Adolf Hitler and Pope Pius XII, Nazism and Catholicism

I’m probably going to regret this post, but I’ll post it anyway. Either I’m going to get ganked by trolls, or I’ll be ignored.

The occasion for my foray into this subject comes about from some recent exchanges between Atheists and Theists as follows;

Atheist: “Religion is evil and it is responsible for killing more people in history than anything else”.

Theist, “If you want to measure how evil something is by a body-count, atheism wins hands down. For example, consider Hitler, WW2 and the Holocaust.”

Atheist, “…but Hitler was a Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church fostered and nurtured Nazism.”

Theist “…but Hitler rejected Catholicism by the time he entered adult life, and there’s no way you can fit the ideology of Nazism into the Christian Gospel…”

“…but…”

“…but…”

“…but…” Etc. etc. etc.

As I started to research the topic, the first thing I found (and this should surprise no one) was the stark polarization of opinion. Also, most of the statements expressed on the Internet were sharply polemic and some were much better informed than others - they ranged from the tee-shirt slogan level to actually referring to historical documents.

Noting the evident distance between the two sides and being an armchair football fan (my “home” team has a good chance of promotion into the English Championship this year) I could not resist the temptation to report on this as if it were a football match. It is not that I intend to be flippant with such a weighty matter, but the alternative could be yet another boring diatribe that nobody wants to read.

The Referee
That’s me. I am not a Roman Catholic, and I don’t intend to become one quite yet. However, I do self-identify as a Christian and I value truth and truthfulness highly (there’s a whole theology behind that, which derives from Exodus 20:16 and John 8:32, but that’s another story). Suffice it to say that I might not be entirely neutral, but I do want to see fair play.

The Teams
The following cast might not include all the major players and it certainly does not attempt to rank them in order of importance, but it does cover the ones I came across in my inquiries.

The Antis
Austin Cline, an Atheist, who argues that the Roman Catholic Church, under Pope Pius XII, was instrumental in bringing Nazism to power, and the recent apologies of Pope John Paul II “sent mixed signals”.

Thomas Keyes takes a similar line and asks why Hitler’s Catholic upbringing failed to deter him from fulfilling his genocidal ambitions.

Rolf Hochhuth, who is best known for his 1963 drama The Deputy, which indicts Pope Pius XII for his failure to take action or speak against the Holocaust. The controversy surrounding The Deputy prompted the Roman Catholic Church to publish the Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (ADSS), which I’ll address on the "other" side.

Michael Phayer, who criticized the Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (ADSS) as Papal propaganda.

Telepastor John Hagee, who “…claimed that Adolf Hitler's antisemitism derived especially from his Catholic background, and that the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII encouraged Nazism instead of denouncing it” (Hagee’s book Christian Countdown, pp 79-81, as reported on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee).

The Pros
Dean Mischewski (who self-identifies as “Kiwi Catholic”) provides substantial quotes in two highly readable articles “Did the Church Support Adolf Hitler” and “Adolf Hitler – Christian, Atheist or Neither?”. Mischewski should be credited with garnering his quotes from a variety of sources, though he relies heavily on Pinchas E. Lapide and a currently unlinked (and often quoted) article by Kevin Davids.

Dennis Barton and his site includes an apparently well-informed post, “The Catholic Response to Nazism”, but the material is not sourced.

Pinchas E. Lapide, who wrote “Three Popes and the Jews”.

The Four Jesuit Priests, who the Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (ADSS) published in 11 volumes from 1965 to 1981; Pierre Blet (France), Angelo Martini (Italy), Burkhart Schneider (Germany), and Robert A. Graham (United States).

Kenneth L Woolard, author of the article “Blaming the Wartime Pope” published in Newsweek 30 March 1998, and reproduced by permission here.

The Others
I should mention two personal friends of mine; Andrew, an atheist; and Esther, a German-speaking Catholic who has recently lived in Berlin. They are both splendid people who have discussed this issue with me, and they help me put a human face to both sides of the argument.

There’s a large crowd of supporters on both sides, which is responsible for the expected applause, taunts and barbs; some of which are entertaining, some of which are inventive and many of which are plainly ignorant and intentionally offensive.

The Inspirational leaders have spoken enough for themselves. Successive Popes have spoken to their devotees on one side, and the other receives its lights from the likes of Dan Brown, Richard Dawkins and Richard Hitchins.

The Match
1889 – Adolf Hitler is born and baptized into a Catholic family. He was schooled by Catholic Priests in the strongly Catholic Bavaria and served as an altar-boy in the Catholic Church.

The Antis make a penetrating pass down the right wing by asking why Hitler’s strong Catholic upbringing failed to inoculate him from the evil that he would ultimately perpetrate.

The Pros block the incoming cross by noting that Hitler was schooled by teachers with various convictions, but his history teacher fostered the myth of Aryan racial supremacy, which Hitler fell in love with.

The Antis push down the middle, and press the question about why the ostentatiously religious Germany harbored the deep-seated cultural anti-Semitism that Hitler fed upon.

GOAL The Pros call for a foul when the Antis quote the Protestant, non-Catholic Martin Luther (“On the Jews and their Lies”) to bolster the notion that Germany’s anti-Semitism was endorsed by the Church. The referee waves away the protests and the Antis score in the ensuing confusion.

Anti: 1 - Pro: 0

1920 to 1926-ish – Hitler abandons Christian beliefs

The Pros take the ball out of the centre circle, arguing that Hitler might have been exposed to Catholicism as a child, but he had rejected Catholic beliefs as an adult.

The Antis scramble to organize their defense, a produce a litany of Hitler quotes, such as the following from Mein Kampf

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Another one is from a speech in 1922

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

The Pros marshal their attacks on both wings.

