I had the distinct honor and pleasure this past Saturday night to go over to the Cat’s Cradle in Chapel Hill with my second daughter Heather (a rising third year student at Chapel Hill) to be a part of “An Evening with Iris Dement.” It was totally packed. Now if you don’t know who Iris Dement is, well, she is kind of hard to explain. Iris Dement is somewhere on the far other side of country. You might call her music folk/alt country with a dice of old gospel thrown in. But no matter how you try to classify her music, her voice defies any classification. Her voice is somewhere on the other side of the other side of the Ozarks. It is high and clear and non contrived and kind of twangy, yet full of pathos, and, well, totally unique. I don’t know if it grows on you or not. I liked it the first time I heard her sing one day on Prairie Home Companion. She writes her own songs, and they are about real life, and they hit home, at least for me.
She has four CD’s available, plus a collaboration with John Prine. Her CD’s, in chronological order, are Infamous Angel, My Life, The Way I Should, and Lifeline. The John Prine CD in which she does several duets is called In Spite of Ourselves.
Lifeline is mostly Iris Dement’s take on several old gospel hymns that she grew up hearing her mother sing. Indeed, her relationship with her mother, and her mother’s religion, are constant themes in her music. One sees a kind of progression through the CD’s. According to the CD insert for Lifeline, apparently she was going through a very hard time and was on the phone with her mother (who is now 88 years old) and her mother encouraged her to go to her piano and play the old songs, and she did...
Much of her music is about her past, about growing up, about relationships that blossomed and then went bad, about inner struggles, about finding her way, about the transitory nature of life, about what may or may not be around the corner. In other words, it’s about life, her life, but her life in its true and honest humanity, and thus about all our lives. It pierces.
About two thirds of the concert was Iris on piano and a third Iris on guitar. Did I ever say I love the name Iris?
Saturday evening was my first Iris Dement live show. I kind of didn't know what to expect at the concert in that there hadn't seemed to have been a lot of movement over the last few years in terms of her original music. I have to say however that I was more than moved and impressed by the show. The music, the moment, got into the back places of my mind and heart and just won’t go away. It was a special night.
Iris Dement is a very normal looking lady. She has a sweet smile with dimples, but she does not dress to impress, and she does not do flowery things on stage. She has a humble self effacing demeanor, and is honest about performing live being a bit nerve wracking. Yet she also has this soft and calm very-southern voice which is disarming (and totally different in tone and pitch from her singing voice). There is a presence about Iris Dement and her live music that is hard to define, perhaps that goes with the humanity and reality of her art, and the manner in which her voice matches her lyrics so well – yes her amazing voice – a presence which lends a sense of gravity and transcendence to her live show. There were a few moments in which I looked around, and people were sitting and standing transfixed, like they were in the presence of greatness. It was really amazing. I realized that there would be few times in my life that I would be that close to that level of artistic talent. I was honored.
She played many of the songs from her CD collection – just off the top of my head I remember My Life, Our Town, Mama’s Opry, When Morning Comes Around, These Hills, He Reached Down, You’ve Done Nothing Wrong, Easy’s Getting Harder Every Day, The Way I Should, Sweet Is the Melody (I think), and Let the Mystery Be. There were many others. She did this incredible strumming/picking thing on Easy’s Getting Harder Every Day that I’m still trying to figure out!
I was encouraged by all the songs I had not heard. It seems she has written some new songs since her recent marriage. I loved the new song about the hill near the Iowa farm where she now lives. And there were others I had never heard - the one about her Mama's truth, the song about learning how not to pray, the one about all the books lining her living room and having spent enough time on the inside, the one about the hotel room near the lake (the "documented" song about thinking about jumping off a bridge), the one about thinking the relationship was going to last (that was a very nice touch singing that song right AFTER the song about the relationship going down the tubes – You’ve Done Nothing Wrong). Anyway, I detected in the newer songs some new sounds - different chord progressions, different moods, different nuances. I can't wait until she comes out with her next CD.
OK, yes, there was a struggle here or there to find the right key (but what virtuosity in moving from key to key so effortlessly on piano), but I was actually pleasantly surprised at how good her voice was live – better even than on the CD’s I think. And she did a lot of songs on the piano, which I think is harder to sing to generally. The one song where she both struggled both to find a key that would work and also missed a lyric - Let the Mystery Be - really just provided a moment's smile, reminding me that this was not a slick Nashville gig – and she ended it with a really funny drawling "well that was a train wreck."
For those of you who have not heard Iris Dement I encourage you to go over to iTunes or wherever you like to buy individual songs and spend $10-15 on a sample (or if you’d rather purchase one CD to start out I think I’d suggest “My Life”)
If you go the sample route, here is a suggested list. I think this would be a good sample of 15 songs and would fit on a burned CD just fine.
My Life off My Life
Mama’s Opry off Infamous Angel
After You’re Gone off Infamous Angel
He Reached Down off Lifelines
Our Town off Infamous Angel
I’ll Take My Sorrow Street off The Way I Should
You’ve Done Nothing Wrong off My Life
Wasteland of the Free off The Way I Should
No Time to Cry off My Life
The Way I Should off The Way I Should
Sweet Is the Melody off My Life
I’ve That Old Time Religion off Lifeline
Easy’s Getting Harder Every Day off My Life
God Walks the Dark Hills off Lifeline
When My Morning Comes Around off The Way I Should
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
You Never Know What a Day Will Bring
Well, you never know what a day will bring…
Or a week…
One week ago I came back from vacation to discover two nice big fat bills from Sprint/Nextel. There was also a “letter,” yeah, one of THOSE. We only owed them $5000. So, someone had used our basic public church info plus a phony EIN number to set up an account at some kiosk in town. Did the clerk ask for any ID? Any proof of connection? Of course not. Well, to make a long story short, I reported it to the police and to Sprint's fraud division and we’ve been cleared of responsibility. Why do these companies make it so easy for people to defraud others?
Oh, and did I say that almost all the calls were one or two minutes or less? Yep…drugs…
Well, a week later, this past Monday, I was checking my personal bank account to get a number for an expense report issue, and was surprised to find my checking account was empty. I scrolled down and there was a check for pretty much all I had, written to a lady in Texas, all typed, no signature. That freaked me out a little. I called Wachovia, and after waiting a very long time I finally got a guy in their fraud division, or loss division, or whatever they call it. This guy was like a secret service/FBI dude. I kept wanting to say, "yes sir" or "yes, officer." He took one look at the online photo of the check and said, “Mr. Gillespie, this is what has happened.”
He went on to tell me that I probably had a key logger virus or Trojan on my system, that it had hijacked my username and pass code and sent it probably to somewhere in Russia or Iran or Iraq. Seriously, he said these schemes were usually terrorist related and were a huge big deal for Homeland Security. Then someone used the numbers to log into my online account, set up bill pay, and write the check to the lady in Texas, whom he said was also likely a victim, someone who had fallen for some sort of phishing scam run by the same outfit, and they just link two “victims” together. Thankfully I caught it before the check had time to get to her, and they were going to take care of notifying her. Plus they refunded all the money to me. He told me to take both computers (home and office) in to a place that could use more powerful software than what I had, and have them deep scanned. I did that, and we found the key logger Trojan! Nasty little devil. Then I had to go to the bank, change all my numbers, and of course contact the gazillion companies that draft out of my account. So, that was my week. I just got set up and am ready to work again.
So, I decided to move to upper Manitoba, right? Wrong. I decided never to do online banking again, right? Wrong.
As I was telling a friend, I have been rear ended six time since I have lived in Greensboro (no, I don’t have a bumper sticker that says hit me! And every time I was stopped at a light or a stop sign!) So, am I not going to drive because of that?
There is a risk to “being connected.” I have about as much software as my 1 gigabyte of RAM can manage with which to protect my systems. I did get yet one more even more powerful spyware program that uses so many resources I can only have it “on” when I actually run it. But that’s about all I can do. You spend $120 or so dollars a year on this software you get $120 dollars a year of protection. I can’t really go to the next level.
I’ll be more careful with what I throw away. I am going to get a shredder for home. I might even stop putting checks out in the postbox. But life goes on, and everything carries a risk.
OK, yes, it used up a week of my life. But I got to talk to so many nice people…
And yes, I know, I should have been running a Mac. Send me 5K and I’ll get two good ones.
Joel
Or a week…
One week ago I came back from vacation to discover two nice big fat bills from Sprint/Nextel. There was also a “letter,” yeah, one of THOSE. We only owed them $5000. So, someone had used our basic public church info plus a phony EIN number to set up an account at some kiosk in town. Did the clerk ask for any ID? Any proof of connection? Of course not. Well, to make a long story short, I reported it to the police and to Sprint's fraud division and we’ve been cleared of responsibility. Why do these companies make it so easy for people to defraud others?
Oh, and did I say that almost all the calls were one or two minutes or less? Yep…drugs…
Well, a week later, this past Monday, I was checking my personal bank account to get a number for an expense report issue, and was surprised to find my checking account was empty. I scrolled down and there was a check for pretty much all I had, written to a lady in Texas, all typed, no signature. That freaked me out a little. I called Wachovia, and after waiting a very long time I finally got a guy in their fraud division, or loss division, or whatever they call it. This guy was like a secret service/FBI dude. I kept wanting to say, "yes sir" or "yes, officer." He took one look at the online photo of the check and said, “Mr. Gillespie, this is what has happened.”
He went on to tell me that I probably had a key logger virus or Trojan on my system, that it had hijacked my username and pass code and sent it probably to somewhere in Russia or Iran or Iraq. Seriously, he said these schemes were usually terrorist related and were a huge big deal for Homeland Security. Then someone used the numbers to log into my online account, set up bill pay, and write the check to the lady in Texas, whom he said was also likely a victim, someone who had fallen for some sort of phishing scam run by the same outfit, and they just link two “victims” together. Thankfully I caught it before the check had time to get to her, and they were going to take care of notifying her. Plus they refunded all the money to me. He told me to take both computers (home and office) in to a place that could use more powerful software than what I had, and have them deep scanned. I did that, and we found the key logger Trojan! Nasty little devil. Then I had to go to the bank, change all my numbers, and of course contact the gazillion companies that draft out of my account. So, that was my week. I just got set up and am ready to work again.
So, I decided to move to upper Manitoba, right? Wrong. I decided never to do online banking again, right? Wrong.
As I was telling a friend, I have been rear ended six time since I have lived in Greensboro (no, I don’t have a bumper sticker that says hit me! And every time I was stopped at a light or a stop sign!) So, am I not going to drive because of that?
There is a risk to “being connected.” I have about as much software as my 1 gigabyte of RAM can manage with which to protect my systems. I did get yet one more even more powerful spyware program that uses so many resources I can only have it “on” when I actually run it. But that’s about all I can do. You spend $120 or so dollars a year on this software you get $120 dollars a year of protection. I can’t really go to the next level.
I’ll be more careful with what I throw away. I am going to get a shredder for home. I might even stop putting checks out in the postbox. But life goes on, and everything carries a risk.
OK, yes, it used up a week of my life. But I got to talk to so many nice people…
And yes, I know, I should have been running a Mac. Send me 5K and I’ll get two good ones.
Joel
Friday, July 14, 2006
A Christian Prayer for Our World
Heavenly Father, you have called us as followers of your Son Jesus Christ to remember to pray not just for ourselves, but for the world, your world. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the poor and hungry and oppressed peoples of the world, that you would intervene, and bring justice and relief. We pray that you would show us how you would use us to make a difference. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the peoples of Iraq, Israel, Labanon, Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Korea and all places where military conflict abounds, that you would intervene and bring peace and safety. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for our own leaders, those of all political parties, that they would make decisions in keeping with justice and goodness and peace. Protect them all from the evils of power and from political scheming, and work through their decisions for the greater good. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the leaders of the United Nations, that they too would lead in ways uncorrupted by power and self interest, that peace would more quickly come to our world. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the Church throughout the world, for her protection, for her ministers and her people, that you would protect them from persecution and terror, and use them as agents of good and light wherever they are. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the good and safety and health and pace of all peoples of all nations and faiths; yet we also pray for the success of the ministry and message of the good news of Jesus Christ, that for your glory disciples of Christ may increase in number and influence in every nation. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for our community and the many issues which divide and hurt us. I call upon you to bring good and truth and wholeness and peace to us all in this place, in this city, that we would all live peaceful and tranquil and loving lives together in this place. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
I pray for myself, as I relate to and contribute to the good or to the evil of this world. Make me into a vessel of good and peace that my life will be for the good of others and not of myself; that you might be glorified through me, and others lives made better because of me. Root out of me all that would bring harm, sadness, or evil to others. Lord, please, in your mercy hear my prayer.
Heavenly Father, the problems of this world seem so great, and we seem so small; yet you are greater than all of us. We humbly acknowledge our helplessness and our need of your work in our hearts. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the poor and hungry and oppressed peoples of the world, that you would intervene, and bring justice and relief. We pray that you would show us how you would use us to make a difference. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the peoples of Iraq, Israel, Labanon, Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Korea and all places where military conflict abounds, that you would intervene and bring peace and safety. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for our own leaders, those of all political parties, that they would make decisions in keeping with justice and goodness and peace. Protect them all from the evils of power and from political scheming, and work through their decisions for the greater good. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the leaders of the United Nations, that they too would lead in ways uncorrupted by power and self interest, that peace would more quickly come to our world. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the Church throughout the world, for her protection, for her ministers and her people, that you would protect them from persecution and terror, and use them as agents of good and light wherever they are. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for the good and safety and health and pace of all peoples of all nations and faiths; yet we also pray for the success of the ministry and message of the good news of Jesus Christ, that for your glory disciples of Christ may increase in number and influence in every nation. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
We pray for our community and the many issues which divide and hurt us. I call upon you to bring good and truth and wholeness and peace to us all in this place, in this city, that we would all live peaceful and tranquil and loving lives together in this place. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
I pray for myself, as I relate to and contribute to the good or to the evil of this world. Make me into a vessel of good and peace that my life will be for the good of others and not of myself; that you might be glorified through me, and others lives made better because of me. Root out of me all that would bring harm, sadness, or evil to others. Lord, please, in your mercy hear my prayer.
Heavenly Father, the problems of this world seem so great, and we seem so small; yet you are greater than all of us. We humbly acknowledge our helplessness and our need of your work in our hearts. Lord, please, in your mercy hear our prayers.
A Christian Prayer of Affirmation
A Prayer of Affirmation
Heavenly Father, you are the Creator God, the Maker of heaven and earth, you are my Creator, my God, you made me, and you have redeemed me.
Father, I want to claim the truth this morning that I am your child. Father, how great is your love for me, that I should be called a child of God.
Father, I believe that Jesus died on the cross for me, and that I have been acquitted of guilt before you, and that you, my judge, have become my Father, and have adopted me into your family.
Father, I believe the Scriptures that you chose me to be your child before the foundation of the world, that you predestined me to be adopted as your child through Jesus Christ.
Father, I embrace the truth this morning that you love me more even than the best human father or mother loves their child, and that you will never stop loving me.
Father, I desire in my inmost being to live and think and act as your child today.
Father, I believe that you will go with me through this day, that you will provide for my needs, that you will watch over and protect me, and that nothing can happen to me that you do not allow for my good.
Father, I know that you love me too much to let me go my own way. Father, I accept and desire those changes you need to bring about in me, and I accept the hardships of this day as loving discipline from your hand.
Father, I thank you that you are present with me today through the Holy Spirit whom you have sent. I thank you that the Spirit will not only make your presence known to me, but will pray my unspoken prayers back to you, when I just don’t know how to pray.
Father, I believe that I am an heir, a co-heir with Jesus, of the bounty of your kingdom, and I go forth into this day knowing that your future for me in your kingdom is greater than my highest dreams, so I wait patiently for that bounty to come.
Father, I affirm that my adoption will not be complete until I receive a new resurrection body, and that even all creation longs and waits for that day. Give me patience today while I wait. Come Lord Jesus.
Heavenly Father, you are the Creator God, the Maker of heaven and earth, you are my Creator, my God, you made me, and you have redeemed me.
Father, I want to claim the truth this morning that I am your child. Father, how great is your love for me, that I should be called a child of God.
Father, I believe that Jesus died on the cross for me, and that I have been acquitted of guilt before you, and that you, my judge, have become my Father, and have adopted me into your family.
Father, I believe the Scriptures that you chose me to be your child before the foundation of the world, that you predestined me to be adopted as your child through Jesus Christ.
Father, I embrace the truth this morning that you love me more even than the best human father or mother loves their child, and that you will never stop loving me.
Father, I desire in my inmost being to live and think and act as your child today.
Father, I believe that you will go with me through this day, that you will provide for my needs, that you will watch over and protect me, and that nothing can happen to me that you do not allow for my good.
Father, I know that you love me too much to let me go my own way. Father, I accept and desire those changes you need to bring about in me, and I accept the hardships of this day as loving discipline from your hand.
Father, I thank you that you are present with me today through the Holy Spirit whom you have sent. I thank you that the Spirit will not only make your presence known to me, but will pray my unspoken prayers back to you, when I just don’t know how to pray.
Father, I believe that I am an heir, a co-heir with Jesus, of the bounty of your kingdom, and I go forth into this day knowing that your future for me in your kingdom is greater than my highest dreams, so I wait patiently for that bounty to come.
Father, I affirm that my adoption will not be complete until I receive a new resurrection body, and that even all creation longs and waits for that day. Give me patience today while I wait. Come Lord Jesus.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
What I'm Saying What I'm Not: Marcus Kindley, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia Revisited
In response to Roch’s comments on my previous post, and to Ed’s post today, and the N&R article today, I wanted to clarify a few things as to myself, though of course I am a virtually irrelevant player in the large scheme of things.
I appreciate Roch’s basic suggestion. If we together can guarantee that legalizing homosexual marriage will not lead to looser laws regarding pedophilia, then we have a negotiating starting point so to speak, a starting point for working together for new laws in North Carolina regarding homosexual marriage. But, I think Roch is saying, if anti-homosexual marriage folk who raise the pedophilia issue won’t agree to such a “deal,” then the pedophilia matter proves itself to be a red herring.
I believe that Roch and I both understand a red herring to be a bunny trail argument, a kind of phony distraction.
What I personally am suggesting is NOT a red herring argument. I am opposed to the legalization and legitimization of homosexual marriage for multiple reasons which have nothing to do with pedophilia.
My point is every argument I have heard for the legitimization of homosexual marriage will lead to the legitimization of many other things. This is most true regarding the “argument” from nature, or "desire," or “natural” sexual preference (we do need to do a work over on that word “natural” – it has SO many possible meanings).
What I am saying to the homosexual advocacy groups amounts to help frankly. Not that they asked for it. This argument will damn their cause. It will do that because it will damn us all to many things we do not profess to want. Mark my words. It will do so.
In addition, in my opinion, rooting the argument for homosexual marriage in loose ideas of nature or desire is, in my mind, demeaning to the integrity of the choices that homosexuals (and everyone else) makes. I do not wish to see our culture go down the path of legitimizing behaviors on the grounds of desire or genetic predisposition or “feelings of love” or whatever. It will make us a poorer culture. Ultimately it involves a denial of personal responsibility. It is childish.
So, pedophilia issues aside, yes, I oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage. I think the current most-oft used argument for homosexual marriage will also bring about many results even most homosexuals won’t like. And, sad to say, it will open up the door to comparisons to pedophilia, at least the kind of relations with older minors that are already quite OK in much of Europe. I think this approach will prove a deal killer and a dead end for the homosexual lobby.
Though I disagree with Roch on how the issue of “equal protection” is to be understood and how it should apply, it would be much better for all, in my view, if the case for homosexual marriage were based in legal arguments such as Roch’s.
In the event that homosexual marriage will eventually be approved, which I think (sadly) it will, it will be much better for everyone to have its approval grounded in constitutional arguments and not silly “arguments from desire.”
As to the N&R article, and Ed Cone’s piece, and other commentary on Marcus Kindley’s blog, I don’t think a close reading of the now oft quoted sentence actually will substantiate the claim that Marcus was saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or were no different than pedophiles. I think his inability to state things well has been used by others to have him say what he did not mean to say. Taking advantage of his blundering use of words to make political hay is a problem unto itself.
I wish Marcus would come out with a statement like this – “I am sorry that my poor choice of words gave our community the impression that I or the Republican Party believes that homosexuals are pedophiles or like unto pedophiles. I am sorry for the offence my words may have caused. I do not believe that homosexuals are predisposed to be pedophiles or are pedophiles.”
Now, were it me in this mess, I might wish to write a long philosophical discourse on the use and meanings of the word “natural” in order to clarify what seems on all fronts a murky subject. Hey, I think I will.
I appreciate Roch’s basic suggestion. If we together can guarantee that legalizing homosexual marriage will not lead to looser laws regarding pedophilia, then we have a negotiating starting point so to speak, a starting point for working together for new laws in North Carolina regarding homosexual marriage. But, I think Roch is saying, if anti-homosexual marriage folk who raise the pedophilia issue won’t agree to such a “deal,” then the pedophilia matter proves itself to be a red herring.
I believe that Roch and I both understand a red herring to be a bunny trail argument, a kind of phony distraction.
What I personally am suggesting is NOT a red herring argument. I am opposed to the legalization and legitimization of homosexual marriage for multiple reasons which have nothing to do with pedophilia.
