Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Power to the People

3/27/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/27/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 9, “‘The People’s Culture’ Fascism and the Mass Mind” pp. 145-160

Veith considers the mass mind in the current culture, strongly influenced by mass media. We note that this book was written before the internet explosion took place. Access to highly visual media was increasing, a factor in a move to more emotive responses as opposed to the slower and more logically organized responses we normally find to print media (Veith 1993, 146). Veith finds that the fascist worldview is based on speech and images, which are more immediate. This stands in contrast to the written word, which the fascists saw as more transcendent (Veith 1993, 146). Banning and burning of books was popular among fascists as well as among the educated elite through the 20th century (Veith 1993, 147). Deconstruction of ideas can have the same result, as it effectively moves a piece of literature out of the public view.

In contrast to the banning and burning of books, Veith observes that the Nazis produced over 1300 films and embraced the visual arts, when used for their purposes (Veith 1993, 147). However, in contrast to the Nazis, our current culture is far more image-centered. Veith observes the very talk of a politician’s “image” is a radical departure from the content-based discussions which took place through the 19th century (Veith 1993, 148). The fascists of the 1930s managed to use images and experiences, rather than factual arguments, to unify and motivate the public. Mass media has the capacity to create and sustain a mass culture, with people thinking and acting the same way as each other (Veith 1993, 149). Veith acknowledges that some thinkers see this in positive terms, others as a social ill.
Regardless of the view of mass media culture as good or bad, artists and thinkers have uniformly understood that high art needs to give way to popular art (Veith 1993, 150). The masses need art and culture they can approach. The Nazis divided art into “artificial” (the high art) and “genuine” (popular art). It was the popular and folk art that could be embraced by all. Veith sees a similar popularization of art and literature in the late 20th century United States (Veith 1993, 150). The way to this has been led by the artistic and academic institutions where traditional and other “high art” is deconstructed. Veith adduces examples of “aesthetic quality” being made a means of oppressing females and minorities, of elevation of literature that was “marginalized,” and the use of popular imagery such as Warhol’s soup cans (Veith 1993, 151).

A culture of violence is common in mass movements. This was certainly the goal of Nazi propaganda. Veith observes the violence of movies in popular culture, where it was formerly mainly present in the avant-garde (Veith 1993, 152). In many films the plot matters little, but the value is found in the violence. The composition also, rather than focusing on the hero, tends to use the villain’s perspective and bring actions once left off camera into sharp focus (Veith 1993, 153).  Veith also notes the communal experience of the rock concert and the forceful musical style and lyrics found in some popular rock. He ties the skinhead culture to the kind of violent music typically used, as well as to the neo-Nazi sympathies of many artists (Veith 1993, 154). One wonders what Veith would think of current ganster rap culture.

Veith considers the Nazi opinions that American society would shortly crumble (Veith 1993, 155). The Nazis assumed America would decline because of their indifference to the environment and their obsession with comfort and pleasure. However, Veith observes that our individualism can resist collectivism and that an integrated “melting pot” society is resistant to racial unrest (Veith 1993, 156). Unfortunately, as politics become more dependent on propaganda and images, these protections can fall apart. Utilitarian and existential philosophies fight against the transcendence which has protected us. Religion which is focused on transcendent principles is a bastion against fascism, but when it shifts its focus to experience and emotionalism it can become an entryway for fascism (Veith 1993, 157). One open door Veith sees to a disruption of the West is a cobination of feminism and fascism (Veith 1993, 158). Racial and sexual equality actively fights against fascism, but Veith sees many neofascist groups on the rise, sowing dissension. He can envision a society in which the elements of fascism would exist apart from the violence. There have been relatively peaceful nationalist socialistic societies which have survived as long as they are not large (Veith 1993, 159). However, socialism almost always falls into the more violent patterns. Veith sees this as an imminent danger to Western Civilization. Ultimately the safeguard is built of transcendent values.

​
0 Comments

Overthrow of Power

3/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/20/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 8, “‘The Will to Power’ Fascism and Postmodernism” pp. 126-144.

Veith, even in the early 19902, recognized the shift from modernism to postmodern thought, which he sees as a breakdown of all that is transcendent. He observes that “some of the crucial theorists of the new postmodern thought were personally involved with the fascism of the 1930s” (Veith 1993, 126). Veith is clear that postmodernists are not necessarily fascists. However, the thinking can lead toward fascism, so deserves cautious analysis. Because postmodernism is critical of capitalism and other traditions which seem based on power, it can “easily legitimize oppression by undermining all moral and legal structures that might mitigate and control the ‘will to power’” (Veith 1993, 127). The value placed on pluralism can provoke treatment of people only as they fit into categories, rather than as individuals. Meaning, and therefore fact, is something which is created by a society, rather than being recognized by an individual. This process goes as far as the fact of one’s self, which is determined by social and cultural forces (Veith 1993, 128). The social analysis performed in postmodernism normally uses categories recognized in Marxism, Freudianism, and build strongly on Nietzsche, with reality hidden and needing to be drawn out (Veith 1993, 128-129). If meaning is a construct to be brought out through interrogation, the individual may well do best allowing cultural or governmental patterns dictate what is good or bad (Veith 1993, 129). This is very similar to fascism.

