← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 12776 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2004-03-17
2004-03-17 21:41 | User Profile
I know that a few years ago some supposedly authoritative Lutheran body disavowed Martin Luther's comments against the Jews, but is this universally accepted among Lutheran clergy and rank-and-file church members? What is the status of Lutheran theology vs. Jews and Judaism?
-
2004-03-17 22:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I know that a few years ago some supposedly authoritative Lutheran body disavowed Martin Luther's comments against the Jews, but is this universally accepted among Lutheran clergy and rank-and-file church members? What is the status of Lutheran theology vs. Jews and Judaism?
-[/QUOTE]
wb,
I don't know about other Lutheran bodies, but the Missouri Synod made this resolution about Luther's comments on the Jews:
*Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?
A. While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and
WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and
WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also
WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and
WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it
Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further
Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further
Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further
Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further
Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally
Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).*
I have read that Luther's frustration with the Jews stemmed from efforts to evangelize them without success. As far as I know, national socialist ideology and its emphasis on Jewish biological characteristics has no relation whatsoever to Luther, even though he is blamed (or credited depending on your viewpoint) with inspiring them.
Confessional Lutherans view un-Christianized Jews as no different from unbelieving Gentiles--they both require the Gospel to be saved, and we have no Scriptural warrant for saying that there is salvation outside of Christ. As far as the Jews being a "chosen people," Lutherans believe Israel was chosen to be the people to bring forth the Messiah, but today's national Israel is not a product of Biblical prophecy.
The Missouri Synod also has a specialized ministry to evangelize Jewish people:
[url=http://www.appleofhiseye.org/]The Apple of His Eye Mission Society[/url]
2004-03-17 22:25 | User Profile
The Missouri Synod on Lord Jesus:
"While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Jesus in high esteem for his work on the cross his teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Jesus which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Jesus throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the Redeemer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Jesus, but denounces them (without denouncing Jesus's Gospel). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Jesus and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism."
Not to compare Luther to Jesus, but just to reflect on what the Luthern Church would say about some of Jesus's words if they came from Luther rather than Jesus. It's academic, from a Christian perspective, that Jews are evil. Luther's statements about the Jews are no different, except closer to the truth, than the white-bashing in America that is used to justify racial discrimination (AA) against whites.
2004-03-19 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Not to compare Luther to Jesus, but just to reflect on what the Luthern Church would say about some of Jesus's words if they came from Luther rather than Jesus. [/QUOTE]
I don't think that's valid, HH, for the distinct difference between the authoritative word of the risen Saviour and Luther, who while possessing great intelligence, spiritual insight and conviction was nevertheless merely a man like you or I.
As Centinel made clear above, the LCMS may not meet with the approval of hard-core racialists (not many do), but they are explicitly clear throughout their entire theology that there is but one way to salvation for every man and that is through Jesus Christ. In this day and age that singular fact is worthy of commendation, in my opinion.
2004-03-19 01:29 | User Profile
"Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further"
That statement tells me all I need to know. :angry:
2004-03-19 02:22 | User Profile
[quote=TD]As Centinel made clear above, the LCMS may not meet with the approval of hard-core racialists (not many do), but they are explicitly clear throughout their entire theology that there is but one way to salvation for every man and that is through Jesus Christ.
[quote=LCMS]"Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further. . ."
I'm trying to imagine a salesman who believes it's efficacious to tell the public that the goods he represents are no different than others--and even condemns salesmen in his organization who "discriminate" by outlining their product's comparative virtues.
Such an attitude, of necessity, undermines Lutheranism and elevates dung beetle worship.
2004-03-19 03:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]wb,
I don't know about other Lutheran bodies, but the Missouri Synod made this resolution about Luther's comments on the Jews:
*Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?
Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further [/QUOTE]
This discrimination statement seems like nonsense to me. They clearly condemn "any and all" discrimination "on account of religion." Ok, what if a Lutheran woman wanted to marry a Muslim man in the Lutheran church? What if a Jew or a Hindu wanted to take Communion?
I don't think they really mean what they say.
2004-03-19 04:21 | User Profile
"The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing" [a good Zappa song]:
[url]http://www.rukind.com/music/fztunes/meekshal.htm[/url]
Wake up, all you Equality-Christers and Judeo-Christers.
[edit: if Tex is offended by this post, note that I did not write the song]
2004-03-19 04:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=IchKampfe]I'm trying to imagine a salesman who believes it's efficacious to tell the public that the goods he represents are no different than others--and even condemns salesmen in his organization who "discriminate" by outlining their product's comparative virtues.
Such an attitude, of necessity, undermines Lutheranism and elevates dung beetle worship.[/QUOTE]
IK,
You can't just cherry pick that statement out of the context it was written in. Read the 'Whereas' clauses again and it is plainly speaking of not discriminating in the Scriptural mandate of proclaiming the Gospel to all people. The Gospel is for everyone, for all have sinned and fallen short.
This is most certainly true.
2004-03-19 04:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]"The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing" [a good Zappa song]:
[url]http://www.rukind.com/music/fztunes/meekshal.htm[/url]
Wake up, all you Equality-Christers and Judeo-Christers.
[edit: if Tex is offended by this post, note that I did not write the song]
-----------[/QUOTE]
Ok, Franco. You go with Zappa. I'll stick with Luther.