On the right wing, they convincingly argue that Hitler’s express statements run contrary to Catholic beliefs. Mischewski notes the “…example that springs to mind of the contrast between Jesus and Hitler is that Christ said the meek shall inherit the earth. Hitler on the other hand called the Nazis "lords of the earth" because of "the genius and the courage with which they can conquer and defend it" (Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Ch 14).” The Pros conclude, interestingly, that Hitler did not hold to Christian beliefs, but he wasn’t an atheist either because he believed in a divine providence that favored the supremacy of the Aryan race.

On the left wing, the Pros timeline Hitler’s public pronouncements and conclude that he publicly courted Catholic opinion in his quest for power, but took a highly pragmatic view of propaganda. In other words, he was not above lying as a legitimate means to get what he wanted. In his private writings, Hitler despised Christianity, and there are a number of his opinions listed by Mischewski under “Quotes Establishing Hitler’s Non-Christianity”. After 1935, Hitler viewed Christianity as a threat to Nazi domination.

GOAL The Pros put forward a convincing and well-documented assault, drilling the ball into the bottom left-hand corner with the argument that Hitler did not hold Christian beliefs, and was, in fact, vehemently anti-Christian as he entered adult life.

Anti: 1 - Pro: 1

1926 to 1939 – Hitler’s rise to power and the outbreak of WW2

Much midfield skirmishing.

Dennis Barton documents the rise of the Nazi Party and its interactions with the Catholic Party and others, such as the Orthodox Jews. In 1933 after his successful election “…Hitler asked for a Concordat with the Holy See to regulate the rights of Church and State in Germany. The Holy See signed Concordats with 40 states between 1919 and 1939, so this was not an unusual request. Germany promised freedom of religion, including in publishing and the running of schools, whilst not making any unreasonable demands in return. There was no reason to refuse.” In 1937, the Pope protested against the suppression of Catholicism in Nazi Germany the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Sorrow). Also, the same year “…the American Cardinal Mundelein viciously attacked Hitler and other Nazi leaders. When the German government protested, the Pope refused to reprimand the Cardinal. The Cardinal's attack swung the views of many Americans in favour of help for Britain when the Second World War started”. (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/leaf-sum/catholicsvnazis.htm, but it’s not well sourced, alas!).

Attempts by the Antis to prove that the Pope did nothing to criticize Nazism, or that the Roman Catholic Church was in cahoots with the Nazis, lack penetration.

No score.

1939 to 1945 – WW2

Rivers of real an virtual ink have been spilled on the documented history of WW2, and I don’t intend to repeat it all here.

One instance is brought up by the Pros in defense of the Pope’s actions; the protest by the Dutch Churches in February 1942. “Protestant and Catholic leaders of Nazi-occupied Holland prepared a letter condemning the deportation of Jews to death camps in “the East.” But only the Catholic bishops, "following the path indicated by our Holy Father,” read the letter aloud from the pulpit despite threats from the Nazis. As a result, occupation forces swept Holland's Catholic convents, monasteries and schools, deporting all Jews who had converted to Christianity — something they had not done before. When word of this reached Rome, the pope withdrew a four-page protest he had written for the Vatican newspaper and burned it. As the 11 volumes on the war years published by the Vatican archives make clear, Jewish as well as Christian groups pleaded with the pope not to make a public protest because it would only intensify the Nazi persecution. The pope's crime — if that is what it is — is that he chose the role of diplomatic peacemaker…” (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0002.html).

GOAL The Pros score with a deflection.

Anti: 1 - Pro: 2

The Pros redouble their efforts by claiming that the Roman Catholic Church enabled many Jews to escape the Holocaust. The most famous and widely quoted (and misquoted) claim of Lapide is that "The Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands" (Three Popes and the Jews pp. 214-215). Lapide's calculation, however, has been widely criticized for being unsubstantiated (By Dr. Susan Zuccotti, a Holocaust Historian and José M. Sánchez, a Pius Defender, among others), which weakens the Pros argument. The true number many never be known, but even in Lapide's estimation is greatly exaggerated, then there would still be a significant number of Jews saved.

The Pros could have scored on this one, but the Ref disallows the goal.

1945 – Why didn’t the Roman Catholic Church Excommunicate Hitler?

It’s true. The Roman Catholic Church never did, not even posthumously.

GOAL The Antis opt for the direct approach, concentrate their efforts through the middle of the pitch and bundle the ball over the line with this question. The Pros attempt a defense by arguing that excommunication would not have made a difference to someone who had already rejected Catholicism, and that excommunication is about maintaining doctrinal purity, but the Ref won’t allow it. Even a symbolic gesture would have done something to assuage the moral outrage at Hitler’s war on humanity.

Anti: 2 - Pro: 2

1945 – The Roman Ratlines

The “ratlines” were systems of escape to South America that were used by German Nazis in 1944-45. The Catholic Bishop Alois Hudal engineered the Roman Ratline, justifying his position by explaining "The Allies' War against Germany was not a crusade, but the rivalry of economic complexes for whose victory they had been fighting. This so-called business ... used catchwords like democracy, race, religious liberty and Christianity as a bait for the masses. All these experiences were the reason why I felt duty bound after 1945 to devote my whole charitable work mainly to former National Socialists and Fascists, especially to so-called 'war criminals'." Unfortunately for Hudal, one of those “so-called” war criminals was Adolf Eichmann, who was hanged for being an "actual" war criminal that on 31 May 1962. Eichmann was not the only war criminal to escape via the Roman Ratline.

GOAL The Antis launch another assault based on the Roman Ratline. The Pros scramble a defense based on the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross were complicit in the enterprise, but it fails because the ICRC was hoodwinked by Hudal. A decisive strike from the edge of the penalty area seals it.

Anti: 3 - Pro: 2

1945 – Nazi Gold

More midfield skirmishing. The mist has come down and no one can see the ball clearly.