Postmodernism also has a strong emphasis on relativism. Since meaning can differ from one person to another, attempts to impose objective truth are rejected as oppressive (Veith 1993, 130). This relativism effectively views Western civilization, with its emphasis on stability and an attitude of superiority, as oppressive. Rather, cultures which have been oppressed should be seen as superior. While this would seem at odds with fascism, Veith notes the categorization is identical, though the conclusions differ (Veith 1993, 131). It leads to social stereotyping and will logically cause different groups to be privileged. Veith goes on to identify the root of the problem. “What is missing in postmodern multiculturalism is an acknowledgement of any kind of realm that transcends culture, some overarching sense of universal humanity which people of all cultures have in common” (Veith 1993, 132). In postmodern thought, there is nothing to replace the stabilizing influence of science, democratic values, or religion. Postmodernism tends to divide cultures apart rather than to develop unity (Veith 1993, 133). Fascism did precisely the same thing, in its emphasis on the distinctive features of various cultural and ethnic groups (Veith 1993, 134).

At the heart of postmodernism, Veith says, is the deconstruction found first in Heidegger. “Put simply, deconstruction begins, with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction” (Veith 1993, 135). Language, which is in some ways arbitrary, is also subject to deconstruction. Thus, a postmodern reading of a document can make it mean nearly anything or nothing, as Veith illustrates with several examples (Veith 1993, 136). In the end, any transcendence is rejected, allowing the interpreter to act in a dictatorial manner, something the fascist deconstructionists were free to do (Veith 1993, 137). Veith makes much of the writing of Paul De Man, who was an important fascist journalist and who continued developing the same ideas as a professor and literary critic in the United States (Veith 1993, 138). In De Man’s work, language and action are alike exercises of power. They are morally detached, allowing the writer or actor to create their own meaning (Veith 1993, 140).

Veith does observe that some have argued that there are deconstructionists who are religious, so must accept transcendence. However, he shows with several examples that not all are consistent about their religious points of view, preferring a deconstructionist philosophy when it is at variance with Scripture (Veith 1993, 141-142). In the end, it is perfectly natural that a deconstructionist philosophy will lead to the tyranny of one group over another. This is precisely what we saw in the fascism of the 1930s (Veith 1993, 143).

​
0 Comments

Contemporary High Art and Fascism

3/13/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/13/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 7, “‘The Beautiful Ideas Which Kill’ Fascism and Modernism” pp. 113-125.

Veith observes that although “fascism became a mass movement . . . it had its origins among intellectuals and artists” (Veith 1993, 113). It began as an avant-garde reaction to the established order, roughly in parallel to the rise of the modernist movement in the early 20th century. Ironically, the modernist movement and the fascist movement both found current society bleak and looked to past civilizations for models, thus creating something which was simultaneously new and old (Veith 1993, 114). The tumult of Word War I may also have led people to accept new ways of viewing their world, thus leaving the door open for these philosophical shifts (Veith 1993, 115).

Veith credits the 1913 performance of Stravinsky’s The Rites of Spring with its atonality, frenzied choreography, and human sacrifice as a key moment in history. The first audience rioted (Veith 1993, 115). However, the move to the acceptance of an avant-garde was unmistakable. The shift to the visceral, the primitive, and the departure from traditional form was all present. This had a profound influence on the theories of the fascist thinkers in the artistic community (Veith 1993, 116). Music, art, and literature began to adopt visceral and even violent modes of expression. Veith provides numerous examples of luminaries in the world of 20th century literature who found themselves at home with the primitivism, the nationalism, and the moral changes of the eugenics movement (Veith 1993, 117).

