Category Archives: Review Article
Ross Clifford, Review Article: “New Religions and the Nazis” by Karla Poewe
“New Religions and the Nazis” by Karla Poewe , Routledge , New York and London , 2006. Review by
Rev Dr Ross Clifford
Principal, Morling Theological College Sydney
President, Baptist Union of Australia
This book claims to highlight an important but neglected part of Nazi history, that being the role of new religions to the emergence of Nazi ideology. Its genesis is the burning question, “how Germans came to support the National Socialist worldview that ended in the Holocaust and the loss of countless lives”. The author’s quandary is surely universally held. Its ultimate findings about the role of New Religions – neo-pagan/New Age – are significant in the light of the rise of such movements today (p.95).
The author is not guilty of reductionism as she documents other factors such as an unwanted Weimar democracy and “the postwar punishment of the Treaty of Versailles”, however her additional insights into the role played by “new religions” deserve serious consideration. This is not based on conspiracy theories or secondary sources, but rather a painstaking investigation of primary sources (letters, diaries, articles, conference papers etc.) of the German Faith movements over an eight year period.
A valid methodology of exploring a worldview is to focus on one of its key exponents. Poewe, with academic rigour, takes the reader into the life and work of the founder and “fuhrer” of the German Faith Movement, Jacob Wilhelm Hauer . She claims Hauer sought a national regeneration that gave birth to a community of one Volk. A Völkisch worldview puts priority on group and personality above the individual and individualism. The group is a biological entity made up of a distinct racial, cultural and intellectual substance. It is a worldview of a community of one people (p.175). Hauer was not envisioning a Judaic-Christian faith based political Volk, but a genuinely German (Nordic) one.
The relativism of postmodern spirituality is not a new thing, as this faith based movement was just as eclectic. In Hauer’s list of the “concrete content” of German Faith there is a reliance on Hinduism, especially the Bhagavad Gita as the language “eternal fate”, “eternal law,” “battle and tragedy” has its source in that sacred text (p.76-77). There are other elements, as Poewe documents that the founders of these deutsch-Germanic religions deliberately chose elements of “the Yogic tradition, pre-Christian Germanic beliefs, and German philosophical idealism”(p.34). Like postmodern spirituality of today the German Faith Movement was not without metanarrative, it was also based on myth, in this case a focus on Germanic/Icelandic sagas.
The German Faith Movement of Hauer and others was not just anti-Jewish, but also anti- Christian; it worked for the decline of Christianity. It also believed it was time for “a new conception of God, not as one grasped by thought, but as the reality of inner experience” (p.34). As one can imagine Poewe reveals how neither insipid German theological liberalism or irrational pietism could answer such a challenge, which is surely a lesson for today as neo-paganism battles with Christianity for the hearts of those spiritually searching. It was said of some “their path to National Socialism went through the door of liberal theology” (p.25).
This is not to say that Hauer had no role for the Bible. He used the Old Testament’s eighth to sixth century prophets to support his contention that a Volk must be led by heroic individuals who emerged from their own bloodline and culture. As prophets such as Amos were needed to deliver the people from hostile forces and give new hope to the future, so a new prophet will do so today. This, by the way, highlights another concern for contemporary spirituality: its often overstressed reliance on charismatic leaders.
Hauer portrays these Biblical prophets as having been, like himself, against church, temple and established ritual. Poewe states that “while anti-Semitism may not have been intended here, separation of the Jew, as belonging to a Volk different from the German is” (p.62). From such sentiments comes a ringing endorsement of National Socialism’s unconditional allegiance to a Prophet/Fuhrer.
What about the origins of anti-Semitism and Nazism? Poewe argues and documents that to blame it on Christianity and the cross of Christ is misleading at best. This is not to say the church escapes responsibility for its often blind eye towards, or co-operation with Nazism; however, Nazism looked elsewhere for its anti-Semitism. This study shows how Hauer’s German Faith Movement wished to free Germany of Jewish Christianity and to bring in a “race-specific religion”, a holy society that “groomed its race specific biological and cultural heritage”.
Incredibly Hauer did not see himself as anti-Semitic. From his worldview perspective the Jewish people belonged to a foreign race that could only be treated as a foreign Volk, one not assimilated into an Aryan Volk. And Zionism was a possible solution, the absorption of the Jew into his own state (p.137-139). However the German Volk must be rid of an inclusive religion like Christianity, and of the Jew.
Where did Nazism get the inner fortitude to carry out the Holocaust as the way forward to an Aryan Volk? Poewe observes that Himmler defended his lethal decisions and his detachment from their consequences, from his Buddhist and Hindu ideas. Hauer popularised these concepts in his 1934 publication on the Bhagavad Gita . He laid out “systematically the justification for doing the deed that a man is called to do by fate even if that deed is steeped in guilt. Hauer calls such a deed an innate or hereditary duty (angeborene Pflicht) and there can be little doubt that Himmler saw his destruction of the Jews in that light” (p.31). One wonders if today’s political leaders would not benefit from a deep reflection on the consequences of such an ethical contradiction.
One of the strengths of this book is the documenting of the relationship between the German Faith Movement and Nazism. Poewe confidently asserts: “In matters of organisation, as in all other matters pertaining to the German Faith Movement and his academic life, Hauer co-operated deliberately and carefully with the Nazis”. He brought or welcomed National Socialist writers into his movement. Throughout this time it is shown how Hauer had contacts with SS, SA and Hitler youth. Poewe observes, “from Hitler , to Rosenberg , to Himmler , to Heydrich, to Klagges, to Hauer, to Grimm and innumerable others” there was a uniform obsession with overcoming Christianity and persuading others to do likewise (p.150). Hauer was in “good” company.
However, whilst movements such as German Faith were foundational to Nazism, Hauer himself did not live on as a “fuhrer”. He resigned in April 1936, replaced by the radicals he helped radicalise, not knowing that SS- Fuhrer Reinhard Heydrich had encouraged the radicals. It appears Hitler and the Nazis had no further room for Hauer and even the Movement was out of favour. By October of 1935, Hitler had lost all interest in making a place for the church in his state and therefore there was no real role for a transforming agent like German Faith (p.139-140).
Chapter 3 is an important chapter as it records the role of the Bünde in the development of German Faith movements. It was a Bünde environment between the 1920’s and 1932 as Germans, especially the youth, took politics into their own hands. There was an ever-growing number of small organisations (Bünde); philosophical, poetic, political and religious. And as Poewe states Hauer’s Bünde;
. had in common with all emerging National Socialists the notion that society was moved in new direction, not by political parties, but by leaders of genius (Fuhrer). Such leaders, it was thought knew how to propagate their inspired ideas (propaganda). They tested their ideas in the völkisch (folkish), bündisch (youth group), and Nordic-religious social environments, a ‘milieu” that consisted of an interwoven network of personalities ( Führergrössen ) who were political activists, writers, trained speakers, and/or managers of interpersonal and inter-group relations . Hauer was very much part of what the sociologist Colin Campbell, looking at recent expressions of religiosity, called the “cultic milieu,” namely, that “cultural underground of society” that is kept alive by everything from mysticism to unorthodox science and the publications of those who preach it (p.36).
Conclusion
At times this is not an easy book. Poewe does not waste words. While it lacks the flair of much of today’s literature, it is an important text. To treat a person as a non-person is the denial of the biblical imperative of living out human dignity and human worth to all. This sin occurred in Germany . It was not as a result of a spontaneous idea but of a destructive worldview. Religion played its part in this, and Poewe documents the shape of such movements and their involvement with the political and cultural process. This denial of human dignity continues today and Poewe’s book drives us to consider the ramifications of evil and exclusive worldviews. It helps us understand why the holocaust occurred and challenges our preconceived ideas. The book should be in all theological college/seminary libraries and on the shelves of all those who take seriously human rights, or the lack of them.
Poewe goes on to speak about the rise and strategies of today’s New Right and neo-paganism. She briefly addresses whether the New Age and neo-pagan movements are Left or Right, Green or Brown. This discussion needs more clarity and work. However, for such of those movements with a political/religious brief there is the concern that they will become heirs of Hauer. The “German Faith Movement” of today may well usher in an unholy new society. Western democracy is at its best when rooted in the Christian worldview.
Her conclusion is sobering. “While the constitutions of western liberal democracies preserve the freedom of new religions, I am not sure whether new religions, including New Age and Neo-paganism, preserve western liberal democracies. In Weirmar they did not” (p.174).