My point is every argument I have heard for the legitimization of homosexual marriage will lead to the legitimization of many other things. This is most true regarding the “argument” from nature, or "desire," or “natural” sexual preference (we do need to do a work over on that word “natural” – it has SO many possible meanings).
What I am saying to the homosexual advocacy groups amounts to help frankly. Not that they asked for it. This argument will damn their cause. It will do that because it will damn us all to many things we do not profess to want. Mark my words. It will do so.
In addition, in my opinion, rooting the argument for homosexual marriage in loose ideas of nature or desire is, in my mind, demeaning to the integrity of the choices that homosexuals (and everyone else) makes. I do not wish to see our culture go down the path of legitimizing behaviors on the grounds of desire or genetic predisposition or “feelings of love” or whatever. It will make us a poorer culture. Ultimately it involves a denial of personal responsibility. It is childish.
So, pedophilia issues aside, yes, I oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage. I think the current most-oft used argument for homosexual marriage will also bring about many results even most homosexuals won’t like. And, sad to say, it will open up the door to comparisons to pedophilia, at least the kind of relations with older minors that are already quite OK in much of Europe. I think this approach will prove a deal killer and a dead end for the homosexual lobby.
Though I disagree with Roch on how the issue of “equal protection” is to be understood and how it should apply, it would be much better for all, in my view, if the case for homosexual marriage were based in legal arguments such as Roch’s.
In the event that homosexual marriage will eventually be approved, which I think (sadly) it will, it will be much better for everyone to have its approval grounded in constitutional arguments and not silly “arguments from desire.”
As to the N&R article, and Ed Cone’s piece, and other commentary on Marcus Kindley’s blog, I don’t think a close reading of the now oft quoted sentence actually will substantiate the claim that Marcus was saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or were no different than pedophiles. I think his inability to state things well has been used by others to have him say what he did not mean to say. Taking advantage of his blundering use of words to make political hay is a problem unto itself.
I wish Marcus would come out with a statement like this – “I am sorry that my poor choice of words gave our community the impression that I or the Republican Party believes that homosexuals are pedophiles or like unto pedophiles. I am sorry for the offence my words may have caused. I do not believe that homosexuals are predisposed to be pedophiles or are pedophiles.”
Now, were it me in this mess, I might wish to write a long philosophical discourse on the use and meanings of the word “natural” in order to clarify what seems on all fronts a murky subject. Hey, I think I will.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Marcus Kindley, Homosexuality, and Pedophila
There has been much commentary around the blogosphere regarding Marcus Kindley’s comments about gays and pedophiles. One can check out Matt’s featured story on greensboro101.com, the debate over at Sue’s place, and the debate on Chip’s new Blogger site. I’m sure there is much being said elsewhere too.
Personally, I think Mr. Kindley’s comments were unhelpful and hurtful and politically stupid. It is a disservice to say the least to decent law abiding homosexual men and women to throw them in with pedophiles. And that is being said by someone who believes homosexuality to be morally wrong.
I actually agree with Matt. One can’t let such comments stand just because a bumbling blogger says them. I think an apology is in order. It would certainly be politically wise.
Having said all that, there is a legitimate danger of the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia being confused or conflated, and that danger rests in the “argument from desire” often used by homosexuals themselves.
I have always thought that such an argument does a disservice to homosexuals and to their moral/political goals.
There is this tendency to equate or not equate “sexual preference” with “desire.” As I said elsewhere…Sexuality determines desire....Desire determines sexuality...Words...What is sexuality (unless we're talking about gender confusion) if it does not include “desire” as a most fundamental component? To say that desire comes out of sexuality is to say that desire comes out of desire. It says nothing at all.
In the sense, everyone makes decisions all the time whether to be true to their "desires" or not. I happen to believe that most heterosexual men are inclined or "bent" to "spread their seed" far and wide. Most men have an insatiable desire for sexual variety. Every day involves decisions whether to act in thought or deed on those inclinations or not. Thus, as to our common experience of "heterosexual male sexuality," having many and multiple partners could be considered a defining aspect of our "sexuality." Monogamy could be considered downright unnatural. But whether we act in mind, heart, or deed on those desires is a choice involving whether we go against our base level "sexuality."
Add to this the fact two common experiences I have come up against on many occasions in counseling others.
First, many men because of having been abused sexually by males as children, have a confused libido. They have a base level sexuality such that they "get up" by anal and oral intercourse. They are drawn to homosexual pornography. This may be extremely distressing to a wife or a woman. The man may be fundamentally heterosexual, but it is hard for them to have appropriate non confused libido when it comes to sex with women. It is hard for them to “get up” for normal intercourse. The point is, their “sexuality,” in terms of what turns their sexual crank, should not be the defining issue when it comes to their sexual actions.
Second, many people who have "let fly" sexually, and have let down the walls and barriers through all kinds of group sexual encounters, find that any kind of sex will do just fine. This problem is often exacerbated by pornography. The point is that their desires are spread all over the map. Acting on sexual impulses even "against one's normal grain" actually changes that grain, changes one's "sexuality." Again, choice is always there.
The bottom like in that the arguments for homosexual sex based on desire or some vague notion of sexuality eventually become arguments for all kinds of sex. Ultimately we have to draw lines based on some sort of moral compass. and, corporately as to laws, on some sort of moral consensus. The argument rooted in "desire" takes away all such compasses. It is a bad argument for homosexuals because it takes away the dignity of their choices and opens them up to the very kind of comparisons as have been made by Mr. Kindley. It also makes them out to be children, non grown ups, people who cannot live counter to their desires. Much better to say one chooses to be homosexual in terms of one’s way of life. There is more dignity there. The argument rooted in "desire" is also a bad argument culturally because it leads quickly to moral and sexual anarchy, including, eventually, as we will see soon enough, to cultural acceptance of some forms of pedophilia. See the article on pedophilia in Wikepedia to get a glimpse of what might be next). It’s coming. The argument rooted in "desire" will help it get here.
.
Personally, I think Mr. Kindley’s comments were unhelpful and hurtful and politically stupid. It is a disservice to say the least to decent law abiding homosexual men and women to throw them in with pedophiles. And that is being said by someone who believes homosexuality to be morally wrong.
I actually agree with Matt. One can’t let such comments stand just because a bumbling blogger says them. I think an apology is in order. It would certainly be politically wise.
Having said all that, there is a legitimate danger of the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia being confused or conflated, and that danger rests in the “argument from desire” often used by homosexuals themselves.
I have always thought that such an argument does a disservice to homosexuals and to their moral/political goals.
There is this tendency to equate or not equate “sexual preference” with “desire.” As I said elsewhere…Sexuality determines desire....Desire determines sexuality...Words...What is sexuality (unless we're talking about gender confusion) if it does not include “desire” as a most fundamental component? To say that desire comes out of sexuality is to say that desire comes out of desire. It says nothing at all.
In the sense, everyone makes decisions all the time whether to be true to their "desires" or not. I happen to believe that most heterosexual men are inclined or "bent" to "spread their seed" far and wide. Most men have an insatiable desire for sexual variety. Every day involves decisions whether to act in thought or deed on those inclinations or not. Thus, as to our common experience of "heterosexual male sexuality," having many and multiple partners could be considered a defining aspect of our "sexuality." Monogamy could be considered downright unnatural. But whether we act in mind, heart, or deed on those desires is a choice involving whether we go against our base level "sexuality."
Add to this the fact two common experiences I have come up against on many occasions in counseling others.
First, many men because of having been abused sexually by males as children, have a confused libido. They have a base level sexuality such that they "get up" by anal and oral intercourse. They are drawn to homosexual pornography. This may be extremely distressing to a wife or a woman. The man may be fundamentally heterosexual, but it is hard for them to have appropriate non confused libido when it comes to sex with women. It is hard for them to “get up” for normal intercourse. The point is, their “sexuality,” in terms of what turns their sexual crank, should not be the defining issue when it comes to their sexual actions.
Second, many people who have "let fly" sexually, and have let down the walls and barriers through all kinds of group sexual encounters, find that any kind of sex will do just fine. This problem is often exacerbated by pornography. The point is that their desires are spread all over the map. Acting on sexual impulses even "against one's normal grain" actually changes that grain, changes one's "sexuality." Again, choice is always there.
The bottom like in that the arguments for homosexual sex based on desire or some vague notion of sexuality eventually become arguments for all kinds of sex. Ultimately we have to draw lines based on some sort of moral compass. and, corporately as to laws, on some sort of moral consensus. The argument rooted in "desire" takes away all such compasses. It is a bad argument for homosexuals because it takes away the dignity of their choices and opens them up to the very kind of comparisons as have been made by Mr. Kindley. It also makes them out to be children, non grown ups, people who cannot live counter to their desires. Much better to say one chooses to be homosexual in terms of one’s way of life. There is more dignity there. The argument rooted in "desire" is also a bad argument culturally because it leads quickly to moral and sexual anarchy, including, eventually, as we will see soon enough, to cultural acceptance of some forms of pedophilia. See the article on pedophilia in Wikepedia to get a glimpse of what might be next). It’s coming. The argument rooted in "desire" will help it get here.
.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Race Matters
I have been away for a few weeks, and came back to all the commotion regarding "A Declaration Against Intolerable Racism."
I have read the Declaration, and in a minute will comment on it.
I wanted to share a different experience however that I had recently. I was in an Ikea store north of Dallas – with my daughter. During that three hour plus stay we looked around, shopped, stood in a line along time for lunch, and had lunch. I was struck by the amazing diversity of people in line for lunch. There were English speaking white people, English speaking Hispanics, Spanish speaking Hispanics, English speaking black people, black people speaking non English languages, and oriental people of different nationalities speaking English or oriental languages. It was a people-potpourri for sure.
All rubbed shoulders in line, were nice to each other, sat at adjacent tables, and no one seemed to care a twit about the color or language of the people next to them.
I find the same basic experience everyday in countless stores and restaurants where I rub shoulders with people - black, white, Hispanic and Asian.
OK, racism no doubt exists in the hearts of many people. It probably exists in some minor form in the heart of every person. But we have come a long way.
And yes, racism is very bad. But other things are also very bad. Like classism. Like consumerism. What united all the people in the Ikea that day was that they were all consumers, they all apparently had the means to consume, and they were all goo goo eyed over all the STUFF.
I think overall that classism is more prevalent and more insidious these days than racism. The fact that there may be some overlap between these does not mean that they are not different matters.
I am a white guy, so what do I know, but I think most white people don’t care all that much what color another person is. But I think that all kinds of people, white and black, care too much, in a bad judgmental way, whether another person is poor, shares or does not share certain “middle class values,” dresses shabbily or smells bad.
I think we judge others more on class than race.
Which gets me to the Declaration. First of all, what a totally lame name. Sounds like a Jim Carey movie title.
Secondly, I think REAL racism, and its seriousness, is cheapened by false charges of racism.
I am a pastor of a Presbyterian Church. We believe in the devil and in demons, but we aren’t as inclined to see them in as many places as some of our Christian brethren. We might be inclined to say, if asked, that we “don’t see demons behind every tree.”
Likewise, we should not see racism behind every tree. The Declaration has been well critiqued by others. I concur with many others that most of the items are just silly. Well, it is silly to pull out the “R” word as a cause for the problems which themselves aren't silly. The problem with doing this time and time again, is that it discredits those who may have insight into or be working against real racism. I concur that the tendency here in our city and county to pull out the racism card, and to hype racism as the source of so many evils, does not contribute to the decline of racism, nor does it solve the problems of real racism. Indeed it polarizes and possibly even creates and promotes racism.
If a bunch of white people continually say stupid divisive things, it provokes similar divisive thoughts and emotions in some other people, it deadens others to whatever the white folk are saying, and it may even cause some people to come to dislike white people, just by association. I think Dumb Declarations can have the same effect.
Is racism still a part of the structure of our culture? Yes. Does it need to be rooted out? Yes. Is it found in all the places as claimed in the Declaration? No. And eventually, with all the yak yak from the same crowd about racist boogeymen behind every tree, people will just stop listening. And that is a disservice to Black or Hispanic or Asian people who are in fact the victims of real racism.
I take comfort in the fact that in the general culture, at lunch at the K&W, at dinner at The Outback, waiting in line at the DMV, at the movies at the Carousel, there is much less regard to or thought of race as compared to a generation ago.
And meanwhile, we should all look into our hearts, not only for signs of racism, but for signs of classism as well. Because it is the natural inclination of the human heart to look for ways to feel superior to others. None of us is immune. None of us.
I have read the Declaration, and in a minute will comment on it.
I wanted to share a different experience however that I had recently. I was in an Ikea store north of Dallas – with my daughter. During that three hour plus stay we looked around, shopped, stood in a line along time for lunch, and had lunch. I was struck by the amazing diversity of people in line for lunch. There were English speaking white people, English speaking Hispanics, Spanish speaking Hispanics, English speaking black people, black people speaking non English languages, and oriental people of different nationalities speaking English or oriental languages. It was a people-potpourri for sure.
All rubbed shoulders in line, were nice to each other, sat at adjacent tables, and no one seemed to care a twit about the color or language of the people next to them.
I find the same basic experience everyday in countless stores and restaurants where I rub shoulders with people - black, white, Hispanic and Asian.
OK, racism no doubt exists in the hearts of many people. It probably exists in some minor form in the heart of every person. But we have come a long way.
And yes, racism is very bad. But other things are also very bad. Like classism. Like consumerism. What united all the people in the Ikea that day was that they were all consumers, they all apparently had the means to consume, and they were all goo goo eyed over all the STUFF.
I think overall that classism is more prevalent and more insidious these days than racism. The fact that there may be some overlap between these does not mean that they are not different matters.
I am a white guy, so what do I know, but I think most white people don’t care all that much what color another person is. But I think that all kinds of people, white and black, care too much, in a bad judgmental way, whether another person is poor, shares or does not share certain “middle class values,” dresses shabbily or smells bad.
I think we judge others more on class than race.
Which gets me to the Declaration. First of all, what a totally lame name. Sounds like a Jim Carey movie title.
Secondly, I think REAL racism, and its seriousness, is cheapened by false charges of racism.
I am a pastor of a Presbyterian Church. We believe in the devil and in demons, but we aren’t as inclined to see them in as many places as some of our Christian brethren. We might be inclined to say, if asked, that we “don’t see demons behind every tree.”
Likewise, we should not see racism behind every tree. The Declaration has been well critiqued by others. I concur with many others that most of the items are just silly. Well, it is silly to pull out the “R” word as a cause for the problems which themselves aren't silly. The problem with doing this time and time again, is that it discredits those who may have insight into or be working against real racism. I concur that the tendency here in our city and county to pull out the racism card, and to hype racism as the source of so many evils, does not contribute to the decline of racism, nor does it solve the problems of real racism. Indeed it polarizes and possibly even creates and promotes racism.
If a bunch of white people continually say stupid divisive things, it provokes similar divisive thoughts and emotions in some other people, it deadens others to whatever the white folk are saying, and it may even cause some people to come to dislike white people, just by association. I think Dumb Declarations can have the same effect.
Is racism still a part of the structure of our culture? Yes. Does it need to be rooted out? Yes. Is it found in all the places as claimed in the Declaration? No. And eventually, with all the yak yak from the same crowd about racist boogeymen behind every tree, people will just stop listening. And that is a disservice to Black or Hispanic or Asian people who are in fact the victims of real racism.
I take comfort in the fact that in the general culture, at lunch at the K&W, at dinner at The Outback, waiting in line at the DMV, at the movies at the Carousel, there is much less regard to or thought of race as compared to a generation ago.
And meanwhile, we should all look into our hearts, not only for signs of racism, but for signs of classism as well. Because it is the natural inclination of the human heart to look for ways to feel superior to others. None of us is immune. None of us.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Gospel
(originally prepared for www.covenantfellowshipgreensboro.org)
The phone rings, I pick it up, and an unfamiliar voice says, “May I speak to Mr. Joel Gillespie, please.” “This is he,” I respond. “Mr. Gillespie,” the voice continues, “I have great news for you. You have been pre-selected to receive the new no annual fee Bank of Missoula credit card!” Wow. I’m thrilled. When the voice pauses for three microseconds to catch its breath, I interrupt. “Thank you for calling, but I already have enough credit cards.” I hang up.
There is so much hype. Everything is awesome. Everything is incredible. Everything changes your life.
Now if the voice on the phone had said, “Mr. Gillespie, you have won eighteen million dollars!” then, yea, that would have made for a good day. But I haven’t had many calls like that lately.
Most people I know are working hard to survive and make a living, to keep themselves and their loved ones alive and healthy, and to know a measure of success and happiness. It’s not a foregone conclusion that one will succeed at all this. Life is unpredictable. Even if we can control what we say and do, we can’t control what everyone else will say and do. We can’t control the weather. We can’t control disease and sickness. We can’t keep our company from being bought out. We can’t control what other nations may do. Not only that, we realize that we are not so able to control even ourselves. Inside, all mixed in with goodness and kindness, is anger, resentment, lust, greed, sadness, confusion, pride, and arrogance. It seems that underneath and surrounding all of our hard work and best efforts are the twin pillars of chaos and emptiness. They are ready to devour us. Evil surrounds, decay presses, and death awaits. It seems, frankly, that we’re all alone in a great big empty universe and, “ah ha!” the joke’s on us.
So is there any good news really? So I win the lottery. Big deal! It doesn't change the world, and it doesn't change me inside.
But the message of the Bible is in fact a message that there is good news. This is what the word “gospel” means – “good news” or “glad tidings” or “positive reports.”
The good news of the Bible is the news that in fact we are not alone in the universe. We and the entire universe have been created by an infinite and personal and good being whom the Bible calls God. This God has made us as human beings “in his image.” He has made us to find our happiness in knowing and loving Him. He has shown us how to live in a way that brings honor to him and happiness to us. He has shown us how to live toward one another and toward our neighbor.
The bad news of the Bible is that we have messed up. We have decided that we don’t like the way that this God runs His universe. We have decided to look elsewhere for our fullness and happiness. Because of our rebellion, our world is fallen. We are alienated from God, from one another, and from the earth. And God has honored us, as creatures made in His image, by allowing us ultimately to experience the full weight of our choice to reject his authority and presence in our lives. He has prepared a place and environment called hell where we get to live forever without Him and His presence and blessing. Hell is God’s ratification of our anti-God choice.
The good news of the Bible is that evil, decay, and death have been defeated. The good news of the Bible is that though we have rejected our creator, he has not rejected us. He has provided a way for us to be restored to Him and to begin to regain what we had lost.
How has this come about? This good and powerful God has embraced the world that has rejected him. He has indeed become a person – Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth. In word and deed this Jesus has revealed to us what our creator God is like. He has taught us what our creator God seeks to do in and with His world. In word and deed Jesus has also shown us what we were created to be like. He has shown us how to live toward God and others. He has shown us how to love God and love our neighbor.
This Jesus has also done the most remarkable thing. Something really incredible. Something definitely life changing.
Jesus has taken upon Himself the full weight of human sin and rebellion. He has “borne our iniquity and carried our sorrows.” He has experienced in our place God’s justifiable displeasure with our rebellion against Him. In other word, Jesus has “died for our sins.” He has suffered hell in our place.
But Jesus has done more. He has defeated death itself. He has been raised – bodily -- from the dead. He has ascended into the presence of God, where he now rules over the world and intercedes for His people. Jesus is alive, and is coming back again.
Jesus has opened up a way back to God. He has put the world back on track. He has dealt with the chaos and uncertainty, with death and decay and evil. Jesus rules over the universe.
The good news of the Bible is that as we believe in and embrace and cling to this risen Jesus as our Lord and master, we will be forgiven of our sins, we will be declared acquitted of the charge of rebellion against God, we will be adopted into God’s family, we will begin again to be remade into the image of God, and we will be raised from the dead to an eternity of fellowship with God in a renewed heaven and earth. Now this is good news indeed!
Covenant Fellowship is committed to proclaiming and bearing witness to the good news that Jesus Christ is alive, that he is King over the world, that he has borne our sins, that he has defeated death and Satan, and that he is coming back as judge of the earth. This is good news indeed!!
The phone rings, I pick it up, and an unfamiliar voice says, “May I speak to Mr. Joel Gillespie, please.” “This is he,” I respond. “Mr. Gillespie,” the voice continues, “I have great news for you. You have been pre-selected to receive the new no annual fee Bank of Missoula credit card!” Wow. I’m thrilled. When the voice pauses for three microseconds to catch its breath, I interrupt. “Thank you for calling, but I already have enough credit cards.” I hang up.
There is so much hype. Everything is awesome. Everything is incredible. Everything changes your life.
Now if the voice on the phone had said, “Mr. Gillespie, you have won eighteen million dollars!” then, yea, that would have made for a good day. But I haven’t had many calls like that lately.
Most people I know are working hard to survive and make a living, to keep themselves and their loved ones alive and healthy, and to know a measure of success and happiness. It’s not a foregone conclusion that one will succeed at all this. Life is unpredictable. Even if we can control what we say and do, we can’t control what everyone else will say and do. We can’t control the weather. We can’t control disease and sickness. We can’t keep our company from being bought out. We can’t control what other nations may do. Not only that, we realize that we are not so able to control even ourselves. Inside, all mixed in with goodness and kindness, is anger, resentment, lust, greed, sadness, confusion, pride, and arrogance. It seems that underneath and surrounding all of our hard work and best efforts are the twin pillars of chaos and emptiness. They are ready to devour us. Evil surrounds, decay presses, and death awaits. It seems, frankly, that we’re all alone in a great big empty universe and, “ah ha!” the joke’s on us.