In reality, there are rumors and accusations that the Vatican has illegally acquired and held on to cash and assets that were stolen from the Jews by the Nazis. Unfortunately, the books have remained closed and it would possibly take a dogged accountant a lifetime’s work to forensically retrace a clear chain of custody. I don't have the time or energy to follow this at present, so it's a...

No score.

Maybe the Ref had his back turned at this point, but that's soccer in real time.

1958 – Pope Pius XII dies

1963 etc – Memorials

The Roman Catholic Church erects memorials to victims of the Nazism, including Maria Regina Martyrum in Berlin.

GOAL It would take a monumental amount of cynicism (pun intended) to deny that the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, would erect these memorials purely to bolster their badly damaged public relations.

Its a simple tap-in for the Pros.

Anti: 3 - Pro: 3

1965 to 1989 – ADSS

Responding to such criticisms as The Deputy, the Roman Catholic Church commissions four Jesuit Priests to publish its archived documents relating to the Papacy of Pope Pius XII during WW2. The Four Jesuits believed they could not publish the entire collection, maintaining that “…only size constraints prevented them from publishing the full set of documents and that no new important revelations would accompany the eventual complete publication.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSS).

Michael Phayer argued that the selection of the documents was intentionally misleading with respect to Poland: "singling out the letters of bishops Sapieha and Radonski, the editors sought in the introduction to volume three of Actes et Documents to build a drama around Pope Pius in which he would emerge from disrespect to respect". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XII,_The_Holocaust,_and_the_Cold_War).

Father Pierre Blet, the last surviving editor of the series, defended the integrity of the collection. "In the first place, it is not clear exactly how the omission of certain documents would help to exonerate Pius XII from the omissions alleged against him," Blet wrote. "On the other hand, to say in peremptory tones that our publication is incomplete is tantamount to asserting what cannot be proved: to this end it would be necessary to compare our publication with the archives and show which documents in the archives are missing from our publication." Blet added that he and three other Jesuits "did not deliberately overlook any significant document, because we would have considered it harmful to the Pope's image and the Holy See's reputation."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSS#cite_note-15).

GOAL The Pros sustain pressure on the opposition’s goal, and finally get it to pay off.

Anti: 3 - Pro: 4

1998 – We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah

We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah is a document published in 1998 by the Catholic Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, under the authority of Pope John Paul II. In this document the Vatican condemned Nazi genocide and called for repentance from Catholics who had failed to intercede to stop it. It urges Catholics to repent "of past errors and infidelities" and "renew the awareness of the Hebrew roots of their faith" while distinguishing between the Church's "anti-Judaism" as religious teaching and the murderous anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany which it described as having "roots outside Christianity."

GOAL The Antis don’t even contest this one (though one puts up a half-hearted effort about it sending "mixed signals"), but their concern is with the Catholicism of the early 20th Century, not of today.

Anti: 3 - Pro: 5, but the game now moves to a different venue, with different rules and different objectives.

Conclusion, to be continued...
The final result, as I expected, shows a mixed score. Indeed, it might not even be considered to be a “final” result at all because new information may come to light, and each re-enactment of the story yields different assessments.

Overall, though, I must note that I am more inclined to support the Pros than I might have been before watching this “match”. The two main reasons for this are that their position appears to be better researched and documented, and they appear capable and willing to express institutional sorrow and repentance when it is needed. I doubt that this will quiet the fans on the “other” side, and I am sure that it does not satisfy all their objections.

For me, then, I’m willing to call it a qualified win for the Pros, whilst noting the gravity of the lessons learned.

Jesus and the Pharisees

Why did Jesus give the Pharisees such a hard time?

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in (Matthew 23:13, KJV)

I've had it with you! You're hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God's kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won't let anyone else in either. (Matthew 23:13, The Message).

Growing up, I was told that Jesus fiercely condemned the Pharisees because, basically, they were the “bad guys”. Their seminal sin was their hypocrisy; they taught one thing, yet they did another. The message I received was a warning against insincerity.

Now, after many years considering the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees, I now believe that my earlier assessment was unduly harsh and a little misguided. It’s not that I now think that Jesus was unjustified in his criticism – he certainly was, rather that it’s not all about insincerity and it has much to tell us in our modern 21st Century environment.

Let me start by proposing that the Pharisees were not the pathological “bad guys” I had been led to believe.

I say this because I don’t believe the Bible separates people into pathological “bad guys” and pathological “good guys”. I believe that this tendency to separate people into pathologically “good” and “evil” camps actually arises from Gnosticism, and the Bible is staunchly anti-Gnostic. It also arises from Hollywood, but that’s another story.

Sure, the Bible talks about the “righteous” and the “wicked”, most prominently in the Psalms and Wisdom literature, but it also describes saints who sin (e.g. David in 2 Samuel 24:10), and sinners who do the right thing (e.g. Rahab in Joshua 2, see also Hebrews 11:31). The picture that emerges is not that we are either pathologically “good” or “evil”, but that we all have the same potential to do good or evil, and we all live out those potentials to greater or lesser degrees.

It follows then, that no human being is pathologically evil, not even the most Pharisee-est of the Pharisees. Incidentally, that’s how Paul described himself before his conversion (Phil 3:4-6), but the fact that he converted at all demonstrates my point.

This doesn’t solve the problem of sin, because none of us are pathologically good either; that’s a quality that belongs to God alone (see Luke 18:19). There is sin in all of us and it is present in all we do, even when we are at our best, and no amount of religion can purge it from us (see Hebrews 10:1-4).

If we are all in the same boat, why, then, do the Pharisees get singled out for a special roasting from the Boss (so to speak)? Let’s pick up the story from before Jesus’ entry onto the scene.

Its worth noting that its probably wrong to view the Pharisees as a religious cult that was based on a systematic theology. In my view, it’s better to regard Pharisaicism as a religiously conservative movement that considered itself to be the guardian and custodian of Jewish culture and identity. Josephus describes the Pharisees as a popular and powerful faction, ascetic in lifestyle, concerned to present themselves as rigorists for the Torah (Antiquities 18:12-17) (New Bible Dictionary, IVP, 2004).

