It.docx

And so Luther in 1523 is writing a treatise to combat the anti-Jewish sentiment of his day in order to facilitate outreach to the Jews that will bring the Lord back. Why does that connect to 15? Well, why does he change his mind? After 1525, Luther becomes increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt...

And so Luther in 1523 is writing a treatise to combat the anti-Jewish sentiment of his day in order to facilitate outreach to the Jews that will bring the Lord back. Why does that connect to 15? Well, why does he change his mind? After 1525, Luther becomes increasingly disillusioned with the corruption of the Lutheran Church. The debates and the bust-up with Zwingli and the Reformed. Catholicism is rallying itself and reviving and consolidating and pressing back. The Emperor has refused to subscribe a Lutheran confession. Luther himself, and let\'s not underestimate this, you know, he\'s getting old. Getting old is ghastly enough from a physical perspective in the 21st century. It would have been terrible in the 16th century. These people were dying every day of their lives physically in some ways. Luther becomes very disillusioned and I think it dawns on him that the Reformation is not the revival at the end of time. And he looks for somebody to blame. And there are four groups in his later years that he singles out for blame for the setbacks the Reformation is suffering from. The radical Anabaptists who are just crazy people. The Papists. Who refuse to accept Luther\'s understanding of justification by grace through faith. The Turk. The idolatrous Turk who\'s hammering in from the the East. And the Jews. The Jews. So in 1540, in the late 1530s, only the early 1540s, Luther does a 180 on his attitude to the Jews. All of that is to say we need to, you know, it\'s to sort of set this up the question, set up the question. Now I think we\'ve done enough groundwork, hard groundwork, to ask that question about well what is the connection then between Luther and the Holocaust. That\'s a better way of framing it, you know, did Luther cause the Holocaust? It\'s far too naive a question in some ways. What\'s the relationship between Luther and the Holocaust? Well first of all I think we have to say when we come to his 1543 treatise. It\'s very conventional. It even contains the blood libel. Much of the stuff that Luther is saying about the Jews is entirely conventional. Luther of course is a very gifted writer, which means that when he writes it has a pungency that it may not have and a sophistication it may not have when somebody else writes. We can certainly say though that Luther writes very pungently but in a very conventional way about the Jews in 1543. So, first thing I want to say is we can clearly not pin the Holocaust on Luther one on one. Luther is writing as part of an ongoing tradition, anti-Jewish feeling. Secondly, I want to add a further complication to the issue. As a historian I want to come at it and I want to say, okay, but is anti-Jewish sentiment is it always the same in all times and all places? And I think the answer is no. Jump to 1936 and the passing of the so-called Nuremberg laws in Germany. The Nuremberg laws were the effectively the constitutional legal basis for what will become the Holocaust. The Nuremberg laws stripped the Jews really of their citizenship. them. They can\'t emigrate because they don\'t have papers, but they don\'t have any civil rights in Germany because they\'ve had those stripped from them. It becomes the legal basis for the Holocaust. Incidentally, one of the key drafters of the Nuremberg laws went on to hold high office in the post-war German government of Konrad Adenauer. It\'s very interesting the relationship between immediate post-war Germany and Nazi Germany. It\'s a complicated and somewhat tormented one. But the Nuremberg Laws are interesting because they actually make a very significant point. One of the key things in the Nuremberg Laws is this. If you convert to Christianity, if you repudiate your Judaism, if you convert to Christianity, it makes no difference. It makes no difference because the problem, this is completely bogus science of course, but the problem is one of blood. The problem is one of blood. It\'s not one of religious conviction. It\'s one of blood. The Nazi campaign against the Jews was predicated on biological racial theory that really comes to its own in the 19th century. That\'s why you may have noticed in this lecture I\'ve tried on the whole to avoid the language of antisemitism when referring to Luther. because anti-Semitism is, it\'s specifically racial in its orientation. The question is, and this is where, you know, scholars of Lutheran and the Jews, this is where they zero in, the question is, is Luther\'s hatred of the Jews, which as we\'ve seen is conventional European hatred of the Jews, is it racial? That\'s the key question. And the answer, I think\... is basically no. Now there has been some pushback on this idea recently. I think it is