There is nothing—absolutely nothing—insofar as political power when it is under girded by morality, especially when that morality embraces the strength of the Christian religion. This is what Adolph Hitler seized upon, amplified, and nourished: One Reich, one Reich's Church. With religion's unwavering legitimacy enshrouding Nazism's agenda—nothing could stop him. Today, an eerie semblance overshadows the West (this "revision"—August, 2005—is an update of this semblance)—it harkens back to the dark side of Christendom's triumphalism wherein the State and Church team up to defeat evil doers and simultaneously spread Globalism and Gospel through military strength and the Crusaders' zeal. What awful foolishness we witness when history repeats her worst episodes—nothing compares to the insanity of those who are doomed to duplicate earth's darkest days!
NEVER IN AMERICA?
This article was written by one of German ancestry whose forebears on his mother's side can be traced to Martin Luther himself; thence, the incessant interest in the rise of Adolf Hitler and, in particular (through years of research) the under girding support he derived in his ascendancy from the Christian religion in the heart of Europe. How could this possibly happen? Alas! Could we in America be as deceitfully predisposed to such a malevolent curse—driven by the same demons? Do we today witness camouflaged strategies designed to accomplish a greater horror of unimaginable consequence and upon Christendom of like vulnerability?
The remotest thought of such an evil plot akin to what seduced the German people could somehow be foisted upon our beloved America boggles the senses . . . yet, each day, each month, the same cultural polarization eerily divides; the similitude of its military-industrial complex mirrors that of Rome's expansions; its cries for greater and more restrictive security for its citizenry clamors; its tenuous economic factors now threatening the globalism it created as a result of the insatiable consumption of all things luxurious persist—all this while within the walls of our crystal city, the party is oblivious to the multitude of the wretched outside who admire and distain its opulence. Are there comparisons? Be not quick in your rejection that alleged "systems" now in place—with histories of wide disparity—insure Americans absolute relief from the extremities of Nazi Germany . . . look again, look carefully, very carefully . . . history's mercurial habit at repetition seeks to warn us all . . . "broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be that go in thereat."
THE INTOXICATING APPEAL
To understand the appeal, the absolute, mesmerizing, and intoxicating drive behind Hitler's success, one must go beyond the inequities of the Versailles Treaty and delve into the mysterious association that Herr Hitler placed upon the Christian religion. Don't think that Adolf was way off into some cultic, overtly demonic world of fantasy and influence. True, the occult most assuredly was deeply engaged in his thinking and outlook—but the use of legitimate Christian imagery was his forte. He both understood the need to mobilize the masses and the religion that alone could sway their fidelity to his cause.
Furthermore, throughout his declarations and apparent pontifications, is a unique ability to uplift and galvanize the German people—to so highly esteem them, and to generate within them the self-esteem that would produce a people whose image reflected the one who had so unalterably changed and transformed them into the awesome enunciation of der Fuhrer himself. They became transfixed and transported into another state of mind and being—from despair and rejection, to an exhilarating euphoria and total acceptance. They could BE ALL THAT THEY COULD BE and then some. Here is no buffoon strutting upon the stage of German dejection cavalierly riveting the German mind and will upon himself—no, no, no!
Here is the uniqueness of Adolf Hitler—one who could so verbalize with utter clarity what the German soul could be in its fullness and creative genius. Neither did his spoken word proclaim his own commitment and genius—it climaxed within the Germany he envisioned in such a rapturous expression and discovery of who they were, and what they could become, with God Almighty vindicating every breath they would take! Hitler injected into nearly every German heart a DIVINE SPARK, which regrettably morphed into an inferno of destruction and death unforeseen in human history—but its initial dissension upon its benefactors was replete with a baptism of power and light utterly transcendent that it captured an entire nation in the heart of Christian Europe. Its pristine message created the IMAGE of DAS VOLK, a people who were destined by the very triumph of their corporate will to be the consummation and commencement of the Kingdom of God—DAS THOUSANDE JAHRE REICH! (The promised millennial reign—one thousand year kingdom)!
