Thursday, September 6, 2012

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's 1997 Speech at the New York Open Center

Way back in January, 2010, I linked to and quoted (extensively) from a speech given by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (January 15, 1953- August 29, 2012) to the New York Open Center in 1997 (here is a link to that earlier post).

The complete speech was, at that time, available online at the website for Lapis magazine, which is published by the Open Center. Several months later I noticed that the Lapis magazine website was down, but a cached version of the speech could still be accessed via google, and at that time I downloaded the whole thing in case it disappeared completely, which it now almost has. The speech is still viewable at a "zoominfo" page (http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1343476241&targetid=profile), but otherwise all other traces of it, except for bits and pieces quoted here and there, have vanished. (UPDATE: I checked again on April 12, 2014, and found a link with the entire speech here: http://archive.is/eK3Mw.)

I believe that this speech is significant because in it there are strong, explicitly religious overtones that are only hinted at in Goodrick-Clarke's published works. In particular, one finds that Goodrick-Clarke is committed to a religious analysis of the "roots" of Nazism that exonerates Christianity (except possibly for forms of Christianity viewed as deviant by Goodrick-Clarke) while condemning Paganism (qua Paganism).

According to Goodrick-Clarke, the Holocaust "can only be understood in a theological context." And this context is that the Nazis "wanted to destroy Christian civilization in the name of a new dispensation under pagan influence." This could only happen because the Nazis had abandoned "Christian" ethical principles in favor of Occultism, thus becoming morally debased because of the "narcissism and paranoia that run through these pseudo religions."

In the first two sentences of the Author's Preface to the 2004 Edition of his The Occult Roots of Nazism (originally published in 1985) Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke stated the following:
As we witness the renewed growth of the far right across Europe and America and the former East Bloc, The Occult Roots of Nazism helps illuminate its ideological foundations. By examining the occult ideas that played midwife to the Hitler movement, the most destructive right-wing ideology in history, we can better understand their implications today.
So while it is true that Goodrick-Clarke conceded, for example, in that same book "that Hitler really wasn't an occultist in his own right," he nevertheless literally made a career out of the following false claims concerning Nazism, Christianity, Paganism and the Occult:

1. Nazism has it's "roots" in the Occult.

2. Occultism was the "the midwife" of Nazism.

3. Under the sinister influence of Occult ideas and neopaganistical "pseudo religions", the Nazis abandoned the "Christian" belief in personal responsibility ("mea culpa, my fault"), and therefore succumbed to the "terrible danger" of "narcissism and paranoia."

4. The Nazis "wanted to destroy Christian civilization in the name of a new dispensation under pagan influence."

5. The Occultism of the Nazis also provides the "ideological foundations" of the modern day "far right".

But enough of my analysis and preamble. Here is the late Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in his own words:


The Occult Roots of Nazism
by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
[speech given by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke to the New York Open Center in April 1997, originally published in Lapis Magazine, Feb 18, 2009]

The occult side of Nazism can be easily dismissed as a popular fantasy. But scholarly analysis of the Aryosophist societies in turn of the century Vienna reveals many clear links between racist occult movements, convinced of the unique spiritual origins and destiny of the Aryans, and Hitler's evil clique.

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke has a wide ranging interest in the history of ideas and the Western esoteric tradition. His book The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology is published by New York University Press. This article is based on a talk he gave at the New York Open Center in April 1997.

"The past is another country, they do things differently there." – L P Hartley, The Go Between

In talking about the rise of the occult movement at the end of the 19th century, I want to recall fin-de-siècle Vienna, not through some album of old sepia photographs but in flesh and blood. Imagine a still very old fashioned sort of place, with state processions of the emperor and his courtiers side-by-side with feudal levels of poverty and prostitutes on the street, but with Mahler directing the Opera, Sigmund Freud developing psychoanalysis, and Modernist culture flourishing. Vienna was an odd mix of old and emergent new.

Austria-Hungry was a relatively late developer in terms of capitalist and industrial economy. Britain, France, and Germany were far more advanced. The empire was still dominated by agriculture, and so the world of factories, steam, and now electricity represented an enormous challenge to the way of life led by people not only in the countryside and in provincial towns like Graz and Linz, but also in Vienna itself. Until the late 1870s, Vienna was still a walled town. It was surrounded by fortifications erected in the 17th century to defend the city against the Turks. During the 1880s and 1890s, the old walls were replaced by the great circular, ring-road development that defines Vienna today. This represented a terrifying threat to people. People were frightened by the pace of change, frightened by modernity, by industry, frightened because such changes challenged the way they were used to living – their religious world, the world of traditional elites, even knowing people down on the corner. Almost everything they had known was being swept away before their eyes. Suddenly there were immigrants, colored people even. Vienna was a melting pot. People were drawn from all over the empire. There were Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs and Croats, Italians, Czechs. The massive change represented by industry, urbanization, slum clearance, and the disappearance of the old city, accompanied by revolutionary developments in music and art, represented a new kind of metropolitan culture, quite divorced from the sort of culture people were used to. The scale of immigration created an altogether new awareness of multiracial society, and it was a shock for an urban society to confront that so early. In the final decades of the 19th century, Vienna was changing from what was predominantly a German city into one of the first multiracial metropolises.

Simultaneously, there were changes of tectonic scale in the world of ideas. Quite aside from the development of psychoanalysis, fundamental challenges were being made to religious orthodoxy. For creationist Christianity the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species in the 1850s was a shocking alarm signal, striking deep at the root assumptions of established theology. Science was changing the way we saw ourselves in nature. As a direct result, occultism experienced its first great resurgence since the late medieval period. When we talk about the modern occult revival we think of the Golden Dawn in London, and particularly of the theosophical movement, which brought Eastern religion onto the mental horizon of the Western world. But theosophy was not an isolated phenomenon; it was one response among many to the rapid changes – intellectual, artistic, and physical – of the late 19th century.

Theosophy was closely related to a wide range of emergent cults that involved nudism, vegetarianism, natural medicine, and interest in mantic sciences like divination and astrology. Such movements experienced a great surge of interest right up to the outbreak of World War 1. Theosophy itself is in some ways an extension of a very old tradition, because it is so closely related to gnosticism, which started amongst certain heretical sects in the early Christian era, who claimed a superior esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters. These sects shared the conviction that there exists secret knowledge, neither based on reflection, nor achieved by reason. This knowledge of the heart comes through meditative visions in which the truth is revealed. The systems differ considerably, but two common themes can be discerned in traditional gnosticism and are very important for understanding the way in which gnosticism and occult ideas can suddenly take on a political projection. Firstly, there's an Oriental element. In original Persian dualism, the two realms of good and evil, light and darkness, order and chaos are sharply contrasted as independent principles. Most gnostic sects disappeared round about the fourth century, but their ideas lived on. They inspired the Manichaean religion, and today we use the adjective manichaean to mean dualist. During the third to fifth centuries, there developed a gnostic synthesis of Neoplatonic philosophy, pharaonic Judaism, and cabalism. Gnostic and hermetic ideas were revived again in the 15th century and also take a sharply dualistic form. By the end of the 19th century this polar form of gnosticism emerged in theosophy.