The story of the Pharisees starts in post-exilic Judea, in the period between the Old and New Testaments. The Jews have returned from exile, having been chastened by their experiences. Their prophets interpret the exile as God’s judgment on them for their sins, and their restoration to the land as God’s faithfulness to His covenanted people. Not wanting to repeat the experience, the Jews took their scriptures to heart, in particular such passages as Leviticus 25:18;

Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land.

This experience of God’s judgment provided the spur for improving the religion of the Jews. I imagine that the reasoning would be something like “we got kicked out because we failed to properly obey the law, so we need to get better at doing religion.” Among others, the Pharisees then set about codifying the law and extrapolating it so that it governed every aspect of life in the community.

For example, the commandment to desist from work on the Sabbath was well established, but when did a legitimate activity, such as traveling, qualify as “work”? The Pharisees’ solution to this particular quandary was to define an allowable distance that one could travel on the Sabbath without falling foul of the prohibition on work. This is evident in the phrase “a Sabbath-day’s walk”, which is used to describe the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount Olivet in Acts 1:12. It’s about 5/8 of a mile or 1 kilometer.

Other instances would seem to us, particularly with respect to maintaining ritual cleanness around the most important feasts of the year…

A fascinating example of the lengths to which rabbinic precautions could go concerns a man who had a boil and wanted treatment for it at [Passover]. If a physician cut it off, then the moment it was severed from the body it became dead tissue. Contact with it would render anyone unclean and physician or patient or both were almost certain to be disqualified from keeping the feast. So the procedure was that the physician cut enough to leave the boil hanging by a thread. It was still part of the man’s body and thus living and not defiling. The patient then stuck it on a thorn and pulled away from it smartly, thus severing it from his body. In this way, neither of them touched the defiling tissue and both were able to keep the feast (Kerithoth 3:8)! (The Atonement, Leon Morris, page 94)

It would seem that an inordinate amount of effort was spent in avoiding defilement and ritual cleansing. I believe that this would lead to an unresolved tension between those who focused on doing the law, and those who focused on doing what the law was for, much like the tension between the Temple Cult and the Old Testament Prophets in the centuries preceding the Exile.

However, this movement also fostered two developments that are vitally important to my current enquiry;
1 The Temple in Jerusalem consolidated and grew as the focus of the community’s religion and self-identity
2 A genuine missionary effort was launched from Jerusalem to take the scriptures into surrounding provinces, including Galilee.

I consider that, like modern Christian missionary efforts, the missionary thrust of the Pharisees focused on taking the scriptures to “all nations” with the intent of discipling them in the ways of the Lord. Given that previous efforts relied on individual initiatives (e.g. Jonah), the Pharisees might have been the first, organized missionary movement. Hand in hand with this proclamation was an effort to increase the literacy of the common folk to such an extent that many of the adult males could read, though only a few could write. The irony here is that we Christians owe the writing of the New Testament largely to the Pharisees (whom we love to hate) and their commendable efforts to educate their Galilean neighbors in the art of reading and writing.

It’s not as if the Pharisees failed to create and sustain a law-keeping system either. In fact, they not only succeeded in implementing it from generation to generation; they optimized it.

These outcomes might seem counter-intuitive, but consider the thrust of Jesus’ denunciations in Matthew 23. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus acknowledges the missionary efforts of the Pharisees and the extraordinary lengths they went to in their proselytizing. In Matthew 23:16-22 Jesus addresses their elaborate methods for arranging oaths in a kind of hierarchy (which they used to get out of certain commitments). In Matthew 23:23-24 Jesus addresses their tithing. What is striking about these judgments is not just the ferocity of the language, but that Jesus does not condemn them for failing to practice their God-given religion successfully, and this is the critical point I wish to make.

The fact is that the Pharisees were successful at practicing and implementing a religion that had been ordained by God. So why, then, did Jesus give them such a hard time?

The question could be answered, rightly, with the word “hypocrisy” but, again, we need to set this word in context to see just what Jesus meant when he used it.

One of the oddities of the Gospel narratives of Jesus’ Galilean ministry is that though they are firmly set in the landscape of Galilee they make no mention of the biggest town in that region at the time – Sepphoris ( see http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/sepphoris.htm). Sepphoris was predominantly Jewish and wealthy enough to support a new-fangled luxury of modern life – a theater. The good citizens of Sepphoris would retire there for an evening’s light entertainment and watch the actors. The Greek word for actor is “hypocrités”, the Latin is “hypocrita” and the literal English rendition is “hypocrite” (Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, 2008). Though our modern word conveys a pejorative sense, it’s meaning in Jesus’ day meant, literally, someone pretending to be something that they weren’t, and it could be used in the legitimate sense of play-acting.

I might add that religious conservatives reviled the acting profession because the “actors” occasionally (often?) performed lewd live or simulated sex acts. For example, Clement of Alexandria advises a Bishop to require a converted actor to change his profession, probably for these reasons (citation needed). Also, potential disconnects between the actors’ “real” lives and on-stage personas might have been common knowledge, so its not unlikely that the first century term “hypocrite” could have had the negative connotations that it does today.

In its unadorned state, then, Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees is that they were pretending to be something that they weren’t. They performed their religion in public but it was disconnected to their inner, private life. When they were “on stage”, they would make a great show of their piety, but when they weren’t they would use their religion to cheat, lie, steal and murder. They had taken God’s Holy law and used it for their own nefarious purposes.

The way I think of it is that they drew a very definitive line between those areas of life that were controlled by their religion, and those areas in which they did what they pleased. The worst of them found ways of using their religion to abuse their neighbors, but its probably unfair to regard all Pharisees so negatively. Many of them, I suspect, were simply trying to live Godly lives, much like the religious conservatives of today from the Southern US to the middle east.

