Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I got an absolutely bizarre comment on a thread below and had to elevate it up to the top. It was on a post dealing with D. James Kennedy's ridiculous claims about Darwin and Hitler.
It is quite sad to see the typical vomiting of mindless Anti-Semitism & Anti-Christinism -- in a pathetic attempted defense of Darwinism, Evolutionism, and other False Science. The Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy, and other heroic Christian voices, are echoing St. Martin Luther's call -- the Call of God's Word -- to Repentance and Faith. But God is working His Purpose out. Before it is too late -- Repent ye, and Believe the Gospel!The Rev. Fr. Philip Mullen,
Orthodox Lutheran Christian Pastor,
Columbus, Ohio
Yes, a Lutheran minister just complained about "mindless anti-semitism." Let's show him real anti-semitism:
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews...
Guess who wrote that? Martin Luther. You know, the one who allegedly issued the "Call of God's Word" and D. James Kennedy is supposed to be following.
Comments
Yes, but that's not mindless anti-Semitism.
Posted by: RickD | March 12, 2007 9:31 AM
Yup, he definitely stepped right into that one. But perhaps Martin Luther wasn't a "real" Christian.
Posted by: Sastra | March 12, 2007 9:35 AM
Certainly many Protestants, such as myself, would regard Martin Luther as a "real" Christian. For his development, or recovery depending on your point of view, of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone--indeed for his illuminating all the solas of the reformation: Scriptura, Christus, Gratia, Fide, and Deo Gloria we owe a great deal to Martin Luther.
At the same time we are repulsed by his anti-Semitic writings. Likewise we are repulsed by the sinfulness we see in ourselves and in our brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul wrote about Christians dealing with their personal "body of death" --a graphical allusion to the practice of punishing a killer by chaining him to the putrefying corpse of his victim. In Martin Luther, I would say, we see that his body of death includes a hatred for the Jews that goes beyond what could be explained by the times in which he lived. (Lest we forget, anti-Semitism was, at the time, ubiquitous.)
All Christians have a body of death they drag about. I certainly wish that Luther's wasn't as hideous as it was. But I admire him greatly for that which he did accomplish and am proud to be a Luther-ian (but not a Lutheran.)
Besides, he wrote A Mighty Fortress in German, and somehow it rhymes in English! A true miracle.
Posted by: David Heddle | March 12, 2007 10:08 AM
Heddle - Martin Luther is rotting in eternal hell-fire right now. If I were you, I would NOT be proud to be a Luther-ian. Splitting hairs = I ain't buying it sucker.
HTH
Posted by: God | March 12, 2007 10:26 AM
Isn't "Orthodox Lutheran" an oxymoron?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 12, 2007 10:33 AM
The Lutherans, at least non-Lutherans would argue, deviated substantively from Luther's teachings in such important areas as predestination--of which Luther wrote more than Calvin. Regardless of whether or not one agrees, that there is such a contention is beyond dispute, hence I made the distinction between "Luther-ian" and Lutheran. Why "God" characterized that as splitting hairs, if that's what he was referring to, is not clear. After all, I'm admitting to being a closer follower of Luther than what I think the Lutherans are. Hardly splitting hairs.
Posted by: David Heddle | March 12, 2007 10:41 AM
LOL!
Funny.
Posted by: Leni | March 12, 2007 10:46 AM
Since when was Martin Luther referred to as a "Saint?" I thought sainthood was one of those Papist concepts that the entire Reformation rejected (rightly IMHO) early on. Does this so-called Reverend have ANY clue what he's talking about? And what does he have to say to those Lutherans who explicitly accept honest science in general, and evolution in particular?
Or is this just another irrelevant dimwit trying to make up clerical authority to start fights and divide decent people against each other?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2007 11:12 AM
http://netministries.org/see/churches/ch20800?frame=N
According to his church website (above), "Orthodox Lutheran" apparently means the following:
and
WTF??? This doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 12, 2007 11:43 AM
Doctorgoo questioned "WTF??? This doesn't make any sense to me."
Since when did any theology ever make any kind of sense?
Posted by: Keanus | March 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Ah,BS
Practitioners of Atheistic philosophies killed 100 million people in the 20th century alone! (The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press)
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...the greatest mass murderers in history.
And all firm atheists.
So what?