But, firstly, the Weimar Republic's failure was predictable. Its liberalism was far too watered down, far too immersed in its diversity and acceptance to galvanize the enthusiasm and concerted consecration of common folk, who longed for a winner, a leader, a "national champion." Democracy, gone awry, alone can produce dictatorship—de facto, or elected! Ultimately, the Left (Weimar or Hollywood)—again by its very nature—simply cannot SUSTAIN the caliber of commitment and vision that can be produced by absolutism and rigid conservatism to which we allude here.
AMERICA'S PATRIOTIC CHURCH
Today a growing number of truly evangelical faithful observe the Christian Right in America, assisted by its current allies among the so-called neocons (i.e., neoconservatives—pragmatic politicos), forging a formidable alliance of convenience that wholly supports the rise of the American New World Order System. Its striking resemblance to Hitler's appeals is frightful! Liberalism may rant and rave about societal freedoms and renounce governmental restrictions—but their voices and challenges are hollow sounding and even adjudged fallacious, when the triumph of his armies have so prevailed upon the Plains of Shinar! Libertarians and Constitutionalists—you do well to listen to this diatribe.
Likewise, the bickering factions within the Democratic Party (hard left-Moveon.orgs. vs. the Clintonians), whose extremities mirror the fratricide of their Weimar counterparts, sadly lack a cohesive strategy aside from a total pullout from the Middle East or its antithesis: All-out War against the infidels! Indeed, you especially do well to listen to this diatribe.
Christianity seems to have come at the right time, in an age where life was uncertain and many circumstances could not be controlled such as the barbarians invading; fires burning down whole cities and plagues killing off quite a lot of the population, whether you were rich or poor it made no difference, life in the Greco-Roman world was very fragile and short. Life expectancy was not great and the average person lived until around the age of 30 or even considerably less. Life expectancy was very low and what may have appealed to pagans was that the Christian religion and doctrines offered hope and certainty in the afterlife and even some personal divine protection in this world. These new doctrines would have seemed attractive to pagans, when there was growing discontent with pagan practices and a general spiritual unrest. Like Christianity the Roman Religion was for the ordinary man but interest was waning and the mystery religions were far too complicated for the common Roman, thus the people's choice was likely to be Christianity.
Christianity also offered hope to a usually pessimistic society that believed that their destinies were fixed, either to be in the Gods' favour or to be out of it, with no hope of redemption. Christianity offered an alternative with the much desired possibility of salvation.
Christianity was primarily an urban movement, in these urban centre's Christianity grew at a steady pace, the urban areas of cities such as Antioch, were very condensed with people it is estimated that there were 117 people per acre. In comparison to modern cities of today this is rather overcrowded. The overcrowding was so extreme, entire families were living together in single room apartments; this left little personal space and allowed everyone to know each other's business. Given that urban centre's were dramatically overcrowded and that early Roman Greco cities had minimal sanitation or sewerage to the average apartments people would often just throw their bodily waste out the window of their apartments onto the streets. Starks describe the situation in these urbanized areas as:
Given limited water and means of sanitation and the incredible density of humans and animals, most people in the Greco-Roman world would have lived in filth beyond our imagining.
Apartment buildings were often Smokey, dark, damp and always dirty. The air was filled with the smell of sweat, urine and faces. Onto of these conditions the rodents and bugs were everywhere in these apartments. The city streets were not much better they had open sewers, animal manure and crowds in some places it was so bad there were dead human corpses abandoned in the streets. When cities were in a constant state of filth, insects and crowding, disease was rife in these conditions, especially when these Roman societies had no antibiotics or knowledge of germs. Often plagues would strike and physical illness was most likely a part of daily life. An example of this was the analysis of human faeces that were found in a cesspit in Jerusalem showed large amounts of tapeworm and whipworm eggs, which shows poor sanitary conditions where humans often came into contact with human faeces.