However, their God-given religion and Temple had failed to deliver them to God; else they would not have done the things they did and they would not have suffered under his judgement. This is plain enough from the Gospel narratives, but it leads to a nagging question; why did their God-given religion fail to deliver? This, I believe, is a profoundly important question, and it probably provides the impetus for the writing of the New Testament. I call it the failure of religion.

According to the scriptures the God-given law of Moses and the Temple system should have delivered its devotees to God and yet it didn’t. The solution to this problem, as presented in the New Testament, was not that the religion needed to be improved – Jesus and his followers had seen that the Pharisees and other rigorists had already optimized it. No. The solution offered in the New Testament is that no religion, not even an optimized God-given law and Temple, could possibly deliver a person from bondage to sin into the Kingdom. There are no paths that we can follow that will lead us to God. Instead, we are wholly reliant on God breaking into our world. It is He, and He alone, that delivers, not our religion, our temple, our law or our anything-else.

The picture that emerges in my mind is a Pharisee praying towards the altar, and Jesus tapping him on the shoulder. The Pharisee ignores the interruption, and concerns himself with finishing his prayers. The irony is that the true object of his prayers, and the true answer to them is standing right behind him, in the person of Jesus.

Jesus gave the Pharisees a hard time not because they failed to be sincerely religious but, ultimately, because they had rejected him. He had a right to be angry with them because he was the one whom their religion should have delivered them to, and he was the one who alone could deliver them from their sins and into their true inheritance.

Like the Pharisees, what we need to learn from this is that we should cease to put our faith in our religion, our righteousness or our anything-else, and begin to put it in the One who can, and does, truly deliver.

God and the Japan Tsunami

I was horrified to hear the news of a Tsunami that had hit the east coast of Japan at Sendi. As of today, the estimated toll is about 12,000 confirmed dead and 17,000 missing.

I had been meaning to blog this issue since the tsunami hit on 11 March 2011, but it’s something that I approach with a great deal of fear and trembling. No matter what I think, or whatever “explanation” I might postulate, the fact remains that some 29,000 people have lost their lives. It’s a monumental tragedy, and I will not allow myself to treat it in any other way. Each one of those people who died was a valuable, meaningful person, not just some shock statistic on a banner headline. I imagine that in that population were men and women, young and old, saints and sinners.

This is a time for grieving, not explanation.

Yet, it is human nature to search for meaning in what goes on around us. To various degrees, everyone who is affected, or who can see this event will turn from grieving to explanation. That search for an explanation will include some impassioned questions; did they deserve to die?

I have to say that I been immensely impressed by the response of the Japanese people, as seen on the TV coverage. There are the images of the ordinary women, searching the wreckage of their homes for their lost families and neighbors with a public dignity that seems impossible to maintain. There’s the story of the chief fireman, who lost his entire crew as they battled, unsuccessfully, to close the flood gate. There’s the manager of the nuclear plant, who visited the refugees one by one to apologize to them personally for his plant’s contamination of their food and their homes.

The word that the press has used is “stoic”. It might be an appropriate word, but its possibly incongruous because its Greek and has more to do with the heritage of Europe than the Far East. It seems to have been exported from west to east. Is there a better Japanese word, that we can import into our language? I ask because I’m wary of imposing Western interpretations on how an Asian people are reacting to this.

Another imposition on the Japanese understanding of this event might also be the prevailing Western idea of God. I’m unsure if the Shinto and Buddhist people of Japan might frame the question in this way, but I know the small Christian community might; did God send the Tsunami?

If He did, what was His purpose in it?

If He didn’t, does He interact with our world at all?

There seems to be much less public interest in these questions than the debate that followed the Boxing Day Tsunami in December 2004. Maybe its because the casualty count is much lower. Maybe its because the predominantly Muslim people affected in 2004 would have been more inclined to process their reaction by questioning God.

I have not done any sustained research on the matter, but I only came across one article that attempted to answer these questions from a Theist perspective. It’s a podcast from the website PleaseConvinceMe.Com, run by Jim Wallis and his team of “one dollar apologists”. Even so, this was not an extended reflection on this one event, but rather Jim Wallis giving his initial reactions.

I listened to the podcast and, whereas I don’t disagree with anything Jim Wallis has to say on the specifics, one thing that struck me about his approach was that he seemed to be interpreting the tsunami, and all of life’s triumphs and tribulations, in terms of what benefits us. His conclusion seemed to be that God sent the tsunami because it would ultimately benefit us, including those who died.

If I were an atheist, I would easily dismiss this position as absurd. How can something possibly benefit you if you end up dead? Jim Wallis counters (and I paraphrase) by saying that our lives go beyond death, so even our journey through death has relevance to what happens to us thereafter.

I’m not entirely satisfied with Jim Wallis’ position here. Psalm 6:5 says, “Among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the grave?” The salvation that the Psalmist sings about is all about preserving this present life.

As for the atheist position, I would have to respond that the lives of those who died had no meaning at all because, to put it bluntly; who cares? I might care, and you might care, but when our days are over, and we have long since been forgotten, what possible meaning remains?

Maybe its because I have an austere soul that I tend to believe that I’m really insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I find it hard to believe that God would summon a tsunami for my sake.

However, Jim Wallis does make a point that I need to hear. The Christian Gospel states that, though it’s not about me, God is interested in my welfare. Romans 8:28 tells me that “…we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” By “all things”, I presume Paul includes tsunamis. God loves me, and He can order things for my benefit. Even so, I wonder what “benefit” God intended to those who died in the recent tsunami. I don’t have a satisfactory explanation.

Another part of my brain has been occupied with cosmology. In particular the Incarnation of the Word of God (as you might see in the song I wrote last week). The issue here is how God reveals Himself through his creation, of which I am but a miniscule part. I’ll conclude with a comment that I posted on FaceBook;

If we are looking for God in this tsunami, we should not look to the tsunami itself but to the lives of the people who were affected, and who are reacting to it. Why? Because God has chosen to create His image in people, not tsunamis.