In the early years of the 20th century the ideas of the Theosophists were adopted by radical nationalists who wished to stress the importance of ancient Teutonic wisdom. Guido von List (1848-1919), a native of Vienna, identified himself as a guru of ancient Germanic mysteries. It's no accident that this movement started in Vienna, because Vienna was on the fringe of the German-speaking world. Metropolitan Germany lay to the west. To the east lived Hungarians, to the north Czechs and Slovaks, and to the south the various nationalities of the Balkans. And so the Germans of Vienna, with its emerging multiracial society, were a natural audience for doctrines that sought to identify, define, and glorify their own origins.

List's earliest writings were characterized by a spontaneous nature worship. From 1877 to 1887, he published numerous articles, drenched in Germanic references, about the Austrian countryside, in periodicals known for their nationalist sentiment. He celebrated the countryside as the theater of mythological beings. The Alps and the Danube were seen not only as natural objects but as mirrors of the soul of the German past. Streams, fields, and hills were personified as beings in which he tied myth and folklore. At the same time, List was working on his full-length novel, Carnuntum, which described the fateful battle between the Romans and the German tribes at Carnuntum in AD 375. In his opinion, the German victory there unleashed the migrations which led to the sack of the Rome in AD 410 and the ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire. For List, the very word Carnuntum recalled the aura of ancient Teutonic valor and was a motto for the process which eventually restored the ancient Germans to the stage of world history. With his old- style nationalist sentiment expressed in plays, public lectures, and articles, List soon made his mark within the pan-German movements of the late 1890s.

In 1903 the theosophical publication Die Gnosis published an article in which List outlined the stages of a theosophical cosmogony, illustrated with symbols of sun wheels, the triskelion, and three- and four-armed swastikas. He wrote for the first time about the immortality of the soul, reincarnation, and karmic determination – all ideas borrowed from Theosophy. An important part of his gnosis was described as an old Aryan sexual religion, which took the form of a religiously sanctioned eugenic program designed to maintain the purity of the race. Here he was tapping into the ideas on root races that had been propounded by H P Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, but he was in fact specifying and identifying very much with the German Aryan race. Emphasizing the distinction between this kind of esoteric knowledge and other mundane or profane forms of knowledge, List indicated the political authority of initiates over the profane masses in archaic society. Here we see the growth of something that's altogether more political than mythological.

List's ideas were taken seriously. Around 1905 Friedrich Wannieck, a wealthy Viennese businessman in Prague, together with his son Oskar and some fifty other individuals from the Viennese banking and commercial elite, signed an announcement listing the foundation of the List Society to finance and publish a full program of official research into the ancient Teutonic past. In response, List wrote a series of six weighty tomes on the Aryan Germanic world, though it was a work of his imagination more than of empirical research – he claimed an "ancestral memory" whereby he could read the past through clairvoyance. With his great beard and Wagnerian bonnet, he presented himself as a kind of Aryan patriarch, discerning beneath the rubble of modernity and the debris of the Christian religion an ancient, shimmering German world order which had existed long before the Roman Empire. Using as evidence stone circles, burial mounds, and megaliths in the Austrian countryside, he mapped out an ancient Aryan world that could be lifted from the mists of ancient history and called forth in people's minds. He saw himself as a descendant of ancient priest-kings, high initiates whose knowledge gave them authority over the rest of society. He claimed that he and his sectarian followers – the members were called HAO (High Armanen-Order) – within the List Society, represented the vanguard of a new priestly revival, whose message had to be carried to all Germans in central Europe so that the nation might restore its former glory. This group was predominantly upper middle class, but included artisans and craftsmen, as well as a number of aristocrats, all convinced that they were the legitimate and direct heirs of an old sacred hierarchy. His paramount ideological concern was to restore to certain groups a status rapidly being undermined by modern industrial society.

Another important German nationalist to embrace Theosophy at the time was Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. He went even further than List. Born in 1874 in Vienna, he founded in 1905 a gnostic order called the Order of the New Templars, whose members were drawn from leading figures in Viennese public life, business, and the armed forces. Lanz's gnosis owes more to Christian religion than to the Hindu doctrines of Theosophy, and as a result his theology is somewhat clearer than List's. However, still the most obvious feature in Lanz's religion was its dualism, which links it to the classical gnostic systems of light and darkness. He was a great fantasist. He claimed he was derived from Sicilian nobility, changed his birth date by about two years, which he later said was to mislead people who wanted to get an astrological fix on him, and during his childhood acquired a romantic interest in the medieval past and its religious and chivalrous orders, which he revered as the spiritual elite of a remote and pious age. It's probable that this complex of sentiments motivated his decision to enter the Cistercian order in 1893. But while he took vows in 1897 and assumed teaching duties in 1898, he was also evolving his own heretical theology, which in due course led to the renunciation of the monk's habit. Unlike List's marriage of nature religion and theosophical notions, Lanz's was in fact quite a dynamic form of heretical Christianity. In 1894 his attention had been drawn to a tombstone – a relief which he found on the underside of some flagstones in the monastery cloister – portraying a nobleman treading upon an unidentified beast. His reflections on its literal implications suggested to him that the root of all evil in the world actually had a subhuman animal nature. He subsequently directed his energies towards the study of contemporary anthropology and zoology. From the scriptures, apocryphal writings, and the findings of modern archeology, he assimilated current German racist ideas into this theology. He identified the stereotypical Aryan race as the divine principle and the various dark races of Negroes, Mongols, and what he called Mediterranialites (Slavs and Italians) as the evil principle. Lanz's distinctive and original contribution to this ideology was the sublimation of prejudice and national glorification into a doctrine which typified the blond and dark races as cosmic principles working for order or chaos, respectively, in the universe. As a result of this doctrine, Lanz was forced to leave the monastery in 1899, justifying his departure with the assertion that he could better inform the church from outside. Like List, Lanz implied that he was rediscovering ancient religion. He wasn't selling this as a new cult; he was saying that he'd found something that Christianity had obscured. Once outside the monastery, Lanz enrolled in several learned societies and began writing for racist periodicals. In 1905 he formulated a full statement of his theology, in Theo-Zoology or the Lore of the Sodom-Apelings and the Electron of the Gods. There he claimed that we are in fact sublime spiritual beings derived from some higher divine species. He claimed that there once existed a race of gods, which represented an earlier and superior form of terrestrial life. He suggested that these divine beings possessed extraordinary sensory organs for the reception and transmission of "electronic signals"-that these "godmen" were telepathic and omniscient. Besides these godmen there existed an entirely distinct race of "beastmen" who represented a fallen, primal man in Lanz's account of the origins of the world. Again, it's very similar to gnosticism, in that there's a primal man – a clay man – that creates the race of the animals and lower beings like Negroes and Mongols and Mediterranialites. At the same time the Aryans come from the stars, from a divine order. The history of all subsequent humanity is a shameful record of increasing racial corruption of the form of the godmen, so that now the pituitary gland and the pineal gland are the sole material remnants of the divine electronic power of the fallen gods.

