Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

[michaelwlf3]

I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.

Are these people really Christians?

[af_vet_1981]

Sorry af_vet, as a Catholic and a history-lover, I reject any simplified clubbing together of Luther and Hitler Luther hated those who did not agree to his theological ways. He railed against those who followed Judaism who were not convinced by his teachings to become Christian. He railed against Catholics and against followers of Zwingli etc for the same reason But Luther did not hate the Jew who converted. he did not have any racial hatred hitler on the other hand had (false) race theories that meant that even one drop of Jewish blood made you hate-worthy. QUITE different. The Nazi's "racial purity" laws were insane -- he promoted "Aryans" but slaughtered gypsies and Poles. He took Luther's diatribe against a religious group that would not convert to Luther's ways and made it about a race. Luther would be appalled at Hitler and write diatribes against him and the Nutzis I bet.

QUOTES FROM HITLER’S HENCHMEN AND NAZI SYMPATHIZERS Compiled by Jim Walker

Hermann Göring (Reden und Aufsatze, Munich, 1938)

Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.

Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)

The Führer wanted to achieve the unification of the Protestant Evangelical Churches by appointing a Reich Bishop, so that there would be a high Protestant church dignitary as well as a high Catholic church dignitary.

Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)

With the Catholic Church the Führer ordered a concordat to be concluded by Herr Von Papen. Shortly before that agreement was concluded by Herr Von Papen I visited the Pope myself. I had numerous connections with the higher Catholic clergy because of my Catholic mother, and thus ― I am myself a Protestant ― I had a view of both camps.

Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)

I myself am not what you might call a churchgoer, but I have gone now and then, and have always considered I belonged to the Church and have always had those functions over which the Church presides ― marriage, christening, burial, et cetera ― carried out in my house by the Church.

Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)

...

(The mass murderer Himmler got brought up as a devout Catholic, like young Hitler, and was careful to attend mass regularly.)

Rudolf Hoess

In his Nuremberg cell, Rudolf Hoess told psychologist G.M. Gilbert how he got brought up in a rigorous Catholic tradition:

My father was really a bigot. He was very strict and fanatical. I learned that my father took a religious oath at the time of the birth of my younger sister, dedicating me to God and the priesthood, and after that leading a Joseph married life [celibacy]. He directed my entire youthful education toward the goal of making me a priest. I had to pray and go to church endlessly, do penance over the slightest misdeed ― praying as punishment for any little unkindness to my sister, or something like that.

Rudolf Hoess (“Hitler’s Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich’s Most Notorious Henchmen,” Berkley Books, 1990)

When asked if his father ever beat him, Hoess replied that he was only punished by prayer:

The thing that made me so stubborn and probably made me later on cut off from people was his way of making me feel that I had wronged him personally, and that, since I was spiritually a minor, he was responsible to God for my sins.

Rudolf Hoess (“Hitler’s Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich’s Most Notorious Henchmen,” Berkley Books, 1990)

Joseph Goebbels

The pious Catholic parents of Joseph Goebbels raised him and his two brothers in that faith. He spoke of Hitler as “either Christ or St. John.” “Hitler, I love you!” he wrote in his diary.

A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically ― it is a fact.

Julius Streicher

Julius Streicher, the ninth child of a Roman Catholic primary school teacher, also became a school teacher in Nuremberg. He was publisher, editor and a writer for the German newspaper Der Stürmer.

After Hitler’s release from prison in December 1924, Streicher hailed Hitler’s return to politics as a “gift of God,” a judgment the Fuehrer never forgot.

Streicher held an enthusiasm about allegations that the Jews murdered non-Jews in order to obtain blood for the feast of Passover. He charged that Jews hated Christianity and mankind in general. Streicher went to grotesque lengths in his attacks on Jews claiming the discovery that “Christ was not a Jew but an Aryan.”

If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way ― the extermination of that people whose father is the devil...

Julius Streicher paraphrasing John 8:44 as his justification for extermination (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)

Only the Jews, he shouted, had remained victorious after the dreadful days of World War I. These were the people, he charged, of whom Christ said, “Its father is the devil.”