Posted by: Charly | March 12, 2007 12:13 PM
Heddle - Thy pride hast bought thee a one-way ticket to anathema and eternal visits with Mr. Martin "Ouch this fire hurts like the dickens" Luther, and regular conjugal visits from Lex Luther. Oh. One other thing. Did we forget to mention before that Mr. Martin Luther will be under the impression that you are Jewish while you are visiting with him?
HTH
Posted by: All Merciful God | March 12, 2007 12:32 PM
I'm glad he cleared that up.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 12, 2007 12:37 PM
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...the greatest mass murderers in history.
Perhaps, but it was their legions of good Christian followers who did the hard work of actually murdering their fellows.
Posted by: Jody | March 12, 2007 12:41 PM
HTH,
Fair enough--given that I am Jewish. My maternal grandparents were Jews--my grandfather born a Russian Jew. A blessing on your house Mozzletof, Mozzletof.
GY
He condemns Calvinism! Now he's gone too far...
Posted by: David Heddle | March 12, 2007 12:43 PM
All I can say toGinger yellows post is WOW!
These people are fascists plain and simple. They care nothing about freedom just the subjugation of other humans to their particular understanding of ancient text.
Posted by: GH | March 12, 2007 12:43 PM
Charly wrote:
You're missing several key points here. First, there is no such thing as an "atheistic philosophy". There is atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in God, but atheism is compatible with virtually every philosophy. Second, look at the context - this was a response to someone citing Martin Luther as a great man of God and a saint. Thus, showing that he supported mass murder and oppression of Jews is an effective reputation. Had anyone here called Lenin, Mao or Pol Pot (what on earth is Trotsky doing on that list?) a wonderful human being, your reply would be on point. As it stands, it is simply irrelevant.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 12, 2007 12:47 PM
The whole atheists have killed over 100 million in the 20th century alone claim is quite debatable.
1) While Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, could be arguably called atheist, their followers who actually committed the murders were generally Russian Orthodox Christians.
2) While Mao and Pol Pot also could arguably be called atheist, again, their followers who actually committed the murders were generally Buddhist, Taoist, etc.
3) The entire argument is irrelevant and realistically a strawman. Unlike Christians (and other religious denominations) atheists generally don't declare themselves to inherently possess any sort of moral superiority. Followers of most organized religions (and often their leaders) proclaim themselves to be the "chosen," "people of God," "good (insert sect here)," etc.
Finally, linguistically, it isn't that surprising that a text written in German would translate well into English, just like a text in Spanish --> Portugese or Italian.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 12, 2007 1:01 PM
Ed, I generally agree with you on most of your posts, but I think that you're making a huge logical error: All Lutherans are anti-semetic merely because Luther himself was. That's a huge leap in logic because it assumes that everything that Luther said in the 1500s has been followed to the letter by most of the modern Lutheran movement, which it has not.
As a Lutheran myself, I take great offense at this statement. Just because Luther said something, doesn't mean that the entire church beleives it. In fact, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (of which I am a member), which is arguably one of the more-liberal mainline Protestant groups (along with the Episcopalians and Presbytarians) has clearly distanced itself from this and other statments made by Luther regarding this kind of absolute garbage.
In 1994, the ELCA issued this Declaration:
"The Lutheran communion of faith is linked by name and heritage to the memory of Martin Luther, teacher and reformer. Honoring his name in our own, we recall his bold stand for truth, his earthy and sublime words of wisdom, and above all his witness to God's saving Word. Luther proclaimed a gospel for people as we really are, bidding us to trust a grace sufficient to reach our deepest shames and address the most tragic truths.
In the spirit of that truth-telling, we who bear his name and heritage must with pain acknowledge also Luther's anti-Judaic diatribes and the violent recommendations of his later writings against the Jews. As did many of Luther's own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations. In concert with the Lutheran World Federation, we particularly deplore the appropriation of Luther's words by modern anti-Semites for the teaching of hatred toward Judaism or toward the Jewish people in our day."
In other words, was Luther completely wrong about the Jewish faith? Absolutely, and not a single rational Lutheran today can justify what Luther said about them. One can still be a Lutheran and not be an anti-semite. And, as a rational human being myself, I reject anti-semitism not because the Church has told me so, but because I realize on my own that discrimination is morally reprehensable.