Today, hard core neo-Nazi literature invokes the themes of ancient civilizations and mysteries to suggest that the Aryans have extraterrestrial origins. The idea of supermen and of gods on Earth has of course been current for some years in the popular books of Erich von Däniken, Robert Charroux, and more latterly in Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods. In the Nazi variant of this mythology, we read that the Aryans are descended from the angels or other extraterrestrial beings and are just visitors to this benighted planet which they are trying to develop. When Lanz turned to the history of religion, it was likewise interpreted as a front for struggle between task of the Aryan race to rear a new race of godmen and the bestial inferior races who sought to compromise the holy Aryans by dragging them down with their promiscuous embraces. It all sounds extraordinary, but it's a very powerful sexual fantasy as well as a religious myth. The Old Testament recorded the attempts of the chosen people – the Aryans of course – to return to the old gnosis, while the New Testament was interpreted as a revival of the gnosis by Christ, who is considered an exceptional (transracial) Aryan. At the end of this historical scheme was the promise of final salvation, the second coming, and the kingdom of heaven, which Lanz interpreted as the restoration of the race of godmen from Aryan stock on earth. That was the ultimate terrestrial paradise in Lanz's religion. When we look at these ideas today, we think of them as crazy, but I want to show that they produced very concrete links with the early Nazi Party and thus played a critical role in 20th century history.

There was in Germany, around about 1910 or so, already a well-formed anti-Semitic movement. Disgruntled German patriots, nationalists, and simple racists became focused on the power of the Jews. They identified Jews with modernity, with innovations in art and music as well as with capitalism and industrial development. When Germans were concerned, in a reactionary sense, with things moving too fast or of losing their bearings, they looked back to an old-fashioned world. The myth in early 20th century Germany was that Jewry was at the core of a secret worldwide conspiracy to impose a new world order which was displacing ordinary Germans. As a reaction, the Germanenorden was founded in 1912 by right-wing Germans who decided they needed a secret order of their own, with its own conspiracy techniques, secret meetings, passwords, and so on to oppose the Jewish conspiracy. There was a good deal of overlap between the membership of the Germanenorden and the List Society. Lanz Von Liebenfels also had a direct input through some of the closest followers. The growth of the Germanenorden was also very closely connected with something called the Thule Society. In fact, the Thule Society and its founder, Rudolf von Sebottendorff, represented the key link between the Aryan-theosophical movement and the Nazis. Von Sebottendorff was himself an occultist too, born in 1875 in Saxony, the son of a locomotive driver. He left Germany in the late 1890s to work on steamships, was trained as an engineer, and traveled to Australia, Egypt, and America. But later we find him in Turkey, where he spent most of the time until 1913 studying the dervish orders. On his return to Germany, he had developed an extraordinary interest in occultism. Consequently, he joined the Germanenorden, and by January 1918 – when World War 1 was still raging on the western front – he'd managed to build the Bavarian chapter of that order into about fifteen hundred members, which was quite sizable considering that most young men were serving at the front. So membership consisted largely of older men, and they tended to be men of senior authority in commerce and academia. By the end of the war, when Germany was plunged into quasi-revolution, the Germanenorden organized itself into the Thule Society, whose proclaimed object was to foster Germanic mythology and national tradition. The Thule Society fed into the Nazi party much of what List, Lanz, and the Theosophical movement had been promoting.

There were three distinct channels of influence. One was journalistic. Von Sebottendorff picked up a flagging weekly suburban newspaper called the Munich Observer, which in due course became the Nazi party's daily organ. As early as 1920, all the shares in that newspaper were owned by Adolf Hitler. Von Sebottendorff started the paper very much with a view to attracting young people to his own brand of occult and anti-Semitic ideas. This he did by including a lot of sports features. As a result the paper was enormously successful even before the time it passed into Nazi party ownership. The second channel of influence whereby the Thule Society was effective was paramilitary activity. With postwar demobilization groups were recruited by the Thule Society to directly engage in counterrevolutionary activities against the left, which had asserted itself in Munich after the war.

But the Thule's most important channel of influence was political. The Society was regular host to a number of political groups in the prestigious club rooms of the Hotel Vier Jahreseitzen in Munich. We know from the Society's records that regular attendees included such figures as Gottfried Feder, who wrote the economic program for the Nazi party, Alfred Rosenberg, who became the leading ideologue for the Nazi party, Rudolf Hess, and Dietrich Eckart, who was Hitler's mentor in Munich. A famous poet and playwright of the day and an extraordinary character (as well as a drug addict), Eckart introduced the young Hitler to monied and influential circles that were absolutely crucial in building up the Nazi party's respectability at a time when it just as easily could have been perceived as an eccentric working-class movement. Eckart helped Hitler get to the right places and to the right parties. But von Sebottendorff was also mindful of the fact that he had to reach out beyond the educated middle classes; he had to get through to the working class. He had the idea of study circles within workers' movements. He entrusted the formation of a so-called political workers' circle to a Thule member and sports journalist named Karl Harrer. Harrer attracted large numbers of men to Thule groups at industrial plants in Munich. So as early as 1919, they were getting through to the working classes, and planting the seeds of a mass movement. Within less than two years, this seed had developed into the political party known as the German Workers' Party (formed in 1919), which changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or "Nazi" party, in 1920.

How much of the original dynamic of Aryan racial cultist ideology was preserved in the Nazi party itself, once it was dominated by politicians, rather than occult cranks, is a matter of debate. It's fair to say that Hitler really wasn't an occultist in his own right, but he was certainly someone who could relate to gnostic dualism in a strong way. While he was raised as a Catholic, there's evidence to suggest that he tended towards that heretical side of Catholicism that sees the world in very sharp black and white terms. Certainly, Hitler's anti-Semitism owed much to the famous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to which he was introduced by his mentors, Dietrich Eckart and Alfred Rosenberg. This notorious Jew-baiting document was first published in German in 1920, but had originated in Russia in the late 1890s. It was highly popular among Czarists during the Russian Revolution as a way of attributing the forces of disorder and radical change to the Jews. There's also very strong evidence to suggest that Hitler actually read Lanz's magazines in Vienna, before World War 1. But after the war there was tremendous acceleration in Hitler's dualistic worldview – most probably due to the Protocols – that the world can be saved only if the Jews are destroyed. Many contemporary observers, people like Albert Speer and others who knew him very well and saw him daily right throughout the Third Reich, noticed that an almost eerie, strange light came into Hitler's eyes whenever Jews were the subject of discussion. He looked kind of haunting; he looked paranoid; he looked strange. He looked as if he was up against something he couldn't beat in the end, because ultimately it was a projection of his own fear. There was the sense that he was a prisoner of dualism.