Julius Streicher [See John 8:44, for Christ’s accusation of father the devil], (“Hitler’s Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich’s Most Notorious Henchmen,” Berkley Books, 1990)

Germans must fight Jews, that organized body of world criminals against whom Christ, the greatest anti-Semite of all time, had fought.

Julius Streicher (“Hitler’s Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich’s Most Notorious Henchmen,” Berkley Books, 1990)

During the Nuremberg trials, Streicher was asked about his participation in the Nuremberg Race laws of 1935. He responded:

Yes, I believe I had a part in it insofar as for years I have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created the racial law for themselves ― the law of Moses, which says, “If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.” And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra demonstrated that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished.

Julius Streicher, (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)

[Note, although Streicher had a part in the race laws, Hitler outlined his religious justification for the race laws in his private notes before he came into power.

When asked if there were any other anti-Semitic publications, other than Der Stürmer, published in Germany, Streicher replied:

Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In this book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...

Julius Streicher, (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice: First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted) Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach. Fifth, I advise that safe­conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted). Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause. Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. * * * But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God. * * * Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward. * * * I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated. "
... "I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule­­ if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe­conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience. * * * Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew."

[metmom]

But ok, wide variety...why the changes? What beliefs did they espouse that attracted and then repelled?

Vacations and moving.

Ever hear of people traveling or moving?

Then there's the friends who invited me for special services at their church.

Weddings, funerals, whatever....

[Elsie]

Who are you to challenge a belief that Christians have believed and the Church has taught going back to antiquity?

This is what I ask Mormons continually.

A similar question is asked of them and Catholics; too:

Who are you guys to ADD to..

...things the Church has taught going back to antiquity?

[Elsie]

indeed!

[Elsie]

There’ll be someone who misses the /sarc tag...

[Elsie]

There’s ‘high’ church and there is ‘low’ church.

The high ones tend to wear vestments and regalia while preaching and doing their thing.

The low church guys tend more to business suits.

These days a LOT of dudes are just wearing stuff that would be ok on the shop floor.

[Elsie]

They is a mighty broad brush.

I guess that I am included in your 'they'?

[af_vet_1981]

Especially since Hitler truly espoused a sort of occult neo-paganism at the heart - He paid homage to the Lutherans (and the Roman church) because he had to politically - there is no doubt that such was a marriage of convenience.

Nazi Non-Christians

Martin Bormann

Martin Bormann stood as one of the few top Nazis who rejected the organized Church (he was not, however, an atheist as many falsely claim). At Hitler’s round table, Bormann noted that the Fuehrer did not want to pursue a campaign against the churches. Only in secret did Bormann hold a grudge against the churches. He carefully avoided the rouse of suspicion of the Fuehrer. If he could not destroy the churches, he could at least demand that his subordinates pay little attention to them.

In perhaps the most misquoted statement by American Christians, incorrectly attributed to Hitler:

The Christian religion and National Socialist doctrines are not compatible.

Martin Bormann, in a letter to Alfred Rosenberg, (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 1)

[Here Bormann goes against Nazi doctrine where the Nazi party program explicitly supports “positive Christianity.”]

Not only was Bormann’s decree on the relation of Christianity and National Socialism done in secret, but at no time was there an official Nazi law that tried to destroy Christianity.

Bormann serves at the main reason why many think that Hitler opposed religion. In Bormann’s edited transcripts of Hitler’s Table Talk, he gives the appearance that Hitler opposed the Christian religion.

Alfred Rosenberg

Alfred Rosenberg stands as the major reason why so many American Christians think Nazism represented Nordic pagan beliefs instead of Nazi Christianity. Hitler chose Rosenberg to create a ‘religion of the Blood’ knowing that any form of propaganda could prove useful. However, Hitler also attempted to establish a Reich Christian Church for the future of Germany. Hitler, himself, did not believe in pagan cults.