In the art world, it was commonly accepted that an artist would create values. To change culture, it was necessary to create new values and break down the old. Nietzsche saw this as the special realm of the artist, who could use the will to power as a means of creating new truth (Veith 1993, 118). Moral principles are expressions of power. Artists can impose new morals on people through the cultural force of their work. The artist, then, was a hero of sorts, who would break out of his marginalized status to lead the culture (Veith 1993, 119). The avant-garde art world with its ties to fascism provided a way of throwing off tradition in favor of a new, unrestrained self. Veith finds this very present in the Futurist art movement of Italy (Veith 1993, 120). The beautiful ideas of the artists moved quickly to violent overthrow of others. Especially in Italy, the avant-garde art world and the Fascist revolution formed alliances as they sought to bring forth a new order (Veith 1993, 121). Both movements were largely based on shock value, creating a new human order which was subjective and emotionalistic (Veith 1993, 122). Likewise, the German Expressionists explored psychological states, especially those related to violence. This found expression in an aesthetic of ugliness, which was easily adapted to the Nazi shows of force. Eventually, the Nazis banned Expressionist art, but did put it on display as “degenerate” work (Veith 1993, 123). The approved Nazi art was that of nostalgia, peasant life, folklore, and the revolutionary naturalist nude paintings and sculptures (Veith 1993, 124). The depictions of the Aryans were intended to direct people to recognize a new ideal. Order is imposed on the primitivism in a way similar to the imposition of political order on society. In the end, “fascist art lurched from total freedom to total control” (Veith 1993, 125). The transcendent was gone, but a new aesthetic needed to be created, by force, if necessary. The ideas of freedom and revolution ended up being turned to instruments of bondage.

​
0 Comments

A Culture of Death

3/6/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/6/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 6, “‘Life Unworthy of Life’ Fascist Ethics” pp. 94-112.

Veith states unequivocally that the exterminations of the fascist regimes were not merely acts of cruelty. They were acts of a worldview in which execution of certain people was a valid social good (Veith 1993, 94). Without the transcendent moral ethic of Jews and Christians, an ethic founded on human will and community needs took its place. There was “a new ethic based on the values of strength and power. This manifested itself in the glorification of violence and in the sanctioning of eugenics, euthanasia, and finally genocide” (Veith 1993, 95).

This world view shift, in Veith’s estimation derives from an existential ethic based not on objective good but on whether the individual’s decision was personal and authentic (Veith 1993, 95). Veith explores the different approach to ethics using abortion. From a non-existential poiont of view, people will argue for or against abortion using quantifiable data. From an existential point of view, the data is irrelevant, but the free will to choose is paramount (Veith 1993, 96). Traditional ethics seek to identify and impart objective values, while existentialist ethics seek to identify opinions, treating all alike. The individual choice is always right. Veith lists numerous practices which most would consider social ills, such as suicide, and sees an increase in their prevalence due to the acceptance of existentialism (Veith 1993, 98).

One of the primary problems commonly identified with existential philosophy is that it is morally neutral. As long as the person has chosen his course of action, it is considered morally good. Veith illustrates this from Sartre’s book St. Genet where someone we would normally consider an evil man is, in fct, good, since he chose his actions (Veith 1993, 99). While nature is seen as blind and deterministic, ethics and morality can change freely. Those who accept a morality “imposed” by others are “inauthentic” and fall prey to determinism (Veith 1993, 100). At the same time, those who are authentic and make the right decisions are in harmony with nature so have the right to command others in the right way for their own good (Veith 1993, 101). The authority to command is complete, there is no higher law (Veith 1993, 102). Existentialism, like fascism, before taking power, attacks the status quo. Once it has power, that power is not open to question.

An emphasis on existentialism with its focus on the individual erodes the concept of care for  the other. Yet this ethic was a conscious development of fascists. It allowed to forcefully cast off a former morality and find a new one, which would, according to Heidegger, “not be drowned by Christian and humanist notions” (Veith 1993, 103). In this model, violence can be a positive moral value, if it is to the advantage of the individual’s decisions. Compassion is disarded as it is contrary to nature. Death, on the other hand, is natural and essential to society (Veith 1993, 104). Fascism also developed a new sexual morality, in which sex was used selectively for reproduction to improve the race (Veith 1993, 105). While there was a sexual freedom, the reproduction was to improve the species.

To build strong societal bonds, veterans were encouraged to join together in paramilitary groups. The machismo involved often led to homosexual relatioships, seen as a means of bonding, while mixed sex relationships could be used for specific breeding needs (Veith 1993, 106). The homosexuality was condemned in some circles, but simply because it did not pragmatically improve the species. Abortion was prohibited among the Aryans but forced among other groups, again, for the purpose of eugenics. The inferior were to die out (Veith 1993, 107).