The person who best exemplified this kind of messianic occultism was undoubtedly Himmler, leader of the SS, Hitler's terrifying police and security force, who was responsible for the administration of the Holocaust. The SS combined the idea of recreating a racial aristocracy on purely eugenic lines with the idea of an ideological elite representing wisdom derived from the Aryosophists. Himmler was totally dominated by these ideas. He maintained within his staff a private magus named Karl Maria Wiligut, who came straight out of the occult tradition. Wiligut was born in 1866, demobilized after a perfectly respectable and successful military career in the Austrian-Hungarian army at the end of World War 1, went into retirement, but was hospitalized because he had a nervous breakdown and exhibited traits of schizophrenia and paranoia. Then in the late 20s, he moved to Germany and became a prominent figure within the Aryosophical underground. By 1933 he'd joined Himmler's staff on the recommendation of an SS officer who happened to be a member of Lanz's order. Wiligut was promoted from the rank of captain to brigadier and joined Himmler's private staff. His job consisted almost exclusively of recording myths and symbols and stories that he intuited from the ancient Teutonic past, because he, like List, considered himself an ancient priest king, a magician who had direct knowledge of Germanic traditions. From Himmler's archives we know that anything that Wiligut produced, Himmler read, marked with his signature HH, and assiduously filed. Wiligut also designed the death's head ring that was worn by all SS men and claimed by Wiligut to be his ancient family's seal. Wiligut also administered to Himmler all kinds of stimulants and special medications that unfortunately had a very damaging effect on his health. Himmler was aware of Wiligut's psychiatric history, and it was widely known that he'd been committed as a patient in Salzburg before 1933 and he was obliged to resign. But he made one final, extraordinary contribution to Himmler's SS mythology and ritual, and that was the design of a great medieval castle celebrating Teutonic glory, intended as a kind of pagan Vatican, a Germanic center in opposition to Rome and Christianity. The Nazis were ultimately determined to replace the Christian heritage of Europe with something that reflected their pagan past.

Such dreams and visions and beliefs were redolent with gnostic and manichaean heresies. But while Nazi racist beliefs have plenty of theological precedence, in terms of dualistic doctrine and a fanatical desire to change the nature of life on earth, such heresies had never ignited historical events of such consequence. I am convinced that the Nazi fantasies of being a missionary-elect, the Nazi pursuit of the millennium in the name of nationalist racist ideology, and the extermination of six million European Jews in death camps are political events which can be understood only in a theological context. It is perfectly consistent with earlier examples of militant heresy in Europe that the Nazis should have wanted to destroy Christian civilization in the name of a new dispensation under pagan influence. When endless columns of Nazi legionaries were marching beneath crooked crosses in the massive marshal displays at Nuremberg, Nazi Germany was effectively saluting its first founder-emperor and Führer of the new one thousand year Reich. But those feelings of exuberance and hope were matched by equally intense feelings of fear and a conviction that destruction of evil was a condition of this new age. Again I'm reminded of the eerie expression that Hitler allegedly wore whenever the word Jew was mentioned in his presence. The proposed shining eternal city of Germania, Hitler's resurrected Berlin, was to be the political center of a vast Germano-Eurasian empire, predicated upon a network of slave and death cities where the antagonists of the millennium would be worked to death or immolated in a holocaust conducted by god's chosen people, the Aryans. The Nazi crusade for a new eon was entirely dualistic in its conception of battling deities for good and evil, order and chaos, and Judeo-Christian in its adoption of cultural symbols involving the destruction of the followers of Satan in a lake of fire and brimstone.

In Auschwitz we see the stain that Nazism cast upon humanity as a whole, an undying testimony to its perverted crusade. The Nazi crusade failed, despite its appeal amongst eccentric apologists for new empires and faiths, because of its hysterical narcissism, its paranoid hatred of things outside itself. You could say that the fundamental pathology of Nazi Germany's hysterical rejection of things that were foreign to itself was a rather brittle talisman. If we think about the lessons of Nazism and the shadow within certain kinds of new age belief, it really comes down to the fact that there is a terrible risk in such projections. When you start to split the world into light and darkness, order and chaos, goodness and evil, it's important that we also bear in mind something that comes very strongly to us through Christian belief: the idea of mea culpa, my fault. List and Lanz, the founders of Aryosophy, cast themselves as shining knights. But their religious dualism was shot through with the idea that they were right and the rest of the world was inferior or wrong. It's this terrible danger of the narcissism and paranoia that run through these pseudo religions and their hysterical assertion of rightness against all that seems disorderly or different that constitutes the ultimate risk – the sense that one can only solve one's problems by destroying the other.

-----------------------------------------------------------


"Nazis & Christians & Pagans" (related posts from this blog):


  1. Nazis and Christians and Pagans, Oh My!
  2. Christian Nazi Quote-fest
  3. Fascism, Islam, and Freedom of Expression
  4. "Hitler was not an occultist": Mitch Horowitz is right but his sourcing is all wrong
  5. Karla Poewe's "New Religions and the Nazis" reviewed by Richard Steigmann-Gall
  6. Rosenberg, Chamberlain, Harnack
  7. Religion, Racism & the Right
  8. Southern Poverty Law Center: There They Go Again
  9. Carl Jung & the Cowardly Blood Sport of Nazi-Baiting
  10. C. G. Jung and the Nazis: notes on two specific allegations
  11. The Not-So-Occult Foundations of Nazism
  12. Traditionalism & Anti-Modernism: A Guide For The Perplexed Pagan
  13. "We need to start dismantling this notion of 'Tradition.'"

Friday, August 31, 2012

The "Religion of Peace" Naked At Last?

Best selling author Tom Holland has written a book about the early history of Islam. Barnaby Rogerson, writing for the Independent, nicely summarizes the gist of what Holland is up to:
This is a history of the history as it were, telling how the warrior-dominated Empires of Antiquity were transformed into the first monotheistic states; how the old inclusive conquest states, with their comparatively simple desire for submission and tribute were replaced by states which imposed systems of total belief and demanded exclusive loyalty.

(link to full review dated March 30)
Rogerson begins his review by saying "This is a book of extraordinary richness. I found myself amused, diverted and enchanted by turn," and ends it with "Even with these slight flaws In the Shadow of the Sword remains a spell-bindingly brilliant multiple portrait of the triumph of monotheism in the ancient world." So it appears that he rather liked it.

Anthony Sattin, writing for the Guardian, was also very positive about Holland's book, which he characterized as "brilliantly provocative".

Here is the concluding paragraph of Sattin's review:
The Qur'an anticipated the day of Holland's coming (or someone very like him). Sura 25 instructs Muslims to counter the claim that "these are fables of the ancients which he has got someone to write down for him" with the insistence that it was "revealed by Him Who knows every secret". For believers, these words are proof enough of the veracity of the Qur'an. Some have gone further and used them as justification for intellectual, legal and physical attacks on people who claim otherwise. The lives of some people who have dared to question the historicity of the prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an have been ruined, even ended. We must hope that Holland is spared their wrath and that his excellent book will be lauded, as it should be, for doing what the best sort of books can do – examining holy cows.

(link to full review, dated April 5)
Ziauddin Sardar, writing for the New Statesman, spews forth a predictable apolgetic hit-job in his "review" of Holland's book. Sardar frames his attack in terms of what Holland is "ostensibly ... concerned with", as opposed to what Holland's "real aim" is. Further, Sardar attacks Holland's sources, Holland's colleages, anyone who agrees with Holland, and the horse he rode in on. In all, it is exactly the kind of obscurantist tripe that one expects from a Left-Islamic cultural warrior like Sardar. Here is a link to Sardar's full review, dated April 25.

Not wanting to be outdone in the political-correctness department by the good Fabians over at the New Statesman, the Guardian decided to publish another review. This time it was the turn of G.W. Bowersock, one of the world's premier historians of late antiquity, who wrote sneeringly that:
Holland came to his work on Islam unencumbered by any prior acquaintance with its fundamental texts or the scholarly literature. He modestly compares himself to Edward Gibbon, whom he can call without the slightest fear of contradiction 'an infinitely greater historian than myself'.