So is there any good news really? So I win the lottery. Big deal! It doesn't change the world, and it doesn't change me inside.
But the message of the Bible is in fact a message that there is good news. This is what the word “gospel” means – “good news” or “glad tidings” or “positive reports.”
The good news of the Bible is the news that in fact we are not alone in the universe. We and the entire universe have been created by an infinite and personal and good being whom the Bible calls God. This God has made us as human beings “in his image.” He has made us to find our happiness in knowing and loving Him. He has shown us how to live in a way that brings honor to him and happiness to us. He has shown us how to live toward one another and toward our neighbor.
The bad news of the Bible is that we have messed up. We have decided that we don’t like the way that this God runs His universe. We have decided to look elsewhere for our fullness and happiness. Because of our rebellion, our world is fallen. We are alienated from God, from one another, and from the earth. And God has honored us, as creatures made in His image, by allowing us ultimately to experience the full weight of our choice to reject his authority and presence in our lives. He has prepared a place and environment called hell where we get to live forever without Him and His presence and blessing. Hell is God’s ratification of our anti-God choice.
The good news of the Bible is that evil, decay, and death have been defeated. The good news of the Bible is that though we have rejected our creator, he has not rejected us. He has provided a way for us to be restored to Him and to begin to regain what we had lost.
How has this come about? This good and powerful God has embraced the world that has rejected him. He has indeed become a person – Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth. In word and deed this Jesus has revealed to us what our creator God is like. He has taught us what our creator God seeks to do in and with His world. In word and deed Jesus has also shown us what we were created to be like. He has shown us how to live toward God and others. He has shown us how to love God and love our neighbor.
This Jesus has also done the most remarkable thing. Something really incredible. Something definitely life changing.
Jesus has taken upon Himself the full weight of human sin and rebellion. He has “borne our iniquity and carried our sorrows.” He has experienced in our place God’s justifiable displeasure with our rebellion against Him. In other word, Jesus has “died for our sins.” He has suffered hell in our place.
But Jesus has done more. He has defeated death itself. He has been raised – bodily -- from the dead. He has ascended into the presence of God, where he now rules over the world and intercedes for His people. Jesus is alive, and is coming back again.
Jesus has opened up a way back to God. He has put the world back on track. He has dealt with the chaos and uncertainty, with death and decay and evil. Jesus rules over the universe.
The good news of the Bible is that as we believe in and embrace and cling to this risen Jesus as our Lord and master, we will be forgiven of our sins, we will be declared acquitted of the charge of rebellion against God, we will be adopted into God’s family, we will begin again to be remade into the image of God, and we will be raised from the dead to an eternity of fellowship with God in a renewed heaven and earth. Now this is good news indeed!
Covenant Fellowship is committed to proclaiming and bearing witness to the good news that Jesus Christ is alive, that he is King over the world, that he has borne our sins, that he has defeated death and Satan, and that he is coming back as judge of the earth. This is good news indeed!!
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Dixie Chicks Taking the Long Way
Bad news today about the upcoming Dixie Chicks tour. Ticket sales are sluggish, and some of the dates and venues may have to be pulled. They are scheduled to play here October 22nd. I’d like to go, so I hope this is not one of the venues pulled.
I bought their new CD, Taking the Long Way, a couple of weeks ago. The CD consists of fourteen songs all written by the Dixie Chicks with some helpers here and there.
Based on their original songs from their last CD, I am all for a CD of their own songs. I think they are terrific song writers. In fact, musically, Taking the Long Way is a superb piece of work. I have no idea what genre to call it. It’s not country, not really rock or pop, not blue grass. Maybe some sort of folk/country/pop/rock fusion. But I’ve never cared about genre types really anyway.
There are enough melodic hooks, unexpected but cool chord changes, surprises as to where you think a song is going, to cause me to expect to enjoy the CD for a long time to come.
Their single, which I heard them do on Leno or Letterman, is Not Ready to Make Nice. It is basically a middle finger to the country music powers that be, and the fans who got on their case after Natalie Maime’s comments about President Bush while they were on tour in England.
I admire their spunk. Not being a fan of the Country Music Establishment I don’t mind their rebellion against its rules and standards. Good for them.
Not Ready to Make Nice is not even in my top five favorite songs on the CD. As of today I’d go with Baby Hold On as my favorite, Easy Silence second, Everybody Knows third, Bitter End fourth, and The Long Way Around fifth. But I expect that to change as I listen to the CD more and more.
I think the Dixie Chicks are simply great musicians and songwriters.
I also think they have been really stupid, and have dug their own grave to a great extent.
The crack about President Bush made in England before an adoring British anti-war crowd was just a cheap shot, and that it was taken out of country at the beginning of the war justifiably rubbed people the wrong way. Their upcoming concert was mentioned at the Chris Daughtry show at Grimsley Stadium and there were resounding boos. I don’t think those folks were all Republicans.
I really don’t think most people care what Natalie Maime’s personal view is of the war in Iraq or President Bush. She is hardly uniquely qualified to offer intelligent commentary. She is free to run her mouth as she sees fit. People are free to buy their CD’s and go to their concerts as they see fit.
The Dixie Chicks should incorporate their thoughts about life and the world – and the war – in their art, in their music. They do this to some extent in I Hope which I find to have a hopelessly naïve “why can’t we all just get along” message, but I still like the song. I just don’t think political commentary, even in music, is their strong suit. And I am a fan of good protest music, even when I don't agree with it. OK, so I miss the sixties already...
Much of the CD is about how they have dealt with their fall from grace. There is too much of it for my taste. I think the over focus becomes self indulgence. It focuses attention too much on their own struggle with their fans and with country stations when there are simply too many other things to write about. Yet, existentially, they have been living in that struggle, so it is no surprise that they would write something about. Just too much I think.
What I worry about is that the buying of their CD’s or the attending of their concerts will be less about their music and more about whether people agree with or disagree with their political stance. I think that would be a real shame.
Having said all that, I will keep enjoying the CD for its musical excellence, and if I have the money I will go see them when they come here, if they do. And, again, I admire their grit.
Mostly I admire their music making. I admire their genre busting. I admire their musicianship, and that of their supporting cast. I just wish they would change the subject a little bit.
I bought their new CD, Taking the Long Way, a couple of weeks ago. The CD consists of fourteen songs all written by the Dixie Chicks with some helpers here and there.
Based on their original songs from their last CD, I am all for a CD of their own songs. I think they are terrific song writers. In fact, musically, Taking the Long Way is a superb piece of work. I have no idea what genre to call it. It’s not country, not really rock or pop, not blue grass. Maybe some sort of folk/country/pop/rock fusion. But I’ve never cared about genre types really anyway.
There are enough melodic hooks, unexpected but cool chord changes, surprises as to where you think a song is going, to cause me to expect to enjoy the CD for a long time to come.
Their single, which I heard them do on Leno or Letterman, is Not Ready to Make Nice. It is basically a middle finger to the country music powers that be, and the fans who got on their case after Natalie Maime’s comments about President Bush while they were on tour in England.
I admire their spunk. Not being a fan of the Country Music Establishment I don’t mind their rebellion against its rules and standards. Good for them.
Not Ready to Make Nice is not even in my top five favorite songs on the CD. As of today I’d go with Baby Hold On as my favorite, Easy Silence second, Everybody Knows third, Bitter End fourth, and The Long Way Around fifth. But I expect that to change as I listen to the CD more and more.
I think the Dixie Chicks are simply great musicians and songwriters.
I also think they have been really stupid, and have dug their own grave to a great extent.
The crack about President Bush made in England before an adoring British anti-war crowd was just a cheap shot, and that it was taken out of country at the beginning of the war justifiably rubbed people the wrong way. Their upcoming concert was mentioned at the Chris Daughtry show at Grimsley Stadium and there were resounding boos. I don’t think those folks were all Republicans.
I really don’t think most people care what Natalie Maime’s personal view is of the war in Iraq or President Bush. She is hardly uniquely qualified to offer intelligent commentary. She is free to run her mouth as she sees fit. People are free to buy their CD’s and go to their concerts as they see fit.
The Dixie Chicks should incorporate their thoughts about life and the world – and the war – in their art, in their music. They do this to some extent in I Hope which I find to have a hopelessly naïve “why can’t we all just get along” message, but I still like the song. I just don’t think political commentary, even in music, is their strong suit. And I am a fan of good protest music, even when I don't agree with it. OK, so I miss the sixties already...
Much of the CD is about how they have dealt with their fall from grace. There is too much of it for my taste. I think the over focus becomes self indulgence. It focuses attention too much on their own struggle with their fans and with country stations when there are simply too many other things to write about. Yet, existentially, they have been living in that struggle, so it is no surprise that they would write something about. Just too much I think.
What I worry about is that the buying of their CD’s or the attending of their concerts will be less about their music and more about whether people agree with or disagree with their political stance. I think that would be a real shame.
Having said all that, I will keep enjoying the CD for its musical excellence, and if I have the money I will go see them when they come here, if they do. And, again, I admire their grit.
Mostly I admire their music making. I admire their genre busting. I admire their musicianship, and that of their supporting cast. I just wish they would change the subject a little bit.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum at the Historic Palmer Memorial Institute
(prepared for www.backporch.org)
Drive east out of Greensboro toward Burlington and about half way there you will enter the recently incorporated town of Sedalia, North Carolina. Within the town limits of Sedalia is the site one of the most truly remarkable institutions in the history of Guilford County, and a story of one amazing woman, Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown.
The site is that of the Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum at Historic Palmer Memorial Institute.
When one thinks of the most important and influential people and institutions in the history of Guilford County, this official State of North Carolina Historic Site celebrates a person and place that should be in anyone’s “final four.”
The subtitle of the definitive work on Dr. Brown and the Palmer Institute (for sale at the gift shop) really encapsulates the inspirational nature of visiting this historic site: “what one young African American woman could do.”
The story of Charlotte Hawkins Brown and the Palmer Institute is the story of how one person, committed to the well being of a community and a people, can make a profound difference in the lives of others. It is a story to inspire the best in all of us.
She was born a Lottie Hawkins in 1883 in Henderson North Carolina, later to change her name to Charlotte Hawkins. To escape the pressures and injustices of the Jim Crow era, and for the sake of opportunity, her family moved to Cambridge Massachusetts in 1888. There Lottie was able to receive a solid education at Allston Grammar School, Cambridge English High School, and Salem State Normal School. Her drive, personality, and intelligence caught the eye of many, including Alice Freeman Palmer, who would help Lottie in her education, and to whom Charlotte Hawkins would later dedicate her new school in North Carolina.
Young eighteen year old Charlotte Hawkins arrived in what is present day Sedalia in 1901 with an assignment from the American Missionary Society to teach at the Bethany Institute, a struggling school in the small predominantly African American community. Soon after her arrival the Association decided to close the school after one term, yet Charlotte Hawkins, encouraged by members of the community to stay, saw opportunity across the street (now Highway 70) in an old blacksmith’s shop, and soon had raised the money from friends and associates back in New England to open the Palmer Memorial Institute, a day school and boarding school, named after her mentor back in Cambridge Mass.
Charlotte Hawkins, soon to become Charlotte Hawkins Brown, would go on to lead and guide the Palmer Institute for over fifty years.
It is worth the better part of a morning or afternoon to walk the large campus, read the various signs about the many buildings, and take a tour of “Canary House,” Mrs. Brown’s home, restored much as the way it was (including furniture) when Dr. Brown lived and entertained there. There is a short video which excellently captures the spirit of Dr. Brown and the school. What is so impressive is the ongoing ripple effect of the school in communities far and wide, as graduates of the Palmer Institute have themselves gone on to make a difference in places far and near.
Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown ran the Palmer Institute for 50 years touching the lives of countless young men and women. Her story should be told, made into a movie, and proclaimed abroad, for it is a truly inspirational story of what one person can do.
I am very happy to have learned that the State of North Carolina has budgeted money for the upgrading of the site, including the renovation of some of the central buildings. That should provide even greater access to this great place, and great story.
You can read all about the Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum, and get directions to the Historic Site, by going to their outstanding web site - http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/chb/chb.htm.
Wikipedia has an interesting article on Charlotte Hawkins Brown here.
Drive east out of Greensboro toward Burlington and about half way there you will enter the recently incorporated town of Sedalia, North Carolina. Within the town limits of Sedalia is the site one of the most truly remarkable institutions in the history of Guilford County, and a story of one amazing woman, Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown.
The site is that of the Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum at Historic Palmer Memorial Institute.
When one thinks of the most important and influential people and institutions in the history of Guilford County, this official State of North Carolina Historic Site celebrates a person and place that should be in anyone’s “final four.”
The subtitle of the definitive work on Dr. Brown and the Palmer Institute (for sale at the gift shop) really encapsulates the inspirational nature of visiting this historic site: “what one young African American woman could do.”
The story of Charlotte Hawkins Brown and the Palmer Institute is the story of how one person, committed to the well being of a community and a people, can make a profound difference in the lives of others. It is a story to inspire the best in all of us.
She was born a Lottie Hawkins in 1883 in Henderson North Carolina, later to change her name to Charlotte Hawkins. To escape the pressures and injustices of the Jim Crow era, and for the sake of opportunity, her family moved to Cambridge Massachusetts in 1888. There Lottie was able to receive a solid education at Allston Grammar School, Cambridge English High School, and Salem State Normal School. Her drive, personality, and intelligence caught the eye of many, including Alice Freeman Palmer, who would help Lottie in her education, and to whom Charlotte Hawkins would later dedicate her new school in North Carolina.
Young eighteen year old Charlotte Hawkins arrived in what is present day Sedalia in 1901 with an assignment from the American Missionary Society to teach at the Bethany Institute, a struggling school in the small predominantly African American community. Soon after her arrival the Association decided to close the school after one term, yet Charlotte Hawkins, encouraged by members of the community to stay, saw opportunity across the street (now Highway 70) in an old blacksmith’s shop, and soon had raised the money from friends and associates back in New England to open the Palmer Memorial Institute, a day school and boarding school, named after her mentor back in Cambridge Mass.
Charlotte Hawkins, soon to become Charlotte Hawkins Brown, would go on to lead and guide the Palmer Institute for over fifty years.
It is worth the better part of a morning or afternoon to walk the large campus, read the various signs about the many buildings, and take a tour of “Canary House,” Mrs. Brown’s home, restored much as the way it was (including furniture) when Dr. Brown lived and entertained there. There is a short video which excellently captures the spirit of Dr. Brown and the school. What is so impressive is the ongoing ripple effect of the school in communities far and wide, as graduates of the Palmer Institute have themselves gone on to make a difference in places far and near.
Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown ran the Palmer Institute for 50 years touching the lives of countless young men and women. Her story should be told, made into a movie, and proclaimed abroad, for it is a truly inspirational story of what one person can do.
I am very happy to have learned that the State of North Carolina has budgeted money for the upgrading of the site, including the renovation of some of the central buildings. That should provide even greater access to this great place, and great story.
You can read all about the Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum, and get directions to the Historic Site, by going to their outstanding web site - http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/chb/chb.htm.
Wikipedia has an interesting article on Charlotte Hawkins Brown here.
Top Ten Local Hikes
(prepared for www.backporch.org)
We are blessed in Guilford County with a wealth of areas preserved for hiking, and by hiking I mean hiking on trails. I have a separate section for Top Ten Walks (on pavement).
Many of these trials are overseen by the City of Greensboro Park System, Guilford County parks and Recreation, Greensboro Beautiful, and the City of High Point.
I am going to list my own personal top ten, then a few “honorable mentions.” I have tried to link these to local web sites which describe them further, and there are articles or articles pending for each trail.
I have with one exception NOT included trails that are shared by mountain bikers.
Please feel free to e-mail me with a trail that belongs on the list, or, if you are so inspired, a description of such a trail for our readers.
Here is my “Top Ten.”
The Greensboro Bog Garden Trail (Hobbs Road)
The Laurel Bluff Trail (Watershed Trail Between Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend)
The Nat Green Trail (Lake Brandt)
The Piedmont Trail (Lake Brandt)
Big Loop - Little Loop Trails at Bur-Mil Park
The Palmetto Trail (Lake Brandt)
The Beech Bluff Trail (Brush Creek, Lake Higgins)
The Evergreen Trail at Price Park
The Osprey Trail (Lake Townsend)
The Bill Faver Lakeshore Trail at the Piedmont Environmental Center
Here is my “Honorable Mention.”
The River Walk at the Summit
The Deep River Trail at the Piedmont Environmental Center
The Townsend Trail (Lake Townsend)
The Chatfield Trail at Hagen Stone Park
We are blessed in Guilford County with a wealth of areas preserved for hiking, and by hiking I mean hiking on trails. I have a separate section for Top Ten Walks (on pavement).
Many of these trials are overseen by the City of Greensboro Park System, Guilford County parks and Recreation, Greensboro Beautiful, and the City of High Point.
I am going to list my own personal top ten, then a few “honorable mentions.” I have tried to link these to local web sites which describe them further, and there are articles or articles pending for each trail.
I have with one exception NOT included trails that are shared by mountain bikers.
Please feel free to e-mail me with a trail that belongs on the list, or, if you are so inspired, a description of such a trail for our readers.
Here is my “Top Ten.”
The Greensboro Bog Garden Trail (Hobbs Road)
The Laurel Bluff Trail (Watershed Trail Between Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend)
The Nat Green Trail (Lake Brandt)
The Piedmont Trail (Lake Brandt)
Big Loop - Little Loop Trails at Bur-Mil Park
The Palmetto Trail (Lake Brandt)
The Beech Bluff Trail (Brush Creek, Lake Higgins)
The Evergreen Trail at Price Park
The Osprey Trail (Lake Townsend)
The Bill Faver Lakeshore Trail at the Piedmont Environmental Center
Here is my “Honorable Mention.”
The River Walk at the Summit
The Deep River Trail at the Piedmont Environmental Center
The Townsend Trail (Lake Townsend)
The Chatfield Trail at Hagen Stone Park
Regional Festivals
Hi all you out there in blogland. I am putting together a list of regional festivals, and was wondering if you could tell me what I'm missing.
Here is what I have:
The Eastern Music Festival (Guilford College, Greensboro, June 23-July 30, 2006)
The North Carolina Shakespeare Festival (High Point, Winston Salem, Raleigh, various venues, October to December, 2006)
The Piedmont Jazz and Blues Festival (Greensboro, April 29-May 6, 2006)
Fun Fourth Festival Greensboro (Downtown Greensboro, July 4)
The Galax Leaf and String Festival (Galax, VA, June 9-11)
The National Black Theatre Festival (Winston Salem, bi-annual July 30-August 4, 2007)
Grandfather Mountain Highland Games (Grandfather Mountain, July 6-9 2006)
The Occaneechi Saponi Spring Cultural Festival (Hillsborough, June 9-10, 2006)
Celebrate Our State: A North Carolina Festival (High Point, June 9-11, 2006)
The Original North Carolina Wine Festival (Clemmons, Saturday, June 10, 2006)
Celtic Festival & Highland Games (Historic Bethebara Park, Winston Salem, May 12, 2006)
Here is what I have:
The Eastern Music Festival (Guilford College, Greensboro, June 23-July 30, 2006)
The North Carolina Shakespeare Festival (High Point, Winston Salem, Raleigh, various venues, October to December, 2006)
The Piedmont Jazz and Blues Festival (Greensboro, April 29-May 6, 2006)
Fun Fourth Festival Greensboro (Downtown Greensboro, July 4)
The Galax Leaf and String Festival (Galax, VA, June 9-11)
The National Black Theatre Festival (Winston Salem, bi-annual July 30-August 4, 2007)
Grandfather Mountain Highland Games (Grandfather Mountain, July 6-9 2006)
The Occaneechi Saponi Spring Cultural Festival (Hillsborough, June 9-10, 2006)
Celebrate Our State: A North Carolina Festival (High Point, June 9-11, 2006)
The Original North Carolina Wine Festival (Clemmons, Saturday, June 10, 2006)
Celtic Festival & Highland Games (Historic Bethebara Park, Winston Salem, May 12, 2006)
Top Ten Hikes Within an Hour’s Drive (or so) of Greensboro
(prepared for www.backporch.org)
For a county sitting right slab in the middle of the piedmont, far from mountain and sea, we are fortunate to have some truly good hiking opportunities so close to us.
I know, the great stuff lies further a field, across the parkway, in the misty mountains to our west, and along the seacoast to our east. When I was at Clemson I spent about every opportunity backpacking and exploring the western North Carolina mountains, west of Asheville. Great stuff out there.
But we have what we have, and it ain’t bad.
I am not including local Guilford County hikes in this list, though some of the watershed trails would qualify. You can find them under Top Ten Local Hikes and Walks.
The best trails are in three “clumps,” one to our northwest, one to our east, and one to our south. There are trail maps and descriptions on most of the web sites hyperlinked below.
To our Northwest lies Hanging Rock State Park, (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Hanging Rock Site), Pilot Mountain State Park, and the Sauratown Trail that joins them (and is a part of the Mountain to the Sea Trail).
To our east lies the Occoneechee State Natural Area, The Eno River State Park, (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Eno River Site), the Duke Forest, and the William Umstead State Park.
To our south lies Uwharrie National Forrest including the Birkhead Wilderness Area (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Birkhead Mountains site), as well as Morrow Mountain State Park.