slightly more complicated than has typically been made the case, but the basic answer is no. Because if a Jew converts to Christianity in the 16th century, the problem is dealt with. The problem has effectively gone away. Now\... There\'s been some evidence recently. There\'s a very good book, I mentioned it earlier in the week, published, it\'s a King\'s College London dissertation. It\'s published by the Institute for Holocaust Studies. It was written by, I think it\'s actually a PCA pastor named, an RTS graduate, Reformed Theological Seminary graduate who went to London to study, do a history PhD in London, did his history PhD on the use of Martin Luther\'s writings by the Nazis in the 20s and 30s. It\'s called Demonizing the Jews, the name of the author eludes me, but Demonizing the Jews published by the Institute for Holocaust Studies is a study of Nazi propaganda in the 1920s and 1930s. One of the things he does there that is quite intriguing is that he does produce some evidence that if you converted as a Jew in the 16th century to Christianity, you were still at times mocked a little bit for your physiognomy. Treated a little bit like a second-hand, a second-class Christian, which indicates there\'s a little bit more than a purely religious issue going on in the 16th century. But it\'s nothing like 19th century racial theory. The problem is basically solved if you convert. Basically solved. So I think one of the things when we come here, this blunt question of, did Luther cause the Holocaust? One of the things we have to say is, well, there\'s this\... big broad stream of anti-Jewish becoming anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe goes right the way back to the 12th century of which Luther\'s later writings on the Jews are a pretty conventional if somewhat extreme example. And secondly we have to reckon with the great transformation in the 19th century with the arrival of racial theory as transforming the understanding and the basis for anti-Jewish sentiment. You know, I\'ve just spent 35 minutes outlining all of this stuff. Now I come back to that question. How do we connect Luther to the Holocaust? Well, I would say I would connect him this way. I would say that Luther is an example, a historic example, of a tradition of anti-Jewish sentiment in Western Europe, which culminated in the Holocaust. Or culminated in Nazi Germany and then in the Holocaust 1942 and afterwards. Did Luther cause the Holocaust? No he did not. The Holocaust would have happened if Luther had never existed. Can we exonerate him? No we cannot because Luther is part of that tradition that culminates in the Holocaust. So I think we really have to step back and say you know. Luther, no he didn\'t cause the Holocaust but he\'s part of the problem that culminated in the Holocaust. Now the question you you\'re likely to face if you if you speak on Luther in your churches. First thing is something, but wasn\'t Luther a violent anti-Semite? My first response to that would be well well let\'s talk about anti-Semitism. You know what exactly is it and and make the issue more complicated you know it\'s too simple a question. You\'ve got to complicate it, I think. One of the tasks of a historian is always to make things more complicated than they first appear, because things always are more complicated than they first appear. Secondly, I think we should not be in the game of trying to justify what Luther wrote. Even by the standards of the time, even though it\'s conventional, it\'s pretty extreme. So even if we were to historicise Luther, it would be difficult to get him completely off the hook as just a man of his time. He\'s a pretty extreme man of his time. Thirdly, I think I\'d want to say, you know, but this was Luther held this position everybody else did. How difficult is it to break with traditions? Are there not prejudices that you and I have that are difficult to break with because everybody holds them? Who knows in 400 years time what view we hold now might be regarded as thoroughly unacceptable then. So I think that can be part of the answer. What I think one should not do\... is simply try to get Luther off the hook. I actually don\'t think as Christians we do ourselves any favors in hiding skeletons in the cupboard or sweeping dirt under the carpet. It is better to give an honest answer on these things. And then I myself would track to the, you know, Luther made some disastrous mistakes. But that was always the risk with a guy like Luther, because of the kind of personality that he was. You don\'t get the tough guy at Worms or the Invercarwit sermons of 1522 without running the risk of the lunatic of 1543. Oh, and by the way, he did write this great treatise in 1523 that Jesus Christ was born a Jew, so there was a moment where he kind of broke with the culture of his day on this issue. So it may not satisfy people, but I don\'t think we should allow the anti-Semitic jive to stand in its simple form. It\'s a whole lot more complicated than that, and I think the relationship between Luther and the Holocaust cannot be decided in a straight sort of, did he cause it or didn\'t he? In some ways, that\'s a silly question. It\'s the wrong question. The question is, what, you know, where did the Holocaust come from? It comes out of a strong tradition of anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish feeling in Europe of which Luther was a part, and not insignificant literary part, but only a part. Yeah. No, it\'s a European thing. You know, the Jews were regarded mainly because as I said they weren\'t baptized. What do you do with people who, it\'s the same problem with the Anabaptists, what do you do with people who aren\'t assimilable to society as you understand it to be constituted? You persecute them generally, burn them, drown them, exile them, you get rid of them, you shunt them off somewhere. You know, Luther and Zwingli not as notorious for their anti-Jewish feeling, but I\'m pretty sure if you dug in their works you\'d find it there. It\'s entirely conventional. The problem with Luther is he becomes so fixated on the Jews towards the end of his life, and some of his extreme rhetoric, which at the time was rhetoric, looks like prophecy in the light of when we look back through the Third Reich, yes synagogues were being burned down. with people inside them. It\'s hard to read Luther\'s anti-Jewish treatise. I don\'t think we should minimize them, nor should we allow them to destroy everything that he\'s done, if I could put it that way. Yeah, I mean the 1523 treaties arises out of that. There are Jews in the area. But his frustration is that they won\'t see Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. They won\'t see Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Yeah? How were those treaties received? I think at the time Luther\'s anti-Jewish rhetoric is not particularly controversial. Because everybody hates Jews. It\'s extreme by the standards of time, but you know when he uses the blood libel He\'s only using an established convention It would be like you know maybe 500 years from now We\'ll look back on an MSNBC broadcast or a Fox broadcast to think wow it\'s pretty extreme But at the time nobody noticed because so many people were saying pretty similar things Yeah from the 1930s. That would be a lot to do with Luther Bean. Yes, another part of the story that I haven\'t connected of course is that Luther comes to prominence in the late 19th century in Germany because Germany is building an identity and expanding its empire. And that\'s why if you go to Germany, the great statues of Luther all date from the 19th century. And although he was a tiny chap, they\'re all huge. He\'s a Hercules in these statues. It\'s interesting, there\'s a giant statue of Luther in Baltimore. I ran the Baltimore Marathon several years in a row and one year we come around the corner around about mile 19, which is a tough time in the marathon because you pretty much burned all your body, the sugars in your blood there and you\'re starting to break down bits of your body that shouldn\'t be broken down in order to fuel the last\... six miles. So it\'s possible you could hallucinate. And I come around the corner and there\'s this giant statue of Luther staring at me on top of this pole. I think, man, I must be hallucinating. I did a bit of a search after the race and I found out that it was whacked up in the 19th century as part of the ethnic conflict that was going on. I think between, I can\'t remember if it was between the Germans in Baltimore and the Italians in Baltimore or the Germans in Baltimore and I think the Irish in Baltimore. and putting up a great big statue of Luther was a way of sticking it to the Irish Catholics in the late 19th century. So Luther\'s statuary is popping up all over the place as a way of sticking it to the opposition in the 19th century. Yeah? Do you have any dealings with talking with converted Jews about this issue? Any recommendations? There\'s a Jewish couple that just showed up a few weeks ago at our church. Okay. I was just wondering about that. I have not. I think I have had people come to me and say, my non-Christian relative says they can\'t believe in Christianity because of Luther and the Jews and you guys. So I do have a little reading list that I give to people, recommended reading, if it\'s a serious objection for them, if it\'s not just somebody grabbing hold of something to go to Christian with. If they\'re seriously interested in exploring the topic, there is good literature out there. Particularly a book by Heiko Obermann. Obermann, who was the greatest Reformation scholar, maybe of all time, but certainly in the 20th century, wrote a book, Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation. That is an extremely good book. As I said, this demonizing the Jews book will perhaps lead to some modifications, slight modifications of Obermann\'s thesis because he\'s very strong on this is a religious problem, not a racial problem. And therefore the relationship between Luther and the Holocaust is necessarily complicated. I think it\'s anti-Semitism in the age of Renaissance and Reformation. He deals with the Reuklin controversy, he deals with Luther and the Jews. As I say, I think it\'s a fascinating question as well because it allows you to think\... You have to be very self-conscious in the way you do history when you think about something like Luther and the Jews. Because the chances of getting theoretically beheaded because you\'ve said something wrong, they are great. This isn\'t arguing about whether somebody painted their house blue or red at a certain point in history. The moral stakes are very high when you\'re dealing with issues like the Holocaust in history. It\'s very easy to make a misstep. I got into trouble a few years ago for really bashing\... Rush Dooney, the founder of Theonomy in the United States, was a Holocaust denier. In his Institutes of Biblical Law he\'s very clear. He says only 300,000 to 600,000 people died in the Holocaust. They died of disease, they were not systematically destroyed. And if you know anything about Holocaust denial, the historians he cites, it\'s just a gift. These are skinheads. These are basically skinheads that he\'s citing. I did a little article on this and of course the Theonomist got really, really angry about this. But he\'s a Holocaust denier. My view is, if you deny the Holocaust, it\'s like denying the famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. I cannot respect you as a historian because it is very clear to me that your perverted politics are absolutely driving your interpretation of history at that point. And you have no claim to competence as a historian. So to build a movement like Theonomy on the basis of skinhead history, that\'s all I need to know about the movement. Yeah? You mentioned the working synagogues. Was there any similar violent language written toward the other groups, the Turks, Anabaptists didn\'t do the right thing? I don\'t know about that. I read from the decision in the Zurich Rathaus relative to the Anabaptists earlier, they\'re to be drowned. If they refuse to submit their children, they\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. They\'re to be killed. If they refuse to submit their children for infant baptism, they are to be tried. and condemned without appeal, and then they are to be taken into the lake and drowned. Did Luther use violent language? Oh, yeah, Luther loves violent language. Oh yeah, I mean the harsh book against the peasants. It\'s one of Luther\'s real weaknesses. And his language gets more violent the older he gets. The book by, somebody was telling me about the Rhetoric and the Reformation, the book by Peter Matheson, the Rhetoric of the Reformation, has a section in there on how. Luther\'s language gets more and more extreme the older he gets. That\'s part of getting old I guess. I said to the Damingos, when I turned 40 it was great because I thought, man I can be closed-minded now. I don\'t have to be over-minded about anything anymore. Maybe I\'ll tell you this but I ran the, a friend and I in church ran an obstacle mud race last year with two of the younger girls from church and at one point we were being beaten by this all-girl team. And I turned to my friend and I said, there\'s just no way. I don\'t care if it kills me. I\'m not being beaten by an all-girl team. And the girls who were running in our team looked at me and I said, I know that\'s sexist, but it\'s OK, because I\'m too old to know better. I\'m a general, we just don\'t know any better. So. I hope that\'s helpful because I say that\'s one of the major, one of the majorly problematic things with Luther is his attitude to the Jews. And racism is such a hot-button topic and I know that at the extreme ends of things it can tend to be very silly and trivial at times. But I think that on the whole the question, you know, questions surrounding the Holocaust, these are not trivial questions. And when somebody in our church or somebody from outside the church asks about Luther and the Holocaust. It\'s a question that merits a serious reply. I think that the person who asked that question merits respect in a serious reply. And, you know, if you simply Luther for the Holocaust or you try to completely exonerate him, then I think you\'re going about it all wrong. You\'re going about it all wrong. Okay, we\'ll take a five minute break and then we\'ll reconvene and I\'ll take questions then on when I won\'t do the post-Luther stuff. What I want to do is just give you a chance to ask any questions about anything I\'ve said this week and ask about the papers, et cetera, et cetera. Let\'s look at any kind of housekeeping things because this is the last chance you\'re going to get to, directly get to me. You can get me by email, ctruman at wts.edu. So if you have email questions, but the last chance you get to operate with my real presence, as opposed to my merely spiritual presence, will be now.