(link to full review dated May 4)
Bowersock ends his review by openly questioning Holland's motives and personal character. This kind of unhinged attack is nothing new for Bowersock, as those familiar with his obsessive hatred for the Emperor Julian are already aware. While generally a staid and reliable scholar, Bowersock reacts to certain subjects the way Rigby Reardon (in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid) reacts to any mention of "the cleaning woman".

Fortunately, Tom Holland was given the opportunity to respond to Bowersock's screed. This excerpt gives a taste of Holland's highly effective and dignified rejoinder:
If I did not cite a manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale dated by the French scholar François Déroche to the third quarter of the seventh century, it was not – as Bowersock charges – because I had "missed" it, but because the dating of early Qur'an manuscripts is notoriously a work in progress. Déroche himself, for instance, originally placed the origins of the Bibliothèque Nationale manuscript in the early eighth century – and there are other scholars who still do. Nor, unfortunately, does carbon dating offer any greater certainty. At a conference in 2010, the same Christian Robin cited by Bowersock in his review revealed that a preliminary carbon dating of some pages from one of the Sana'a palimpsests had given dates in the late 500s – a most awkward misfire. I hope, then, that it will be understandable why, in a book aimed at a general readership, I opted not to venture into such a quagmire.

(link to full response, dated May 7)

David Frum very much liked Holland's book. Frum is an interesting guy who went from being a celebrated right-wing pundit to, well, the kind of guy who resigns/gets fired from the American Enterprise Institute because he was sick and tired of the Republican obstructionism in Washington, especially with respect to President Obama's Affordable Care Act. This is important to note because it means that Frum is definitely not a knee-jerk reactionary who simply spouts well-rehearsed xenophobic talking points any time the subject of Islam is mentioned.

The beginning of Frum's review (written for the Daily Beast) is worth quoting at length:
"Over the past century, modern scholarship has pretty thoroughly debunked the standard story of the birth of Islam.

The Quran was assembled over a century or more, not revealed in one go.

The religion we call Islam coalesced after the Arab Conquest of what is now Syria and Iraq, not before.

We have no reliable biographical details at all of the life of the prophet now known as Muhammad, but if he existed at all, he was likely a native of someplace in what is now Jordan, not the Hijaz, much less Mecca.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Until now, however, if you wanted more than just an "idea," you faced a challenging time. The revisionist scholars of Islam wrote in a style that was at best highly technical and at worst deliberately obscure. Unlike the gleeful debunkers of the self-told histories of Christianity and Judaism, revisionists such as John Wansborough and Patricia Crone have taken enormous pains to tread delicately.

The scrupulosity of these scholars however has left the largest part of the reading public to popularizers like Karen Armstrong, who continue to spread long-exploded versions of Islamic history as if the explosions had never been detonated. Those unwilling to struggle through academic texts have long needed a guide to the story of Islam as it's understood by those with the fullest access to the latest linguistic and archaeological evidence. Now at last in Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword, they finally have it."

(link to full review, dated June 4)


Other reviews:

Finally, Tom Holland's own website has a collection of blurbs from various reviews, some of which are not included in this post.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Defining Paganism: "Where your treasure is, there is your heart also."

In the year 375 AD, during Lent, Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius (c. 347-420), known to us simply as Jerome, had a dream. In the dream an angel asked Jerome what his religion was, and Jerome replied that he was a Christian. But the angel informed Jerome bluntly that because of his excessive love for classical literature he was not a Christian, for "where your treasure is, there is your heart also" (a quote from the Gospel of Matthew). Since Jerome treasured his beloved Cicero, Vergil, Ovid, etc., above the Christian scriptures, his heart was Pagan, not Christian.

Having judged him to be a non-Christian, the angel ordered his minions to begin viciously lashing Jerome with whips. As Jerome begged for mercy and cried out in agony, a crowd of onlookers gathered, and they pleaded on Jerome's behalf. The crowd negotiated with the angel, proposing that Jerome should be given a second chance, and following that if he "ever again read the works of the Gentiles" then the angel could punish Jerome with "extreme torture" (cruciatus) to his heart's content, and they would offer no further objections.

Finally the angel relented and called off his henchmen, and Jerome swore an oath saying: "Lord, if ever again I possess worldly books, or if ever again I read such, I have denied You." (Quotes are from a letter written by Jerome nearly a decade later: source1, source2.)

In Jerome's account of his dream, quoted in translation above, he uses the Latin adjective Gentilis to refer to the Pagan writings of Cicero, etc. As a matter of fact, there is no record of Jerome ever using the term Paganus. So what exactly did the angel accuse Jerome of being, if not a Pagan? A Gentile, perhaps? No. Amazingly, the angel responded to Jerome's initial claim to be a Christian with "You lie. You are a Ciceronian, not a Christian"! ("Mentiris. Ciceronianus es, non Christianus.")

Two centuries before Jerome and his dream, however, Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225, aka: "The Father of Western Theology") had made extensive use of the term Paganus to refer to non-Christians. Scholars tend to agree that Tertullian provides the first written evidence of Christians using Paganus to refer to non-Christians. Scholars also agree that Tertullian was not using Paganus in the sense of "rustic", but in its sense as "civilian" to distinguish those who were not "soldiers of Christ" (miles Christi) from those who were.

According to James J. O'Donnell, in his invaluable paper titled simply Paganus, there is a century (plus) long period of "silence" following Tertullian, during which the term Paganus does not appear in the surviving writings of Christian authors as an epithet for non-Christians. During this time Christians instead employed the terms "nationes, gentes, gentiles, ethnici, occasionally Graecus". After this gap, O'Donnel states that Paganus then returns to the written record by way of the pen of "Marius Victorinus, who converted to Christianity c. 355, died in 361. Victorinus uses the term frequently in scriptural commentary, equating it to Graecus." Around the same time (but slightly later), the term Paganus is also found throughout Emperor Theodosius' anti-Pagan legislation (it's first appearance in Christian Imperial Law was in 370). According to O'Donnel Augustine (354-430) and Orosius (c.375-c.420) were the ones who really solidified Paganus as a widely accepted term used by Christians to refer to non-Chistians.

It is particularly important to take note of Augustine's use of Paganus, especially in his magnum opus: De Civitate Dei contra Paganos. Who are the "Pagans" against whom Augustine was writing? Were they illiterate peasants still clinging to their folk beliefs and customs? Definitely not, for Augustine's anti-Pagan polemic was composed as a self-conscious literary tour de force, which would have little meaning to uneducated rustics, even if it were read aloud to them.

In his magisterial biography of Augustine, the scholar Peter Brown explains that in the early fifth century the remnants of Hellenic-Roman Paganism included highly educated Pagans who constituted "a wide intelligentsia, spreading throughout all the provinces of the West." And far from being just a bunch of eccentric troublemakers and social misfits, this Pagan intelligentsia was comprised of "deeply religious" men and women committed to "the preservation of a whole way of life", despite the fact that their way of life was already officially abolished and consigned to Damnatio Memoriae.