Christianity revitalized the way of life in Greco-Roman society offering social change, which dealt with some of the consequences of urban problems. Charity and hope was offered to homeless and the poor, often the cities were full of newcomers and strangers and Christianity offered an extended family and a base for attachments as well as effective nursing services in times of disaster, that were often brought on by plagues, earthquakes and fires.
Christianity's attitude towards society and its social impact greatly resulted in the expansion and success of the church. The church was particularly well-known for its acts of charity, it is likely that the charity itself was one of the most influencing factors to the growth of Christianity.
The church offered this charity to everyone, including pagans and Jews. By the third century the Church was looking after one thousand five hundred widows in need. The church itself was well off and according to Eusebius, by the year 251 the church in Rome supported the bishop, 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 sub deacons, 42 acolytes and 52 exorcists, reader and doorkeepers, but also more than 1500 widows and needy persons. The churches obvious financial stability leads it to be popular and it successfully expanded because it helped those in need, it offered help and often people were converted to Christianity as a result of the kindness and attention they received. Even though the Roman Empire did have some charitable services such as the bread dole, Christian charity far outweighed the state's charity.
Throughout the first century to the fourth century there was government enforced persecution of early Christianity, though not constantly. Persecution and martyrdom became a sign of the strength of Christianity, which often shows if the movement was attracting attention from the Roman state. Such emperors that instigated severe persecution were Decius and Diocletian. There were sufficient amounts of Christians in North Africa for martyrdoms to be noticed, one of these martyrdoms were Perpetua and her slave girl, Felicity who were thrown to the lions after a trial.
Tertullian wrote that "the blood of Christians is seed" which is often misquoted as "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Tertullian may have been saying this because he believed that martyrdoms created new converts or may have strengthened the church.
The Roman Empire wanted to exterminate this new religion as quickly as possible and it seems it tried in the beginning to exterminate every Christian they could find but later under Decius they started new methods to try and exterminate Christianity one way was by removing the clergy and the bishops and also taking away lands and churches from the Christians, irrespective of rank while forcing them to sacrifice to the states pagan gods or be punished severely with torture, exile, slavery and sometimes execution, depending on numerous reasons and the time of persecution.
This would have had to give this new religion much publicity, especially if it was in the circus arenas being killed by wild beats would have been creating attention, it seems many would have seen these peculiar people willing to suffer excruciating torture and even die for their God and religion, this must have left the pagan with something further to think about and consider if they were willing to die for their pagan gods.
The Christians may even have won converts in some areas, because of their courage during the persecutions, the strength of their faith and the support they showed one another, Tertullian said that pagans had exclaimed in the arenas during martyrdoms "See how these Christians love one another" this indicated the social nature of the Christian faith. The persecutions also created apologists these were people who would be writing trying to convince the authorities they had done nothing wrong, whether or not the Emperors read these long letters of apology no one knows, it seems rather unlikely however one could suggest State officials having read these letters of apology.
Another aspect of Christian growth was that Christianity and its friendships formed from within the Church lead to its successful growth because those who had become a Christian felt that they were to fulfil the great commission as taught by Jesus and the apostles and they were to pass the message onto their friends and family, this quite often led to a close knit community and this was appealing in an era when it was expected of you to look after yourself. In this Greco-Roman era religious and social life was very much interlinked. It was taught in the church that if Christian travellers came from outside of the city or were strangers to a new city, Christians were to provide their needs and provide shelter to these Christians, this was not only taught in the teachings of Jesus but also by the apostle Paul. So it was an incentive to be a Christian as there was always help and social networks that could support you in a large empire. It was like an extended family where ever you went in the Roman Empire. Eusebius writes that the Christian missionaries were so inspired by the Holy Spirit that they saw mass conversions occur, this may also be a contributing factor.