The eugenics movement also grew so as to improve the race and do away with those who would be failures. Veith refers to numerous luminaries who were involved in Hitler’s eugenics movement, as well as showing a clear connection to Margaret Sanger, who especially wanted there to be fewer children among th poor, black, Jewish, and Southern European communities (Veith 1993, 108). To protect the race, “inferior” people were forcibly sterilized for a time in Germany, then the practice of euthanasia became more common (Veith 1993, 109). The desire was to protect society and save resources by putting the suffering out of their misery (Veith 1993, 110). Any handicap or birth defect was sufficient to warrant the practice. Physicians in Germany by 1939 could refer cases to an expert panel, which would decide who should be eliminated. Needless to say, the confessional church movement objected strenuously. However, many of their spokespeople were imprisoned (Veith 1993, 111). The program was officially cancelled by 1941, bt the killing was continued, with euthanasia facilities in concentration camps to eliminate “life unworthy of life” (Veith 1993, 112). This was applied, most famously, to Jews in the prison camps.

​
0 Comments

The Triumph of the Will vs. The Bondage of the Will

2/27/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/27/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 5, “‘The Triumph of the Will’ Fascist Philosophy” pp. 78-93.

Veith notes that among the Nazis and other fascists there has been a significant contingent of college educated people, particularly learned in philosophy (Veith 1993, 78). It is a matter of concern that Nietzsche and Heidegger are both popular among university communities, as their ideas fueled Nazism. Veith questions whether the overall relationship between existentialism and fascism was, in fact, essential to their thought (Veith 1993, 79). It is clear that Nazism took power easily and was acceptable to its contemporary climate. Veith thinks this shows a problem of some sort with the climate. There is comelling reason to consider how the intellectual elite fueled the rise of Nazism.

Existential philosophy is predicated on a radical individual freedom. This would not seem to be compatible with a totalitarian system (Veith 1993, 80). However, both movements are connected through Nietzsche. Veith finds that existentialism consciously challenges the transcendent, rather focusing on the personal. Without an objective morality, the individual may be democratic or totalitarian. What is important is that the person be genuine. Since fascism also rejected transcendence, it tended to draw existentialists to itself. The streams of thought are, therefore, related (Veith 1993, 81).

Nietzsche was no nationalist. He rejected the radical anti-Semitism and the statism of the Nazis (Veith 1993, 81). However, he turned the intellectual elite against both practical and theoretical ideas of transcendence. This was imitated by the fascist movement. He objected intellectually to Jewish and Christian ethics, an objection which was taken to the physical level by the fascists. He argued against specific ethics such as compassion, which could prevent the elimination of the weak (Veith 1993, 82). He preferred nature to take its course and allow those who were not superior to die. This would allow a superior race to emerge and re-shape humanity and the world (Veith 1993, 83). Nietzsche’s focus on the concrete rather than the abstract required action to implement the world as he thought it should be. This is precisely what was done by the Nazis and other fascists (Veith 1993, 84).

Heidegger embraced the National Socialist viewpoint and held to Nietzsche’s ideals though framing them in a way Veith finds “more palatable” (Veith 1993, 85). He did this primarily by positing that with the death of God humans would have to seek out a more “hidden and uncertain” type of truth. Thus, questioning became more important than knowing so “knowledge is a matter of process, not content” (Veith 1993, 85). This metaphysical view has been widely accepted in higher education and philosophy. Veith recognizes that at first glance the idea is incompatible with subjection to authoritarian government, such as in fascism. However, “the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes. That they themselves were authoritarians and forbade counter-questioning must not have seemed inconsistent” (Veith 1993, 86). Heidegger advocated the removal of academic freedom so as to create unity in the scholarly community. He wanted this to be done as an act of freedom of will, so as to pursue the good of the community, meaning that which was consistent with National Socialism (Veith 1993, 87). Heidegger was eventually removed from his post because he was too radical in persecuting Catholic groups. The bottom line of Heidegger’s philosophy was an ideal of a heroic nationalism which did away with all that is transcendent (Veith 1993, 89).

Existentialism exalts the human will as the creator of meaning. This is common to Nietzsche and Heidegger (Veith 1993, 89). When the community has one will, they can become fully authentic, but only provided their individuality is removed and they function as the collective (Veith 1993, 90). People are to be trained to function as a collective. Competing wills are not to be tolerated, so a forceful conquering of the individual is perfectly acceptable. Life therefore is a series of power struggles which pull dissenters into uniformity or, alternatively, eliminate them (Veith 1993, 91). By invoking the “triumph of the will” the Nazis also managed to supersede Luther’s theology articulated in The Bondage of the Will and show Nazism as the superior replacement to Luther. Veith briefly describes the Christian view of the fallen nature and bound will, which needs tob e made subject to God, rathe than being able to triumphy by itself (Veith 1993, 92). This is strikingly antithetical to the Nazi ideal of a triumphant will.

​
0 Comments

Nationalist vs. Confessional Christianity

2/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/20/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 4, “‘Two Masters’ Fascism vs. Confessionalism” pp. 56-77.