From all of these options, my top ten may not be the same as your top ten, but there are quite more than ten trails to hike, so, who cares, hike them all!
There are several good books available at local book stores that five guidance on NC hiking trails. Allen de Hart has written several editions of books on North Carolina trails. His Third Edition gets good reviews. There is Hiking North Carolina by Randy Johnson, a Falcon Guide Book. And then there is Don Childrey’s Uwharrie Lakes Region Trail Guide: Hiking and Biking in North Carolina's Uwharrie Region. Allen de Hart also has two trail guides, for the Triad and Triangle respectively, which covers most of the short trip hiking opportunities near us. They are Trails of the Triad and Trails of the Triangle.
Anyway, here are my “Top Ten Hikes Within an Hour’s Drive (or so) of Greensboro”
The Moore’s Knob Trail, Hanging Rock State Park
The Robbins Branch-Birkhead Mountain Trail loop, Birkhead Wilderness Area
The Sauratown Trail
The Occoneechee Mountain Loop/Occoneechee Mountain Trail, Occoneechee State Natural Area
Bobbit’s Hole Trail, Eno River State Park
The Mountain Trail, Pilot Mountain State Park
The Wolfe Rock/Hanging Rock Trail Loop, Hanging Rock State Park
The Little Pinnacle, Jomeokee Trail, Pilot Mountain State Park
The Lower Cascade Falls Trail, Hanging Rock State Park
The Uwharrie National Recreation Trail, Uwharrie National Forrest
Maybe you would like to write a trail description for www.backporch.org, or just pass along ideas to me. I’d appreciate it.
For a county sitting right slab in the middle of the piedmont, far from mountain and sea, we are fortunate to have some truly good hiking opportunities so close to us.
I know, the great stuff lies further a field, across the parkway, in the misty mountains to our west, and along the seacoast to our east. When I was at Clemson I spent about every opportunity backpacking and exploring the western North Carolina mountains, west of Asheville. Great stuff out there.
But we have what we have, and it ain’t bad.
I am not including local Guilford County hikes in this list, though some of the watershed trails would qualify. You can find them under Top Ten Local Hikes and Walks.
The best trails are in three “clumps,” one to our northwest, one to our east, and one to our south. There are trail maps and descriptions on most of the web sites hyperlinked below.
To our Northwest lies Hanging Rock State Park, (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Hanging Rock Site), Pilot Mountain State Park, and the Sauratown Trail that joins them (and is a part of the Mountain to the Sea Trail).
To our east lies the Occoneechee State Natural Area, The Eno River State Park, (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Eno River Site), the Duke Forest, and the William Umstead State Park.
To our south lies Uwharrie National Forrest including the Birkhead Wilderness Area (also check out North Carolina Outdoors Birkhead Mountains site), as well as Morrow Mountain State Park.
From all of these options, my top ten may not be the same as your top ten, but there are quite more than ten trails to hike, so, who cares, hike them all!
There are several good books available at local book stores that five guidance on NC hiking trails. Allen de Hart has written several editions of books on North Carolina trails. His Third Edition gets good reviews. There is Hiking North Carolina by Randy Johnson, a Falcon Guide Book. And then there is Don Childrey’s Uwharrie Lakes Region Trail Guide: Hiking and Biking in North Carolina's Uwharrie Region. Allen de Hart also has two trail guides, for the Triad and Triangle respectively, which covers most of the short trip hiking opportunities near us. They are Trails of the Triad and Trails of the Triangle.
Anyway, here are my “Top Ten Hikes Within an Hour’s Drive (or so) of Greensboro”
The Moore’s Knob Trail, Hanging Rock State Park
The Robbins Branch-Birkhead Mountain Trail loop, Birkhead Wilderness Area
The Sauratown Trail
The Occoneechee Mountain Loop/Occoneechee Mountain Trail, Occoneechee State Natural Area
Bobbit’s Hole Trail, Eno River State Park
The Mountain Trail, Pilot Mountain State Park
The Wolfe Rock/Hanging Rock Trail Loop, Hanging Rock State Park
The Little Pinnacle, Jomeokee Trail, Pilot Mountain State Park
The Lower Cascade Falls Trail, Hanging Rock State Park
The Uwharrie National Recreation Trail, Uwharrie National Forrest
Maybe you would like to write a trail description for www.backporch.org, or just pass along ideas to me. I’d appreciate it.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Marrow Controversy
Submitted by Joel Gillespie
April 29, 1988
For “Calvin and the Reformed Heritage”
For J.I. Packer, Regent College
(prepared for www.covenantfellowshipgreensboro.org)
The marrow of the second bone is like that of the first, sweet and good. The commandments of God are marrow to the saints, as well as the promises, and they shall never taste the marrow of the promise who distaste the commandments. This little treatise breaketh the bone, the hard part of the commandments, by a plain exposition, that so all, even babes in Christ, yea, such as are yet out of Christ, may suck out and feed upon the marrow by profitable meditation. Joseph Caryl, Sept. 1, 1648(1).
With the words printed above, three years and seven editions after the initial printing in 1645 of Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Joseph Caryl recommended to the world, for its edification and sanctification, Fisher’s little gold mine of truth. Joseph Caryl, known to Puritan scholars as the writer of a pondersome commentary of the book of Job, had been assigned by the Westminster assembly the job of approving and revising books for publication(2). Little could caryl have known that E.F.’s (Edward Fisher of Mickleton, Gloucestershire?) little book would have a profound impact on the development of the Scottish Church almost a century later, a much greater role than it would ever have in England itself.
The purpose of The Marrow of Modern Divinity (hereafter referred to mostly as simply The Marrow) is to lay forth the way of eternal life, a way which is marked by a course moving between legalism on one side and antinomianism on the other. In E.F.‘s own words:
Now, both these paths leading from Christ, have been justly judged as erroneous; For this cause I, though I be nothing, have by the grace of God endeavoured, in this Dialogue, to walk as a middle man betwixt them both, in showing to each of them his erroneous path, with the middle path, (which is Jesus Christ received truly and walked in answerably,)...(3).
Although The Marrow of Modern Divinity went through a ninth edition in 1690, its popularity was virtually limited to England until the year 1698, when the Rev. Thomas Boston of Ettrich, Scotland discovered the book in the home of a parishioner, a soldier who had carried the book home from England. Boston, troubled prior to his discovery of The Marrow over the preaching of a colleague regarding death to the law, and struggling with certain implications of the doctrine of definite atonement, found in The Marrow a solution to many of these problems. The Marrow revolutionized his life and his preaching, and abolished all problems which had hindered him from giving a free offer of the gospel to his parishioners. Twenty years after his great find, as will be shown shortly, Boston aroused the interest of his friends in the book, an interest which led to The Marrow Controversy.
The presentation in this paper will take place in four phases: first, the theological and cultural milieu of Scotland in the 18th century will be examined; second, the historical facts surrounding the Marrow Controversy will be outlined; third, the theological issues raised in this controversy will be reviewed in some detail; and fourth, an evaluation will be offered by this writer.
The history of the Scottish church in the one hundred and thirty years prior to the Revolution Settlement of 1690 was passionate, turbulent, and often violent. Politics and religion were inseparably linked. Yet the Reformed Church of Scotland was rooted, not among a theological or aristocratic elite, but in the life of the people, people stirred by the preaching of the Word.
As H.T. Buckle wrote,
“its pulpits ...stirred up the minds of men, woke them from their lethargy … and excited that inquisitive and demonatic spirit, which is the only effectual guarantee the people can have against the tyranny of those set over them”(4).
This rooting of the spiritual life of the Church of Scotland in the people is perhaps all the more remarkable (particularly to modern ears in light of contemporary negative criticism of Calvinist Theology), given the strict discipline maintained in the Church and the adherence to these now “offensive” doctrines of Calvinism. James Walker in his excellent review of the theology of Scotland between 1560 and 1750, makes note of the common view that Scotch religion was “harsh, austere, gloomy; -- a stern and frowning thing, reveling in the dark, dread mysteries of a stern theology”(5). Given the strict discipline which found elders searching out Sabbath breakers, the grinding poverty of the people, the emphasis on Election and Reprobation, one can believe that there was perhaps a certain sternness and austerity to Scottish religion. Certainly theirs was a feisty lot of churchmen and theologians who were eager to fight over principle and truth. And fight they did, often to death. One does get the impression that perhaps by the end of the 17th century, the people were just tired out.
It is certainly not possible to discuss all the factors which shaped the world into which The Marrow entered Scotland in the 1720’s. Many factors were at play: the poverty of the nation, the union with the British with the economic conflict and opportunity brought by the union, the impact of the Age of Reason, the emerging spirit of toleration, the after-effects of the Covenanters and the reigns of Charles II and James II, and an abiding influence of British Erastians, -- all of these had a role. In the early 1700’s, the theological mood of moderation was ascendant but not yet mature. C.R. Cragg in his Pelican history The Church and The Age of Reason(6) describes these Scottish moderates as they reached full flower toward the middle of the century:
An optimistic view of human nature replaced the doctrine of total depravity. Reprobation, and even salvation by faith alone, dropped from sight as he expounded an ethic in which man’s duty consisted in achieving the beauty of an inner harmony….Preachers instructed in the new doctrine spoke much of virtue, liberality, and benevolence; they extolled the harmony of the passions and were silent about the great themes of Calvinism. They quoted Plato oftener than Paul… Preaching was simple, direct, and practical, but often it consisted of little more than common sense, doled out as moral counsel … they had drifted far from the doctrines to which they still pledged assent… we are aghast at the unveiled secularism which pervades them...(7).
It must be remembered that The Westminster Confession was the established doctrinal confession of the Church after the Revolution Settlement. In the four decades after that settlement, great energy and effort was expended making certain that every minister conformed to those confessional standards. Yet, when The Marrow arrived onto the scene, its detractors were at one and the same time rooted in a type of orthodox doctrinal legalism concerning The Westminster Confession, and moving steadily towards a theological moralism typical of the Moderates. The doctrinal legalism had been tainted by the ascendant rnoralism. One better understands the thinking of these theologians by seeing how they dealt with Marrow doctrine.
The controversy surrounding The Marrow arose out of another controversy which hit the Church in 1717. In that year, the Presbytery of Auchterarder, concerned about the legal preaching of the moderates, began to require that all ministerial students applying for licensure sign the following statement, known as the “Auchterarder Creed,”: “I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” One student refused to sign, was declined licensure, and appealed the matter to the General Assembly, which, the next year, condemned the Auchterarder Creed as “unsound and detestable.” Whether their concern was more with the dangers latent within the wording of the creed, or whether they in fact did not believe the statement to be true as naturally understood, is difficult to say. The Presbytery had certainly overstepped its authority vis a vis the General Assembly at large in demanding acquiescence to such a statement. Participating in the Assembly proceedings was Thomas Boston, a supporter of the Auchterarder Creed, who made reference to The Marrow in a conversation with a colleague. Word about the book spread; in 1718 a certain James Hog, Carnock, republished The Marrow, the first Scottish edition. Great interest and popularity followed the book and a pamphlet war was aroused.
Principal Hadow of St. Andrews attacked The Marrow in a sermon presented at the Assembly, and soon the matter came up before the Committee on Purity of Worship, whose real aim, in Boston’s view, was to hold watch over the Evangelical Party(8). This committee called The Marrow supporters before it, and after examination reported to the Assembly, which then cited The Marrow with teaching that “assurance is of the essence of faith, that the atonement is universal; that holiness is not necessary to salvation; and that the fear of punishment and hope of reward are all not allowed to be motives to a believer’s obedience”(9).
The next year the General Assembly strictly prohibited ministers to preach, print, recommend, or publicly favor The Marrow. Eventually twelve noted Evangelical ministers delivered a representation to the Assembly protesting its action and defending The Marrow’s doctrine. Twelve queries were presented to these “Marrowmen” in regard to controversial points (the queries and answers are fortunately added in the appendix to Thomas Boston’s edition of The Marrow.) The Assembly never received the answers, but the Representatives were rebuked and admonished.
Despite the fact that the Marrowmen were thereafter persecuted and The Marrow theology suppressed, the people flocked to the preaching of the Marrowmen. These men refused to abide by the directions of the Assembly, and in 1728 Boston, after four fruitful years of labor, published his own extensively annotated version of The Marrow. That nothing more was made of the matter by the Assembly probably had to do with the fact that Boston and Hadow had become teammates in another significant heresy trial.
One can only speculate as to whether the Secession of 1733 would have occurred in 1721, specifically over the Marrow controversy, had not the civil government, fearing schism, solicited the Assembly to be lenient on the Marrowmen. It is true that only two of the Marrowmen became Seceders -- the Erskine brothers, Ralph and Ebenezer. Others, such as Boston, preferred to avoid schism and remain a faithful witness within the Scottish church. (Boston eventually left in the 1761 schism). Yet, when one reads the Secession literature, one finds less material on the patronage issue than on clear presentations of Marrow doctrines. It appears that the patronage issue was primarily a “last straw.” The theological gulf had been established officially in the controversy surrounding The Marrow.
It is somewhat of a mystery to this writer how anyone could have indicted The Marrow or the Marrowmen on the charge of antinomianism. In the “Address to the Reader” at the beginning of the book, the author defines what he means by Antinomians:
These are they that content themselves with gospel knowledge, with mere notions in the head, but not in the heart; glorying and rejoicing in free grace and justification by faith alone; professing faith in Christ, and yet are not possessed of Christ; -- these are they that can talk like believers, and yet do not walk like believers; these are they that have language like saints, and yet have conversation like devils; -- these are they that are not obedient to the law of Christ, and therefore are justly called Antinomians(10).
What is this “Law of Christ?” Later in The Marrow, Edward Fisher distinguishes between the law of Christ, the law of the Gospel, and the law of the Ten Commandments. The Antinomian conceives that the Ten Commandments are no way to be a rule of life to a believer, for Christ has delivered him from them. This is rejected by the author. The law of the Ten Commandments is in fact to be a rule of life for the believer, because it is part of the law of Christ. That is, the natural law of the Ten Commandments, while for the unbeliever a law of works leading to cursing or blessing according to the promise of God, is a law for the Christian, but not a law unto life or death. It is a law to be obeyed out of love for Christ and before God as Father rather than before God as Judge(11). Evangelist, the spokesman for Fisher in the book’s dialogues, so repudiates Antinomist’s refusal to live under the Ten Commandments as a rule of life, that he counts the Antinomians as outside of the Grace of Christ(12).
In Query II, the Assembly questioned the Marrowmen on this matter: “Is not the believer now bound, by the authority of the Creator, to personal obedience to the moral law, though not in order to justification?” The reply was direct:
We are clear and full of the same mind with our confession, ‘That the moral law of the Ten Commandments doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of God the creator, who gave it’(13).
On the other hand, The Marrow makes it abundantly clear from the very first, that obedience to the moral law can in no way merit acceptance or forgiveness from God. Indeed the book as a whole offers a more direct attack against such Legalism that it does against Antinomianism. One can only assume that the opponents of The Marrow were angered by its teaching because they were in fact committed legalists. In a moving account, Nomista, the legalist in The Marrow’s dialogue, describes auto-biographically how he had committed himself, in all sincerity, to the obedience of the law, in order that he might please God and make himself worthy of God. This process involved deep grief of soul, repentance, tears, and great discipline. And for what he could not reach, Nomista depended on Christ to make up the difference. That is, his efforts plus Christ’s efforts equaled justification. To Evangelist, Nomista remained outside of Christ.
The Marrow was also charged with teaching that assurance is of the essence of faith. Here is seems that the Moderates were attempting to remain true to the letter of The Westminster Confession, which asserts that infallible assurance “doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he is partaker of it” (Chap. XVIII, sec. 3). Here the Confession stands against the reformers, who by and large maintained that “by saving faith the believer had a certainty or assurance that he was saved”(14). Unfortunately, The Marrow language is simply not clear on the matter. The key text occurs in a section where Evangelist is encouraging Neophyte in the way of salvation:
Wherefore, as Paul and Silas said to the jailer, so say I unto you, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;” That is, be verily persuaded in your heart that Jesus Christ is yours, and that you shall have life and salvation be him, that whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, he did for you(15).
The Marrow itself does not actually use the phrase “assurance of faith,” but rather “be verily persuaded.” In the context of the passage just cited, this may be called an “appropriating persuasion,” such that there is an application to the person’s self of what is believed. What is involved here is certainly not mere mental assent. But what is this appropriating persuasion? The Marrowmen, expanding upon the contents of The Marrow, used the phrase ‘‘assurance of faith,” but did not assign to it the same meaning as the Reformers. They distinguished between “assurance of sense” and the “assurance of faith”(16). The assurance of sense has the same meaning as the assurance spoken of by the Reformers and by the Confession. This is a believer’s assurance that he is in fact in Christ, or in a state of grace. The “assurance of faith,” however, is indispensable to true faith. The actual act of believing in Christ involves a type of persuasion, else one would not believe. That is, to believe something you have to believe something. There is something inherent in the nature of belief apart from self-conscious awareness of the efficacy of the belief that involves appropriating personally the object of belief. A summary of the distinction between these two assurances is found in Dr. Colquhoun of Leith’s Treatise on Saving Faith. It is somewhat lengthy, but is as clear a statement as can be found:
A man cannot have faith without having assurance in it; but he may have faith and not have assurance of it. For, though the mind cannot but be conscious of its own act, yet whether that act have the peculiar properties and nature of saving faith cannot satisfactorily be known but by reflection. The assurance of sense or reflection, then, is not a believing in Christ; but it is a believing that we have believed in Him. It is not a direct act terminating on Him, but a reflex act by which we are assured of the saving nature of that direct act. But, although the direct act may be without the reflex, yet the latter cannot be without the former. A man must begin to believe before he can begin to know that he has believed …. The assurance of faith is commonly not so strong nor sweet as the assurance of sense which is supported by evidences. By the former, a man trusts upon the warrant of the free offer and promise that Christ will do the part of the Savior to him; by the latter he believes upon the inner evidences of grace, that his faith is unfeigned and operative …. The object of the assurance of faith in Christ revealed and offered in the Word; the object of the assurance of sense in Christ formed and perceived in the heart, the former in the root and the latter in the fruit(17).
It is no wonder that the Assembly, given the nature of The Marrow itself as it merely touched down briefly and ambiguously on this matter, went after The Marrow on this issue. One senses here the selective theological exactness of the anti-Marrow forces. Whatever The Marrow may have possibly implied by “verily persuaded,” the issue of assurance was simply not a central focus of the book. Were the Assemblymen so personally opposed to the Reformers’ view of assurance (possibly because of their anti-evangelical, anti-personal-salvation emphasis) that even a slight hint of it made their blood rise? Or were they, as legalists, so opposed to the central brunt of The Marrow that they were merely looking for ways to discredit it? Since the Marrowmen’s answers to the Assembly’s queries were never received or responded to officially, there is no record of how the Assembly may have regarded the Marrowmen’s “creative” interpretation.
The question of the extent of the atonement, or perhaps more accurately, the problem of a universal call and a definite atonement, raises itself in The Marrow in relation to the issue of “persuasion.” That is, those things the believer is to be persuaded about (i.e., the content of what is to be believed) themselves raise questions as to what sense Christ is available to all men. After Evangelist exhorts Neophyte to believe, Neophyte asks the following question: “But sir, has such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?” The controversial reply is as follows:
I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life. And hence it was that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, Mark xvi. 15, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven.” That is, go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him: Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him(18).
First, it must be noted that the Marrowmen and the author of The Marrow were “particular redemptionists.” In The Marrow, this is clear even in the opening address to the reader:
“even so Jesus Christ, the second Adam, did, as a common person, enter into covenant with God his Father, for all the elect, that is to say, all those that have, or shall believe on his name”(19).
Evangelist later states unequivocally that some are ordained to condemnation and some to eternal blessing. But to wonder about who may be elect and who may be reprobate is to pry into the hidden counsel of God. Election and reprobation are secrets which belong to God. In regard to the doctrine of reprobation, Walker notes of the Marrowmen that they “treat it, as it were, with a holy awe, and do not care to think it forwards”(20). Yet, Walker also points out that The Marrow theology was almost extreme in its doctrine of particular redemption”(21). The Marrow clearly distinguishes the revealed will of God from the hidden or decretive will of God. The latter is put into the background, as it is in Scripture. The former is that which encompasses the true thrust of Scripture; that is, the command to believe and the promise that “if you believe you shall not perish but have everlasting life.” The Marrow wanted to put the gospel as near as possible to the human heart in an authentic personal gospel offer. This offer is that of a gift, a gift described in the phrase, “Christ is dead for you.” As Boston explains in his notes, this means that “Christ is there for him to come to, that a Savior is provided, that there is a crucified Christ for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the making of which he may be saved”(22). Much is made of the “whosoever will” passages -- of the banqueting table spread and ready for anyone to come to. The gift is objective, there, for every man to take. Indeed it is the availability of this gift, combined with the command to take it, which gives the believer warrant to believe. The warrant is the free gospel offer. “Christ is ours before we believe,” writes Boston, in the sense that He is there to take possession if we will believe. The gift of Christ is not of possession, but by way of grant or offer, that one may take possession. There is a genuine love for mankind on God’s part such that he makes the gift available to all men [not all kinds of men], such that the fledgling believer may believe that “whatsoever He has done for all men He has done for me.”