The "Holy war" is executed on two separate battlefronts. On one front, the battle is raging between Christians and the last-standing adherents of the Traditional African Religions who are protecting their traditional belief system against the foreign Christian principles. And then, there is the second battle that is internal among Christians themselves, who disagree on some basic principles of Christianity, especially as they affect the culture of the land. Grievously, mischievous Christians hide behind the confusion to prey on their emotionally vulnerable brethren to make a living. So, now we have pastors whose money-making specialty in Nigeria is to desecrate all the elements of the African Culture, with "holy water" and "anointed oil" in hand, and an army of ignorant and destructive followers behind him. The ultimate interest of the funky pastors is m-o-n-e-y! Yes indeed, the pastors in Nigeria get paid for the culture-demolition escapades; and I mean huge fees! The more successful ones do not only make a living through pastorship, mind you; they live in outlandish jet-paced affluence like ancient Roman Emperors, all in the name of God!
My interest in the Culture-versus-Religion war was kindled in December 2007. I was visiting my remote village in a town called Nnewi, which is situated in the Southeastern State of Nigeria called Anambra State. It all started when a group of Christians woke up one day and decided to put a ban on a cultural element of art and entertainment called masquerade. They believe, and insisted that all the cultural festivities and other elements associated with masquerades, which make us who we are-Africans-must be abolished, in the name of Jesus. Naturally, another group in the village, all Christian, too, said no to the ban, and...bang! A war broke out in the village, and I was right in the middle of it. The Progressives insisted, and still insist that the masquerades must be retained for their primary purpose of cultural entertainment, and if any particular masquerade is found to be wanting in any form, then it should be purified, sanctified or modernized where necessary. It goes without saying that I was on the side that said that the masquerade culture has to stay.
The pertinent question in the entire disagreement has to be: How does the cultural entertainment tradition of masquerade go against the teachings of Christ and the Holy Bible? I approach this question starting with the definition of the word masquerade. Various dictionaries and scholars define a masquerade variously as: Impersonate; Pretend to be; Make-belief; Disguise, subterfuge, to pick just the five. In essence, a masquerade is what the masquerader says that it is; what the "pretender" says that he is pretending to be, and nothing more. In other words, the masquerade itself (the "make-up") has no intrinsic value. If we say that a masquerade is an element of cultural entertainment, then that is what it is. There are entertainment masquerades all over the world, and they are made in the likeness of reptiles such as crocodile; mammals such as elephant, and other conceivable creatures on earth, including man. Dragons and some sort of worms are common features in masquerades in Asia.
Indeed, a masquerade may represent or pretend to be a bad deity, but this does not always mean that it venerates the deity. It can be a work of art employed to insult, mock, or ridicule the bad deity as it entertains, in which case, a discerning Christian should see it as a positive tool to promote Christianity. And if indeed a masquerade gets possessed by a demon, then the thing to do is to exorcize it, get rid of the demon, and not destroy the masquerade. If it is too bad for reformation, then discard that particular masquerade, and don't even think about the abolition of the entire concept! Ultimately, masquerades all over the world, in the context of this discourse, are primarily for cultural entertainment.
It is a fact that a masquerade as a concept cannot possibly be an evildoer, because it does not possess either life or power to do anything whatsoever, good or evil. It is also a fact that a person that wants to do evil would always find a way to do it, with or without a masquerade. And so, if indeed masquerades constituted any danger, or did anything un-Christian anywhere in Nigeria, it could never have been the costumes called masquerades. The culprits would have to be the masqueraders (people) inside the masquerades. As the late Nigerian Afro-Beat music legend, Fela Anikulakpo Kuti once put it in a different context, "Uniform na cloth, na tailor de sew am," meaning that 'a (police) uniform is merely a piece of cloth sewn together by a tailor.' The policeman inside the uniform still remains what he had always been before he ever got hold of the uniform. If he was evil before he picked up the uniform, then an evil policeman he is. And if he was a good man, then he makes a good police officer. In Fela's context, the man is not a big deal; he is just another guy, uniform or no uniform.