We are the witness of the Word - Music score

Last week, I posted the lyrics to a song that I had been composing. After a week of tinkering, I've settled on a score. My first efforts had the same melody, but with quite exotic harmonies. This is more symmetric, and it plays better.

I've tried to be sparse in the arrangement. This is because its a song that should be carried by the voice, not the accompaniment. In fact, it's suited to a cappela, or even Barber Shop, which is probably beyond the capabilities of your average church-goer. So, the accompaniment is intended to give it the subtlest texture and sense of direction, as if were standing behind the singer saying, "go ahead, you can do this".

This work has been prepared and authored by Martin Jacobs in 2011. You are free to share this work (i.e. copy it and perform it) under the following conditions: 1) You must attribute the work to Martin Jacobs, 2) You may not use this work for commercial purposes, 3) You may not alter or transform this work.

We are the witness of the Word

This weekend I have been preparing a paper for the Stormwater Industry Association, Queensland's conference. However, as often happens when you apply your mind to something, it finds something else to occupy it. I confess that I yielded to my wandering thoughts, and finished off a song that I had been writing.

It started out as a poem, then I found a tune for it, which required some modifications to get it to fit within the strict meter. It has quite a pretty tune that's easy to sing (it passes the "shower test" - if you can sing it in the shower, it's got a good tune).

The words, however, might require a brain-stretch. What I wanted to do was to capture some of my recent meditations on the Incarnation, following John 1:14 and Colossians 1:15. What intrigues me about the Biblical idea of "witness" is that it is not just a passive observation of something (as in "witness to a crime"), but it is something we "do". We are the witness of the Word because it (technically He - we're talking about the Second Person of the Trinity) becomes incarnate in us. We are also the creation of the Word, and it becomes expressed, or brought to tangible life through the Church.

It's not that we "generate" the Word, because He was there before all else (Genesis 1:1-3, John 1:1 etc). No, but he does take on recognizable and meaningful dimensions in what we are and what we do. He is "incarnate", made flesh, in us.

Any feedback will be welcomed;

We are the witness of the Word
The declaration of the Lord
So eye can see what ear has heard
That heaven speaks in love to earth

That same Word spoke creation’s name
Gave time and space both form and frame
Heard before ears had listening
Before all else, spoke life to being


But see, he takes on human flesh
He binds Himself within our mesh
Invites our senses on him wash
Baptized into our world afresh

See Him, the One who walks on sea
The unseen Word seen visibly
He calls our name in love that we
May rise to touch true Deity


They ate with Him, who rose again
Who cooked, and blessed after His pain
Submerged in death by sin’s foul stain
He now lifts high the highest name

They saw him rise beyond the cloud
Now ears can’t hear his voice out loud
He speaks on through their story told
No more by sight, but by faith beheld


And yet we hear the Word that lives
We see the life His living gives
Our dark tumult His voice now moves
To save us through the parted waves

We are the witness of the Word
He speaks to us, through us He’s heard
And having heard, we say the Lord
Shall now speak life and love to earth

Does the Bible teach that trees eat people?

…the forest swallowed up more men that day than the sword. 2 Samuel 18:8

When I read this recently, the first image that sprung to my mind was the scene from the movie “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”. In the movie, and in Tolkein’s book, the good guys have just defended the fortress of Helm’s Deep, the cavalry has literally charged over the hill, and the enemy army is sent fleeing into the forest where the trees take their revenge by devouring the survivors.

The Biblical account, which is, of course, 2,500 to 3,000 years older, follows a similar story line. King David has ascended the throne in Jerusalem, but is faced with a rebellion by his own son, Absalom. Through a sustained campaign of subversion, Absalom manages to mobilize a sizeable army of Israelites and David musters his forces to meet it. Here’s an excerpt from the Biblical narrative (2 Samuel 18:6-8, NIV):

David’s army marched out of the city to fight Israel, and the battle took place in the forest of Ephraim. There Israel’s troops were routed by David’s men, and the casualties that day were great—twenty thousand men. The battle spread out over the whole countryside, and the forest swallowed up more men that day than the sword.

So, does the Bible teach that trees eat people?

I don’t think so.

This, I believe, is a figure of speech. A quick survey of the surrounding text demonstrates that it is a detailed chronicle of this particular episode in David’s career. It is “naturalistic” in the sense that it does not overtly concern itself with the miraculous, or even the divine (in the text from 2 Samuel 17:24 to 18:18 God only gets a mention in the salutations of David's messengers).

The story is concerned with the relationship between David and Absalom, and projects a warning against disunity within the People of God. So, it would seem out of place to interpret the phrase literally, and a figure of speech appears to be a safe conclusion. Perhaps Absalom’s men took to the forest and simply deserted, or they got lost in the confusion, or they took to fighting among themselves, or they fell at the hands of bands loyal to David or even third party brigands or spies. Any, or all, of these possibilities can be adequately communicated with the convenient phrase “the forest swallowed up…men”.

So, if the Biblical texts use figures of speech, is all of it figurative?

No.

But, how do we know when we’re reading a figure of speech and when we’re not?

There are many instances in the Bible where the conclusions appear clear-cut. Just as I consider the trees-eating-people thing to be a figure of speech, I also think that nobody who seriously engages the Biblical text would argue that it treats Jesus, John or Paul as figurative people. That’s not to say that it might not describe them in figurative terms, and this is where Christian theologians and apologists begin to argue.

One such hot topic (please forgive the pun) this week is Hell. Conservative Evangelicals have reacted strongly against suggestions by Rob Bell that the traditional understanding of Hell (eternal, conscious torment for non-Believers after death) is not satisfactorily supported by the Biblical texts.

