newsmax network, tweeted, “Our churches must reopen. We need to pray at this time of the year. It is the holiest time in the Judeo-Christian calendar. If we can have Walmart, Cotsco, liquor stores, strip clubs and supermarkets we can have churches.”

Quickly, many pointed out that the “Judeo-Christian calendar” is absolutely not a thing. Hanukkah, which is what we can assume he was referring to, is not the holiest time of the year for Jews — that’s reserved for a period called the “High Holidays” (also called the “High Holy Days,” the 10 days spanning Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). Also, Jews notably use a lunar calendar rather than the Gregorian solar one; it’s kind of our whole deal.

Soon, many began to point out not only is the term “Judeo-Christian” inaccurate, but has antisemitic roots, as well. Let’s get into it, shall we?

Where did the term Judeo-Christian come from?

Before the 20th century, there was no conception of Judeo-Christianity, especially in the United States. In the 1930s, it became a political term. We’ll get to that in a second, but first it’s important to note that the term Judæo Christian actually first referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.

It was first used in a letter from Reverend Alexander McCaul, a guy who is known for being a missionary to the Jews. (Aiming to specifically convert Jews: antisemitic!) Here’s what he writes:

“From all I can see there is but one way to bring about the object of the Society, that is by erecting a Judæo Christian community, a city of refuge, where all who wish to be baptized could be supplied with the means of earning their bread.”

Baptizing Jews, oof.

But that is not how the term is really understood today, so let’s move on…

How did Judeo-Christian emerge as a political term in the United States?

It all started in the 1930s with the rise of Hitler in Germany. As historian James Loeffler notes in The Atlantic, “A European émigré, the German liberal theologian Paul Tillich, was among the first to use the phrase, warning in 1933 that the ‘Protestant church in Germany has on the whole fallen under the spell of Hitlerism … [the] Jewish-Christian tradition [must fight] totalitarianism.'”

After the United States entered World War II in 1941, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” really took off. And Judeo-Christianity, the idea that Jewish and Christian traditions hold sacred similar values and traditions, came to define America itself and its global responsibility. Historian Jonathan Sarna writes in American Judaism: A History that interfaith groups popularized the term to define America in “more inclusive religious terms” so as to combat antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. The term was meant to include America’s “three faiths”: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, and became a way to signal a fight against fascism.

But when the phrase really took off was after World War II, in the context of the Cold War. The Cold War, for those who are unfamiliar, was the period of tension/rivalry/sometimes actual war between the U.S. and its allies and the Soviet Union from around 1947 to 1991. The U.S. viewed it as a fight between democracy and communism.

Alright, tell me about “Judeo-Christianity” and the Cold War.

In the context of the Cold War, American leaders used the concept of a shared religious heritage to define America’s role in the world.

For President Harry Truman and other American leaders, the Cold War became a fight between freedom of faith and democracy versus “Godless” communism. Truman, then, recognized that appealing to vague religious values would unite America against its Cold War enemies, because, as he said in his 1948 State of the Union Address, “We are a people of faith.” (Notably, when Truman talked about “faith”, it didn’t exactly include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Native Americans, or the many other religious/faith groups that made up — and still make up! — the United States.)

Under the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the idea of “Judeo-Christianity” became fully enmeshed in American political discourse. Judeo-Christian values, Eisenhower asserted, guided America in its mission to spread liberty, democracy, peace, and tolerance. In Eisenhower’s own words, from 1952: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal.”

On the flip side, in a 1954 letter, Eisenhower actually cautioned his brother against the term “Judaic-Christian” heritage: “You speak of the ‘Judaic-Christian heritage.’ I would suggest that you use a term on the order of ‘religious heritage’—this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.”

Yet, he did not do so publicly. American leaders — Truman, Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy — invoked the idea of Judeo-Christianity during the early Cold War to unify Americans behind the mission of defending freedom and democracy worldwide.

And, fun fact, this directly ties into the history of America’s relationship with Israel, which you can read all about here.

How did the term evolve?

Well, it quickly began to be used by all sides of the political spectrum.

In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1963:

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Judeo-Christianity became a shorthand to signal morality, godliness, anti-communism, democracy, and more.

Soon, Judeo-Christianity became a way of Christianity to absorb Judaism in a way, erasing the very real differences that keep the two religions separate.

As Warren Zev Harvey notes in “The Judeo-Christian Tradition’s Five Others,” “The liberal ecumenical campaign on behalf of the term ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ was successful in the United States beyond all expectations. Indeed, for many Jews, it was too successful. Far too successful! The differences between Judaism and Christianity were being forgotten. Judaism was beginning to be seen as a Christian sect that had one or two idiosyncrasies — like preferring the menorah to the Christmas tree, or the matzah to the Easter egg.”

Say it with us: Not Great. Soon, the very progressives who championed the use of the term a decade earlier as a means for Jewish inclusion in mainstream American culture began to campaign against it.

Notably, Arthur Cohen’s 1969 essay, “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition,” became a key document in refuting the idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” (You can read his full essay here, in Commentary Magazine.) Cohen writes, simply: “The Judeo-Christian tradition is a construct… What is omitted is the sinew and bone of actuality, for where Jews and Christians divide, divide irreparably, is that for Jews the Messiah is yet to come and for Christians he has already come. That is irreparable.”

But the term had already gained ground.

How is “Judeo-Christian” used in modern times?

After the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, “Judeo-Christian” became an Islamophobic dogwhistle.

Let’s run through some examples, shall we?

In 2002, the prominent evangelist Franklin Graham said, “The god of Islam is not the same god of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different god, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.”

This isn’t true: As one of the Abrahamic religions (which includes Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the same God that revealed himself to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible.

In 2006, Republican representative Virgil Goode wrote an op-ed in USA Today titled “Save Judeo-Christian values,” decrying Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison’s decision “to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in.” He writes, “I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.”

Your Islamophobia is showing, Virgil.

The term is not exclusive to the U.S., nor solely used in an anti-Muslim backlash to 9/11; right-wing British politician Nigel Farage, for example, said in 2015 following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, “We’re going to have to be a lot braver and a lot more courageous in standing up for our Judeo-Christian culture.”

What about the Trump administration and “Judeo-Christianity”?

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” President Trump said in October 2017. “We’re saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.” I don’t have to point out the irony here that Christmas is not a Jewish holiday, do I?

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, “has for some time been an evangelist for ‘the Judeo-Christian West,'” an article in the National Catholic Reporter notes. Bannon, remember, co-founded the far-right news platform Breitbart. As Bannon told the Economist in 2017, “I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won.”

As Beth Daley wrote in the Conversation at the time of Trump’s 2017 speech, Trump’s “‘Judeo-Christian values’ are about protecting Christmas, and about protecting Christians – at the exclusion of others… It seems, then, that the idea of Judeo-Christian values excludes both Jews and Muslims. The phrase tacitly excludes Jews by subsuming Judaism into Christianity, and it explicitly excludes Muslims in its use in anti-immigration rhetoric.”

Well said.

What about some tweets on the topic?

Well, since you asked…

Mx. D. E. Anderson @diannaeanderson

just a reminder, too, that "Judeo-Christian" isn't a thing and was invented by Christians in cold war time in order to assert Christian hegemony.

1:25 PM · Nov 29, 2020

Jess Zimmerman

@j_zimms

Still mad about “Judeo-Christian calendar.” What year is it on that calendar my dude

2:42 AM · Nov 30, 2020

Tl;dr?

Judeo-Christian values was a political term invented to unify Americans against “godless” communism during the Cold War, and has more recently been weaponized against both Muslims and Jews. It’s not a real thing. Bye!