2004-03-19 04:42 | User Profile
Tex --
But that is true: the meek, modern Christian WILL INHERIT NOTHING if he keeps ignoring racial issues.
Right?
2004-03-19 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]But that is true: the meek, modern Christian WILL INHERIT NOTHING if he keeps ignoring racial issues. Right? [/QUOTE]
Actually, no Franco. It doesn't work like that.
It works like Christ stated:
Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Matthew 6:33
2004-03-19 07:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further [/QUOTE]
I think that they crossed the line there.
Had they qualified "discrimination" with something like "unjust" or "invidious", then maybe I could accept it, but not as it is.
Remember that the antonym of "discrimination" is "promiscuity." To be discriminating is a virtue - it means accepting the natural heirarchy of all things written into the very stuff of Creation and that is the essence of the Natural Law.
But as it is, this is a blanket condemnation of all discrimination based on race or religion the implies the very promiscuous rejection of all natural hierarchy that lies at the root of our present difficulties.
Hey, guys, all men are not created equal. The races differ on many points - as a matter of demonstrable, empirical fact. And all religions are not equal.
Sorry, Tex, but it looks to me like this was a major spazz move. They're literally preaching promiscuity in all things that really matter - religion and nation.
Walter
2004-03-19 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But as it is, this is a blanket condemnation of all discrimination based on race or religion the implies the very promiscuous rejection of all natural hierarchy that lies at the root of our present difficulties.
Did you read my reply to IchKampfe above, Walter? I'm sure you're not saying that we should pick and choose who we try or don't try to evangelize based on their religion or race, right? Because that's not the Gospel or the church of the NT. Matthew 28:19
2004-03-19 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Did you read my reply to IchKampfe above, Walter? I'm sure you're not saying that we should pick and choose who we try or don't try to evangelize based on their religion or race, right? Because that's not the Gospel or the church of the NT. Matthew 28:19[/QUOTE]
Yes I read your post, and I agree with that. We're supposed to preach the Gospel to all nations, and all the races are fully human and God wants to save them.
But that's not what the statement says. It says that we can't discriminate - which can (and, by most folks, will) be read we can't "discern." Most people will read that and understand it to mean that we have no right to insist on standards.
Heck, read literally, it would mean that Lutherans couldn't keep Muslims out of their churches to convert people to Islam, because that's discriminating based on religion.
It would mean that I couldn't council my daughters not to marry a Somali Muslim because that would be discrimination as to both race and religion.
This "no discrimination" talk equals "mandatory promiscuity" and we should challenge it whenever it raises its head.
That's all I'm saying.
Walter
2004-03-19 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But that's not what the statement says.
Well now I'm at a loss for words because to me it is quite plain that that is exactly what it says. Obviously it does not mean what you are saying, because if it did that would place the LCMS out of Christianity altogether and make it some kind of New Age temple or somesuch, which of course, is completely ridiculous.
Proselytizing to jews is not anti-Semitism and we need make no distinctions in fulfilling our Scriptural mandate to proclaim the Gospel to anyone with regards to their race or existing religion. End of story. Nothing more, nothing less.
2004-03-19 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well now I'm at a loss for words because to me it is quite plain that that is exactly what it says. Obviously it does not mean what you are saying, because if it did that would place the LCMS out of Christianity altogether and make it some kind of New Age temple or somesuch, which of course, is completely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It is ridiculous, but that is what it says. You can't tell the police 'I shot J.R.' and then use a defense of 'You're cherry-picking my statements!' at the trial.
But, you're right, the LCMS isn't a New Age temple (yet), and thanks be to Jesus for that. That resolution was done in the vein of the high-profile groveling of Trent Lott, etc. Unlike Lott, the LCMS does have substance behind this tiny bit of facade. And with good people like Tex in the pews, things are looking up.
I actually tried to visit an LCMS church one time, on Christmas Eve. The service was advertised on their website, but when I showed up 20 minutes prior to the scheduled service that evening--after driving 65 some odd miles--the church was dark and the parking lot was empty. And I've had it in for those bastards ever since. ;)
Well, that last bit isn't true. I'd actually like to visit an LCMS church some day. Don't be down on us, Tex. If we really wanted to kick around Lutherans, we'd go for the big boys, not the LCMS, which by all accounts is "Keeping the Dream Alive" -- in the good way.
Now, don't get me started on the Presbyterian Church (USA). :angry:
2004-03-20 15:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well now I'm at a loss for words because to me it is quite plain that that is exactly what it says. Obviously it does not mean what you are saying, because if it did that would place the LCMS out of Christianity altogether and make it some kind of New Age temple or somesuch, which of course, is completely ridiculous.
Proselytizing to jews is not anti-Semitism and we need make no distinctions in fulfilling our Scriptural mandate to proclaim the Gospel to anyone with regards to their race or existing religion. End of story. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]
I agree with IcKampf, that's literally what it said. Hey, maybe I'm making too much of it, but I'm a lawyer and I gotta tell you that the literal text can be REAL important, in both the courts and law and the court of public opinion.
I don't doubt that's NOT how my many goods friends and neighbors who are with the Missouri Synod take it, but our enemies will feed our words back to us when it suits them.
They spazzed this one.
Not to belabour the point, you know my - ahem! - difficulties with certain of the formulations of Vatican II, much less the hapless US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Walter