"The great Platonists of their age, Plotinus and Porphyry," Peter Brown tells us, painting a vivid picture of the mental universe of these deeply religious and just as deeply rational Pagan intellectuals of the early fifth century, "could provide them with a profoundly religious view of the world that grew naturally out of an immemorial tradition. The claims of the Christians, by contrast, lacked intellectual foundation. For such a man ... to accept the Incarnation [of Jesus] would be like a modern European denying the evolution of the species; he would have had to abandon not only the most advanced rationally based knowledge available to him, but, by implication, the whole culture permeated by such achievements." [pp. 301-302]

O'Donnel's paper, mentioned above, is highly useful not only because he documents the way in which the usage of the term Paganus evolved among early Christians, but also because of his very nice summary of the work of modern scholars who have ventured opinions on this matter. But O'Donnel's paper was written in 1977, and one of the sources he relies on most heavily is the (still extremely important) 1952 paper by Christine Morhmann (see bibliography at end of post). Fortunately, a much more recent work provides an updated snapshot of the current state of scholarly thinking on the term Paganus: Alan Cameron's The Last Pagans of Rome.

"There can be little doubt that in the absence of an existing term, paganus came to be treated as the Latin equivalent of 'hellene'," writes Cameron (on page 22). Cameron favorably cites Mohrmann (1952), and states that the "impressive number of illustrations given by her" could be even further extended. Mohrmann's gloss for "paganus" is usually rendered in English as "outsider" in the general sense of "anyone not belonging to a particular group," according to Cameron's reading of Mohrmann. Cameron further states that "the most conspicuous feature of paganus is that, in all its meaning, it takes its precise color from an antonym. Originally rural as opposed to urban, then civilians as opposed to military, and finally pagan as opposed to Christian." Despite his insistence that the "rural as opposed to urban" meaning was the "original" one, Cameron himself cites a passage from Vergil (70BC - 19AD) in which pagani are counterposed to montani, so that in this "archaic" usage, the entire population of Rome was comprised of Pagans.

In summary, the actual usage of Paganus makes it very clear who is being denoted: all those who resist the process of Christianization, be they peasant or scholar, Hellene or barbarian. This very much includes those who successfully resist, and even reverse Christianization, as modern Pagans are doing.

It might be tempting to posit Paganism as something like a "culture of resistance". But that would mean mistaking the superficial for the essential. Paganism resists Christianization for the sake of the "preservation of a whole way of life," as Peter Brown put it so nicely. This way of life is at heart religious, because of what it "treasures": the Gods. This way of life is also traditional because it participates in and perpetuates ancient lifeways that grow and evolve organically over time spans measured in centuries and millennia, and that are interwoven throughout every aspect of both society at large and the psyche within. It is only secondarily, although inescapably and inexorably, the case that to defend and preserve ancient religious traditions requires resistance to that which is the sworn and implacable enemy of all Tradition.

sources:

Christine Mohrmann

"Encore une fois: paganus," Études sur le latin des chrétiens 3.277-89; orig. pub. in Vigiliae Christianae 6(1952) 109-21.


James J. O'Donnell
Paganus
Classical Folia 31(1977) 163-69

Peter Brown
Augustine of Hippo (U. Cal. Press, revised edition, 2000)

Fritz Muntean
The Meaning of 'Pagan' (online essay, 2007)

Christopher Francese
Ancient Rome In So Many Words (Hippocrene Books, 2007, see especially pp. 192-193)

Alan Cameron
The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2010)


Friday, August 24, 2012

The Republican Party Naked At Last: Part Deux

.
A Pictorial and Historical Outline of a Political Tragedy in Five Six Acts


Act I
1964: The Birth of the Southern Strategy






Act II
1969: The Silent Majority





Act III
1979: The Moral Majority





Act IV:
1986: The Rehnquist Court




Act V
2000: The Smirking Chimp





Act VI
2012: Naked At Last



The Republican Party Naked At Last

.
"Why are they dying? I have written this so many times.

They are dying because the President has opened a
Bible again.
They are dying because gold deposits have been found
among the Shoshoni Indians.

They are dying because money follows intellect!
And intellect is like a fan opening in the wind— "*



*Robert Bly, The Teeth Mother Naked At Last

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Horse Dance (PSY - "Gangnam Style")

It has recently been brought to my attention that there are still some people who have not yet been exposed to "The Horse Dance".

The video that started it all:


PSY on CNN:


PSY brings The Horse Dance to Dodger Stadium!!


Nelly Furtado does The Horse Dance in Manila:


Pony Gangnam Style:


Also, the Gangnam Style entry at "know your meme" is pretty awesome:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gangnam-style

Friday, August 10, 2012

"Are we biblically winsome and persuasive to our apologias?"

"There are, as you know, two kinds of popularity: the one, when we seek favor from motives of ambition and the desire of pleasing; the other, when, by fairness and moderation, we gain their esteem so as to make them teachable by us."
[John Calvin, in a letter to William Farel]

"Finally, live out the virtues of a good ambassador. Represent Christ in a winsome and attractive way. You -- God's own representative -- are the key to making a difference for the kingdom. Show the world that Christianity is worth thinking about."
[Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, by Gregory Koukl and Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2009]


When the journal Sacred Tribes was launched by John Morehead, Philip Johnson, and Jon Trott back in 1999, Philip Johnson wrote the lead article for issue 1, volume 1, under the title "Apologetics, Mission and New Religious Movements: A Holistic Approach." Johnson went on to expand that article into a book by the same title, published by Sacred Tribes Press in 2010.

Anyone who thinks of John Morehead & Co. as anything other than just another bunch of Christian missionaris with the same goal as all other Christian missionaries (the replacement one way or another of all of humanity's religions with The One True Religion) should read the Introduction to this book by his long-time missiological colleague and close collaborator (scroll down).

Before getting to Johnson's essay itself, I would like to draw the reader's attention to some of its highlights.

In the opening paragraph, Johnson essentially gives the game away. He reveals that in his mental universe there are two ways of looking at adherents of "new religious movements" (a category under which one finds everything from Latter Day Saints and Seventh Day Adventists, to western converts to Buddhism and Hinduism, to Wiccans, Satanists and Scientologists): (1) poor confused souls who are "bedeviled" into following False Doctrines through no particular fault of their own (because, you know, of The Fall), and (2) "heretics and satanic adversaries" who are the willing followers of their Lord in Hell, whom they will join once they leave this earth. Take your pick.

In the second paragraph, Johnson begins to lay out the broad outlines of his case for a shift in the "vocabulary" and "tone" that should be employed by missionaries when "dealing with cults and new religions." In the following paragraphs Johnson contrasts one group of Bible stories which depict "direct and hostile confrontations", such as Matthew 12:30 in which Jesus declares "He who is not with me is against me," with kinder, gentler Bible stories in which Jesus and Paul are portrayed as "winsome and attractive" toward those they seek to convert, such as Paul's appeal to the Hellenes of Athens found in Acts 17:16-34.

It is worth taking a closer look at the little vignette in Acts that is so often presented as an exemplary tale of Christian open-mindedness. In the first place, Paul "was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols." (Hey, Paul, this is, you know, like, Athens. The Parthenon? Ever heard of it?) Then a little later on Paul is making a nuisance of himself obnoxiously haranguing Athenian Pagan passers-by on some street corner, when "a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him." One thing leads to another, and eventually Paul finds himself being invited to present his case for this new foreign God of his before a large gathering of Pagans (both Athenians and out-of-towners). Paul tells them that while they might be very religious after a fashion, they do not understand what it is they worship. In the past, Paul warns them, the One True God of the Christians overlooked this "ignorant" behavior of the Pagans, but now everyone must worship only The One True God of the Christians or face eternal damnation. This is the "winsome and attractive" version!