I first read about it in a Christianity Today article, and then on a FaceBook link. I’m not going to rehash what has been written already, but suffice to say here, that Bell might understand references to “everlasting fire” (Luke 16:19-31, Revelation 20:10 etc) to be figurative, which the Calvinists don’t like. In my brief reading of the blogs and opinions, what I see here is not a dispute about the reality of Hell, but rather its shape, and how we might understand what the Biblical texts say about it. It’s not even a dispute about the authority of the Bible. At is heart is a dispute about how figurative the texts are.

Two thoughts;

Firstly, in deciding what is figurative and what is not, we tend to follow our own preconceptions. Personally, I find the idea of trees eating people to be absurd, which is why I readily categorize it under “figurative”. And I have good reason to do so, or so I believe. But, I also believe in a “real”, not “figurative” resurrection of Christ, which might sound absurd to others. OK, so the latter case gets much more exegesis in the New Testament than the former, but what if the forest actually did eat Absalom’s army? I guess we’ll never know for sure, but I think it’s worth reminding myself that I don’t domineer my preconceptions as much as I’d like to think.

Secondly, the evidence is not conclusive. If it were, the match between Bell and the Calvinists would be called off. That’s not to say that one side’s case is not weaker or stronger than the other, or that neither side can be right or wrong. Absalom started with a truth (2 Samuel 15:3). He used it to foment a full-scale rebellion against his own father, but it was a truth nonetheless.

Finally, there is the issue of what we do with the evidence. It demands a verdict, but what do we do when it’s not enough to bring us to the verdict? It occurs to me that we defer to the evidence, when God has mandated that we judge it.

Another FaceBook link (thank’s Aaron) introduced me to net.bible.org, which is a comprehensive on-line commentary and translation resource. Launching from Genesis 1:2, and surfing the articles on the Holy Spirit, I came across this wonderful quote from Daniel B Wallace about his personal struggles in life and how they interacted with his profession as a (conservative, reformed) theologian:

Evidence alone cannot bridge the gap between us and God. As much as I wanted the evidence to go all the way, I couldn’t make it do so. At one point there was real despair in my heart. I had gotten so sucked in to the cult of objectivism that I forgot who it was who brought me to faith in the first place. Only when I grudgingly accepted the fact that some faith had to be involved—and that through the Spirit’s agency—could I get past my despair. The non-verifiable elements of the faith had become an embarrassment to me, rather than an anchor.

Evanliberal

This week, I propose a new word, or category, if you like: Evanliberalism.

My intention is to combine the best of evangelicalism and liberalism, whilst leaving out the worst.

What? I hear my evangelical colleagues say; is there a good side to liberalism?. Yes there is.

Say again? I hear, when the wheels start to grind and engage; is there a bad side to evangelicalism?. Yes there is, and in recent weeks I have run into it on a number of occasions.

Kindly allow me to explain.

My starting point is the person and work of Jesus Christ, as described in the canonical Bible. For better or for worse, I have decided that He is the way, the truth and the life, and no-one has access to the Father except by Him, just as He claimed in John 14:6. To me, this is not simply an intellectual proposition, but something that provides the script by which I live my life. I have adopted this perspective of Jesus because this is how the Biblical authors describe Him, and they should know better than I, having enjoyed a closer proximity to the historical person of Jesus.

(That’s a posh way of saying “they were there, dude, listen to what they’re saying”).

Expanding this further, I believe firmly that Jesus taught a Gospel of Grace, followed by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament, though they each had different ways of expressing it. Jesus framed it in terms of the Kingdom; Paul framed it in terms of justification. Both railed against the sense of self-entitlement that arises when we rely on something other than the Grace of God, even in part.

For example, in Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8, Jesus says to the Pharisees and Sadducees And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. I believe that Jesus’ point here is that they were relying on their Jewish ancestry to justify their inclusion in the People of God, and hence their access to God.

According to Genesis 12:2-3 and Genesis 15:19, God entered into a covenant with Abraham and his children, to be their God for all time. The Pharisees and Sadducees knew this, and they knew they were Abraham’s descendants (they had the genealogies), so they thought they were “set”. However, as Jesus points out, they weren’t. The reason, according to Jesus, was that they didn’t rely on God’s Grace, but on their own qualifications. They believed they were entitled to God because of something they had, and Jesus rebukes them for it. He refutes their claim to be Abraham’s children, despite the geneaologies, because they didn’t do what Abraham did (John 8:39), and if there was one thing that marked what Abraham did, it was his faith (Genesis 15:6). They relied on themselves, not on God.

Paul later wrote For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9). I am of the opinion that by “works” Paul does not strictly mean “moral good deeds”. What he has in view, broadly, are “religious” works. This makes sense because he equivocates between “works” as something we do, and “works” as something done to us, particularly in his letter to the Romans.

Consider the “works” that made a Jew a Jew; circumcision and breeding (things done to him) and “moral good deeds”, rites and festivals (things done by him). What Paul argues is that, as fully qualified Jew, he cannot use these works to get God to save him; if he could, then he would have something to boast about but he says he doesn’t. From Paul’s perspective, the re-centering of the legacy of Abraham on faith restores the divine mandate; we are Abraham’s children if we share in his faith, and this is what justifies our claim to the covenant of God.

Incidentally, this also opens the Gospel up to the gentiles – those of us who cannot claim to hold some of Abraham’s DNA – because we can become his heirs if we enter into the kind of faith he had, despite our gentile heritage.

Please forgive the apparent digression, but I hope to have demonstrated how crucial this Gospel of Grace is to the message of Jesus and His followers. It is rooted deep within the Biblical tradition and the Christian Church, at its best, has clung to it fiercely (for a brief review of what the Church Fathers taught, see here - though the website is “JustForCatholics”, I cannot think of any evangelical who would baulk at any of these statements).