Furthermore, was Luther dead wrong about homosexuality and women serving in roles other than as a housewife? You're damn right he was, which is why I'm glad that ELCA allows women ministers as well as gays and lesbians to be members of the church. (I hope that they will someday alow gay ministers, but unfortunately that day is not today). Yet these examples show one major thing: Progress and Lutheranism, at least in the U.S.'s largest Lutheran body, are not mutually exclusive.
However, I recognize that there are some Lutherans who are virulently Anti-Semetic, Anti-Progress and Anti-Reason and who rely on statements like this by Luther as justification of their irrationality. It's sad that they do, and I hope that someday these hate-filled people will see that they are dead wrong. But don't link me and millions of other Progressive Lutherans like me with the rest of these idiots merely because we might share the name of a denomination.
Posted by: Blue Yotie | March 12, 2007 1:25 PM
This is somewhat tangential, sorry, but it occurs to me that the tremendous emphasis on single historical figures-- Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.-- can really serve to de-emphasize the actions of all of the people who supported them, without whom their respective travesties could not have been committed. I mean, we can psychoanalyze murderous world leaders to death, but if they conducted their particular crimes with the aid of thousands upon thousands of their countrymen, is it really so meaningful to place blame on particular elements of their philosophies? It's one thing to talk about a person who exercises mind control over his legions of evil forces, but ideologies function more like carbonation that bubbles up underneath certain members of society-- and if they didn't exist, it very likely would've pushed someone else into the position of foremost authority and power to cause such suffering. That doesn't relieve the individual of responsibility of his own actions, but likewise I don't think they should be elevated to superhuman status in our minds, and every element of their personal worldviews identified as contributing to the atrocities committed by their followers.
But then again, I could be talking out of my ass.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 12, 2007 1:27 PM
...atheists generally don't declare themselves to inherently possess any sort of moral superiority.
Actually, a good many atheists, some of them rather prominent, do indeed make such declarations, and some have done so on this blog. And their declarations are just as pompous, self-important, and utterly empty, as those of the theists.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2007 1:29 PM
Blue Yotie,
I don't believe Ed, or anyone else is making the claim that Lutherans are, as a group, anti-semetic. Ed's post is a response to the reverend who stated:
"It is quite sad to see the typical vomiting of mindless Anti-Semitism & Anti-Christinism -- in a pathetic attempted defense of Darwinism, Evolutionism, and other False Science."
His quote was a reasonable response to the reverend's claim that "Darwinists" were anti-Semetic (and anti-Christian for that matter).
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 12, 2007 1:31 PM
Blue Yotie: you're accusing Ed of something he clearly did not say, and clearly did not mean to imply. Mullen had tried to blame defenders of evolution for anti-Semitism, and Ed responded by pointing out just one instance of MANY of anti-Semitism coming from supposedly devout Christians long before Darwin was even born. And since Mullen had identified himself as Lutheran, Ed found it appropriate to respond by showing an example of anti-Semitism from Martin Luther.
The first victims of the Crusades were Jews, and that was long before the Reformation, so I'm sure Ed was quite aware that, at the very least, Martin Luther did not invent anti-Semitism.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2007 1:38 PM
Raging Bee,
Moral superiority? I've seen declarations of intellectual superiority, along the lines of "I don't believe in your superstitions," etc., but not moral authority.
Regardless, I agree, the claim is empty, whoever is making it. I find it to be far more endemic with theists, whether implied or flatly stated.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 12, 2007 1:39 PM
>>we reject and condemn ... Arminianism & all Synergism,
>>Calvinism & Crypto-Calvinism, ...
They reject Arminianism _and_ Calvinism? What's left?
Posted by: Tom Jackson | March 12, 2007 2:01 PM
Isn't that generally the case with ALL cults?
Posted by: Bill Snedden | March 12, 2007 2:20 PM
The man rejects and condemns all "Non-Christian Judaism." Isn't that redundant and anti-semitic?
Posted by: Ralph Jones | March 12, 2007 3:38 PM
Posted by: pough | March 12, 2007 9:02 PM
Is that like blaming our situation on Bush or elevating him to the pantheon of worst ever presidents?
Posted by: Ted | March 12, 2007 10:51 PM
Maybe he means that Ephesians 5:11 is a great crime.
Posted by: James | March 13, 2007 12:39 AM
Certainly many Protestants, such as myself, would regard Martin Luther as a "real" Christian. For his development, or recovery depending on your point of view, of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone...
Yeah, that, and the doctrine of "merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]".
Besides, he wrote A Mighty Fortress in German, and somehow it rhymes in English! A true miracle.