But now it is time to let Philip Johnson speak for himself:

Apologetics, Mission and New Religious Movements:
A Holistic Approach

Sacred Tribes Press, 2010
Philip Johnson

Introduction

New religious movements form part of the mosaic that makes religious pluralism quite a challenge for Christian missions in the twenty-first century. Of course mentioning missions and new religions in the same breath might raise a few eyebrows: is the apologist primarily a gate-keeper who fends off false doctrine, or can an apologist also actively seek to make disciples from the ranks of new religions? Our answer to that question will partly depend on where we place the most emphasis: (a) Do we regard adherents [of "new religious movements"] primarily as persons made in God's image bedeviled by the Fall and who have been misdirected? Or (b) Do we regard them primarily as heretics and satanic adversaries who are destined for divine wrath?

Now, some apologists might take exception to this initial gambit of mine and feel this is simply pettifogging about words. It might be felt that this is an artificial dichotomy that deliberately polarizes the issue because an apologist can both fend off false doctrine and engage in evangelism. I certainly do not intend to imply that these twin functions are mutually exclusive. However, what I am seriously inviting readers to reflect on concerns our motives, methods and messages in dealing with cults and new religions. In particular, it is about our choice of vocabulary, the tone in which we write and speak, and our efforts to disciple people who are currently devotees in new religions.

If we are genuinely interested in communicating Jesus' call to discipleship to those who participate in new religions, then we must look at the shape and content of our messages to them. What parts of Scripture are we emulating when presenting the gospel and commending the faith? Do we consciously or unconsciously adopt a stance similar to these passages:


(a) Elijah versus the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18: 21-40)?

(b) John the Baptist versus the Pharisees (Matthew 3: 7-10)?

(c) Jesus versus the Pharisees (Matthew 12: 22-39, Luke 11:42-54)?

(d) Paul versus the Judaizers (2 Cor. 11, Galatians)?


From the "Men On A Mission" Calendar, 2009
In the above examples we have direct and hostile confrontations occurring between a particular religious group inside the nation of Israel and God’s prophet, or with Jesus, or with Paul and a congregation. Are these sorts of encounters intended in Scripture to be used as a guide to apologetics, evangelism and discipleship? That is one of the issues I hope we can reflect on once this discussion is concluded.

By way of contrast, to what extent do we approach devotees in the style of Jesus in his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4: 1-42) and Paul’s apologetic speech in Athens (Acts 17:16-34)? Are we following Paul’s mission’s principle to become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9: 20-23) when approaching the non-Christian devotee? Are we biblically winsome and persuasive in our apologias? Do we show courtesy and respect towards devotees or are we scornful, scathing and sarcastic in what we say and write? These too are issues I hope we will reflect on at the conclusion of this discussion.

On another tack, some countercult apologists might argue that apologetics is synonymous with evangelism. It might be argued that as adherents of new religions embrace false doctrine the tried and true method of apologetic refutation, coupled with an appeal to repent, is the only way to evangelize. This is what we have always done. So it might be genuinely felt that we are already engaged in mission and there is no further point to this discussion.

From the "Hot Mormon Moms" Calender, 2012
The temptation to cease reading here should be forestalled. It is almost a cliché to say that we are living in a time of rapid change. Yet it is precisely the ebb and flow of the tides of history that carry us along, and it can be very helpful for us when navigating those currents to take some bearings. By taking bearings I mean that we should from time to time pause in our journey and reflect on the cultural and historical contexts in which we find ourselves. We should also be willing to look at what our apologetic forebears have done and consider their strengths and limitations. By looking at what others have done or are doing, we can put our own labors into critical perspective and test the mettle of what we do.

Now there are things implied in what has just been said. One is that countercult apologetic methods need to be evaluated, and the very suggestion that our apologetic toolkit could stand some upgrading probably sounds shocking. Yet to paraphrase Socrates’ aphorism, “the unexamined apologetic method is not worth using.” If we evangelicals do indeed believe that in everything we say or do, we do it for Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 3:17), then we surely will want to do our utmost in service for him in the field of new religions.

A different way of looking at ourselves in the mirror is through Ralph Neighbour’s cheeky point about the church’s famous last words: "we never tried it that way before." He made those remarks about resistant attitudes to change in the church. For my purposes Neighbour’s remarks provoke a pertinent question for us to consider - how resistant are we to examining our methods and learning about other approaches? Are we so habituated to primarily using negative apologetics as the remedy for cults that we might be too rigid to be challenged by fresh ideas? Has our apologetic toolkit become a sacred cow that we tenaciously refuse to subject it to scrutiny? I am not suggesting here, by the by, that apologetics is misguided or useless at all, particularly since I have taught the subject of apologetics at a Bible college level for several years, am on the board of the recently established School of Apologetics at the Centre for Evangelism and Global Mission in Sydney, Australia and been a practitioner in the field of personal evangelism and apologetics since 1978.

David Wilkinson of St Johns College, University of Durham, in addressing the wider dimensions of apologetics observes:

"Apologetics, like preaching, is an art to be developed rather than a science to be understood. In developing apologetics for our time, we need to rediscover its biblical roots. Often our western theological tradition has narrowed the practice of apologetics making it largely irrelevant to contemporary mission. A broader biblical view allows us to reformulate apologetics as an essential part of Christian ministry and evangelism in the new millennium."

What Wilkinson intimates about reformulating apologetics to suit our cultural circumstances has some bearing on the sub-discipline of countercult apologetic ministry. We need to consider what our cultural circumstances now comprise in view of religious pluralism being a street-life reality in most parts of the world. For some western Christians it probably comes as a great jolt to realize that the privileged societal position of Church dominance has been undermined or in many cases has ceased to be a living reality. One thing we might find helpful to rediscover is how the children of Israel and then the apostolic church functioned in cultural contexts where they were in the minority rubbing shoulders with many competing religious options. As Wilkinson calls for a rediscovery of the biblical roots of apologetics, so too we should learn from our biblical forebears in the ways they lived, ministered and engaged in mission with rival religious movements.

Another implication to my earlier remarks is the distinct possibility that we might not be properly engaged in mission as it is classically understood and practiced. That probably sounds absurd. Yet we must surely wonder why is it then that westerners who participate in cults and new religions are not being discipled by us en masse? Why do some evangelical missiologists look askance at our activities and cringe? Why do some sociologists and phenomenologists dare to observe that we are so caught up in preaching to the choir? Why is it that few cult devotees ever end up in our churches as servants of Christ? Are we construing boundary-maintenance against heresy as being coterminous with evangelism? Maybe we could learn some fresh tricks of the trade from our colleagues in world missions that will become a blessing to the church at large and for ourselves. For the issue at hand is not about jettisoning the analysis of heresy in the light of orthodoxy. Rather the basic question is whether evangelism and discipleship of devotees in new religious movements is taking place on any serious and sustained level.