I acknowledge that the Gospel of Grace can be explored in a variety of ways, but at it’s core, as I hoped to have demonstrated, is the impulse that we do not merit our privileges to God by anything that we have. Our access to God rests exclusively and solely on the work and person of Christ Jesus. We need faith to make the connection, but faith is what happens when I reach outside of myself to Him and I put my reliance on what He has. Put another way, we do not pre-qualify for God’s mercy and there’s nothing we can do to improve or increase it. (If anything, we pre-qualify for His wrath.)

I have found that evangelicalism, at its best, is rightly proud of maintaining and fostering this tradition, expositing it from the Bible, from which it gets its authority. However, there are elements within it that have become the very thing it contends with. These elements need to be challenged, and this is where liberalism, at it’s best, should be allowed to speak.

For example, this week I caused something of a rupture among the Evangelicals posting on MRM by suggesting that the Documentary Hypothesis had some merit. To me, this is a discussion about the authorship of the “Books of Moses”, or the Pentateuch (the first five books in the Bible - Genesis to Deuteronomy). It is not a discussion about the historicity of the stories in the Books of Moses, or the theology that they convey.

The Documentary Hypothesis holds that the “Books of Moses” were probably written by a number of authors and not by Moses alone, or even by Moses at all. The basic reasons for this are that the text is uneven (it speaks with several different “accents”); some statements are anachronistic (e.g. the Chaldeans might not have been in Ur at the time of Moses – see Genesis 11:28, 11:31 and 15:7); and there is nothing in the text itself that compels us to believe that Moses wrote it, though he frequently speaks in first person, particularly in the closing sermons at the end of Deuteronomy.

As some have rightly pointed out, Jesus believed that Moses was a historical person (they even had a conversation at Jesus’ Transfiguration, see Matthew 17:1-12, Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-38), and he associates the giving of the law with Moses’ story. But, He doesn’t downright say that Moses wrote the entire compilation. Even Jesus does not compel us to believe the authorship of Moses throughout these books.

The responses I got from evangelicals were varied, but mostly negative. Some were willing to concede that Moses might have incorporated earlier traditions within his composition; others recoiled at the prospect that I had swallowed the Graf-Wellhausen theory in its entirety (which I haven’t – it postulates that the religion of Israel started out with folk polytheism and was later recast to fit the monotheistic agenda of the Temple Cult, as evident from the postulated JEDP redaction of the Scriptures). The worst reactions suggested that I could not possibly hold to a faith in Christ, whilst querying the authorship of Moses in these books.

Actually, I am quite open to discussing the merits of the case, one way or another. I don’t discount the possibility that Moses wrote the “Books of Moses”, but it looks like he didn’t (at least, not in their entirety). The notion that he did comes from an extra-Biblical tradition, and evangelicals are usually dismissive of what they perceive as extra-Biblical traditions.

The problem with the more extreme reactions, in my opinion, is that they are self-defeating. They were posted in the context of trying to get Mormons engage the evidence, particularly the known history of Joseph Smith and the history of the movement. Yet, here were evangelicals who could not hold themselves to the standards that they expected of those on the other side of the table – their reaction to the evidence was to deny it.

Worse, they had conflated a discussion on the authorship of the Books of Moses with the theology of faith in Christ. They questioned my faith in Christ because of it.

Hold on there, didn’t we previously say “saved by grace alone through faith alone”? Now, it seems, I can only be saved by believing in Christ and by believing that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

This is where I get very worried about evangelicalism.

As soon as we put the ”and” in, we open ourselves up to all sorts of silliness (this is one of my chief criticisms of Mormonism). We slide into believing that we are saved by Christ and our strictly traditional interpretation of scripture; or Christ and our membership of a certain Church or tradition; or Christ and our baptism; or Christ and my successful marriage and family life. All of these additions, and it doesn’t matter which formula you use, ultimately give us something that we could boast in; they provide us with a foundation upon which we can claim some kind of entitlement to God. Ultimately, then, they defeat the Gospel of Grace that evangelicalism has so rightly held forth.

Liberalism has something to say in this context, and it is this; the Bible (which I believe is the word of God) is literature. Until it becomes something else, it is therefore entirely appropriate to treat it as such.

As a work of literature, it spends a significant amount of its time conveying its message by story; story makes up about 40% of the Bible. In other words, it is an important feature of what we believe to be the Word of God.

This feature ought to be welcomed by evangelicals because it provides a highly robust response to those who get tangled up with issues such as interpretation. What I mean is, it is easy to see the grace of the father welcoming back the prodigal son, for example, no matter what variations of words you use.

As I have tried to explain earlier (clumsily), the Bible invites us to live in these stories, and if we're solely concerned about affirming their accuracy or historicity, then we've lost the plot. I took some flak over that one, to the point of refusing to publish the more noxious posts.

I’m a big fan of the Bible. I like to describe myself as a Bible-fan and hopefully not a Bible-basher. It’s a book with a message that deserves better treatment than it usually gets. When I think of the poor treatment dished out on it, I think of the silliness of the skeptics on one extreme and the silliness of those who don't get what "story" is about.

The Bible might be Divinely Commissioned, but it still invites us to engage it within its own context in a meaningful way. It begs us to wrestle with it, just as God wrestled with Jacob until daybreak at the Jabbok ford in Genesis 32:22-31.

When Jesus said “Let the little children come to me” (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16), I don’t think He expected them to arrive in an orderly, subdued and dead-serious manner. I believe He expected them to jump all over Him, climbing on Him, prodding Him and tickling Him as kids do. It was His disciples who tried to defend Jesus from this boisterous onslaught, and He rebukes them for it. Since when did Christians start to believe that they have to defend Christ by shepherding honest inquiries away from Him?

I believe that when we scrutinize, probe, query and, yes, wrestle with the Bible, we actually uphold and honor the tradition in which it was written. This is what some elements of evangelicalism appear to deny, and if that’s the case, you can call be an evanliberal.