Veith observes that the Nazis and other fascistic movements recognized the truth of the biblical condemnation of trying to serve two masters. For this reason, they desired to eliminate the entire concept of a transcendent God or transcendent ethics. “They sought to replace it with either a paganized Christianity or a revival of ancient mythological consciousness” (Veith 1993, 56). One of the important attempts at synthesis was known as the “German Christian” movement, which was resisted by those who held to or rediscovered confessional Christianity (Veith 1993, 56). Those who allowed Christianity to be redefined by modern culture would be empowered, while others would face arrest and persecution (Veith 1993, 57). Veith sees much the same struggle in the early 199s, though not resulting in arrest as much as in cultural shunning.
The “German Christian” movement, Veith asserts, was “ genuine theological movement within the church” (Veith 1993, 57). After Hitler rose to power, this movement became pre-eminent within German church life and the recognized state church. Those church bodies which did not participate in the state church were relatively free from political, but not from moral or social pressure (Veith 1993, 58). Within the state church there was a distinct pattern of removing elements of Christianity which were dependent on Judaism. The movement also sought to remove Jewish converts to Christianity from office within the church. Veith observes that Christians with even a scanty commitment to the Scripture would not accept these moves (Veith 1993, 58). For this reason, the counter movement of the “Confessing Church” arose.

The “Confessing Church movement emphasized at least some adherence to the historic forms and confessions of Christianity. It formulated its stance in a document known as the Barmen Declaration (Veith 1993, 59). There was a specific commitment to God’s Word as transcendent and authoritative. The movement specifically rejected natural theology and modernist syncretism, saying that the world would not be allowed to set the Church’s agenda (Veith 1993, 60). The state could not be allowed to take over the role of the church (Veith 1993, 61).

Veith describes a number of theological luminaries of the first half of the 20th century, along with their reactions to both the German Christian and the Confessing Church movements. Many attempted to take no stand. Others, citing Luther’s doctrine of two kingdoms, attempted to ignroe the Christian responsibility to speak to government authorities (Veith 1993, 63). Veith quotes Hitler as being ery aware that appeasement would not be possible, but that the purity he desired could only be accomplished through genocide (Veith 1993, 64). This genocide was fairly broadly condemned, even within the “German Christian” movement.

At the same time that the German Christian movement was being formed, Veith observes that many people saw National Socialism as the religion which would displace others (Veith 1993, 65). This was a religious belief based on scientific principles. However, because of the prevalence of Christianity, Hitler and his top officials remained on the rolls of churches, though rejecting their teaching (Veith 1993, 66). Rank and file Nazis, including the Hitler Youth, were encouraged to reject church services and attend alternative meetings on Sunday mornings. The party was a substitute for the church (Veith 1993, 67). In effect, socialism assumed the role of God, as Veith demonstrates using several quotes from Nazi documents (Veith 1993, 68). Along with this shift was a concerted effort to revive the old folk religions and celebrate people in the arts community who promoted myth. “The recovery of a mythological consciousness meant the integration of the social, the spiritual, and the natural. Thus, alienation would be ended. This was the ultimate promise of fascism” (Veith 1993, 69). But to do so, it had to demolish all Judeo-Christian heritage.

Veith continues by evaluating the effects of the confrontation between fascism and 20th century theology. The conflict certainly tested some practical application of different doctrines (Veith 1993, 69). Although one could certainly find fault with the applied theology in multiple directions, Veith does find ome valid principles for analysis. For instance, “it is legitimate to ask what intellectual and religious trends helped to form fascist ideology and what positions proved most resistent” (Veith 1993, 70). The themes of a subjective versus objective faith structure could well serve to structure the debate. In every measure, the movement which conformed to the fascist demands was that which was more subjective and open to temporal change, while that which was more objective continued to resist fascism (Veith 1993, 70). Veith makes it clear that this was not necessarily a distinction between liberal and conservative, but more a difference between those who held to transcendence and those who did not (Veith 1993, 71). The later manifestation of this division, according to Veith, appears in our modern political and cultural context. “Today the ‘crude salvationism’ and ‘other-worldliness’ of traditional religion are giving way to elaborate efforts to use Christianity to sanction a political agenda. Liberation theology promotes a socialist utopia; fundamentalists who follow ‘reconstructionism’ promote a theocratic state” (Veith 1993, 71-72). Both of these movements would fit into the “Geraman Christian” movement. The plot thickens when we find an emphasis on community which is segmentated by factions or when we see an eclipse of distinct doctrinal teaching in the name of an irrational subjectivism (Veith 1993, 72). Eventually, all the means of testing truth claims are gone. The boundaries inherent in Christian orthodoxy are gone and, with them, the protections against abuse or cultic behavior (Veith 1993, 73). Veith links the removal of the protections inherent in confessionalism with the “God-is-dead” movement, which abandons the idea of a loving and traanscendent God. This movement seeks out a spirituality based “on the human and the immanent” (Veith 1993, 74). Ironically, in the past, this very philosophy led to the rise of fascism, when modern man took on the task of engineering society (Veith 1993, 75) In contrast, Elie Wiesel observed the survivors of the concentration camps held to the reality of God, their prayers, and their dependence on Scripture, questioning man rather than God (Veith 1993, 76). It is those who hold to confessions and a transcendent God who are finally able to resist the demands of fascism.