For some readers this call for reflection about our methods and strategies may seem odd or even provoke some impatience. Most of us as apologists for the faith have happily applied methods and forms of argument that have been formulated by others. We have probably been content to follow those who have pioneered countercult ministry without much need to call our methods into question. However it would do us no harm to consider how and why these methods were formulated, particularly when in recent years various apologists have expressed disquiet about existing models through their essays or in public conventions. When debates about method emerge in a discipline they may arise because there are new circumstances that highlight inadequacies with existing approaches. Although methodological debates can sometimes polarize the participants, they can also be the catalyst for new and productive enterprises.

The purpose of this critical discussion is to evaluate some of our existing methods, and propose some improvements by gleaning insights from cross-cultural missiology, so that we can be more effective in our engagement with today’s world. To achieve that goal this rather long paper is divided into four separate documents. The first involves a description and positive appraisal of the pre-eminent apologetic method used in ministry to new religions, the heresy-rationalist apologia. The second illustrates limitations and weakness with the heresy-rationalist approach. The third carries on with a brief description and analysis of five other models used: end-times prophecy & conspiracy, spiritual warfare, apostate testimonies, cultural apologetics and behavioralist apologetics. The fourth and final installment provides a skeletal outline of the directions we need to take to create a holistic, integrated approach that can have maximum effectiveness in the proclamation of the gospel and the task of discipleship.
Related posts from this blog:


Thursday, July 26, 2012

The enduring nihilistic brilliance of Lou Reed's "Berlin"

.
"There are certain records that are so patently offensive that one wishes to take some kind of physical vengeance on the artists that perpetrate them."

"My girlfriend threatens to stab me if I ever play it again in her presence."

"And what a narrative it is: unlistenably depressing was the critical consensus at the time of release, even grimmer than the Velvet Underground at their most debauched."

"Reed's only excuse for this kind of performance (which isn't really performed as much as spoken and shouted over Bob Ezrin's limp production) can only be that this was his last shot at a once-promising career. Goodbye, Lou."

"A horribly attritional listen."

"Lazy unfocused worthless shit."



Here is what Stephen Davis, writing for Rolling Stone, thought of Lou Reed's Berlin when it first came out:

"Lou Reed's Berlin is a disaster, taking the listener into a distorted and degenerate demimonde of paranoia, schizophrenia, degradation, pill-induced violence and suicide.
[December 20, 1973]

I don't recall reading the Rolling Stone review of the album at the time, but if I had I would have thought something like, "hey, you say 'a distorted and degenerate demimonde of paranoia, schizophrenia, degradation, pill-induced violence and suicide' like that was a bad thing."

That's just where my 16 going on 17 year old head was at. Not a good place, granted. But it was the perfect psychological vantage point from which to appreciate what Lou Reed had accomplished with his followup to "Transformer". I didn't so much love Berlin as I wallowed in it.

The years have been good to Berlin. In four decades, it has gone from being verbally spat upon to something approaching hushed veneration. One recent (but annoyingly undated) review still shows the kind of visceral hatred that this album is capable of producing by callling it "a horribly attritional listen", while at the same showing that even the naysayers must acknowledge its now exalted status, for the reviewer adds, parenthetically: "(Feels himself about to be sent directly to rock critic hell for slagging off one of rock's sacred cows ...)".

The creative triumph that is Berlin is a result of three factors. First of all, Lou Reed was willing and able to go there in terms of darkness. It really doesn't get any darker than this. The anti-heroine of the story, Caroline, is a narcissistic, penniless drug addict trapped in a viciously abusive (both emotionally and physically) relationship. And it's downhill from there. Her children are taken away "because they said she was not a good mother", and then she kills herself. But it still doesn't stop there, for there are still depths of human misery left to be plumbed. At first the anti-hero Jim, Caroline's penniless, self-loathing, drug-addicted, abusive lover, is emotionally distraught, even maudlin over the suicide of the woman who had, somehow, reminded him of Mary Queen of Scots. At just this moment, and for the first and last time, Jim appears almost human, almost deserving of sympathy. But then he rallies. He comes back to himself, and the full force of his self-destructive, soul-sucking, nihilistic anti-personality rises, phoenix like, in all its glory. Who but Lou Reed could do justice, if that is the right word, to the words with which Jim defiantly renounces any lingering remnant of what once might have been his humanity: "I'm gonna stop wasting my time/Somebody else would have broken both of her arms." It really, truly, doesn't get any darker than this.

This is black hole darkness. A darkness that goes far beyond the mere absence of light. A darkness that actively seeks out the light, hunts it down, clubs it over the head, and then drags it down, stunned, twitching, barely alive, back to its stinking cave, the merciless inertial singularity from which there is no escape.

But, secondly, this darkness is served up as tantalizingly irresistible poison-laced dark chocolate in the form of Rock And Roll Done Right. Thanks to a cast of legendary Rock Gods, including Ainsley Dunbar on drums, Jack Bruce on bass, Steve Hunter on lead guitar, Steve Winwood on keyboards, and Bob Ezrin as producer, arranger, pianist, and head-bottle-washer, accompanied by angel-throated singers and a blazingly virtuosic horn section, this album is musically staggering in the full-body impact it has on the senses. It's the kind of music that seduces you while grabbing you by the throat. It lures you back to listen, over and over, to this repulsive "horribly attritional" story.

And, thirdly Lou Reed was willing to take the money, influence, and freedom that his successes up that point had won him, and to bet it all on this project. One cannot properly do decadence and debauchery on the cheap. Berlin is sybaritic on a DeMilleian "parting-of-the-red-sea" scale. The result is that even its harshest detractors (in fact, especially them) reveal the awe that Berlin elicits. In spite of themselves, they cannot look away.

a jumble of links:

The Rolling Stone review from 1973:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/berlin-19731220

"A horribly attritional listen":
http://www.contactmusic.com/album-review/lou-reed-berlinx24x11x08

Back to Berlin: Lou Reed's dark masterpiece gets a belated staging:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2006/12/reed200612

344/500:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/lou-reed-berlin-19691231

"Lou Reed's masterpiece of misery is re-released in time for its debut performances.":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/96hj

"Lou Miserable takes a Sydney walk on the dark side":
http://www.smh.com.au/news/music/lou-miserable-takes-a-sydney-walk-on-the-dark-side/2006/10/23/1161455665076.html

Interview with Bob Ezrin (the man behind the curtain):
http://performingsongwriter.com/bob-ezrin/

"Reed’s most perfect smooth glam rock album was by far Berlin ...":
http://www.examiner.com/review/lou-reed-berlin-1973

"My girlfriend threatens to stab me if I ever play it again in her presence."
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/how-do-you-think-it-feels

"Now let me be clear that I have never greatly admired Reed ..." (but he loved the 2007 berlin live show in london):
http://www.whiskyfun.com/Gigs/Lou-Reed.html

A long very informational blogpost making the "case" for Lou Reed's Berlin:
http://mycasefor.blogspot.com/2010/07/work-in-progress.html

Decades later, Adrian Denning still can't make up his mind about Berlin:
http://www.adriandenning.co.uk/lou.html

Artwork from the album:
http://sinistersaladmusikal.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/sinister-vinyl-collection-lou-reed-berlin-1973/

All about glam rock by Julian Cope (this is where i found the "movie" poster for Berlin at the top of this post):
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/albumofthemonth/glamrocksampler

A very positive review of the movie by Jason Thompson, who still insists he doesn't like the album:
http://www.bullz-eye.com/music_dvd/2008/berlin.htm