Rosenberg charged that the true picture of Jesus had been distorted by fanatics like Matthew, by materialistic rabbis like Paul, by African jurists like Tertullian, and the mongrel half-breeds like St. Augustine. The real Christ, wrote Rosenberg, was an Amorite Nordic, aggressive, courageous, “a man of true Nordic character,” a revolutionary who opposed the Jewish and Roman systems with sword in hand, bringing not peace but war (see Matthew 10:34-37).

Rosenberg later went on to say that he favored a “positive Christianity,” which would purify the Nordic race, re-establish the old pagan virtues, and substitute the fiery spirit of the hero for the crucifixion.

[Elsie]

But ok, wide variety...why the changes? What beliefs did they espouse that attracted and then repelled?

Could not the same be asked of Catholicism?

Sure it could.

[Elsie]

It is not the “hierarchy”, per se, it is the sinful times we live in.

Amen!

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

 

"I Don't Know..."

 

 

 

 

 In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.

In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (See also D&C 130:22)

The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

The bothersome reply

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.

An earlier and similar interview

The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"

He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

President Hinckley's response

President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.

"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.

Does the Church still teach this?

I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.

However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."

Summary and conclusion

I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.

It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

---

---

There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

[michaelwlf3]

I don’t add anything to anything. I always say if you come up with something original, it’s probably wrong.

HOWEVER, there IS a difference between doctrine and tradition.

[af_vet_1981]

So he claims it so he is.

He wrote "I, a confessional Lutheran, came to the hard conclusion recently that criticisms against me not being Lutheran in much of my teaching (because I am very missional) were actually quite accurate."

If someone claims they are a Roman Catholic you just assume they are. Is it not the same for Confessional Lutherans ? Is there some level beyond confirmation they attain ? Or is it because he is a pastor and went to the wrong school, or perhaps his church is not in a particular fellowship of churches ?

[xone]

He claimed it and it was on the internet, so it must be true! Have you defined the term? Looked it up? Try that, and you will know.

By his own statement, paraphrasing he says because he is 'missional', he can't be a Lutheran. A huge surprise to the thousands of Lutheran missionaries and to the people who support them.

someone claims they are a Roman Catholic you just assume they are. Is it not the same for Confessional Lutherans ?

No, because the claim would involve a standard, if it is absent, then the person deceives himself and others.

Or is it because he is a pastor and went to the wrong school, or perhaps his church is not in a particular fellowship of churches ?

That Robinwood has no affiliations would seem to point to an independent ministry of some sort. While he can claim Confessional Lutheranism all he wants, from his blog it is clear he doesn't preach it. As I recall, not alot of Jesus, repentance Sacraments etc. Instead offering an experiential setting and promoting a 'spiritual treasure hunt'.

[xone]

There’ll be someone who misses the /sarc tag...

I've never liked them, with sarcasm I strive to make it unmistakeable, except to the Sheldon Coopers of the world.

[af_vet_1981]

Also, i do not associate Luther with anti-semitism as his earlier tracts about them are quite kind, when he thought he could convert them by the power of his words.

I categorically reject your view that Luther was not antiSemitic. I condemn his written antiSemitic book so-called The Jews and Their Lies, and all who approve or defend it.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

[xone]

I condemn his written antiSemitic book

Do you then also condemn the Papacy for its numerous anti-semitic ACTIONs, or is it just the written word that bothers you? Would you then at least condemn the prelude to the Papal Bull of 1569 from the pen of Pope Pius V Hebraeorum gens?

"The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice -- in all towns, districts, and places -- must depart these regions."

[xone]

OCTOBER 28, 1965. The date the Papacy officially decried anti-semitism. I knew you could come up with a date. I guess it is OK now that the AS Popes are dead. Good for Pope Paul VI.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you then also condemn the Papacy for its numerous anti-semitic ACTIONs, or is it just the written word that bothers you? Would you then at least condemn the prelude to the Papal Bull of 1569 from the pen of Pope Pius V Hebraeorum gens?

Yes. I've wondered why God allowed Gentiles to call themselves Christians while persecuting the Jews, or approving others who persecuted the Jews. Then I remember Psalm 44 and Matthew 25.