Similarly, interest groups and individuals in the USA who campaign for a citizen's right to bear arms have popularly and successfully argued that "guns do not kill people; rather, people kill people, using guns." The point in this argument is that the evil man is our problem, and not the gun. Sure, there are instances where easy availability of a gun can be a factor. However, the argument is that human nature always has pros and cons in every matter, and we cannot go about abolishing everything that has some 'cons.' If we do, then we will have no to abolish every concept we presently hold as humans, because they all come with good and bad. For instance, the contraption called airplane crashes and kills people almost every other day, but we have never considered scrapping air transport in the world. What we do is keep improving on the concept, including better training of pilots, hoping to perfect it all one day, if ever possible.
The argument, therefore, is that a person that wants to control the rate of shooting deaths in a society should control the people's attitudes, and not the inanimate gun. Hence, the masquerader is our problem, and not the concept known as masquerade. A person that wants to control witchcraft should control the masquerader, and not a mere inanimate costume called masquerade, which cannot make any move on its own. The way to eliminate evil, therefore, would be to change the behavior of the evildoer inside the masquerade, and definitely not by destroying the masquerade and all its positive values.
Let's face it, if we destroy the masquerade, the guy inside it, if evil, simply changes his method of doing evil, period. As the saying goes, once there is the will; there will always be a way. If one way closes, then the man with the will finds another way. Sure, there were masquerades in the past that were supposedly very powerful in the hocus pocus world of the spirits and wizardry. But all they did, if and when they did, was to, supposedly, engage one another, amongst themselves, in spiritual power tussle.
In the festivals that I personally experienced as I grew up in Nigeria, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary to suggest convincingly, that some spiritual warfare actually went on among the masquerades, but I am willing to accept other people's word who witnessed manifestations. Besides, I believe that it probably did sometimes, because, since I believe in Christ and God, and believe there is Satan, I believe that the spirit world does exist. What I did see and experience for sure, however, were wonderful, memorable moments of exciting, fun-filled cultural entertainment offered by masquerades in my town.
I am proud to announce that the pro-culture Christians in my village won the first battle in the masquerade tussle. We do have the tradition still going on in the village. Following the incident, the detail of which I reserve for another edition, I commenced a research on the culture-annihilation phenomenon in Nigeria, and I have since come across a few ugly incidents of communal clashes between Christians of divergent views on the tenets of Christianity in the country. In essence, most often, all the conflicting parties are Christians who disagree on exactly how to be Christian.
The light of Christ was the beginning of Christianity, but the history of the Christian Church began with the resurrection of Jesus and a time forty days later with the first sermon given by Peter. His sermon and the whole-hearted commitment of the disciples at Pentecost illustrate the power of Jesus' death and the gifts that Jesus Christ gave to them for humanity's sake. The Christian community in the first several centuries survived as a sect within the Roman empire, until early in the 4th century and Emperor Constantine will the Christian community be altered into a Christian empire.
The early Christian community functioned as a sect, much like Judaism during the time of Jesus. Sects and counter-cultures generally defy the broader world, they are moralizing and a sect is exclusivistic. The Christian community in the first three centuries is defined by these characteristics.
Early Christianity denied many of the tenants of the pagan Roman world. The Romans viewed Christians as atheists because Christians denied traditional and imperial worship. Christian monotheism clashed with the culture's polytheism. An implication of Christian religiosity was pacifism, since Christians were members of the Kingdom and dwelled on earth temporarily they did not take part in warfare. Christians, as well, were slandered by some Romans for participating in incestuous behavior and practicing cannibalism. It was written that members of the Christian community were involved in incest during their evening meals, a skewed version of Christians being literally brothers and sisters. They were labeled as cannibals because of their Eucharistic beliefs. Romans also viewed Christians as ignorant and foolish for their missionary work to the poor and those of low status in society.