​
0 Comments

Who Determines What Is Morally Right?

2/13/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/13/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 3, “‘The Hebrew Disease’ Fascist Theology” pp. 43-55.

The fascists of the 1940s rejected Jews, however, Veith considers this rejection to be rooted in the economy first, and a racial bias second (Veith 1993, 43). The Jewish control of the banking industry conflicted with the Socialist bias against abstract capital. Wealth by investment in money rather than by possessing good and property was condemned. However, the fascists pursued Jews for other reasons. “They sought to exterminate the Jews; they also sought to exterminate the Jewish influence in Western culture” (Veith 1993, 43-44). The desire was to remove its dependence on the Bible, a desire which extended toward Christianity as well. At issue was fascism’s commitment to immanence, rather than transcendence (Veith 1993, 44). Asserting a transcendent God takes away the spiritual significance of the natural world. Since fascism sought to elevate the natural world and natural religions, the traditions of Judaism and Christianity were considered its enemies (Veith 1993, 45). A recognition of God as the one who defines morality was also subject to attack by fascism. Ethics and morality were to be relativized and based on nature and community will (Veith 1993, 46). A drawback is well noted by Veith. Intolerance based on a transcendent God could not be tolerated (Veith 1993, 46). Veith goes on to note that in the natural religions of the world, moral change toward mercy or justice is virtually unheard of. It only happens in Jewish and Christian thought (Veith 1993, 47). Various philosophers, cited by Veith, have observed that the Jewish intolerance was an intolerance of oppression, exploitation, and injustice (Veith 1993, 47-48). However, the fascist philosophers blamed Jewish traditions for secular ills, thus leading to an advocacy of collectivist and organic societal norms. Thus, society was based on natural principles such as the survival of the fittest as a group, not as individuals.

Because Christainity is based on biblical ideals and creates a society remarkably similar to the Hebraic culture, fascism rejected it out of hand (Veith 1993, 49). Hitler viewed Christianity as a terrorist organization which would use moral laws to overthrow natural law and order. The fascists worked with an illusory sort of hedonistic freedom. “Individual appetites, however, were subject to the needs of the ‘collective and organic’ society. The fascists talk about moral freedom, but they reject political freedom” (Veith 1993, 49). At its root, Christianity deals with a transcendence which cannot coexist with the fascist demands that the collective be the transcendent power (Veith 1993, 50). Yet fascism could not hope to exterminate Christianity. Instead, the effort was made to make it more like primitive pagan religions. Thus the fascists emphasized the medieval heirarchical elements of Catholicism so as t create a rigid structure in which all individuality could be made subject to the collective (Veith 1993, 51). Veith observes that these attempts were sometimes successful, but since they always denied some elements of historic Christianity there was always some opposition. Protestant opposition, with its hesitancy to embrace the church calendar and with its typical emphasis on the individual, was consistently at odds with fascism (Veith 1993, 52). To attack Protestant Christianity, fascism needed to change its theology by removing the authority of the Bible (Veith 1993, 53). The higher criticism of the 19th and early 20th centuries largely accomplished this goal. Christianity could then become either a cultural phenomenon (Veith 1993, 54) or an institution which would accept the new fascist spirituality injected into the forms of Christianity (Veith 1993, 55). Either of these paths would remove the biblical transcendence from the Christian faith, transforming it into a tool for promoting fascist ideology.

​
0 Comments

Fascism as a Natural Outgrowth of Darwin

2/6/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/6/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 2, “‘The Doctrine of Our Age’ The Fascist Tradition” pp. 25-42.

Veith alleges that very few people know the actual ideology of fascism as it was practiced in the 1930s and 40s. Therefore, it is relatively difficult to identify when it appears. “As the word is detached from what it signifies, the substance of fascism lives on, undetected because unnamed” (Veith 1993, 25).

One of the difficulties is that fascism is assumed to be conservative. This was the official assessment of it by Marxists (Veith 1993, 26). However, the real distinction between Marxism and fascism was that the Marxists were globalist socialists and the fascists were national socialists. Both were “revolutionary socialst ideologies” similar in many ways (Veith 1993, 26). Veith describes in brief the origin of “right” and “left” after the French Revolution in such as way as to show that the origins do not necessarily reflect current reality (Veith 1993, 27). Because of this confusion, some progressives who share many philosophies with fascism will complain that conservatives are fascists.