Dallas Miller, Review Article: “Humble Apologetics” by John G. Stackhouse Jr.
Humble Apologetics by John G. Stackhouse Jr.
(Oxford University Press, 2002) 262 pp.
Dallas Miller, QC
Medicine Hat Alberta
CANADA
The dust jacket for this book broaches the question, “Is it still possible, in an age of religious and cultural pluralism, to engage in Christian apologetics?” The question is a rather odd introduction to a book on apologetics, since the exact role of apologetics is to defend the faith in a time of religious and cultural pluralism. Indeed, in a monolithically Christian society we would have no need to defend the faith. The ambiguity indicated by this question reflects a weakness in Stackhouse’s book. On the positive side, Stackhouse does a superb job of describing the challenges to the Christian faith. Part one discusses pluralism, postmodernism, and consumerism in depth, and Stackhouse is clear and persuasive in describing the current sociological and ideological climate of the Western world. In part two, Stackhouse spends three chapters defining and describing conversion. Conversion is more than mental assent, he says; it is
a new outlook on everything; a new attitude toward and motivation in everything; and a new relationship toward everyone. Conversion doesn’t mean an entirely new way of life, of course, as if non-Christians know nothing of truth, goodness, and beauty, and nothing of God. Christians share with their neighbors many overlapping values and concerns because God has been generous with his gifts to everyone. And the Christian carries over into her new life all of what was truly good in her life before. But the core of one’s life is now oriented directly toward the worship and service of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus the Christian is, in that fundamental sense, a new person (p.80).
In the first two-thirds of the book, Stackhouse lays a solid basis by describing the type of society and culture in which we live and by giving an excellent description of what it means to convert to Christianity.
However, the third part of the book fails the reader despite Stackhouse’s attempt to assist in communicating and defending the faith. In this part he seems to confuse “humility” with weakness in standing for the truth. Humility in defending the faith should not mean refusing to put our best arguments forward. Christians do truly need to be humble in our apologetic approach, as Peter so clearly warned: “In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord” (I Peter 3:16a). But Stackhouse’s humility promotes the abandonment of the evidential or legal historic method of defending the faith. He openly criticizes the work of authors such as Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict) and, by implication, authors such as John Warwick Montgomery who have developed a sound evidential approach to defending the faith. Instead, Stackhouse argues that we “should sound like we really do respect the intelligence, and spiritual interest, and moral integrity of our neighbors” (p. 229). His argument clearly implies that Josh McDowell, in using his particular apologetic technique, cannot respect an opponent of the Christian faith.
In addition to his confusion over humility, a certain tentativeness permeates Stackhouse’s approach throughout the entire third section of his work. He seems timid and reluctant to come down strong on the side of truth. Because of this section, the book might better be entitled Apprehensive Apologetics. As an example, Stackhouse quotes one author who describes the risks of religious belief: “In religious belief as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong. There are no guarantees; the religious life is a venture; foolish and debilitating error is a permanent possibility” (p. 111). As a description of the risks involved with religious commitment, this may very well be true for the vast majority of religions. However, good apologists would then come forward with the historic evidence of God incarnate and proclaim the biblical message of salvation and the certainty of our resurrected Lord—the message that Peter and John presented throughout the book of Acts, the message that Paul proclaimed in his letters and encapsulated so well in 1 Corinthians 15. That is the message a true apologist will give to someone who pines about the risks of religious commitment. What is truly lacking in Stackhouse’s work is a full appreciation of how the apostles defended the faith in the New Testament world. They boldly preached only one way for salvation and may not have “respected” the “spiritual interest” of their audience. According to Stackhouse’s standard, Peter was somewhat insensitive to the spiritual interests of the rulers, elders, and Sanhedrin members in Acts 4:12.
We cannot know anything for certain, Stackhouse says, and therefore we cannot argue with our neighbors that we have “evidence that demands a verdict.” We simply must recount “what reasons and stories and aspirations we have” (p. 166). Surprisingly, the author cites I John 1:1-3 in support of this proposition, and then declares that John did not judge Christianity superior to all other religions. It is difficult to understand how one can read New Testament writers such as John and not find that the resurrected Lord can convince them of the superiority of the Christian faith. Would the apostle John, in interfacing with a postmodernist, agree that “no human being knows anything for certain” (p. 166)? I hardly think so—John spent most of his writing establishing that one can know for certain that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Indeed, Scripture repeatedly posits the proposition that knowledge of the Creator God is possible and culminates in the incarnate Christ.
Being humble in our apologetic approach should not cause us to be timid in our proclamation of truth; nor should it require us to become murky in our epistemology and accede to such self-refuting aspects of postmodernism as the idea that no human being can know anything for certain. This, however, is the downfall of Humble Apologetics and seriously detracts from the positive aspects of the book.
Finally, Stackhouse bemoans the technique of “debate” in dealing with truth issues, criticizing public debates used for the purposes of apologetics. This criticism is summarized in his questioning how any medium of power can convey the gospel of grace. Stackhouse’s question causes the reader to ask in turn, “How can a book on apologetics abandon and criticize the use of debate in the public square?” Again there is confusion—this time between a strong defence and proclamation of the gospel with the inability to love. But the question of love is not at issue; one should remember that the term “God’s love” is not mentioned once in the book of Acts. The disciples boldly proclaimed the message of truth to a religiously and culturally pluralistic world, basing their arguments on solid, historic, eyewitness evidence, going so far as to accuse certain people of the death of Christ. No one has denied the apostles’ love for the world around them. They all died untimely deaths by persecution because they wanted their world to know this gospel of love!
In conclusion, the value of Stackhouse’s work is limited to the first two parts of the book, which describe our current world and discuss conversion. Humble Apologetics is not a textbook on apologetic issues but is, rather, an attempt to deal with apologetic technique—an attempt that fails. Stackhouse reflects the postmodern confusion, in which “tolerance,” rather than dependence on New Testament teaching, is the highest value. With this in mind, the book can be commended in parts one and two, but the reader would do well to skip part three and focus on the apostles’ apologetic techniques in the New Testament.
Uncle Scarecrow, Article Review: “The Art of Deception” by Nicholas Capaldi
Book Review
The Art of Deception, by Nicholas Capaldi. Rev. ed. Prometheus Books, 1987 [original edition 1971].
(Editorial note: I cannot say for sure how the following review epistle came into my possession. I share it here with this intent: Let the reader beware–the book mentioned is dangerous material!)
My dear Wormheart:
Let me inform you, my devilish apprentice, of a glorious book available for your enrichment and instruction from one of our Master’s presses in the Middle world. (Isn’t it interesting that in the old human myths Prometheus is the titan who gave fire to humankind, a disobedience that incurred the wrath of the gods. Some things never change!) A human named Capaldi, who is very secure in our Father’s house, has offered several principles of debate to try to deceive our Enemy above and his unfortunate “followers.” May they be deceived!
Consider this delicious passage from Capaldi’s book:
“Given a sympathetic audience, you can always find some explanation as to why the opposition is so stupid and save yourself the trouble of having to deal logically with its arguments.”
Another is desperately wicked:
“Now if your opponent’s success is owing to his use of techniques of deception, such as those we are discussing, you can probably win points by exposing this fact and accusing him (more or less gently) of being a trickster. But if your audience is so dimwitted that it would not see what you are driving at, you should stick to using the deceptive tricks yourself[!].”
And this last one serves as a constant reminder:
“Remember, all of your opponent’s arguments can be shown to be defective. It is simply a question of your ingenuity and persistence.”
As you can see, Nephew, this man has succinctly expressed Our Father’s main directive: Win at any cost! How delightful has this human reminded us of that fine scripture-twisted adage that we live by: Do unto others before they do unto you!
Well, I warmly recommend this book to you, knowing that it can benefit you in your training to become more like our Infernal Master below. Those weak-minded “faithful” followers of the accursed Enemy always have his words with them. Do all within your puny power to keep them from their “holy Scripture.” Perhaps whisper if you can to them that this human’s book is a suitable replacement for that awful statement about turning the other cheek and walking a second mile. Blasted! That Enemy of ours always has the advantage of having been incarnate! Give the Enemy’s people Capaldi’s book any way you can, and they will finally get a taste of eternal life in our Master’s Kingdom below. Long live deception!
Warmest infernal greetings,
Uncle Scarecrow