The Christian community was exclusivistic and moralistic. A Christian had to be baptized to enter the faith, they had to agree to enter the community and put himself or herself under the jurisdiction of the Church. The Sacrament of Initiation, originally combined baptism, Eucharist and confirmation, was a long and intensive process. The function of baptism was purification, conversion and to renew the human through the power of the Spirit. In preparation for baptism, one's sins needed to be repented, full observation of the commandments and, one had to receive and proclaim the good news of Christ.
Once an individual made the conversion to Christ, they could participate in the Eucharist. This celebration was in essence a simple ritual meal shared in community to remember and give thanks for the death and resurrection of Christ. Generally, Christians gathered in someone's house and they celebrated mass together. The oldest Christian church building dates to 250AD, within several decades numerous churches had been established.
Along with sacrament of initiation, penance was vitally important. Jesus gave the Church via the disciples the power to remit sins and thus exclude sinners. Before Eucharist, an individual needed to confess their sins to God through a priest. A component with receiving forgiveness was a corresponding commitment to work towards ending the sinful practices in his or her life. Christian beliefs demanded rigorous adherence, and commitment to live "in Christ Jesus."
If the individual entered the jurisdiction of the Church then there was a variety of Christian beliefs that could fulfill their covenant. This allowed the Church to be theologically diverse and exclusivistic. Christianity's theological diversity and character fundamentally changed in the 4th century because of Emperor Constantine.
Beginning in 64AD after the Great Fire of Rome, which was blamed on the Christians by Emperor Nero (emperor 54-68AD), Christians endured times of sporadic persecutions. The persecutions occurred due in part because of Christians' lack of conformity with the government. The Roman Empire was tolerant but if Christianity and another entity came into conflict, the former took the brunt of the government's abuse. Do in part to civil wars, the attacks from the barbarians, population declines and other factors, the Roman Empire increased their attacks on the Christians as a way to unify the country and reduce some internal friction. Emperor Gallienus (sole emperor 260-268AD), however signed an edict of tolerance in the 3rd century which ushered in a time of peace for Christians. This helped to recruit converts to the faith, but individuals were not dissuaded from becoming Christian during the periods of persecutions. As state-led persecutions were occurring the number of Christians and those willing to become martyrs for the Church increased. Emperor Diocletian (emperor 284-305AD) ordered the last persecution of Christians and the most serious persecutions occurred in the early 4th century. Because of internal and external threats, he also divided the empire into quadrants and installed a ruler in each, which lead directly to several warring factions attempting to gain power.
Constantine inherited one third of the Western Roman Empire in 306AD, by 324AD he was the sole ruler of entire Empire. He converted to Christianity, if albeit for political reasons, in 313AD after a dream and a vision which led him to defeat Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, using a sign denoting Christ on his army's weaponry. Because of this political change Christianity became absorbed in the world; there was a systematic breakdown between the church and society. Christianity radically changed from a sect to an institution.
The Church from this point forward became an institutional bureaucratic political entity. There was a new toleration of Christians by the government, which evolved into Christianity becoming the official religion of the state in 380AD by proclamation of Emperor Theodosius (emperor 379-395AD). The government actively supported the Church and expected substantive reciprocal support. The state funded the construction of church buildings and religious sites, Church symbols were placed on coinage and religious leaders became important political figures. The Church supported and participated in the state's military actions. There was an effort, especially after 380AD, to curtail some Pagan religious practices that had found a sanctuary in the rural countryside. The Empire supported by Christian leaders, or Christians with the support of the state, led efforts to either convert the pagans to Christianity or suppress the minority religions. The evangelization missions in the countryside took aggressive action, for instance overturning statues of Pagan deities, cutting down sacred groves and setting fire to Pagan temples. However, Christians did not entirely reject the Pagan world.