Happy joy!!!!
Posted by: 386sx | March 13, 2007 1:07 AM
Ordering the attack on the Kronstadt naval base? His role in the slaughter is debated and the loss of life isn't quite up there with the biggies but it is still a black mark against him.
Or: BECAUSE HE WAS A COMMIE, DAMMIT.
Posted by: jc | March 13, 2007 1:11 AM
By your comments you've only shown a misunderstanding of history and Luther's comments. Luther's comments weren't directed at all Jews but unbelieving Jews in the same manner and for the same cause as Moses in Deuteronomy 13.
Posted by: Wanderer | March 13, 2007 2:31 AM
You've been reading too much Calvin and other Calvinists without reading enough Luther. ;)
Posted by: Wanderer | March 13, 2007 2:37 AM
Don't you know that the 100 million Russians were killed by Jewish Regime is Russia? Check the religious affiliation of top Soviet Communists during the revolution. Jewish. That's why synagogues were not destroyed by the communists.
Posted by: Arnel | March 13, 2007 4:23 AM
and rabbis were not persecuted. The soviet union was drenched by christian blood in an attempt by the Jews to reduce, if not eliminate christian population around the world, while their cousins in the west took control of politics, finance, entertainment, and the media.
Posted by: Arnel | March 13, 2007 4:29 AM
Golly, you can learn so much just by hanging around here. They bake Christian babies inside loaves of bread, too.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 13, 2007 4:39 AM
Ted said:
Yes. Bush might be one of our worst ever presidents, but he got there by appealing to the prejudices and ignorance of a large body of Americans without whom he would have been simply an ineffectual jackass instead a very powerful one.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 13, 2007 5:59 AM
Me too....
Charly:
Dang, you know, I'm sure there's a name missing from that list... can't think of... on the tip of my tongue... begins with H, I'm sure...
Oh, that explains it....
Posted by: Nebogipfel | March 13, 2007 6:15 AM
Someone wrote:
Excessive Use Of Ampersands & Excessive Capitalization Is Always A Bad Sign. Dogma Is Usually Better Expressed In Bullet Points. It's Easier To Read That Way, And You Run Less Risk Of Inadvertantly Being A Cryptocalvinist Or A Papal Antichrist And End Up Having To Stone Yourself To Death.
Posted by: Nebogipfel | March 13, 2007 6:25 AM
I prefer Hobbes. I have a soft spot for cuddly tigers. And now I really must get back to work...
Posted by: Nebogipfel | March 13, 2007 6:35 AM
Not to nit-pick, but calling Luther an antisemite is an anachronism. 'Antisemitism' refers to the flawed racial theory that didn't come into use until well after Luther's day (mid-nineteenth century, with Renan and his ideas about "Semitic races" vs. "Aryan races").
Antijudaism was about being against the Jewish religion, and different in that if a person converted to Christianity they, theoretically, were fine after that point. (As long as the Inquisition didn't get the idea you had faked your conversion). Once 'Jewish-ness' was conceived of as a racial issue, there was no solution to be found in conversion... it was a problem of the blood.
It's still a pile of hateful retardation, but a slightly different pile than the one you are pointing to.
Posted by: John B | March 13, 2007 8:21 AM
Luther's comments weren't directed at all Jews but unbelieving Jews...
And the important difference is...?
I suppose Jews who loudly and explicitly converted to Christianity, and flatly renounced their former religion and culture in their entirety, would have escaped Luther's wrath. On the other hand, many such converted Jews did NOT escape the effects of bigotry, so even that difference is in doubt.
PS: Arnel is either a lame satirist or a moronic wanker. During WWII, Jews spent a lot of time trying to decide who was the worst Jew-killer, Hitler or Stalin. Hitler won the title, but not by much. Oh, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by Russians, not Germans, and subsequent Communist rulers acted on the falsehoods contained in that book.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 13, 2007 9:56 AM
Besides, he wrote A Mighty Fortress in German, and somehow it rhymes in English! A true miracle.
Not only that, but in Finnish and Swedish as well! That Luther must have been some linguist.
Posted by: windy | March 13, 2007 10:10 AM
Martin Luther discussing Jews sounds like a Zionist discussing Palestinians.
Our species is predatory, by nature. Propaganda is part of our instinct, to depict those groups we are in competition with in a negative light, our own group in a positive light.