Veith describes fascism as “a response to the alienation that has been a part of the spiritual landscape of the West since the Enlightenment” (Veith 1993, 28). He describes in some detail the way a rationalistic view of humanity and the world results in alienation. The mechanistic views of the Industrial Rrevolution as well as the rise of modern science further separated people from their natural roots and emotions. Communal ties and families were broken up. Democratic reforms shared rationalistic assumptions, leaving people to question their purpose and sense of belonging in the world (Veith 1993, 29).

A futher contributor to the rise of fascism is the Romanticism of the 19th century. Here, as a response to rationalism, nature became something to contemplate (Veith 1993, 30). Because reason was subordinate, passion and primitive cultures which didn’t follow rational structures were elevated, as was the individual in isolation.

By the late 19th century, the idea of nature in harmony was eroded by Darwin’s more realistic analysis of nature as a struggle for survival. This view spread quickly into a social Darwinism in which those most fit would be able to rule society (Veith 1993, 31). Veith notes this as the time when racial theories and eugenics experiments, previously unknown, became popular (Veith 1993, 32). At roughtly the same time, Freud’s theories saw a violent conflict as that which defined the inner man as well. Veith describes Freud and Darwin as contradicting traditional morality and the rule of reason, i.e., the Enlightenment values (Veith 1993, 32-33). “The key figure in the emergence of a romantic materialism that would embrace both Darwinian science and philosophical irrationalism was Friedrich Nietzsche. His critique of compassion and glorification of violence, his belief in the evolution of a Superman who would be beyond good nd evil, and his intellectual assault on the Judeo Christian tradition were foundation stones in the development of fascist theory” (Veith 1993, 33). The stage was set for fascism by the ideas of Darwin, Freud, and Nietzsche. The response compelled by their ideas was to rebel and revolt against anything which seemed traditional, which followed rules of logic, or which was held as an accepted pattern in Western civilization. The alienation from nature and desire had to be thrown off. When traditional political and cultural solutions didn’t appear to do this after World War I and through the 1930s, fascist parties espousing these ideas grew rapidly (Veith 1993, 34).

The early fascist parties defined themselves as “nationalism plus socialism” (Veith 1993, 34). Counter to Marx, who was a globalist, the movement was nationalist in its nature. “The goal is national unity, a collective in which everyone cooperates in their (sic) own roles for the national good” (Veith 1993, 34). The movement pursued economic targets in the form of capitalism - defined as finance rather than actual goods. Veith observes this linked the movement to anti-Semitism, as the banking indistry was largely a Jewish enterprise (Veith 1993, 35). The end game in fascism would be to have one’s own nation overcome other nations, initially in trade but, if needed, by warfare. At this point, Veith observes that “the economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt, geared to pulling America out of recession by federal intervention into the economy, were very similar to those of Mussolini” (Veith 1993, 35). He goes on to say that the European socialism and even possibly the Soviet Union bear more similarity to fascism than Marxism, primarily because, for the most part, they are nationalist, rather than globalist. In fact, in modern Russia, “free-market reforms are opposed by new authoritarian, nationalistic parties whose members are ex-Marxists and whose ideology is national socialism” (Veith 1993, 36). Political correctness also tends to look at people groups rather than economic classes, and seek social transformation based on finding unity with others rather than by overthrowing the financial or political sector. Veith sees this as much more similar to Mussolini than to Marx.

The propsed economy of fascism is unified and collective, without competition or exploitation, and giving rewards in tangible goods rather than capital (Veith 1993, 36). The individual acts as part of the whole society, not as a free agent of any sort. This is a common view in postmodern philosophy (Veith 1993, 37). If people actually derive their identity through being part of a group, the self does not matter, only the collective. This was a strong argument against the alienation of rationalism. Gathering people in mass rallies, as was typical in fascism, enabled them to be part of the whole. The culture, not the individual, was what mattered. Veith observes the self-conscious use of the word “culture” rather than “civilization,” which seemed unnatural and bad. For this reason, the fascists carefully re-vitalized various pre-Christian folk religions (Veith 1993, 38). This was counter to the American constitutional principle of allowing cultural pluralism. Where fascism arose, it was based on an emphasis on different cultural groups, rather than on the individual who is equal to outher individuals regardless of cultural groupo. Veith sees the modern phenomenon of multiculturalism to be similar to fascism in that it elevates cultural identity groupos and treats them as collectives (Veith 1993, 39).