There is no doubt here that The Marrow used words and phrases open to question. The distinction between “Christ is dead for you” and “Christ has died for you” is subtle at best. And there is a type of universalism described, a universalism of gift or grant, although not a universalism of election. There is an atoning love which extends to all men by way of the free offer of the gospel, the deed or grant to believe. What seems to have disturbed the General Assembly was this very concept of a “free offer.” Their questions suggest that a free offer was only compatible with universalism, not with definite or particular atonement. There seems among them to have been a cold legalism in regard to the decrees of God, a legalism which precluded the warm free offer of salvation to all men.
The very fact that Thomas Boston had need to print such extensive notes on The Marrow suggests that The Marrow was at least open to misinterpretation. Often Boston writes as if he knew what the Marrow really meant. One could claim that he was trying to use the Marrow to substantiate his perceptions, that he was using his scholarship to substantiate The Marrow’s substantiations. Nevertheless, there is a spirit about The Marrow to which this writer would think that any evangelical’s heart could pulse. Indeed, much of the teaching of The Marrow is taken for granted in Reformed Evangelical circles today.
But the Assembly was not without warrant in having concern over the book. There are unguarded phrases and questionable expressions. One could have hoped that the Assembly could have offered a more careful reading, especially in regard to the charge of Antinomianism, which The Marrow whatever else it may be, is certainly not. Yet in its theology of assurance and free-offer The Marrow does go beyond the confines of what was then, and perhaps even now, orthodox reformation teaching. Louis Berkhof, as he deals with assurance and the extent of the atonement respectively in his Systematic Theology, in both cases has a special word for the Marrowmen. In regard to the teaching of the Confession on assurance, Berkhof writes, “The Marrowmen in Scotland certainly gave a different interpretation of its position”(23). He does not expand on this. Concerning the extent of the atonement, under the Reformed Position, he offers a separate place The Marrow teaching:
The Marrowmen of Scotland were perfectly orthodox in maintaining that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, though some of them used expression which pointed to a more general reference of the atonement. They said that Christ did not die for all men, but that He is dead, that is available, for all. God’s giving love, which is universal, led him to make a deed or gift or grant to all men; and this is the foundation of the universal offer of salvation. His electing love, however, which is special, results in the salvation of the elect only(25).
There is nothing in Berkhof’s six-point substantiation of the bona-fide offer of salvation to all men which would call The Marrow teaching into question. He does however express concern regarding the wider hearing of the atonement in the Marrow theology, whereby all sinners are legates of the administration of the covenant of grace(26). Here is an expansion of the Reformers’ legate-legatee distinction. According to Boston, every man is entitled to put in his claim for the testament of Christ. As Walker summarizes “To the elect-only the testament becomes effectual; but they are not the only persons to whom the legacies are left”(27). Berkhof notes that this legate-legatee position was condemned by the Church of Scotland(28). Does Berkhof mean by this the moderate-controlled church or something else? Does Berkhof imply that he agrees that the teaching was condemnable? Whether the Marrowmen erred in this matter or not, one is grateful for the extent to which they went both to put forth and to justify the offer of the gift of salvation to all sinners. Their equating of the “elect” with the “whosoever believes” is also quite helpful. Their refusal to probe into the mind of God regarding election and reprobation is commendable. James Walker, while not sympathizing with Marrow teaching on all counts, was able to say of these Marrowmen:
Boston and The Marrowmen, first of all among our divines, entered fully into the missionary spirit of the Bible; were able to see that Calvinistic doctrine was not inconsistent with world conquering aspirations and efforts(29).
Endnotes
(1) Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes by The Rev. Thomas Boston. (Philadelphia Presbyterian Board of Publication, ?). p. 3.
(2) Donald Beaton, “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society., (Vol. 1, Pt. III., 1925), p. 118.
(3) Fisher, p. 19.
(4) John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 307.
(5) James Walker, Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560- 1750, (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), p. 157.
(6) G.R. Cragg, The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), P. 89.
(7) lbid., p. 89.
(8) Beaton, p. 117.
(9) lbid., p. 118.
(10) Fisher, P. 18.
(11) Ibid., p. 337.
(12) lbid., p. 349.
(13) Ibid., p. 349.
(14) Beaton, p. 124.
(15) Fisher, p. 116.
(16) Beaton, p. 124.
(17) lbid., p. 124.
(18) Fisher, p. 130.
(19) Ibid., P. 15.
(20) Walker, p. 91.
(21) Ibid., p. 91.
(22) Fisher, p. 128.
(23) L. Berkhof. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 508.
(24) Ibid., p. 394.
(25) Ibid., p. 398.
(26) Ibid., p. 398.
(27) Walker, p. 92.
(28) Berkhof, p. 398.
(29) Walker, p. 94.
Bibliography
Beaton, Donald. “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy.” Records of the Scottish Church History Society. Vol I., pt. III., 1925, pp. 112-134.
Berkhof. L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Burleigh, J.H.S. A Church History of Scotland. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Campbell, Andrew J. Two Centuries of the Church of Scotland 1707-1929. Paisley: Alexander Gardner, Ltd., 1930.
Cragg, G.R. The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1966.
Fisher, Edward. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,
Henderson, Henry F. The Religious Controversies of Scotland. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905.
Henderson, G.D. The Church of Scotland: A Short History. Edinburgh: The Church of Scotland Youth Committee,
King, Ray A. A History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Charlotte: A.R.P. Board of Christian Education, 1966.
McCrie, Thomas. The Story of the Scottish Church. London: Blackie and Son, 1875.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967,
Story, Robert Herbert, editor. The Church of Scotland Past and Present, 4 Vols. London: William MacKenzie P. Vol 4: The Doctrine of the Church of Scotland, by Adam Milroy.
Thomson, Andrew. Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession Church. London: A. Fullurton and Co., 1848.
Walker, James. Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750. Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982.
April 29, 1988
For “Calvin and the Reformed Heritage”
For J.I. Packer, Regent College
(prepared for www.covenantfellowshipgreensboro.org)
The marrow of the second bone is like that of the first, sweet and good. The commandments of God are marrow to the saints, as well as the promises, and they shall never taste the marrow of the promise who distaste the commandments. This little treatise breaketh the bone, the hard part of the commandments, by a plain exposition, that so all, even babes in Christ, yea, such as are yet out of Christ, may suck out and feed upon the marrow by profitable meditation. Joseph Caryl, Sept. 1, 1648(1).
With the words printed above, three years and seven editions after the initial printing in 1645 of Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Joseph Caryl recommended to the world, for its edification and sanctification, Fisher’s little gold mine of truth. Joseph Caryl, known to Puritan scholars as the writer of a pondersome commentary of the book of Job, had been assigned by the Westminster assembly the job of approving and revising books for publication(2). Little could caryl have known that E.F.’s (Edward Fisher of Mickleton, Gloucestershire?) little book would have a profound impact on the development of the Scottish Church almost a century later, a much greater role than it would ever have in England itself.
The purpose of The Marrow of Modern Divinity (hereafter referred to mostly as simply The Marrow) is to lay forth the way of eternal life, a way which is marked by a course moving between legalism on one side and antinomianism on the other. In E.F.‘s own words:
Now, both these paths leading from Christ, have been justly judged as erroneous; For this cause I, though I be nothing, have by the grace of God endeavoured, in this Dialogue, to walk as a middle man betwixt them both, in showing to each of them his erroneous path, with the middle path, (which is Jesus Christ received truly and walked in answerably,)...(3).
Although The Marrow of Modern Divinity went through a ninth edition in 1690, its popularity was virtually limited to England until the year 1698, when the Rev. Thomas Boston of Ettrich, Scotland discovered the book in the home of a parishioner, a soldier who had carried the book home from England. Boston, troubled prior to his discovery of The Marrow over the preaching of a colleague regarding death to the law, and struggling with certain implications of the doctrine of definite atonement, found in The Marrow a solution to many of these problems. The Marrow revolutionized his life and his preaching, and abolished all problems which had hindered him from giving a free offer of the gospel to his parishioners. Twenty years after his great find, as will be shown shortly, Boston aroused the interest of his friends in the book, an interest which led to The Marrow Controversy.
The presentation in this paper will take place in four phases: first, the theological and cultural milieu of Scotland in the 18th century will be examined; second, the historical facts surrounding the Marrow Controversy will be outlined; third, the theological issues raised in this controversy will be reviewed in some detail; and fourth, an evaluation will be offered by this writer.
The history of the Scottish church in the one hundred and thirty years prior to the Revolution Settlement of 1690 was passionate, turbulent, and often violent. Politics and religion were inseparably linked. Yet the Reformed Church of Scotland was rooted, not among a theological or aristocratic elite, but in the life of the people, people stirred by the preaching of the Word.
As H.T. Buckle wrote,
“its pulpits ...stirred up the minds of men, woke them from their lethargy … and excited that inquisitive and demonatic spirit, which is the only effectual guarantee the people can have against the tyranny of those set over them”(4).
This rooting of the spiritual life of the Church of Scotland in the people is perhaps all the more remarkable (particularly to modern ears in light of contemporary negative criticism of Calvinist Theology), given the strict discipline maintained in the Church and the adherence to these now “offensive” doctrines of Calvinism. James Walker in his excellent review of the theology of Scotland between 1560 and 1750, makes note of the common view that Scotch religion was “harsh, austere, gloomy; -- a stern and frowning thing, reveling in the dark, dread mysteries of a stern theology”(5). Given the strict discipline which found elders searching out Sabbath breakers, the grinding poverty of the people, the emphasis on Election and Reprobation, one can believe that there was perhaps a certain sternness and austerity to Scottish religion. Certainly theirs was a feisty lot of churchmen and theologians who were eager to fight over principle and truth. And fight they did, often to death. One does get the impression that perhaps by the end of the 17th century, the people were just tired out.
It is certainly not possible to discuss all the factors which shaped the world into which The Marrow entered Scotland in the 1720’s. Many factors were at play: the poverty of the nation, the union with the British with the economic conflict and opportunity brought by the union, the impact of the Age of Reason, the emerging spirit of toleration, the after-effects of the Covenanters and the reigns of Charles II and James II, and an abiding influence of British Erastians, -- all of these had a role. In the early 1700’s, the theological mood of moderation was ascendant but not yet mature. C.R. Cragg in his Pelican history The Church and The Age of Reason(6) describes these Scottish moderates as they reached full flower toward the middle of the century:
An optimistic view of human nature replaced the doctrine of total depravity. Reprobation, and even salvation by faith alone, dropped from sight as he expounded an ethic in which man’s duty consisted in achieving the beauty of an inner harmony….Preachers instructed in the new doctrine spoke much of virtue, liberality, and benevolence; they extolled the harmony of the passions and were silent about the great themes of Calvinism. They quoted Plato oftener than Paul… Preaching was simple, direct, and practical, but often it consisted of little more than common sense, doled out as moral counsel … they had drifted far from the doctrines to which they still pledged assent… we are aghast at the unveiled secularism which pervades them...(7).
It must be remembered that The Westminster Confession was the established doctrinal confession of the Church after the Revolution Settlement. In the four decades after that settlement, great energy and effort was expended making certain that every minister conformed to those confessional standards. Yet, when The Marrow arrived onto the scene, its detractors were at one and the same time rooted in a type of orthodox doctrinal legalism concerning The Westminster Confession, and moving steadily towards a theological moralism typical of the Moderates. The doctrinal legalism had been tainted by the ascendant rnoralism. One better understands the thinking of these theologians by seeing how they dealt with Marrow doctrine.
The controversy surrounding The Marrow arose out of another controversy which hit the Church in 1717. In that year, the Presbytery of Auchterarder, concerned about the legal preaching of the moderates, began to require that all ministerial students applying for licensure sign the following statement, known as the “Auchterarder Creed,”: “I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” One student refused to sign, was declined licensure, and appealed the matter to the General Assembly, which, the next year, condemned the Auchterarder Creed as “unsound and detestable.” Whether their concern was more with the dangers latent within the wording of the creed, or whether they in fact did not believe the statement to be true as naturally understood, is difficult to say. The Presbytery had certainly overstepped its authority vis a vis the General Assembly at large in demanding acquiescence to such a statement. Participating in the Assembly proceedings was Thomas Boston, a supporter of the Auchterarder Creed, who made reference to The Marrow in a conversation with a colleague. Word about the book spread; in 1718 a certain James Hog, Carnock, republished The Marrow, the first Scottish edition. Great interest and popularity followed the book and a pamphlet war was aroused.
Principal Hadow of St. Andrews attacked The Marrow in a sermon presented at the Assembly, and soon the matter came up before the Committee on Purity of Worship, whose real aim, in Boston’s view, was to hold watch over the Evangelical Party(8). This committee called The Marrow supporters before it, and after examination reported to the Assembly, which then cited The Marrow with teaching that “assurance is of the essence of faith, that the atonement is universal; that holiness is not necessary to salvation; and that the fear of punishment and hope of reward are all not allowed to be motives to a believer’s obedience”(9).
The next year the General Assembly strictly prohibited ministers to preach, print, recommend, or publicly favor The Marrow. Eventually twelve noted Evangelical ministers delivered a representation to the Assembly protesting its action and defending The Marrow’s doctrine. Twelve queries were presented to these “Marrowmen” in regard to controversial points (the queries and answers are fortunately added in the appendix to Thomas Boston’s edition of The Marrow.) The Assembly never received the answers, but the Representatives were rebuked and admonished.
Despite the fact that the Marrowmen were thereafter persecuted and The Marrow theology suppressed, the people flocked to the preaching of the Marrowmen. These men refused to abide by the directions of the Assembly, and in 1728 Boston, after four fruitful years of labor, published his own extensively annotated version of The Marrow. That nothing more was made of the matter by the Assembly probably had to do with the fact that Boston and Hadow had become teammates in another significant heresy trial.
One can only speculate as to whether the Secession of 1733 would have occurred in 1721, specifically over the Marrow controversy, had not the civil government, fearing schism, solicited the Assembly to be lenient on the Marrowmen. It is true that only two of the Marrowmen became Seceders -- the Erskine brothers, Ralph and Ebenezer. Others, such as Boston, preferred to avoid schism and remain a faithful witness within the Scottish church. (Boston eventually left in the 1761 schism). Yet, when one reads the Secession literature, one finds less material on the patronage issue than on clear presentations of Marrow doctrines. It appears that the patronage issue was primarily a “last straw.” The theological gulf had been established officially in the controversy surrounding The Marrow.
It is somewhat of a mystery to this writer how anyone could have indicted The Marrow or the Marrowmen on the charge of antinomianism. In the “Address to the Reader” at the beginning of the book, the author defines what he means by Antinomians:
These are they that content themselves with gospel knowledge, with mere notions in the head, but not in the heart; glorying and rejoicing in free grace and justification by faith alone; professing faith in Christ, and yet are not possessed of Christ; -- these are they that can talk like believers, and yet do not walk like believers; these are they that have language like saints, and yet have conversation like devils; -- these are they that are not obedient to the law of Christ, and therefore are justly called Antinomians(10).
What is this “Law of Christ?” Later in The Marrow, Edward Fisher distinguishes between the law of Christ, the law of the Gospel, and the law of the Ten Commandments. The Antinomian conceives that the Ten Commandments are no way to be a rule of life to a believer, for Christ has delivered him from them. This is rejected by the author. The law of the Ten Commandments is in fact to be a rule of life for the believer, because it is part of the law of Christ. That is, the natural law of the Ten Commandments, while for the unbeliever a law of works leading to cursing or blessing according to the promise of God, is a law for the Christian, but not a law unto life or death. It is a law to be obeyed out of love for Christ and before God as Father rather than before God as Judge(11). Evangelist, the spokesman for Fisher in the book’s dialogues, so repudiates Antinomist’s refusal to live under the Ten Commandments as a rule of life, that he counts the Antinomians as outside of the Grace of Christ(12).
In Query II, the Assembly questioned the Marrowmen on this matter: “Is not the believer now bound, by the authority of the Creator, to personal obedience to the moral law, though not in order to justification?” The reply was direct:
We are clear and full of the same mind with our confession, ‘That the moral law of the Ten Commandments doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of God the creator, who gave it’(13).
On the other hand, The Marrow makes it abundantly clear from the very first, that obedience to the moral law can in no way merit acceptance or forgiveness from God. Indeed the book as a whole offers a more direct attack against such Legalism that it does against Antinomianism. One can only assume that the opponents of The Marrow were angered by its teaching because they were in fact committed legalists. In a moving account, Nomista, the legalist in The Marrow’s dialogue, describes auto-biographically how he had committed himself, in all sincerity, to the obedience of the law, in order that he might please God and make himself worthy of God. This process involved deep grief of soul, repentance, tears, and great discipline. And for what he could not reach, Nomista depended on Christ to make up the difference. That is, his efforts plus Christ’s efforts equaled justification. To Evangelist, Nomista remained outside of Christ.
The Marrow was also charged with teaching that assurance is of the essence of faith. Here is seems that the Moderates were attempting to remain true to the letter of The Westminster Confession, which asserts that infallible assurance “doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he is partaker of it” (Chap. XVIII, sec. 3). Here the Confession stands against the reformers, who by and large maintained that “by saving faith the believer had a certainty or assurance that he was saved”(14). Unfortunately, The Marrow language is simply not clear on the matter. The key text occurs in a section where Evangelist is encouraging Neophyte in the way of salvation:
Wherefore, as Paul and Silas said to the jailer, so say I unto you, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;” That is, be verily persuaded in your heart that Jesus Christ is yours, and that you shall have life and salvation be him, that whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, he did for you(15).
The Marrow itself does not actually use the phrase “assurance of faith,” but rather “be verily persuaded.” In the context of the passage just cited, this may be called an “appropriating persuasion,” such that there is an application to the person’s self of what is believed. What is involved here is certainly not mere mental assent. But what is this appropriating persuasion? The Marrowmen, expanding upon the contents of The Marrow, used the phrase ‘‘assurance of faith,” but did not assign to it the same meaning as the Reformers. They distinguished between “assurance of sense” and the “assurance of faith”(16). The assurance of sense has the same meaning as the assurance spoken of by the Reformers and by the Confession. This is a believer’s assurance that he is in fact in Christ, or in a state of grace. The “assurance of faith,” however, is indispensable to true faith. The actual act of believing in Christ involves a type of persuasion, else one would not believe. That is, to believe something you have to believe something. There is something inherent in the nature of belief apart from self-conscious awareness of the efficacy of the belief that involves appropriating personally the object of belief. A summary of the distinction between these two assurances is found in Dr. Colquhoun of Leith’s Treatise on Saving Faith. It is somewhat lengthy, but is as clear a statement as can be found:
A man cannot have faith without having assurance in it; but he may have faith and not have assurance of it. For, though the mind cannot but be conscious of its own act, yet whether that act have the peculiar properties and nature of saving faith cannot satisfactorily be known but by reflection. The assurance of sense or reflection, then, is not a believing in Christ; but it is a believing that we have believed in Him. It is not a direct act terminating on Him, but a reflex act by which we are assured of the saving nature of that direct act. But, although the direct act may be without the reflex, yet the latter cannot be without the former. A man must begin to believe before he can begin to know that he has believed …. The assurance of faith is commonly not so strong nor sweet as the assurance of sense which is supported by evidences. By the former, a man trusts upon the warrant of the free offer and promise that Christ will do the part of the Savior to him; by the latter he believes upon the inner evidences of grace, that his faith is unfeigned and operative …. The object of the assurance of faith in Christ revealed and offered in the Word; the object of the assurance of sense in Christ formed and perceived in the heart, the former in the root and the latter in the fruit(17).
It is no wonder that the Assembly, given the nature of The Marrow itself as it merely touched down briefly and ambiguously on this matter, went after The Marrow on this issue. One senses here the selective theological exactness of the anti-Marrow forces. Whatever The Marrow may have possibly implied by “verily persuaded,” the issue of assurance was simply not a central focus of the book. Were the Assemblymen so personally opposed to the Reformers’ view of assurance (possibly because of their anti-evangelical, anti-personal-salvation emphasis) that even a slight hint of it made their blood rise? Or were they, as legalists, so opposed to the central brunt of The Marrow that they were merely looking for ways to discredit it? Since the Marrowmen’s answers to the Assembly’s queries were never received or responded to officially, there is no record of how the Assembly may have regarded the Marrowmen’s “creative” interpretation.
The question of the extent of the atonement, or perhaps more accurately, the problem of a universal call and a definite atonement, raises itself in The Marrow in relation to the issue of “persuasion.” That is, those things the believer is to be persuaded about (i.e., the content of what is to be believed) themselves raise questions as to what sense Christ is available to all men. After Evangelist exhorts Neophyte to believe, Neophyte asks the following question: “But sir, has such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?” The controversial reply is as follows:
I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life. And hence it was that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, Mark xvi. 15, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven.” That is, go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him: Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him(18).
First, it must be noted that the Marrowmen and the author of The Marrow were “particular redemptionists.” In The Marrow, this is clear even in the opening address to the reader:
“even so Jesus Christ, the second Adam, did, as a common person, enter into covenant with God his Father, for all the elect, that is to say, all those that have, or shall believe on his name”(19).
Evangelist later states unequivocally that some are ordained to condemnation and some to eternal blessing. But to wonder about who may be elect and who may be reprobate is to pry into the hidden counsel of God. Election and reprobation are secrets which belong to God. In regard to the doctrine of reprobation, Walker notes of the Marrowmen that they “treat it, as it were, with a holy awe, and do not care to think it forwards”(20). Yet, Walker also points out that The Marrow theology was almost extreme in its doctrine of particular redemption”(21). The Marrow clearly distinguishes the revealed will of God from the hidden or decretive will of God. The latter is put into the background, as it is in Scripture. The former is that which encompasses the true thrust of Scripture; that is, the command to believe and the promise that “if you believe you shall not perish but have everlasting life.” The Marrow wanted to put the gospel as near as possible to the human heart in an authentic personal gospel offer. This offer is that of a gift, a gift described in the phrase, “Christ is dead for you.” As Boston explains in his notes, this means that “Christ is there for him to come to, that a Savior is provided, that there is a crucified Christ for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the making of which he may be saved”(22). Much is made of the “whosoever will” passages -- of the banqueting table spread and ready for anyone to come to. The gift is objective, there, for every man to take. Indeed it is the availability of this gift, combined with the command to take it, which gives the believer warrant to believe. The warrant is the free gospel offer. “Christ is ours before we believe,” writes Boston, in the sense that He is there to take possession if we will believe. The gift of Christ is not of possession, but by way of grant or offer, that one may take possession. There is a genuine love for mankind on God’s part such that he makes the gift available to all men [not all kinds of men], such that the fledgling believer may believe that “whatsoever He has done for all men He has done for me.”
There is no doubt here that The Marrow used words and phrases open to question. The distinction between “Christ is dead for you” and “Christ has died for you” is subtle at best. And there is a type of universalism described, a universalism of gift or grant, although not a universalism of election. There is an atoning love which extends to all men by way of the free offer of the gospel, the deed or grant to believe. What seems to have disturbed the General Assembly was this very concept of a “free offer.” Their questions suggest that a free offer was only compatible with universalism, not with definite or particular atonement. There seems among them to have been a cold legalism in regard to the decrees of God, a legalism which precluded the warm free offer of salvation to all men.
The very fact that Thomas Boston had need to print such extensive notes on The Marrow suggests that The Marrow was at least open to misinterpretation. Often Boston writes as if he knew what the Marrow really meant. One could claim that he was trying to use the Marrow to substantiate his perceptions, that he was using his scholarship to substantiate The Marrow’s substantiations. Nevertheless, there is a spirit about The Marrow to which this writer would think that any evangelical’s heart could pulse. Indeed, much of the teaching of The Marrow is taken for granted in Reformed Evangelical circles today.
But the Assembly was not without warrant in having concern over the book. There are unguarded phrases and questionable expressions. One could have hoped that the Assembly could have offered a more careful reading, especially in regard to the charge of Antinomianism, which The Marrow whatever else it may be, is certainly not. Yet in its theology of assurance and free-offer The Marrow does go beyond the confines of what was then, and perhaps even now, orthodox reformation teaching. Louis Berkhof, as he deals with assurance and the extent of the atonement respectively in his Systematic Theology, in both cases has a special word for the Marrowmen. In regard to the teaching of the Confession on assurance, Berkhof writes, “The Marrowmen in Scotland certainly gave a different interpretation of its position”(23). He does not expand on this. Concerning the extent of the atonement, under the Reformed Position, he offers a separate place The Marrow teaching:
The Marrowmen of Scotland were perfectly orthodox in maintaining that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, though some of them used expression which pointed to a more general reference of the atonement. They said that Christ did not die for all men, but that He is dead, that is available, for all. God’s giving love, which is universal, led him to make a deed or gift or grant to all men; and this is the foundation of the universal offer of salvation. His electing love, however, which is special, results in the salvation of the elect only(25).
There is nothing in Berkhof’s six-point substantiation of the bona-fide offer of salvation to all men which would call The Marrow teaching into question. He does however express concern regarding the wider hearing of the atonement in the Marrow theology, whereby all sinners are legates of the administration of the covenant of grace(26). Here is an expansion of the Reformers’ legate-legatee distinction. According to Boston, every man is entitled to put in his claim for the testament of Christ. As Walker summarizes “To the elect-only the testament becomes effectual; but they are not the only persons to whom the legacies are left”(27). Berkhof notes that this legate-legatee position was condemned by the Church of Scotland(28). Does Berkhof mean by this the moderate-controlled church or something else? Does Berkhof imply that he agrees that the teaching was condemnable? Whether the Marrowmen erred in this matter or not, one is grateful for the extent to which they went both to put forth and to justify the offer of the gift of salvation to all sinners. Their equating of the “elect” with the “whosoever believes” is also quite helpful. Their refusal to probe into the mind of God regarding election and reprobation is commendable. James Walker, while not sympathizing with Marrow teaching on all counts, was able to say of these Marrowmen:
Boston and The Marrowmen, first of all among our divines, entered fully into the missionary spirit of the Bible; were able to see that Calvinistic doctrine was not inconsistent with world conquering aspirations and efforts(29).
Endnotes
(1) Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes by The Rev. Thomas Boston. (Philadelphia Presbyterian Board of Publication, ?). p. 3.
(2) Donald Beaton, “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society., (Vol. 1, Pt. III., 1925), p. 118.
(3) Fisher, p. 19.
(4) John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 307.
(5) James Walker, Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560- 1750, (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), p. 157.
(6) G.R. Cragg, The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), P. 89.
(7) lbid., p. 89.
(8) Beaton, p. 117.
(9) lbid., p. 118.
(10) Fisher, P. 18.
(11) Ibid., p. 337.
(12) lbid., p. 349.
(13) Ibid., p. 349.
(14) Beaton, p. 124.
(15) Fisher, p. 116.
(16) Beaton, p. 124.
(17) lbid., p. 124.
(18) Fisher, p. 130.
(19) Ibid., P. 15.
(20) Walker, p. 91.
(21) Ibid., p. 91.
(22) Fisher, p. 128.
(23) L. Berkhof. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 508.
(24) Ibid., p. 394.
(25) Ibid., p. 398.
(26) Ibid., p. 398.
(27) Walker, p. 92.
(28) Berkhof, p. 398.
(29) Walker, p. 94.
Bibliography
Beaton, Donald. “The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity’ and the Marrow Controversy.” Records of the Scottish Church History Society. Vol I., pt. III., 1925, pp. 112-134.
Berkhof. L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Burleigh, J.H.S. A Church History of Scotland. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Campbell, Andrew J. Two Centuries of the Church of Scotland 1707-1929. Paisley: Alexander Gardner, Ltd., 1930.
Cragg, G.R. The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789. Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1966.
Fisher, Edward. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,
Henderson, Henry F. The Religious Controversies of Scotland. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905.
Henderson, G.D. The Church of Scotland: A Short History. Edinburgh: The Church of Scotland Youth Committee,
King, Ray A. A History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Charlotte: A.R.P. Board of Christian Education, 1966.
McCrie, Thomas. The Story of the Scottish Church. London: Blackie and Son, 1875.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967,
Story, Robert Herbert, editor. The Church of Scotland Past and Present, 4 Vols. London: William MacKenzie P. Vol 4: The Doctrine of the Church of Scotland, by Adam Milroy.
Thomson, Andrew. Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession Church. London: A. Fullurton and Co., 1848.
Walker, James. Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750. Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982.
The Church’s Response to the Nazi Germany Euthanasia Program
for Ian Rennie
Church History II
1985
(prepared for www.covenantfellowshipgreensboro.org)
For almost every day which has passed in this the late winter of 1984-85, there has been somewhere in Europe or in the world at large, a commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of liberation from the clutches of Nazi Germany. This commemoration may have involved joyful celebration, or merely sober reflection and speeches, whereby someone of sound judgment exhorted his listeners to learn from the mistakes of the past. Yet, in spite of the continuing stench which rises from the memory of German crematoriums, where the bodies of Jews, and the mentally and physically handicapped were sacrificed to the Nazi gods of racial purity and usefulness to the State, genocide is still being practiced by the so-called democratic liberators of World War II. In 1984, for example, over 1,500,000 abortions were performed in the United States alone. Countless “imperfect” or unwanted children were allowed to die in their first few days of life, while the government fought in vain to protect these children from their parents (What an interesting switch!). Mercy death bills faced the legislators of several states.
Historical precedent for getting rid of those deemed unworthy to live is relatively easy to establish. Between 1939 and 1945, over 300,000 people with varying degrees of mental and physical handicaps met their death by means of the Nazi “mercy death” programs. The writer of this paper would like to concentrate on this program in particular, as it seems to have more in common with the present day practices than does the Jewish Holocaust. In this paper, the following will be examined: the ideological and historical roots of the German euthanasia program; the implementation of the program; the resistance of several major church leaders to the euthanasia program, including the bases for their opposition as well as some historical background regarding these leaders’ resistance efforts; and the similarities and differences between the response of the church then, and the church’s role now in our own present day complicity.
The Nazi euthanasia program did not involve the arbitrary command of a few sadistic leaders, nor did it arise free from historical, ideological foundations. Rather, several key streams of thought converged in the 1930’s to produce the stimulus for what Frederic Wertham has called the “…model of the most bureaucratic mass murder in history”(1). These streams of thought, to be discussed in turn, are the following: the application of biological Darwinism to the socio-economic and political realm; the development of the concept of life devoid of value; the concept of the superior Nordic race; and the development of the relationship between mental disorders and heredity.
In reference to the “secret book” of Adolf Hitler, which embodied in a particularly clear way Hitler’s developing world view, biographer John Toland states that “…an essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right”(2). In Hitler’s view, modern civilization had unnaturally interfered in the role of natural selection as the regulating force in society. Thus, the unfit and the weak, that is, the insane and the handicapped, absorbed valuable resources better suited to strengthening the position of the fit and strong. Social Darwinist theorists such as Shallmayer, who heavily influenced the medical profession, held that in the social political sphere, the nation was analogous to the species, and must do all in its power to ensure its own permanent viability(3). This, of course, included elimination of the unfit and impure from within (holocaust) and the attainment of lands and resources without (war). Human feelings of compassion, which would be inclined towards the rights of the individual, were to be replaced by the ideal of subjugation of individual rights to that of the national state(4). Thus it was only rational to eliminate the superfluous ones in the most economical and efficient manner as possible(5). Speaking to this issue, Hitler stated in a 1944 address to officer cadets the following, summarizing the Nazi position:
Nature is always teaching us…that she is governed by the principle of selection: that victory is to the strong and that the weak must go to the wall. She teaches us what may seem cruel to us, because it affects us personally or because we have been brought up in ignorance of her laws, is nevertheless often essential if a higher way of life is to be attained Nature knows nothing of the notion of humanitarianism which signifies that the weak must at all costs be surrounded and preserved even at the expense of the strong. Nature does not see in weakness any extenuating reasons…on the contrary, weakness calls for condemnation(6).
Developing in the fertile ground laid by social Darwinist theory and appealing especially to the medical and legal professionals was the concept of “life devoid of value.” In 1920, a very influential book was published by jurist Karl Binding and eminent psychiatrist Alfred Hoche entitled The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, wherein the authors advance the notion that laws against murder should not be extended to the killing of “worthless people”(7). These “worthless people” are the insane, those who have “neither the will to live not to die” whose deaths are “urgently necessary,” who are “mentally completely dead” and who “represent a foreign body in human society”(8). As with the social Darwinist, the psychiatrist warns against “shows of sympathy” as being irrational and unheroic, and stresses the economic drain of care to the retarded(9). According to Wertham, there is no evidence that Hitler ever read the book, even though both Hitler and the “life devoid of value” slogan appeared on the public scene at about the same time. “Evidently,” writes Wertham, “there is such a thing as a spirit of the times which emanates from the depths of the economic-historical process”(10).
As if these factors alone were not enough to seal the fate of the weak in German society, the development of the theory of German racial superiority would leave no doubts. Appealing to the deep and frustrated nationalistic and racial sentiments of the German people, this theory extolled the Nordic man, characterized by a party theorist as “tall, with long head, narrow face, well-defined chin, narrow nose with a very high root, soft fair hair, receding light (blue or grey) eyes, pink-white skin color”(11). It was the job of the SS race examiners, headed by Heinrich Himmler, to establish “an order of good blood to serve Germany”(12). Although Social Darwinism did not inherently offer support to the concept of race superiority, the two would be sufficiently wedded by Nazi theorists that the denial of individual equality for the purpose of improvement of the race, and the evaluation of the individual in light of certain biological standards, would serve both interests simultaneously(13). The program for achieving the goal would involve the elimination of all those considered as racially inferior (Jew, Gypsy) and those who could not contribute to the building up of sound genetic lineage (the insane and physically handicapped). Once again, no one put it better than Hitler himself, who said in 1934:
It is an untenable position when the relationship between the efficient and the ineffective in a state assumes an unhealthy form. The nation has to spend a great deal of energy and money in dealing with the feeble-minded, the criminal and the anti-social. If theses examples of poor heredity were eliminated, large sums of money would be saved and could be diverted to other, more productive ends. A responsible State leadership should devote all its attention to plans for maintaining and increasing those of sound stock. In primitive societies, the community rids itself of its weaklings. In so-called civilized nations, a false attitude of brotherly love, which the church has been especially assiduous in fostering among the broad masses, operates in direct opposition to the selective process (14).
It is no wonder that once the relationship between heredity and mental disorders was established, the state would act to eliminate the possibility of reproduction of these inferior types. Interestingly, the real driving force behind the sterilization program implemented in 1933 was a highly respected professor of psychiatry, Dr. Ernst Reudin. As a scientist, he was highly recognized, particularly for his studies on the nature of heredity. Yet it was he who was the chief formulation of the compulsory sterilization law of 1933. The policy of the Reich in relation to this law was aptly summarized by the Minister of Public Health, Arthur Guett:
The ill-conceived “love of thy neighbor” has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure fold for all eternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of that ultimate aim, that is, in the light of his meaning to his family and to his national state(15).
Of course, in time the best way to retard the reproductive capacity of handicapped or insane people would simply be to remove them altogether.
Adolf Hitler never signed into law any measure allowing for “mercy killing.” On the contrary, euthanasia was in fact illegal under Nazi laws, and Hitler feared public outcry against an overt program. Yet from the beginning, his intent was clear. In 1935, he confessed to the leader of the Doctor’s Association that he would implement a euthanasia program in case of war(16). His first act in preparation for this was to set up a program guaranteeing as exempt from the law the mercy killing of incurably sick babies with deformities, and abortions when either parent had a hereditary disease(17). Nevertheless, Hitler never ordered mental patients to be killed(18). From the outset, the program was the brainchild of the psychiatrists, who were merely given freedom by Hitler to pursue their plans. The only statement of authorization of any type of euthanasia from Hitler was an informal notice written in October of 1939, but dated September 1, 1939, the day of the invasion of Poland, which reads:
Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name, so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who according to human judgment are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease. Adolf Hitler(19).
As Fredric Wertham succinctly states “the note does not give the command to kill, but the power to kill”(20).
The Euthanasia program had already in fact been worked out by psychiatrists in a Berlin conference early in 1939, participation in which included most chairmen of departments of psychiatry at major German universities and medical schools(21). Questionnaires were prepared, to be sent out to all institutions, public or private, containing mental patients and handicapped people, inquiring as to the condition of the patients kept under care. The completed questionnaires were then to be directed to a team of four “experts” in Berlin, who classified each patient as a “+” or a “–”, that is worthy to be helped or not worthy to be helped. This made a mockery even of Hitler’s request to make “critical evaluation,” as each expert was required to render judgment on up to one thousand cases per week(22). Scheduled to be eliminated in the first round of the program were some 70,000 schizophrenics, epileptics, and those with multiple sclerosis, polio, encephalitis, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea, brain tumors, as well as the clinically insane(23). Eventually, the criteria was expanded to include patients suffering from even mild tuberculosis or senility, and veterans who had suffered serious head injury, or the loss of a limb in war(24).
Those patients unfortunate enough to receive a (–) vote were transferred by the SS to one of six state-sponsored psychiatric hospitals containing gas chambers and crematoria built just for the purpose by the “General Welfare Foundation for Institutional Care”(25).” Since the program was top secret, relatives were notified that the patients had died of some sudden natural ailment, such as heart attack or pneumonia.
A similar commission independent of the one just outlined was one concerned with child euthanasia. Children were sent to special “children’s divisions” and put to death mostly by the use of drugs or by the more passive method of starvation. The children were selected on the basis of similar criteria as that which was applied to their elders, although in time, chronic bed wetters and children unfortunately orphaned by allied bombing raids also suffered the fate of death(26).
From early 1940 on, SS buses regularly appeared outside the public and private institutions to transport the helpless victims to the death hospitals. Alarm spread as the workings of the programs became known, and as protestors, especially those churchmen whose actions will be examined next, aroused public opinion. Alarm grew so intense that SS Chief Himmler began to question the whole operation:
I hear that there is considerate disturbance about the hospital at Grafeneck. People recognize the grey buses of the SS and believe that they know what is going on when they see the chimney of the crematorium burning continuously. What is happening there should be a secret, but it is no longer so; so the worst suspicions have been aroused. In my view it will be necessary to end this use of the institution and at the same time to institute some propaganda in a clever way of showing films about mental or hereditary illness in that region(27).
As a result of the particularly brave opposition of Bishop Galen and other church leaders, word spread even to the front lines. Afraid that the morale of the soldiers would be lessened in light of the possible fate of relatives, or even of themselves were they to return wounded, Hitler ordered in August of 1941 a change in the operation. The public was informed that “mercy death” procedures had taken place, and was presented with propaganda films showing the wretched plight of the hopelessly insane. The program itself was not stopped, but continued in a more secret form until the end of the war. The tried and tested extermination centers were set up in remote areas, particularly in Poland, to be used on Jews and prisoners of war. At the local hospitals, formal procedures were abolished, and individual doctors were left both to select who would die and to carry out the sentence(28). No longer were notifications of death sent to relatives(29). Massive extermination of children, however, continued until the war’s end(30).
As has already been established, those men including Hitler who had helped establish the ideological foundations for the Euthanasia program, had also ridiculed the humanitarian role that churches played in caring for the weak and insane. The concept of the sacred value of the individual had been replaced by the concept of the good of the state. The truth of the innate equality of all men had been replaced by the lie that the Nordic men should have ultimate supremacy. The final authority of God had been challenged, and in its place was the authority of the Fuhrer. The rightful place of God as the One who should choose life or death for each man on earth had been usurped by the psychiatric doctors of Nazi Germany.
It is of particular note that it was in fact the German churches who had for so long led the way in caring for the mentally ill in institutions that were international models of their kind. Many were run by Lutheran or Catholic clergy(31). Yet so passive had the church been in general in opposing Hitler on other issues, that Hitler predicted, to a great extent correctly, that the church would not offer substantial resistance to the euthanasia killings(32). As Wertham points out, a top level bureaucrat in the Euthanasia program would later say, that in his understanding “…the church was willing to tolerate such killings under certain conditions”(33). For example, when Pastor Schlaich was requested to return his completed patient questionnaires, he did protest, not on moral or biblical grounds but on the grounds that there was no legal basis for the Euthanasia program(34). Many such pastors simply acquiesced in fearful passivity. However, there were many cases of extreme bravery by churchmen who made significant attempts to expose and call a halt to the program. True, the efforts were not coordinated, but rather were isolated and sporadic(35). Still, these efforts had a significant effect in terms of pressuring the Nazi government to put an end at least to the worst first phase of the program. These efforts of several church leaders will be examined in turn.
Word of the transfer of certain classes of patients to other institutions and the subsequent death by “natural causes” spread not only amongst the people but also amongst the church leaders – bishops, pastors, and directors of the church-run institutions. One pastor, Paul Gerhard Braune, director of the evangelical Huffningstal Institution near Berlin, who after hearing the report, from all over Germany, gathered together as much concrete evidence as possible and protested strongly to four key ministers in Berlin(36). His investigative work was very thorough, and he outlined to the Justice Minister all of the details of the selection and killing process(37). He was, of course, threatened severely for interfering in top secret political matters, yet he succeeded in winning the sympathy of Justice Minister Gurtner(38). Unfortunately, Braune was arrested in August of 1940 and kept for three months, being “freed on his promise not to undertake further actions against the measures of the state or party”(39). On can only imagine the measures taken to illicit this promise.
Another leader who managed an even more effective protest was Pastor Fritz von Bodelschwingh, a highly respected pastor and chief of the Bethel Institutions, who proved that stubborn opposition could in fact have significant results. In June, 1940, Bethel Institution received some three hundred of the questionnaires to be filled out by August 1. Bodelschiwingh, aware of the ultimate fates of those whose names were sent out on the questionnaires, refused to allow the forms to be filled out, and somehow managed to get Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician, to come to Bethel for an interview. Although Dr. Brandt tried to convince Bodelschwingh that the program was needed to save the nation, Bodelschwingh replied that no one had the right to be inhumane(40). The pastor made a favorable impression on the doctor, and, as a result, not one of Bethel’s patients was ever sent to the death hospitals(41).
Well before the Euthanasia program had been implemented, the Nazis had tried to enforce a ruling that would have had all mentally ill patients from the church-run hospitals transferred to hospitals run by the state(42). This had met with fierce resistance, for although the church proved to be silent on many issues, she always resisted strongly direct State control of her organizations. In the face of this resistance, the government backed down, only to resume this pressure during the implementation of the Euthanasia program(43). Every church-run institution lived under this threat of state takeover, particularly if any resistance was given. This, of course, makes Bodelschwingh’s victory even more amazing. Unfortunately, not all of the institutions were so lucky. The director of the institution at Kückenmühle refused, as had Bodelschwingh, to cooperate, but suffered the total takeover of his institution by the state(44). His patients obviously were not spared.
This put tremendous pressure upon the bishops, who faced the loss of all of the church institutions if they resisted. Many bishops proved terribly passive(45), but some, however, were not, even amidst the terrible circumstances. South German Evangelical Bishop Wurm provided one of the rare examples of a Confessing Church leader speaking out against the Euthanasia program. Bishop Wurm, like Pastor Braun, prepared a factual report and sent a strong protest to the Interior Minister, Frick, stating the impossibility of Christians condoning these measures(46).
“…we understand well that certain circles in the Party, whose voice is primarily to be heard in the Schwarze Kerps, want to get rid of not only the churches, but of Christianity entirely because it is a barrier to such measures…But in fact right up to the present the Führer and the Party have publicly taken their stand on the bases of positive Christianity, which regards as self-evident the merciful and humane handling of suffering fellow men”(47).
Getting no response, he penned a second letter wherein he asked the Minister: “Must the German nation be the first civilized people which in the treatment of the weak returns to the customary practice of primitive peoples?…I plead not to leave me without an answer in this extremely serious matter”(48) The answer he did secure was that everything was in order and that there was a legal basis for the program(49). Although his letters never achieved the desired result, copies were spread far and wide over Germany, and, as a result, Bishop Wurm became a leading spokesman for the Evangelical church and an inspiration to churchmen of both Catholic and Protestant faiths.
The encouragement that Bishop Wurm was to his Catholic brethren is attested to in a statement made by resistance leader Ulrich von Hassell in 1940, where he wrote with joy that “Bishop Wurm of Wurtlenburg had had the admirable courage to take a firm stand…[against the] unrestrained mass slaughter of the so-called incurably insane”(50). Thankfully, Bishop Wurm did not stop with the Euthanasia program, but also leveled stiff opposition against the persecution of the Jews, which he regarded as a violation of the “God-given right to live as human beings”(51). Perhaps most significant in Bishop Wurm’s actions, at least in the eyes of von Hassell, was that they placed the Protestant church on record against the policies of Hitler(52). This is an intriguing statement considering the fact that it was in Bishop Wurm’s cathedral at Ulm in 1933 that members of the resistance to the German Christian Church formally announced the formation of an alternate church government, thus giving birth to the Confessing Church and the famous Barmen declaration. This opposition at an early date to the expressed views of the Nazi state did constitute a form of challenge or resistance, but only resistance to the imposition of an external rule over the church. In general, the Confessing Church did not participate in active political protest nor take a strong stand in regard to non-church related political issues. According to J.S. Conway, whose Nazi Persecution of the Churches is one of the more important English accounts of the German church struggle, this was for three main reasons. First, members of the Confessing Church were theologians whose primary concern was the integrity of the Gospel. Second, the majority of the members simply refused to commit themselves to political involvement, being primarily concerned with spiritual matters. Third, the Lutheran tradition of respect for ruling authority was deeply ingrained. Even for the average member of the Confessing Church, national loyalty dictated outlook, and churchmen like all other men were carried away by nationalistic, anti-communist emotions, and were too starry-eyed at the rise of power of Adolf Hitler to stand firm for the cause of individual rights(55).
Thus it was significant that Bishop Wurm spoke out not only for governmental non-interference in the church but also in defense of the “natural” right of the individual person – whether insane, handicapped, or Jewish, and thus was against the very heart of Nazi ideology and policy.
Two important Catholic church leaders who spoke out clearly and loudly against the Euthanasia program were Bavarian Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber and Bishop Clemens August Galen of Münster, both of whom will be dealt with in turn.
Although a part of the compromising Catholic hierarchy which had made easy peace with Hitler in the famous 1933 Concordat, von Faulhaber was able to see early on that the Nazis never intended to abide by the Concordat’s regulations. For example, on Advent Sunday of 1933, von Faulhaber spoke out against the nationalistic-racial neo-paganism program being glorified by the Nazis, as well as by many of the German people. Here he laid the ground work for his public opposition to these programs based on racial theories which elevated nationalistic goals over revealed truth:
What is the relation of Christianity to the German race? Race and Christianity are not mutually opposed but they do belong to different orders. Race is of the natural order; Christianity is a revealed religion and therefore of the supernatural order. Race means union with the nation; Christianity means union with God. There is no need to turn our bricks on Christianity and to set up a Nordic or Germanic Religion, in order to profess our nationality. But we must never forget: we are not redeemed with German blood. We are redeemed with the precious blood of out crucified Lord(56).
In 1937, von Faulhaber spoke out against the arrest of an anti-Nazi preacher, at which time he called for consideration of civil disobedience “…based on obedience to the law of God”(57).
When word of the so-called “mercy deaths” reached the offices of the Catholic hierarchy, the outcry was particularly loud. Many Catholic bishops from all over Germany wrote formal letters of protest which attacked the Euthanasia program and the sterilization laws, as well as racism and German paganism in general(58). Cardinal Faulhaber supported his undercharges, and denounced the so-called Euthanasia program as a clear violation of the law of God, appealing particularly to the fifth commandment. In one letter he stated that even in wartime, one may not discard the everlasting foundation of the moral order, nor the fundamental rights of the individual(59). In addition, he appealed to the government to abide by its obligations under the Concordat, but, like most charges submitted to the Nazi officials, his remained unanswered.
Late in the war, when the American forces appeared at the outskirts of the city of Münster, Bishop Galen went out to surrender the city to the oncoming American army. Incensed over this treasonable act, Hitler exclaimed, “If I ever lay hands on that swine, I’ll have him hanged”(60). The fact is that Hitler had had ample reason and ability to do just that on countless occasions, for Bishop Galen had proven himself a thorn in Hitler’s side in many ways for a full ten years prior to the fall of Münster to the Americans. But in no case did Galen have greater effect or cut more deeply into the core of Nazi policy as he did in response to the Nazi euthanasia program. The immediate historic background was significant in setting the tone of Galen’s protests. Early in 1941, heavy bombing raids leveled much of the city of Münster, giving the Nazi’s middle leadership a reason to seize church property under the pretext of needing more school and hospital space, but really doing so in order to “get even” with Bishop Galen. For, as Mother Gallin puts it “…untiring opposition and open condemnation of the Nazi program came from the pulpit of…Bishop Galen”(61). Yet once again, Galen stood firm and bitterly protected the confiscations, calling his people to become “…hard as stone and as unbreakable as the anvil, which would last longer than the hammer”(62) Hitler, fearing public unrest when united support was needed for the Russian campaign, ordered a halt to the takeovers(63). Many of the middle level officials, angered at the policy turn around, set themselves even more against Galen, calling for his arrest(64). The situation for Galen grew exceedingly grave. Yet, even at this time, ignorant of Hitler’s order concerning the seizures, Galen continued to press, turning his attention to the reports concerning the transfer and subsequent deaths of patients of the Diocesan mental hospitals(65). Like Wurm and Braune, he did his homework. He exposed in detail the entire process, from questionnaires to patient transfers to bogus death notices, and emphasized that those who were sick, senile, or even badly wounded did indeed have a lot to fear if their productive capacities proved insufficient(66). Copies of his sermons were distributed far and wide at great risk to those who smuggled them out of the country and to the soldiers at the front lines. As a result, the entire program was laid bare to the public eye. High Nazi officials described his treasonable acts as “the strongest attack against the German political leadership for decades”(67). His immediate death was demanded.
Hitler decided not to proceed against Galen, fearing a major back lash with the church and not wanting to make a martyr out of the very popular bishop. Yet, his ultimate intentions were clear, as spoken a few months later: “I am quite sure that a man like Bishop von Galen knows full well that I shall extract retribution to the last farthing”(68).
Galen and Faulhaber, involved as they were in open struggle using political methods to fight political-moral issues, were not part of a vast campaign. Rather, as von Hassell noted in 1941: “The majority under the leadership of the old pacifist cardinal Bishop of Breslau was opposed to an open struggle and against ‘political’ rather than religious methods. The proponents of action, Galen and Preysing, were therefore in the minority”(69) As J.S. Conway describes it:
The steadfastness of those Churchmen who sought to oppose the mobilized power of a police state was all the more remarkable because of the small numbers involved. This was not a mass movement of protest but only the isolated and courageous voice of conscience witnessing in a situation totally unexpected and unsought for. Yet it was the witness of these men which prevented the total apostasy of the church(70).
What Galen did have operating in his favor in the Euthanasia issue was a mobilized public opinion(71). Outrage existed over the extermination of the sick and infirm. The challenge then of the Bishops carried with it the backing of people desperately needed by Hitler in the war efforts, people upon whom Hitler, even at the height of his power and ability to terrorize, was ultimately dependent. Unfortunately and tragically, this same weight of public opinion never existed to force Hitler’s hand on the Jewish policy. This is pointed out by Guenter Lewis:
The large majority of the very people who had been outraged when their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had been put to death, failed to react in the same manner when their Jewish neighbors were deported and eventually killed in the very chambers designed for and first tried out in the Euthanasia program(72).
The ideology which produced the Euthanasia program and the ideology which motivated the response of the church leaders could not have been more diametrically opposed. Where the Nazis ridiculed the humanitarian works of the church, labeling them as being both opposed to natural biological law and economically impractical, the church proudly accepted its role as guardian of the weak whatever the economic cost. Where Hitler called for profound subjugation of the individual’s most basic rights to the greater needs of the state, Faulkhaber denounced totalitarian rule over the individual and upheld the individual’s basic rights to live and to live unoppressed. Whereas the final authority and basis for law for the Nazi was the will of the Führer, the final authority for their opponents was the revelation of God. Whereas the Nazi denounced or punished every intrusion of church leaders into “political” areas, courageous leaders such as Braun and Galen refused to limit their efforts to purely “spiritual” issues.
It is hard to judge what impact may have been made on Nazi policies had Galen and Braun and Faulhaber been part of a majority rather than a minority. Certainly without public opinion behind them, they would each have met with the same violent end as those whom they were trying to defend. And it is hard to judge what the true impact of these men’s courageous challenges was on the morale and confidence of the Nazi leadership at each level of authority. But what can be amply concluded is that concerning the Euthanasia policy itself: “The Church’s responsibility to uphold the worth of every individual in the sight of God and to be guardian of the sanctity of human life, was here, at least in part successfully defended and upheld(73).
Appendix
It would be revealing to point out some of the differences and similarities that exist between he present day abortion and infanticide issues and the euthanasia issue in Nazi Germany. This will serve as both an indirect analysis and review of the efforts outlined above by this writer of the perpetrators and opponents of Nazi euthanasia.
In Nazi Germany, the political and religious right wing was responsible for the “mercy death” programs. In present day American, however, the political and religious right wing is opposed to our equivalent of those programs.
In Nazi Germany, the common people, while maybe supporting the government in general, were in opposition to the Euthanasia program. In present day America one finds, however, that the average man on the street favors abortion, and infanticide in cases of severe defects.
In Nazi Germany, euthanasia advocates held that the well-being of the individual was secondary to that of the state. In modern America, abortion and infanticide supporters decry the economic drain which results when unwanted and deformed children are allowed to live.
In Nazi Germany, the people fought in vain against the “official” policy of the government. In America at present (1985) the converse is true: the executive branch of the government fights for the rights of the helpless who are suffering under the oppression of their fellow people, whose “rights” to oppress are protected by the courts.
In Nazi Germany, the church, once informed, stood against the Euthanasia program. In the United States, however, the American Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches stand behind the abortion and infanticide rights of the people.
In Nazi Germany, the medical profession planned and implemented the Euthanasia program. Similarly, in the United States, the medical profession performs the abortions and fights against government intervention into “family-physician” issues.
In Nazi Germany, church spokesmen immediately spoke out at great risk in support of the unique value of all human beings before God. In America, only the Catholic church has spoken out from the outset in defense of the value of every human person.
In Nazi Germany, as a rule, the church was intimidated into yielding its influence in the political realm. In America, the church did the same without intimidation.
Endnotes
(1) Frederic Wertham, A Sign for Cain: an exploration of human violence (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1966), p. 169.
(2) John Toland, Adolf Hitler (Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York, 1976), p. 2?.
(3) Helmut Krauswick, Hans Buchheim, Martin Broszat, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Anatomy of the SS State (Collins, London, 1968), p. 12.
(4) ibid., p. 12.
(5) Richard L. Rubenstein, The Age of Triage: Fear and Hope in an Overcrowded World (Beacon Press, Boston, 1983), p. 32.
(6) James T. Burtchaell, Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion (Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1984), p. 151.
(7) Wertham, p. 161.
(8) ibid., p.161.
(9) ibid., p. 161.
(10) ibid., p. 161.
(11) Burtchaell, p. 151.
(12) ibid., p. 151.
(13) Krauswick, p. 12.
(14) Burtchaell, p. 151.
(15) ibid., p. 150.
(16) Ernest Christian Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1979), p. 310.
(17) ibid., p. 310.
(18) Wertham, p. 169.
(19) ibid., p. 169.
(20) ibid., p. 169.
(21) ibid., p.169.
(22) Burthchaell, p. 173.
(23) ibid., p. 173.
(24) John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-45 (Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1968), p. 268.
(25) ibid., p. 268.
(26) ibid., p. 268.
(27) ibid., p. 271.
(28) Wertham, p. 183.
(29) Conway, p. 273.
(30) ibid., p. 273.
(31) Wertham, p. 168.
(32) ibid., p. 170.
(33) ibid., p. 185.
(34) Burtchaell, p. 160.
(35) Wertham, p. 185.
(36) Conway, p. 270.
(37) Helmreich, p. 311.
(38) ibid., p. 311.
(39) ibid., p.311.
(40) Wertham, p. 186.
(41) Helreich, p. 314.
(42) Conway, p. 269.
(43) ibid., p. 269.
(44) ibid., p. 269.
(45) ibid., p. 283.
(46) ibid., p. 270.
(47) ibid., p. 270.
Notes 48 through 64 are missing.
(65) ibid., p. 280.
(66) ibid., p. 281.
(67) ibid., p. 281.
(68) ibid., p. 283.
(69) Gallin, p. 181.
(70) Conway, p. 175.
(71) ibid., p. 283.
(72) ibid., p. 283.
(73) ibid., p. 284.
Church History II
1985
(prepared for www.covenantfellowshipgreensboro.org)
For almost every day which has passed in this the late winter of 1984-85, there has been somewhere in Europe or in the world at large, a commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of liberation from the clutches of Nazi Germany. This commemoration may have involved joyful celebration, or merely sober reflection and speeches, whereby someone of sound judgment exhorted his listeners to learn from the mistakes of the past. Yet, in spite of the continuing stench which rises from the memory of German crematoriums, where the bodies of Jews, and the mentally and physically handicapped were sacrificed to the Nazi gods of racial purity and usefulness to the State, genocide is still being practiced by the so-called democratic liberators of World War II. In 1984, for example, over 1,500,000 abortions were performed in the United States alone. Countless “imperfect” or unwanted children were allowed to die in their first few days of life, while the government fought in vain to protect these children from their parents (What an interesting switch!). Mercy death bills faced the legislators of several states.
Historical precedent for getting rid of those deemed unworthy to live is relatively easy to establish. Between 1939 and 1945, over 300,000 people with varying degrees of mental and physical handicaps met their death by means of the Nazi “mercy death” programs. The writer of this paper would like to concentrate on this program in particular, as it seems to have more in common with the present day practices than does the Jewish Holocaust. In this paper, the following will be examined: the ideological and historical roots of the German euthanasia program; the implementation of the program; the resistance of several major church leaders to the euthanasia program, including the bases for their opposition as well as some historical background regarding these leaders’ resistance efforts; and the similarities and differences between the response of the church then, and the church’s role now in our own present day complicity.
The Nazi euthanasia program did not involve the arbitrary command of a few sadistic leaders, nor did it arise free from historical, ideological foundations. Rather, several key streams of thought converged in the 1930’s to produce the stimulus for what Frederic Wertham has called the “…model of the most bureaucratic mass murder in history”(1). These streams of thought, to be discussed in turn, are the following: the application of biological Darwinism to the socio-economic and political realm; the development of the concept of life devoid of value; the concept of the superior Nordic race; and the development of the relationship between mental disorders and heredity.
In reference to the “secret book” of Adolf Hitler, which embodied in a particularly clear way Hitler’s developing world view, biographer John Toland states that “…an essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right”(2). In Hitler’s view, modern civilization had unnaturally interfered in the role of natural selection as the regulating force in society. Thus, the unfit and the weak, that is, the insane and the handicapped, absorbed valuable resources better suited to strengthening the position of the fit and strong. Social Darwinist theorists such as Shallmayer, who heavily influenced the medical profession, held that in the social political sphere, the nation was analogous to the species, and must do all in its power to ensure its own permanent viability(3). This, of course, included elimination of the unfit and impure from within (holocaust) and the attainment of lands and resources without (war). Human feelings of compassion, which would be inclined towards the rights of the individual, were to be replaced by the ideal of subjugation of individual rights to that of the national state(4). Thus it was only rational to eliminate the superfluous ones in the most economical and efficient manner as possible(5). Speaking to this issue, Hitler stated in a 1944 address to officer cadets the following, summarizing the Nazi position:
Nature is always teaching us…that she is governed by the principle of selection: that victory is to the strong and that the weak must go to the wall. She teaches us what may seem cruel to us, because it affects us personally or because we have been brought up in ignorance of her laws, is nevertheless often essential if a higher way of life is to be attained Nature knows nothing of the notion of humanitarianism which signifies that the weak must at all costs be surrounded and preserved even at the expense of the strong. Nature does not see in weakness any extenuating reasons…on the contrary, weakness calls for condemnation(6).
Developing in the fertile ground laid by social Darwinist theory and appealing especially to the medical and legal professionals was the concept of “life devoid of value.” In 1920, a very influential book was published by jurist Karl Binding and eminent psychiatrist Alfred Hoche entitled The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, wherein the authors advance the notion that laws against murder should not be extended to the killing of “worthless people”(7). These “worthless people” are the insane, those who have “neither the will to live not to die” whose deaths are “urgently necessary,” who are “mentally completely dead” and who “represent a foreign body in human society”(8). As with the social Darwinist, the psychiatrist warns against “shows of sympathy” as being irrational and unheroic, and stresses the economic drain of care to the retarded(9). According to Wertham, there is no evidence that Hitler ever read the book, even though both Hitler and the “life devoid of value” slogan appeared on the public scene at about the same time. “Evidently,” writes Wertham, “there is such a thing as a spirit of the times which emanates from the depths of the economic-historical process”(10).
As if these factors alone were not enough to seal the fate of the weak in German society, the development of the theory of German racial superiority would leave no doubts. Appealing to the deep and frustrated nationalistic and racial sentiments of the German people, this theory extolled the Nordic man, characterized by a party theorist as “tall, with long head, narrow face, well-defined chin, narrow nose with a very high root, soft fair hair, receding light (blue or grey) eyes, pink-white skin color”(11). It was the job of the SS race examiners, headed by Heinrich Himmler, to establish “an order of good blood to serve Germany”(12). Although Social Darwinism did not inherently offer support to the concept of race superiority, the two would be sufficiently wedded by Nazi theorists that the denial of individual equality for the purpose of improvement of the race, and the evaluation of the individual in light of certain biological standards, would serve both interests simultaneously(13). The program for achieving the goal would involve the elimination of all those considered as racially inferior (Jew, Gypsy) and those who could not contribute to the building up of sound genetic lineage (the insane and physically handicapped). Once again, no one put it better than Hitler himself, who said in 1934:
It is an untenable position when the relationship between the efficient and the ineffective in a state assumes an unhealthy form. The nation has to spend a great deal of energy and money in dealing with the feeble-minded, the criminal and the anti-social. If theses examples of poor heredity were eliminated, large sums of money would be saved and could be diverted to other, more productive ends. A responsible State leadership should devote all its attention to plans for maintaining and increasing those of sound stock. In primitive societies, the community rids itself of its weaklings. In so-called civilized nations, a false attitude of brotherly love, which the church has been especially assiduous in fostering among the broad masses, operates in direct opposition to the selective process (14).
It is no wonder that once the relationship between heredity and mental disorders was established, the state would act to eliminate the possibility of reproduction of these inferior types. Interestingly, the real driving force behind the sterilization program implemented in 1933 was a highly respected professor of psychiatry, Dr. Ernst Reudin. As a scientist, he was highly recognized, particularly for his studies on the nature of heredity. Yet it was he who was the chief formulation of the compulsory sterilization law of 1933. The policy of the Reich in relation to this law was aptly summarized by the Minister of Public Health, Arthur Guett:
The ill-conceived “love of thy neighbor” has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure fold for all eternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of that ultimate aim, that is, in the light of his meaning to his family and to his national state(15).
Of course, in time the best way to retard the reproductive capacity of handicapped or insane people would simply be to remove them altogether.
Adolf Hitler never signed into law any measure allowing for “mercy killing.” On the contrary, euthanasia was in fact illegal under Nazi laws, and Hitler feared public outcry against an overt program. Yet from the beginning, his intent was clear. In 1935, he confessed to the leader of the Doctor’s Association that he would implement a euthanasia program in case of war(16). His first act in preparation for this was to set up a program guaranteeing as exempt from the law the mercy killing of incurably sick babies with deformities, and abortions when either parent had a hereditary disease(17). Nevertheless, Hitler never ordered mental patients to be killed(18). From the outset, the program was the brainchild of the psychiatrists, who were merely given freedom by Hitler to pursue their plans. The only statement of authorization of any type of euthanasia from Hitler was an informal notice written in October of 1939, but dated September 1, 1939, the day of the invasion of Poland, which reads:
Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name, so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who according to human judgment are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease. Adolf Hitler(19).
As Fredric Wertham succinctly states “the note does not give the command to kill, but the power to kill”(20).
The Euthanasia program had already in fact been worked out by psychiatrists in a Berlin conference early in 1939, participation in which included most chairmen of departments of psychiatry at major German universities and medical schools(21). Questionnaires were prepared, to be sent out to all institutions, public or private, containing mental patients and handicapped people, inquiring as to the condition of the patients kept under care. The completed questionnaires were then to be directed to a team of four “experts” in Berlin, who classified each patient as a “+” or a “–”, that is worthy to be helped or not worthy to be helped. This made a mockery even of Hitler’s request to make “critical evaluation,” as each expert was required to render judgment on up to one thousand cases per week(22). Scheduled to be eliminated in the first round of the program were some 70,000 schizophrenics, epileptics, and those with multiple sclerosis, polio, encephalitis, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea, brain tumors, as well as the clinically insane(23). Eventually, the criteria was expanded to include patients suffering from even mild tuberculosis or senility, and veterans who had suffered serious head injury, or the loss of a limb in war(24).
Those patients unfortunate enough to receive a (–) vote were transferred by the SS to one of six state-sponsored psychiatric hospitals containing gas chambers and crematoria built just for the purpose by the “General Welfare Foundation for Institutional Care”(25).” Since the program was top secret, relatives were notified that the patients had died of some sudden natural ailment, such as heart attack or pneumonia.
A similar commission independent of the one just outlined was one concerned with child euthanasia. Children were sent to special “children’s divisions” and put to death mostly by the use of drugs or by the more passive method of starvation. The children were selected on the basis of similar criteria as that which was applied to their elders, although in time, chronic bed wetters and children unfortunately orphaned by allied bombing raids also suffered the fate of death(26).
From early 1940 on, SS buses regularly appeared outside the public and private institutions to transport the helpless victims to the death hospitals. Alarm spread as the workings of the programs became known, and as protestors, especially those churchmen whose actions will be examined next, aroused public opinion. Alarm grew so intense that SS Chief Himmler began to question the whole operation:
I hear that there is considerate disturbance about the hospital at Grafeneck. People recognize the grey buses of the SS and believe that they know what is going on when they see the chimney of the crematorium burning continuously. What is happening there should be a secret, but it is no longer so; so the worst suspicions have been aroused. In my view it will be necessary to end this use of the institution and at the same time to institute some propaganda in a clever way of showing films about mental or hereditary illness in that region(27).
As a result of the particularly brave opposition of Bishop Galen and other church leaders, word spread even to the front lines. Afraid that the morale of the soldiers would be lessened in light of the possible fate of relatives, or even of themselves were they to return wounded, Hitler ordered in August of 1941 a change in the operation. The public was informed that “mercy death” procedures had taken place, and was presented with propaganda films showing the wretched plight of the hopelessly insane. The program itself was not stopped, but continued in a more secret form until the end of the war. The tried and tested extermination centers were set up in remote areas, particularly in Poland, to be used on Jews and prisoners of war. At the local hospitals, formal procedures were abolished, and individual doctors were left both to select who would die and to carry out the sentence(28). No longer were notifications of death sent to relatives(29). Massive extermination of children, however, continued until the war’s end(30).
As has already been established, those men including Hitler who had helped establish the ideological foundations for the Euthanasia program, had also ridiculed the humanitarian role that churches played in caring for the weak and insane. The concept of the sacred value of the individual had been replaced by the concept of the good of the state. The truth of the innate equality of all men had been replaced by the lie that the Nordic men should have ultimate supremacy. The final authority of God had been challenged, and in its place was the authority of the Fuhrer. The rightful place of God as the One who should choose life or death for each man on earth had been usurped by the psychiatric doctors of Nazi Germany.
It is of particular note that it was in fact the German churches who had for so long led the way in caring for the mentally ill in institutions that were international models of their kind. Many were run by Lutheran or Catholic clergy(31). Yet so passive had the church been in general in opposing Hitler on other issues, that Hitler predicted, to a great extent correctly, that the church would not offer substantial resistance to the euthanasia killings(32). As Wertham points out, a top level bureaucrat in the Euthanasia program would later say, that in his understanding “…the church was willing to tolerate such killings under certain conditions”(33). For example, when Pastor Schlaich was requested to return his completed patient questionnaires, he did protest, not on moral or biblical grounds but on the grounds that there was no legal basis for the Euthanasia program(34). Many such pastors simply acquiesced in fearful passivity. However, there were many cases of extreme bravery by churchmen who made significant attempts to expose and call a halt to the program. True, the efforts were not coordinated, but rather were isolated and sporadic(35). Still, these efforts had a significant effect in terms of pressuring the Nazi government to put an end at least to the worst first phase of the program. These efforts of several church leaders will be examined in turn.
Word of the transfer of certain classes of patients to other institutions and the subsequent death by “natural causes” spread not only amongst the people but also amongst the church leaders – bishops, pastors, and directors of the church-run institutions. One pastor, Paul Gerhard Braune, director of the evangelical Huffningstal Institution near Berlin, who after hearing the report, from all over Germany, gathered together as much concrete evidence as possible and protested strongly to four key ministers in Berlin(36). His investigative work was very thorough, and he outlined to the Justice Minister all of the details of the selection and killing process(37). He was, of course, threatened severely for interfering in top secret political matters, yet he succeeded in winning the sympathy of Justice Minister Gurtner(38). Unfortunately, Braune was arrested in August of 1940 and kept for three months, being “freed on his promise not to undertake further actions against the measures of the state or party”(39). On can only imagine the measures taken to illicit this promise.
Another leader who managed an even more effective protest was Pastor Fritz von Bodelschwingh, a highly respected pastor and chief of the Bethel Institutions, who proved that stubborn opposition could in fact have significant results. In June, 1940, Bethel Institution received some three hundred of the questionnaires to be filled out by August 1. Bodelschiwingh, aware of the ultimate fates of those whose names were sent out on the questionnaires, refused to allow the forms to be filled out, and somehow managed to get Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician, to come to Bethel for an interview. Although Dr. Brandt tried to convince Bodelschwingh that the program was needed to save the nation, Bodelschwingh replied that no one had the right to be inhumane(40). The pastor made a favorable impression on the doctor, and, as a result, not one of Bethel’s patients was ever sent to the death hospitals(41).
Well before the Euthanasia program had been implemented, the Nazis had tried to enforce a ruling that would have had all mentally ill patients from the church-run hospitals transferred to hospitals run by the state(42). This had met with fierce resistance, for although the church proved to be silent on many issues, she always resisted strongly direct State control of her organizations. In the face of this resistance, the government backed down, only to resume this pressure during the implementation of the Euthanasia program(43). Every church-run institution lived under this threat of state takeover, particularly if any resistance was given. This, of course, makes Bodelschwingh’s victory even more amazing. Unfortunately, not all of the institutions were so lucky. The director of the institution at Kückenmühle refused, as had Bodelschwingh, to cooperate, but suffered the total takeover of his institution by the state(44). His patients obviously were not spared.
This put tremendous pressure upon the bishops, who faced the loss of all of the church institutions if they resisted. Many bishops proved terribly passive(45), but some, however, were not, even amidst the terrible circumstances. South German Evangelical Bishop Wurm provided one of the rare examples of a Confessing Church leader speaking out against the Euthanasia program. Bishop Wurm, like Pastor Braun, prepared a factual report and sent a strong protest to the Interior Minister, Frick, stating the impossibility of Christians condoning these measures(46).
“…we understand well that certain circles in the Party, whose voice is primarily to be heard in the Schwarze Kerps, want to get rid of not only the churches, but of Christianity entirely because it is a barrier to such measures…But in fact right up to the present the Führer and the Party have publicly taken their stand on the bases of positive Christianity, which regards as self-evident the merciful and humane handling of suffering fellow men”(47).
Getting no response, he penned a second letter wherein he asked the Minister: “Must the German nation be the first civilized people which in the treatment of the weak returns to the customary practice of primitive peoples?…I plead not to leave me without an answer in this extremely serious matter”(48) The answer he did secure was that everything was in order and that there was a legal basis for the program(49). Although his letters never achieved the desired result, copies were spread far and wide over Germany, and, as a result, Bishop Wurm became a leading spokesman for the Evangelical church and an inspiration to churchmen of both Catholic and Protestant faiths.
The encouragement that Bishop Wurm was to his Catholic brethren is attested to in a statement made by resistance leader Ulrich von Hassell in 1940, where he wrote with joy that “Bishop Wurm of Wurtlenburg had had the admirable courage to take a firm stand…[against the] unrestrained mass slaughter of the so-called incurably insane”(50). Thankfully, Bishop Wurm did not stop with the Euthanasia program, but also leveled stiff opposition against the persecution of the Jews, which he regarded as a violation of the “God-given right to live as human beings”(51). Perhaps most significant in Bishop Wurm’s actions, at least in the eyes of von Hassell, was that they placed the Protestant church on record against the policies of Hitler(52). This is an intriguing statement considering the fact that it was in Bishop Wurm’s cathedral at Ulm in 1933 that members of the resistance to the German Christian Church formally announced the formation of an alternate church government, thus giving birth to the Confessing Church and the famous Barmen declaration. This opposition at an early date to the expressed views of the Nazi state did constitute a form of challenge or resistance, but only resistance to the imposition of an external rule over the church. In general, the Confessing Church did not participate in active political protest nor take a strong stand in regard to non-church related political issues. According to J.S. Conway, whose Nazi Persecution of the Churches is one of the more important English accounts of the German church struggle, this was for three main reasons. First, members of the Confessing Church were theologians whose primary concern was the integrity of the Gospel. Second, the majority of the members simply refused to commit themselves to political involvement, being primarily concerned with spiritual matters. Third, the Lutheran tradition of respect for ruling authority was deeply ingrained. Even for the average member of the Confessing Church, national loyalty dictated outlook, and churchmen like all other men were carried away by nationalistic, anti-communist emotions, and were too starry-eyed at the rise of power of Adolf Hitler to stand firm for the cause of individual rights(55).
Thus it was significant that Bishop Wurm spoke out not only for governmental non-interference in the church but also in defense of the “natural” right of the individual person – whether insane, handicapped, or Jewish, and thus was against the very heart of Nazi ideology and policy.
Two important Catholic church leaders who spoke out clearly and loudly against the Euthanasia program were Bavarian Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber and Bishop Clemens August Galen of Münster, both of whom will be dealt with in turn.
Although a part of the compromising Catholic hierarchy which had made easy peace with Hitler in the famous 1933 Concordat, von Faulhaber was able to see early on that the Nazis never intended to abide by the Concordat’s regulations. For example, on Advent Sunday of 1933, von Faulhaber spoke out against the nationalistic-racial neo-paganism program being glorified by the Nazis, as well as by many of the German people. Here he laid the ground work for his public opposition to these programs based on racial theories which elevated nationalistic goals over revealed truth:
What is the relation of Christianity to the German race? Race and Christianity are not mutually opposed but they do belong to different orders. Race is of the natural order; Christianity is a revealed religion and therefore of the supernatural order. Race means union with the nation; Christianity means union with God. There is no need to turn our bricks on Christianity and to set up a Nordic or Germanic Religion, in order to profess our nationality. But we must never forget: we are not redeemed with German blood. We are redeemed with the precious blood of out crucified Lord(56).
In 1937, von Faulhaber spoke out against the arrest of an anti-Nazi preacher, at which time he called for consideration of civil disobedience “…based on obedience to the law of God”(57).
When word of the so-called “mercy deaths” reached the offices of the Catholic hierarchy, the outcry was particularly loud. Many Catholic bishops from all over Germany wrote formal letters of protest which attacked the Euthanasia program and the sterilization laws, as well as racism and German paganism in general(58). Cardinal Faulhaber supported his undercharges, and denounced the so-called Euthanasia program as a clear violation of the law of God, appealing particularly to the fifth commandment. In one letter he stated that even in wartime, one may not discard the everlasting foundation of the moral order, nor the fundamental rights of the individual(59). In addition, he appealed to the government to abide by its obligations under the Concordat, but, like most charges submitted to the Nazi officials, his remained unanswered.
Late in the war, when the American forces appeared at the outskirts of the city of Münster, Bishop Galen went out to surrender the city to the oncoming American army. Incensed over this treasonable act, Hitler exclaimed, “If I ever lay hands on that swine, I’ll have him hanged”(60). The fact is that Hitler had had ample reason and ability to do just that on countless occasions, for Bishop Galen had proven himself a thorn in Hitler’s side in many ways for a full ten years prior to the fall of Münster to the Americans. But in no case did Galen have greater effect or cut more deeply into the core of Nazi policy as he did in response to the Nazi euthanasia program. The immediate historic background was significant in setting the tone of Galen’s protests. Early in 1941, heavy bombing raids leveled much of the city of Münster, giving the Nazi’s middle leadership a reason to seize church property under the pretext of needing more school and hospital space, but really doing so in order to “get even” with Bishop Galen. For, as Mother Gallin puts it “…untiring opposition and open condemnation of the Nazi program came from the pulpit of…Bishop Galen”(61). Yet once again, Galen stood firm and bitterly protected the confiscations, calling his people to become “…hard as stone and as unbreakable as the anvil, which would last longer than the hammer”(62) Hitler, fearing public unrest when united support was needed for the Russian campaign, ordered a halt to the takeovers(63). Many of the middle level officials, angered at the policy turn around, set themselves even more against Galen, calling for his arrest(64). The situation for Galen grew exceedingly grave. Yet, even at this time, ignorant of Hitler’s order concerning the seizures, Galen continued to press, turning his attention to the reports concerning the transfer and subsequent deaths of patients of the Diocesan mental hospitals(65). Like Wurm and Braune, he did his homework. He exposed in detail the entire process, from questionnaires to patient transfers to bogus death notices, and emphasized that those who were sick, senile, or even badly wounded did indeed have a lot to fear if their productive capacities proved insufficient(66). Copies of his sermons were distributed far and wide at great risk to those who smuggled them out of the country and to the soldiers at the front lines. As a result, the entire program was laid bare to the public eye. High Nazi officials described his treasonable acts as “the strongest attack against the German political leadership for decades”(67). His immediate death was demanded.
Hitler decided not to proceed against Galen, fearing a major back lash with the church and not wanting to make a martyr out of the very popular bishop. Yet, his ultimate intentions were clear, as spoken a few months later: “I am quite sure that a man like Bishop von Galen knows full well that I shall extract retribution to the last farthing”(68).
Galen and Faulhaber, involved as they were in open struggle using political methods to fight political-moral issues, were not part of a vast campaign. Rather, as von Hassell noted in 1941: “The majority under the leadership of the old pacifist cardinal Bishop of Breslau was opposed to an open struggle and against ‘political’ rather than religious methods. The proponents of action, Galen and Preysing, were therefore in the minority”(69) As J.S. Conway describes it:
The steadfastness of those Churchmen who sought to oppose the mobilized power of a police state was all the more remarkable because of the small numbers involved. This was not a mass movement of protest but only the isolated and courageous voice of conscience witnessing in a situation totally unexpected and unsought for. Yet it was the witness of these men which prevented the total apostasy of the church(70).
What Galen did have operating in his favor in the Euthanasia issue was a mobilized public opinion(71). Outrage existed over the extermination of the sick and infirm. The challenge then of the Bishops carried with it the backing of people desperately needed by Hitler in the war efforts, people upon whom Hitler, even at the height of his power and ability to terrorize, was ultimately dependent. Unfortunately and tragically, this same weight of public opinion never existed to force Hitler’s hand on the Jewish policy. This is pointed out by Guenter Lewis:
The large majority of the very people who had been outraged when their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had been put to death, failed to react in the same manner when their Jewish neighbors were deported and eventually killed in the very chambers designed for and first tried out in the Euthanasia program(72).
The ideology which produced the Euthanasia program and the ideology which motivated the response of the church leaders could not have been more diametrically opposed. Where the Nazis ridiculed the humanitarian works of the church, labeling them as being both opposed to natural biological law and economically impractical, the church proudly accepted its role as guardian of the weak whatever the economic cost. Where Hitler called for profound subjugation of the individual’s most basic rights to the greater needs of the state, Faulkhaber denounced totalitarian rule over the individual and upheld the individual’s basic rights to live and to live unoppressed. Whereas the final authority and basis for law for the Nazi was the will of the Führer, the final authority for their opponents was the revelation of God. Whereas the Nazi denounced or punished every intrusion of church leaders into “political” areas, courageous leaders such as Braun and Galen refused to limit their efforts to purely “spiritual” issues.
It is hard to judge what impact may have been made on Nazi policies had Galen and Braun and Faulhaber been part of a majority rather than a minority. Certainly without public opinion behind them, they would each have met with the same violent end as those whom they were trying to defend. And it is hard to judge what the true impact of these men’s courageous challenges was on the morale and confidence of the Nazi leadership at each level of authority. But what can be amply concluded is that concerning the Euthanasia policy itself: “The Church’s responsibility to uphold the worth of every individual in the sight of God and to be guardian of the sanctity of human life, was here, at least in part successfully defended and upheld(73).
Appendix
It would be revealing to point out some of the differences and similarities that exist between he present day abortion and infanticide issues and the euthanasia issue in Nazi Germany. This will serve as both an indirect analysis and review of the efforts outlined above by this writer of the perpetrators and opponents of Nazi euthanasia.
In Nazi Germany, the political and religious right wing was responsible for the “mercy death” programs. In present day American, however, the political and religious right wing is opposed to our equivalent of those programs.
In Nazi Germany, the common people, while maybe supporting the government in general, were in opposition to the Euthanasia program. In present day America one finds, however, that the average man on the street favors abortion, and infanticide in cases of severe defects.
In Nazi Germany, euthanasia advocates held that the well-being of the individual was secondary to that of the state. In modern America, abortion and infanticide supporters decry the economic drain which results when unwanted and deformed children are allowed to live.
In Nazi Germany, the people fought in vain against the “official” policy of the government. In America at present (1985) the converse is true: the executive branch of the government fights for the rights of the helpless who are suffering under the oppression of their fellow people, whose “rights” to oppress are protected by the courts.
In Nazi Germany, the church, once informed, stood against the Euthanasia program. In the United States, however, the American Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches stand behind the abortion and infanticide rights of the people.
In Nazi Germany, the medical profession planned and implemented the Euthanasia program. Similarly, in the United States, the medical profession performs the abortions and fights against government intervention into “family-physician” issues.
In Nazi Germany, church spokesmen immediately spoke out at great risk in support of the unique value of all human beings before God. In America, only the Catholic church has spoken out from the outset in defense of the value of every human person.
In Nazi Germany, as a rule, the church was intimidated into yielding its influence in the political realm. In America, the church did the same without intimidation.
Endnotes
(1) Frederic Wertham, A Sign for Cain: an exploration of human violence (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1966), p. 169.
(2) John Toland, Adolf Hitler (Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York, 1976), p. 2?.
(3) Helmut Krauswick, Hans Buchheim, Martin Broszat, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Anatomy of the SS State (Collins, London, 1968), p. 12.
(4) ibid., p. 12.
(5) Richard L. Rubenstein, The Age of Triage: Fear and Hope in an Overcrowded World (Beacon Press, Boston, 1983), p. 32.
(6) James T. Burtchaell, Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion (Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1984), p. 151.
(7) Wertham, p. 161.
(8) ibid., p.161.
(9) ibid., p. 161.
(10) ibid., p. 161.
(11) Burtchaell, p. 151.
(12) ibid., p. 151.
(13) Krauswick, p. 12.
(14) Burtchaell, p. 151.
(15) ibid., p. 150.
(16) Ernest Christian Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1979), p. 310.
(17) ibid., p. 310.
(18) Wertham, p. 169.
(19) ibid., p. 169.
(20) ibid., p. 169.
(21) ibid., p.169.
(22) Burthchaell, p. 173.
(23) ibid., p. 173.
(24) John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-45 (Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1968), p. 268.
(25) ibid., p. 268.
(26) ibid., p. 268.
(27) ibid., p. 271.
(28) Wertham, p. 183.
(29) Conway, p. 273.
(30) ibid., p. 273.
(31) Wertham, p. 168.
(32) ibid., p. 170.
(33) ibid., p. 185.
(34) Burtchaell, p. 160.
(35) Wertham, p. 185.
(36) Conway, p. 270.
(37) Helmreich, p. 311.
(38) ibid., p. 311.
(39) ibid., p.311.
(40) Wertham, p. 186.
(41) Helreich, p. 314.
(42) Conway, p. 269.
(43) ibid., p. 269.
(44) ibid., p. 269.
(45) ibid., p. 283.
(46) ibid., p. 270.
(47) ibid., p. 270.
Notes 48 through 64 are missing.
(65) ibid., p. 280.
(66) ibid., p. 281.
(67) ibid., p. 281.
(68) ibid., p. 283.
(69) Gallin, p. 181.
(70) Conway, p. 175.
(71) ibid., p. 283.
(72) ibid., p. 283.
(73) ibid., p. 284.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