Posted by: Joe Morgan | March 13, 2007 10:10 AM
"sounds like a Zionist discussing Palestinians."
Example?
Posted by: Shmuel | March 13, 2007 11:18 AM
"Martin Luther, I would say, we see that his body of death includes a hatred for the Jews that goes beyond what could be explained by the times in which he lived. (Lest we forget, anti-Semitism was, at the time, ubiquitous.)"
Anti-Judaism may have been ubiquitous but it didn't stop Andreas Osiander the leading Lutheran Reformer of Nürnberg (the first city in Germany to declare itself protestant) from writing pamphlets defending the Jews. Because he did this, when he later fell out with the Lutherans and Philippists on doctrinal issues his opponents spread the rumour that Osiander was a Jew!
One could and did choose ones standpoint even in the 16th century.
Posted by: Thony C. | March 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Religious anti-semitism like Luther's becomes racial anti-semitism like the Nazis becomes globalized anti-semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism. The more things change...
Posted by: Shmuel | March 13, 2007 1:18 PM
The quote is from one of Luther's tirades against the Jews after they refused his second invitation to mass-convert to his new version of Christianity. He originally thought that Jews historically did not convert because they were repulsed by perceived corruption in the Catholic Church.
So, he thought, here was the big opportunity the Jews were waiting for -- a way to become Christian without being subject to the Roman Pope. He issued a invitation for the Jews to convert. After a polite, "Thanks but no thanks," an astonished Luther issued another invitation and got the same quiet response.
During the Nuremberg trials, one of the defendants testified that (paraphrase), "We were just following the directives written by Martin Luther".
That's even better than, "We were just following orders".
Posted by: Larry@27N | March 13, 2007 2:26 PM
"Besides, he wrote A Mighty Fortress in German, and somehow it rhymes in English! A true miracle."
Two points:
1. English is a Germanic language. Many words are quite similar still.
2. If the English translation rhymes, that is more a testiment to the translator's art than evidence of divine intervention.
I suspect your comment was tongue in cheek, but I'm jumping on it like a duck on a June bug anyway because I've had a rough day, and I like venting my frustrations by arguing with Luther-ians.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | March 13, 2007 5:38 PM
Rob Ryan,
Yes it was tongue-in-cheek, I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. I guess it wasn't that good of a joke.
Posted by: David Heddle | March 13, 2007 6:02 PM
They reject Arminianism _and_ Calvinism? What's left?
Posted by: Tom Jackson | March 12, 2007 02:01 PM
Jesus and the Gospel, of course. If you're interested in understanding why Lutherans reject Arminianism_and_Calvinism then google on "Book of Concord." You'll find the explanation in the Formula of Concord.
Posted by: Wanderer | March 13, 2007 11:12 PM
Why, Ascension-Orthodox-Lutheran-Fellowship-of-Rev.-Fr.-Philip-Mullenism, of course. Spluh!?
Isn't that generally the case with ALL cults?
Posted by: Bill Snedden | March 12, 2007 02:20 PM
Arminius and Arminianism is a reaction to the teaching of Calvin and the Calvinists, i.e., it is an in house debate among the Reformed. The reason neither side makes an advance is that the questions they are asking don't fit the information given.
The pastor was merely reiterating what anyone will find if they read the Lutheran Symbols found in the Book of Concord.
Posted by: Wanderer | March 13, 2007 11:19 PM
The importance difference is the faith of Moses. Christianity is not a different religion from that of Moses, it is only a transition to a different language. The followers of the Messiah were first called Christians at Antioch according to the book of Acts.
The Messiah and the Christ both mean the Anointed. This is why you don't find Paul or any of the other Apostles/Evangelists writing, "Don't call me Christian because I'm really a disciple or follower of Jesus the Messiah."
Posted by: Wanderer | March 13, 2007 11:31 PM
1. What exactly do *practioners of atheistic philosophies* practice when they are *practicing*?
2. The logical parallel between the murdering in the name of your god is murdering in the name of your non-god, which is, by definition, impossible.
3. The supposition that all were firm atheists does not constitute the cause for their actions. (I take it that is what you're implying.) They also all were men, lived in the 20th century, liked to wear buttoned shirts and silly hats, and, hey, three of them were Russian.
4. Most importantly, as Ed already said, no one is saying any of these men were stand-up guys.
Posted by: itchy | March 14, 2007 1:21 PM