Veith furher identifies environmentalism with fascism. Since the villain was the Industrial Revolution, the hero must be the ability to pursue health, fitness, and the protection of all nature (Veith 1993, 39). While care for health and the planet are important, Veith describes the radical environmental movement as “eco-fascism” in its desire for compulsory agrarianism, foced population control, and protection of all non-human species at any cost (Veith 1993, 40). The revolutionary and iconoclastic views of the fascists attracted many who were eager to do something new.

Fascism self-consciously set out to tear down Western civilization and build something new in its place. Veith sees this repeated time and gain in those who reject tradition, including liberal Western democracy. Veith speaks in this instance primarily of postmodernism’s attacks on humanism (Veith 1993, 41). Again, as I have wondered before, I do wonder how Veith would analyze the situation now, more than 25 years after writing this work. In his concluding sentences of the chapter, speaking of Hitler, Veith observes as follows: “Although Hitler never hid the dark side of his ideology, his promotion of cultural identity, environmentalism, and economic justice were very persuasive. His populist politics and his avant-garde philosophy made him popular with both the masses and the intellectual elite. The problem was that so few people understood where these ideas would lead . . . “ (Veith 1993, 42).

​
0 Comments

What Is Fascism Anyway?

1/30/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
1/30/19

Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993.  
Chapter 1, “A Disease of the Times: Introduction” pp. 16-24.

Veith takes the title of his introduction from Thomas Mann, who understood and resisted fascism during World War II. In his view, it is a social discease which continues to grow unabated despite the formal military defeat of its forces in the 1940s (Veith 1993, 16). The ideas of fascism are not clearly understood by many today, who equate it with racism or some sort of extreme conservatism. Veith finds that the ideas “derive from romanticism, Darwinism, and existentialism. They are part of the mainstream of Western thought” (Veith 1993, 17). The ideas led to a desire not only for political control but for a sort of religious control of all of life, bringing freedom and harmony through breaking down cultural barriers.

Veith finds the clearest understanding of fascism to come from its relationship with Judaism. “Fascism sought to eliminate the Judeo-Christian tradition from Western culture” (Veith 1993, 17). It moves from reliance on the transcendent to that which is tangible, such as the earth, people, and the other elements often found as central in folk religions. Because of a hostility toward the transcendent, fascism condemned such beliefs as “Jewish” and spurred rejection of the idas and those who held them. This also required a rejection of Christianity when it held the concept of the authoritative Bible (Veith 1993, 18). A civil or cultural religion might survive, but not one which held to an entirely transcendent God outside of creation. This “resulted in a resurgence of the most primitive spiritulaity - the old pagan order of the divine king, the sacred community, the communion with nature, and the sacrifices of blood” (Veith 1993, 18). The goal is ultimately to lose one’s individual identity and be absorbed into a cultural group identity (Veith 1993, 19).

One of the difficulties we have in our analysis of fascism is that we wish to distance thinkers of the 20th century from their apparent political views. Veith observes that Heidegger, DeMan, and others who served as apologists for fascism were later known for deconstruction (Veith 1993, 19). This may seem a radical change, but if we see fascism as an attempt to break down the power of the transcendent, it is perfectly consistent with deconstructionism (Veith 1993, 20). While some of the societal revolutionaries moderated their views when fascism became weaponized in the war, others did not. This is, according to Veith, because the ideas are consistent with much of 20th century thought. As an example, Veith brings up Ezra Pound, a prominent propagandist for Mussoline, whose views against monotheism, whose agrarian and neopagan views, and suspicious approach to the abstract are influential in the mainstream of 20th century Western thought (Veith 1993, 21). Veith further finds that the left-leaning academics in the West, though they are not joining recognized hate groups, are going along with fascist ideals by rejecting the idea of the individual and finding identity only as defined by culture, power and oppression, and teaching transcendence as an illusory concept to be rejected (Veith 1993, 21-22). It is only a small step to decide a state should be the arbiter of identity and liberty.

Veith does observe that most contemporary thinkers, though they have the same guiding assumptions as the fascists, do not make the next logical step to a communal state as that which defines and governs identity, forcing a view of “the right” based on a racial, cultural, or sexual identity (Veith 1993, 23). Yet he considers this to be the next logical step for those who consider their views. The concern is what could happen in a next generation.

I observe that this book was published in 1993, so was probably written in or before 1992. As I read it, it is 2019, roughly a generation later. It would be very interesting to engage Dr. Veith and see what his current evaluation would be. In this writing he finds the move toward postmodernism to be “specifically fasciest” (Veith 1993, 24). Eventually, the individual, assumed into a collective, is meaningless and subject to all the crushing power of the collective. We watch eagerly to see what will come of this movement.

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson 2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Vatican II
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly