Interpreting the Constitution

Leave a comment

I’ve often compared what the SCOTUS does and how they interpret the Constitution and what a good pastor does in his sermon preparation to interpret the passage he is preaching on.

A good exegete (a pastor that draws out the meaning of a text rather than read meaning into it) has a great deal in common with a judge who is considered to be an originalist.

An originalist seeks to determine in it’s historical context the Framer’s intent when they wrote the Constitution and Amendments.

That is exactly what a good exegete does when preparing his sermon. He asks himself what did the author mean when he wrote what he did in the context in which he lived. The process to do this is laborious and it should be since the pastor is dealing with the Word of God and he wants to be sure he is thinking God’s thoughts after him. The method is called the Historical\Grammatical Method of Interpretation. It’s fits into the discipline of Hermeutics. The strength of the system is that it is objective and that is in contrast to other methods that are often subjective.

This does not guarantee total agreement among exegetes but it does given them a standard of debate that they can appreciate since everyone plays by the same rules.

For more basic information on what I mean by the Historical\Grammatical method go to to this YouTube link to see the subject discussed in a recent service my church.

Whenever the SCOTUS has to debate a law’s constitutionality they do so from one of two positions (in general). The first position is the one I’ve already mentioned, the position of being an originalist. What did the Framers mean when they wrote the Constitution? What was the intent of the words and phrases they used in the context in which they used them.

A jurist who is not an originalist believes that the Constitution and it’s Amendments are fluid; that they evolve according to the whims of the current culture. In that, the method is far more subjective than the more objective methodology of an originalist.

Like the exegete who uses the historical\grammatical method of interpretation the originalist needs some “rules” or guidelines to determine the Framer’s intent. Here’s list of the considerations they are supposed to take into account:

 •​The evident meaning of the words. •​The meaning according to the lexicon of the times. •​The meaning in context with other sections of the Constitution. •​The meaning according to the Framer who suggested the language. •​The elucidation of the meaning by debate within the Constitutional Convention. •​The historical provenance of the words, particularly their legal history. •​The words in the context of the contemporaneous social, economic, and political events.•​The words in the context of the Revolutionary struggle. •​The words in the context of the political philosophy shared by the Founding generation or by the particular interlocutors at the Convention. •​Historical, religious, and philosophical authority put forward by the Framers. •​The commentary in the ratification debates. •​The commentary by contemporaneous interpreters, such as Publius in The Federalist Papers. •​The subsequent historical practice by the Founding generation to exemplify the understood meaning (e.g., the actions of President Washington, the First Congress, and Chief Justice Marshall). •​Early judicial interpretations. •​Evidence of long-standing traditions that demonstrate the people’s understanding of the words.
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition (pp. 25-26). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

As you can it can be a laborious process and it does not mean that all originalists will necessarily arrive at the same conclusion.

This stands in contrast to jurists who never seem to consider original intent. Instead, they think in terms of desired outcomes and that’s why conservatives call them activist judges rather than an originalist or constitutionalist. It’s also why since the Reagan Administration (at least) the Senate hearings for the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge are so contentious. The left wants activists to do their bidding and the right wants originalists to stick to the original intent of the Founders..

The Kavanaugh hearings are example “A” to the degree in which the left will go to ruin a man by convicting him of a crime in the court of public opinion without any supporting evidence.

Like the Bible the Constitution should not be twisted to get it to say whatever you want it to say.

A More Perfect Union

Leave a comment

The Battle of Gettysburg ended on July 3rd, 1863. On July 4th, 1863 the river city fortress of Vicksburg fell to Union General US Grant. The loss of both battles meant the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. Had Lee won at Gettysburg and Vicksburg held out longer it’s entirely possible that one of two things or both could have happened. The first is that France and England would have recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. Among other things that could have meant the breaking of the Union blockade of Southern ports by the all powerful British Navy. (In 1863 the UK was the most powerful nation in the world and not necessary our pals.)

The second thing that is probable Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election in favor of Northern Democrats and Copperheads (a Copperhead opposed the war). If Lincoln was defeated it would have resulted in an independent Confederacy. The net result of an independent CSA would have meant a continuation of slavery-pure and simple. When news of the Union victories reached the North most realized it was the beginning of the end for the CSA although thousands more would die before the Confederates would surrender in the Spring of 1865. 

Confederate High Tide at Gettysburg

Note this quote from the preamble of Constitution of the USA:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Former President Barack OBama used the line, ” a more perfect Union” in a famous speech that spoke of race relations. The central idea of the preamble and presumably Obama’s speech was that the US keep striving for that more perfect Union. 

US History is full of warts and injustice but we have always striven to be that more perfect Union and fix what we can. There was a time when people of good will on both sides of the aisle recognized the common goal of striving for that more perfect Union. I truly fear that time has passed and that our country is in more trouble than it was in April of 1861. When one party refuses to condemn mob justice and violence and openly seeks socialistic Marxism we no longer have any kind of unity worthy of the name. It is not out of the question that a second Civil War is brewing and that would be tragic.

So what is the Christian to do? First we are mandated to pray for those in power no matter how distasteful that may be. After all, Paul’s instructions to do so involved the despot Nero. The question is how to pray for them. The most common answer to that question is that we are supposed to pray for wisdom. IMO, the wisdom to be prayed for is biblical wisdom that leads to practical application derived from the inalienable rights derived from our Creator.

The framers, for all their faults recognized this when formulating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, it seems to me praying that those in power uphold the Constitution rather than treating it like silly putty would be the pathway to striving for that more perfect Union. That is my prayer.

Beyond Redemption_P4 What do the Scriptures say?

Leave a comment

A thought provoking and excellent read and a real tribute to a man who had to over come the emotion of ministering to war criminals for the sake of the gospel.

A thought provoking and excellent read and a real tribute to a man who had to over come the emotion of ministering to war criminals for the sake of the gospel.

A number of years ago I counseled a man in the church I was serving in.

The man had a burden for his father who was dying in a VA Hospital. The son’s burden was that the father would respond to the gospel even as he lay dying.

The dying man was a World War 2 veteran and had lived a life apart from Christ. According to the son the son’s childhood had been a living hell with frequent beatings, drunkenness and spousal abuse. The father had few friends and had alienated all of his family. Now, he lay dying from cancer.

The father was hated by nearly everyone who knew him and when he finally passed away only six people showed up at the funeral which was held in a VA Chapel. One of the people who came didn’t even know the deceased and just wanted to honor a veteran in some way. The other person who did not know the deceased was me and my job was to give a short message to a very small crowd of five.

The father, in some sense was a war criminal, guilty not necessarily of war crimes but guilty of some pretty horrible crimes against his family and many others. He was not a nice man without any perceived redeeming qualities what-so-ever.

Death by hanging was the fate of many tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Death by hanging was the fate of many tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

When I counseled the son (prior to the father’s passing) my text was the same as the one that resonated with Pastor Gerecke when he was asked to minister to the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.

Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.” One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-43 ESV)

As we can see from the text Jesus was crucified between two criminals usually identified as thieves or robbers. Robbery suggests murder and capital punishment as opposed to petty thievery that would not require the death penalty.

Most of the Nuremberg defendants believed they would be hung while the two thieves knew for a fact they would die because they were already on the gallows so-to-speak as represented by the crosses they already hung on.

The parallel between the two sets of condemned men is obvious.

Are men facing death for their crimes capable of genuine repentance and the forgiveness of their sins?

Let’s examine the text to see if there is any evidence that the thief’s conversion was genuine.

The first observation we can make from the text is that Jesus assured the thief that on the very day he would be with Jesus in Paradise. That is compelling textual evidence that the thief was truly converted but there is more.

The parallel text in Matthew indicates that at first both thieves mocked Christ (Matt. 27:44).

At some point the second robber stopped mocking Jesus and instead asked for salvation. If you were to read the rest of the story you would see that certain signs and wonders would follow this incident.

The second robber made his request for salvation before any of the signs and wonders took place thus indicating something else convinced him to repent.

We can also note that the text records that everyone around the crosses were mocking Jesus; the crowd, the soldiers, the robbers, the scribes and Pharisees, everyone. To repent and ask Jesus for salvation would mean the robber had to swim against the tide of popular opinion and the mockery of the Savior.

The second robber also rebuked the first for not fearing God. The second robber clearly recognized Jesus’ innocence and it suggests a recognition of Jesus’ deity. The rebuke of the first robber was for being irreverent. In other words the second robber went from being a mocker himself to someone defending Jesus in a very short time. What could explain this apart from a genuine change of heart?

Remember what Pastor Gerecke had said about his former SS Lt. Colonel who played the organ at the worship services. He said of the man, “the simple Gospel of the Cross had changed his heart.” So it was with the second robber.

This is a key point. For any of the Nuremberg defendants to be genuine about repentance they would, like the robber, have to realize that Jesus was innocent of everything and that he was indeed God who was dying for the genuine crimes of others!

The second robber asks Jesus to remember him in His kingdom thus recognizing that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world. Jesus grants him the request; the guilty dying for the innocent and the innocent paying for the guilty party’s sins.

As the first robber and others mocked Jesus by telling Jesus to come off the cross and thus do a miracle (he saved others and cannot save himself) the second robber recognized Jesus did not have to come off the cross to save anyone because Jesus simply had the authority to save.

Furthermore, the second robber noted his own guilt and the fact he deserved death. He asked Jesus for salvation on the basis of mercy and grace with nothing to offer in return. No good works, no self-justification, no excuses. He just relied upon Jesus mercy and grace which is all we have to appeal to in salvation.

Luke does not say what changed the second robber’s mind at that late hour. In order to discover that answer we have to look elsewhere in the Bible.

In John Chapter Three Jesus told Nicodemus that the process of being born again is a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit-the results are evident, but the process is unseen. The second robber showed evidence of a changed heart. I think all would agree, but what changed his heart?

In Acts 16 Luke writes of the conversion of a woman named Lydia. Luke writes, “the Lord opened her heart to believe.”

And so it is with all who believe, you, me, a robber on a cross, a Nazi about to be hung. Salvation belongs to the Lord declared the prophet Jonah (Jonah 2:9) meaning that salvation is a sovereign work of God from start to finish just as it is the secret work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men that we can only see the results of.

We judge people by the scope and magnitude of their sins and thus minimize our own by comparison.

I’m not as bad as that father who beat his wife and children.

I’m not as bad as the drunk next door.

I’m not as bad as the pornographer, the robber or murderer and certainly not as bad as any Nazi.

All of those statements may be true from a human, self-righteous point of view with the person making the statements never realizing that they have within themselves the capacity for every one of those heinous sins.

The old statement, that there by the grace of God go I rings true.

The words of James come to mind:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
(James 2:10 ESV)

While we may differ in the scope and extent of sin Scripture in an individual’s life is quite clear that all far short of the glory of God.

 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
[13] “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
[14] “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
[15] “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
[16] in their paths are ruin and misery,
[17] and the way of peace they have not known.”
[18] “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:10-18 ESV)

There simply isn’t any wiggle room. All are guilty and all without Christ will perish according to God’s Word (Rom. 6:23)

Consider the apostle’s Peter’s first sermon:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 ESV)

Peter is informing those hearing the sermon that they are guilty, either implicitly or complicity in killing the Son of God even though they had ample proof of his deity.

The Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of the crowd and they respond:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37-39 ESV)

Jesus died on the Cross for sinners like you and me as well as the worst of the worst. Even the apostle Paul thought himself as the worst of sinners before he received Christ:

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. (1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)

Paul considered himself the foremost among sinners because he persecuted the church and was complicit in the murder of Stephen.

He goes on:

But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. (1 Timothy 1:16 ESV)

Paul was an example of God’s mercy and grace. Once a hard-hearted Pharisee that persecuted the church in the hopes that people would not believe; now the apostle to the Gentiles (anyone not a Jew) preaching the good news that anyone no matter what they have done can be saved.

Paul himself is blown away by what he is saying and he exclaims the wonder of it all like this:

To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17 ESV)

Pastor Gerecke recognized these truths. Once more he recognized that these truths could apply to even the worst of the Nazi war criminals and so he agreed to work with them.

On a human level it’s nearly incomprehensible that some of these men could be forgiven by God for their crimes but we forget that God forgave the apostle Paul and the crowd that repented at Peter’s first sermon. God’s ways are not our ways and we should rejoice in that for it should give us, the foremost of sinners hope that we have a Savior who can and does save even the worst of the worst.

This side of heaven we will never know who among the Nazis at Nuremberg was genuinely repentant. All we have is Pastor Gerecke’s testimony and what he believed about men who believed they were about to die.

And that perhaps is the greatest take-away from Pastor Gerecke’s mission to the Nazis, all die, all had an opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness; some did, some maybe and others clearly did not.

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

The question then becomes what do we do with our sin because we too will die.

Thank God for his mercy and grace to all those who truly repent and believe upon Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Beyond Redemption_Part 3_Were the War Criminals Repentant?

Leave a comment

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

After Gerecke had been selected to give Nazi war criminals spiritual counsel he decided to hold church services for them and to personally counsel those who were willing.

Mission at Nuremberg

In all, Gerecke worked with thirteen of the defendants.

Gerecke was “in charge” to determine if the men were truly repentant for their crimes and whether or not he would allow them to return to their Lutheran faith. Once Gerecke determined that that they were repentant he allowed them to partake of the Lord’s Supper as a sign of their repentance.

Gerecke’s attitude is reflected in what he believed about the former SS Lieutenant Colonel who served as his chapel organist. Gerecke believed that by the end of the trial he had brought the man back to faith and he noted “The simple Gospel of the Cross had changed his heart.”

Whatever else we might conclude about the possibility of redemption for Nazi war criminals it is clear that Pastor Gerecke believed it possible and the organist would have been Gercke’s Exhibit A.

Some of the defendants at Nuremberg guarded by American Military Police. My father was a MP stationed in near by Cologne at the time of the trial.

Some of the defendants at Nuremberg guarded by American Military Police. My father was a MP stationed in near by Cologne at the time of the trial.

Here is sampling of what happened with some of the defendants Gerecke ministered too.

–Karl Donitz-head of the German Navy after Raeder, received 10 years in prison.

Donitz believed Gerecke could help him after Gerecke told him they would simply deal with the Word of God in relation to the hearts of men rather than a political debate. In other words Gerecke stuck to the gospel and that opened the door for him to speak with Donitz.  Donitz responded with repentance according to Gerecke.

–Hans Fritzsche headed the news division of the ministry of propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. Fritzsche was acquitted.

Gerecke believed Fritzsche to be repentant. Most of the defendants believed they all would receive the death penalty from the vindictive allies. However, the allies (the western ones anyway) wanted justice to be served above all else and if there was not enough evidence to convict Fritzsche then an acquittal was appropriate.

I think that given the attitudes of the time it must have been a hard decision for the judges to make and it would have been easier to convict Fritsche and give him a light sentence like the one Donitz received.

–Herman Goering was the highest ranking Nazi to be tried. Goring was head of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) and was Hitler’s designated successor almost to the end when he fell out of favor. Goring’s sentence was death by hanging but he committed suicide the night before the execution. Gerecke was one of the first to get into Goring’s cell the night he killed himself.

Gerecke never believed Goring repentant and refused him communion. In the book Goring comes across as extremely personable especially to Gerecke whom he loved to chat with.

Gerecke suspected Goring of game playing perhaps hoping for an acquittal or light sentence. Goring also comes across as delusional in the book. He is shocked that he is not treated with the respect he thought he was due.

Gerecke also ministered to the defendants families if they let him), Gerecke ministered to Mrs. Goring and their young daughter. Gerecke took the example of Jesus seriously as he would minister to any sinner who wished him too.

Herman Goring, death by cyanide capsule.

Herman Goring, death by cyanide capsule.

–Alfred Jodl was the General who was Chief of Operations for the German Wehrmacht. In his capacity as Chief of Operations he was the second highest ranking general after Keitel and Hitler’s closet military advisor. Jodl’s reputation was that of a sycophant and a yes man never standing up to Hitler’s often ludicrous military decisions.

His sentence was death by hanging.

Jodl had pled “not guilty” and said, “For what I have done or had to do, I have a pure conscience before God, before history and my people.” His not guilty plea speaks of his lack of repentance and a sense of false assurance.

Jodl would have used the “I was only following orders” defense offered by many of the Nazis.

— Ernst Kaltenbrunner was a  high-ranking SS officer who had responsibility for the death camps.

Kaltenbrunner was an unrepentant psychopath and had no use for Gerecke. There is a whole chapter in the book detailing his crimes and frankly it is as appalling as a visit to Auschwitz-Buchenwald.

Kaltenbrunner was a Nazi to the nth degree apparently without any conscience what-so-ever. In my opinion he received justice in this life (death by hanging) and would receive justice in the life to come for his lack of repentance.

–Wilhelm Keitel was head of the German Army and like Jodl a chief military advisor to Hitler and like Jodl considered to be a yes man by many other generals in the Wehrmacht.

Keitel was a bit of surprise at Nuremberg. At first he refused to admit any guilt like Jodl but at the end made no excuse for what he was responsible. Gerecke believed him to be repentant and Keitel faced the gallows with some dignity and military bearing.

–Konstantin von Neurath was minister of foreign affairs for Hitler. He received fifteen years in prison for his crimes.

Von Neurath was initially unresponsive to Gerecke but Neurath’s family thanked Gerecke for helping him “get right with God.” Neurath was one of the five Catholics so it is apparent that both Gerecke and O’Connor ministered to him at some point during the trial.

–Erich Raeder was head of the German Navy prior to Donitz. He received life imprisonment for his role as Hitler’s naval advisor up until 1943.

Raeder was skeptical about certain Christian tenets and Gerecke at first considered him an intellectual skeptic regarding Christianity but later believed Raeder was more suspicious of the American Army than he was of Christianity.

Raeder became an ardent Bible reader and one of Gerecke’s best students. Gerecke believed Raeder returned to the Lutheran faith.

Although Raeder received a life sentence he was released from prison in 1955 due to poor health.

–Joachim von Ribbentrop was another minister of foreign affairs. His sentence was death by hanging.

Von Ribbentrop was unrepentant at the start of Gerecke’s ministry. His wife was even more adamant in her opposition to Christianity. Both were ardent Nazis.

Later after reading the Bible and the Lutheran Catechism von Ribbentrop became penitent and right before the end of the trial he asked to take communion which he did indicating that Gerecke believed him to be repentant.

–Alfred Rosenberg was a racial theory ideologist and minister of the eastern occupied territories. As the minister for the eastern conquered territories he was responsible for the death of perhaps millions. His sentence was death by hanging.

Rosenberg told Gerecke he had no use for his childhood faith but added he believed in God, but not Christ.

This was a reflection of Gottglaubige or “believers in God.” Certain Nazis didn’t want to be Christians but also wanted to distinguish themselves from atheists.

Although this appears to be an odd attitude it does reflect the attitude of many within our own culture. They want to believe in “God” as they chose to define him but want nothing to do with the Christ of the Bible even though they may call themselves “Christian.”


–Fritz Sauckel was the planner of the Nazi slave labor program which killed hundreds of thousands. His was the Reich’s Labor Minister and his sentence was death by hanging.

Saukel initially pled “not guilty” and said, “I declare myself in the sense of the Indictment, before God and the world and particularly before my people, not guilty.” Saukel was considered an “old guard hard line Nazi.”

Sauckel became the first to work seriously with Gerecke. He saw himself as a person who did no wrong against God or man even though he was responsible for the slave labor that killed many.

Sauckel seemed eager to repent but Gerecke saw through it telling him, “you don’t want to go through the motions, you want to let the motions of God’s Holy Spirit go through you.”

According to Gerecke Sauckel did eventually repent crying out so loud that every guard on his floor heard him say “Gott sei mor gnadig, ein Sunder,” God, be merciful to me a sinner. Sauckel then helped with other men including Speer, Fritzsche and Schirach all of whom Gerecke believed returned to faith.

–Dr. Hjalmar Schacht was a banker and industrialist. He was acquitted.

He objected to being tried with the likes of Goering and Kaltenbrunner and because of that association believed he was unfit for communion. He told Gerecke that once he was declared a free man he would take his wife back to church and partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Gerecke did not render an opinion as to Schacht’s repentance. What is interesting to me is Schlacht’s sense of self-righteousness in being associated with “worse” sinners like Goring and Kaltenbrunner.

Schlacht played the game that many of us play by comparing ourselves to other sinners rather than comparing ourselves to the sinless Son of God.

Gerecke was asked later if the men who he thought repented did so simply because they would meet their deaths on the end of the rope.

Gerecke replied, “My only answer is that I have been a preacher for a long time and decided that [finding God] is the only way a good many folks find themselves.”

The apostle Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners.

The apostle Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners.

In other words, only God knows for sure the inner workings of man’s heart.

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7 ESV)

In the next installment I will work through many of the relevant Scriptures.

For further reading…

From Hitler’s Wolves to Christ’s Lambs, an article from the Gospel Coalition on Gerecke and Nuremberg.

Beyond Redemption? Part 2 Nuremberg

1 Comment

I recently finished author Tim Townsend’s Mission at Nuremberg-An American Army Chaplain and the Trial of the Nazis.

Mission at Nuremberg

During the reading of the book a flood of Scripture came to my mind in the different sections of the book. Some were the Scriptures quoted in the book but many were not as I considered the man who ministered to the Nazis at Nuremberg, Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS).

The two passages that kept coming to my mind after I finished the book were Acts 2:22-24 and Acts 2:37-39.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 ESV)

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:37-39 ESV)

Both passages are in the larger context of the apostle Peter’s Pentecost sermon and both passages, speak volumes to the situation that Pastor Gerecke faced at Nuremberg when he accepted the assignment to be chaplain to men accused of waging an unjust war and for the extermination of millions. I will come back to the passages in a later post.

Here is Pastor Gercke’s background:

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

Pastor Henry Gerecke (LCMS)

Pastor Gerecke barely made it into the chaplain’s corps of the US Army. The age limit was 50 and Gerecke just made the cut of by a couple of weeks.

Gerecke was from Missouri, a state that had a high proportion of German immigrants. Gerecke was fluent in German a fact that contributed to him being asked to minister to the war criminals, Gercke had also been a minister to criminals within the St. Louis jail system, an experience that helped prepare him to minister to criminals of a different sort.

Prior to the war Gerecke served as a local church pastor but really did much more. It seems he always had a heart for the down and out, the type of people who seem to have been forgotten or the type of people who seemed to need the most spiritual help. To Gerecke the men on trial were in most need of spiritual help since it was almost unthinkable that any would escape the death penalty and all would face their Creator shortly.

According to Townsend Gerecke’s reputation as a pastor and evangelist was second to none and if he had any enemies Townsend does not record them.

Gerecke’s deployment took him to Great Britain where he gave excellent service at a major hospital giving comfort to the wounded and the dying but also ministering to the enormous staff that populated the base. He seemed tireless in his work and was loved and admired by  all he ministered too.

He followed the hospital unit to France and by the end of the war to Munich in the German state of Bavaria. From there he was asked to go to Nuremberg and minister to the top surviving Nazis who were incarcerated.

As we look back almost 70 years the concept of a trial for war crimes does not seem out-of-place or even unusual. The US and Great Britain have prosecuted their own soldiers for war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and when they do it’s usually big news.

The Nuremberg trials were something different at the time and unique in many ways. For the first time the major leaders, both military and civilian would be brought to trial and held to account for their crimes.

The prosecutors came from the four major powers that included the US, Great Britain, France and Soviet Russia. The inclusion of Soviet Russia in a trial about war crimes must have struck the other allies at least a bit ironic.

The judges panel at Nuremberg, 1945

The judges panel at Nuremberg, 1945

Nevertheless, led by the US and Great Britain the western allies decided the trial would not be about vengeance but instead would focus on justice. They wanted the world to remember what the Nazis did in the hopes that the world would learn and that such a government would never rise again to wreak such havoc on mankind.

In retrospect, it was naive but the allies were serious about justice and wanted to present to the world a fair trial to those who never would have done so to their enemies.

The western allies gave considerable thought to the trial as they were breaking new ground. They even considered the spiritual welfare of the war criminals some of whom were the most hated men the world has ever known!

The two men who eventually got the job of ministering to the Nazis were Pastor Gerecke for the Lutherans among the them and Catholic priest Father Sixtus O’Connor for the Catholics. Father O’Conner also spoke fluent German.

Gerecke’s  initial reaction to being asked horrified him-ministering to vile men who had caused so much death and destruction. He didn’t want to shake their hands much less have a chat over spiritual things. He asked himself how could he try to bring comfort to men who had caused so much heart ache. He recognized there was a difference in ministering to burglars in St. Louis and those accused of mass murder and waging an inhuman war.

In case you are not familiar with German war crimes this snippet from Wiki gives you an idea of the magnitude of what transpired as well as explaining Gereke’s reluctance to even meet the men responsible:

The government of Germany ordered, organized and condoned a substantial number of war crimes in both World War I and World War II. The most notable of these is the Holocaust in which millions of people were murdered or died from abuse and neglect, 60% of them (approximately 6 million out of 10 million)[citation needed] Jews. However, millions also died as a result of other German actions in those two conflicts. The true number of victims may never be known, since much of the evidence was destroyed by the perpetrators, by burning of bodies, murder of witnesses and destruction of documentation in an attempt to conceal the crimes. Wiki

Scripture is what turned Pastor Gerecke’s mind around. Luke 23:32-43 in particular ministered to Gerecke before he could minister to the Nazis.

Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews. ”One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?  And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-43 ESV)

With this passage Gerecke realized the possibility of redemption existed for even the worst of the worst. I will deal with this passage at length in a later post.

Gerecke realized that if there was an opportunity to love the sinner and not the sin this was it and so he accepted and he became chaplain/pastor to the 15 Lutherans while O’Connor had the smaller flock of 6 Catholics.

We need to understand that the Nuremberg defendants were charged along the following lines:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace.

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace.

3. War crimes

4. Crimes against humanity

The general idea was that indictments #s 1 and 2 involved the major military and civilian administrators that enabled Hitler and the Nazis which led to wars of conquest, the committing of war crimes and crimes against humanity that included but were not limited to the holocaust death camps.

In other words it was possible for a defendant to be convicted in four ways or one way or anything in between. Depending on the conviction an appropriate sentence was carried out.

Some of the defendants at Nuremberg guarded by American Military Police. My father was a MP stationed in near by Cologne at the time of the trial.

Some of the defendants at Nuremberg guarded by American Military Police. My father was a MP stationed in near by Cologne at the time of the trial.

Below is a list of the defendants, what their role in the Nazi government was and the sentence they received. They are in alphabetical order.

1. Karl Donitz-head of the German Navy after Raeder, received 10 years in prison.

2. Hans Frank-governor general of occupied Poland, death by hanging.

3. Wilhelm Frick-minister to the interior authored race laws, death by hanging.

4. Hans Fritzsche-headed the news division of the ministry of propaganda under Goebbels-acquitted.

5. Walther Funk-Hitler’s minister of economics, sentenced to life imprisonment.

6. Herman Goering-highest ranking Nazi to be tried, head of the German Air Force and was Hitler’s designated successor, Goring’s sentence was death by hanging but committed suicide the night before the execution.

7. Rudolf Hess-Hitler’s deputy fuehrer until he flew to Scotland in 1942 in a weird attempt to broker peace, received life in prison.

8. Alfred Jodl-General, Chief of Operations, death by hanging.

9. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, high-ranking SS officer who had much of the responsibility for the death camps, death by hanging.

10. Wilhelm Keitel-head of the German Army, death by hanging.

11. Gustav Krupp-industrialist, found innocent of the charges but later charged for crimes that did not merit the death penalty.

12.  Konstantin von Neurath – minister of foreign affairs, fifteen years in prison

13. Franz von Papen-diplomat, found innocent of two charges acquitted of another two, later retried for lesser offenses and went to prison for eight years.

14. Erich Raeder-head of the German Navy prior to Donitz, life imprisonment, released after ten years.

15. Joachim von Ribbentrop, minister of foreign affairs, death by hanging.

16. Alfred Rosenberg-racial theory ideologist and minister of the eastern occupied territories, death by hanging.

17. Fritz Sauckel-planner of the Nazi slave labor program, death by hanging.

18. Dr. Hjalmar Schacht-banker and industrialist, acquitted.

19. Baldur von Schirach-head of the Hitler Youth, ten years in prison.

20. Arthur Seyss-Inquart-commissioner of occupied Holland, death by hanging.

21. Albert Speer-head of armaments and Hitler’s friend, twenty years in prison.

22. Julius Streicher-publisher of anti–Jewish newspaper, death by hanging.

These men were the primary people at the Nuremberg trials and the men that Gerecke and O’Connor tried to reach.

The question becomes did any of these men repent and if so have they have been forgiven by God for their enormous crimes and are they in heaven?

For some, the idea is repulsive at face value and given the magnitude of their crimes understandable from a human point of view. A Christian however has to view the situation through the lens of Scripture regardless of how they may feel about it. Viewing the situation through Scripture is what Pastor Gerecke did and in part three of this series I will give his opinion about those he ministered too.

Beyond Redemption? Part 1

1 Comment

This is part one of a series derived from my reading of Mission at Nuremberg, An American Army Chaplain and the Trial of the Nazis by Tim Townsend.  For those with an interest in theology and history I cannot recommend this book enough. To say that it is thought-provoking would understate what Mr. Townsend has accomplished in telling Pastor Gerecke’s story and his ministry to hardened war criminals.

There are many angles to the story that I could have focused one but I chose to focus on what I believe is the central proposition-Could a hardened Nazi war criminal find redemption at the Cross of Jesus Christ? 

Part One

In 2007 on a mission trip to Poland we took a side trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Although I was familiar with Nazi death camps and intellectually understood the horror of a death camp it’s something quite different to actually visit one and experience it.

Seven years after our  visit I still  remember the small courtyard where prisoners were lined up against a wall and shot, by the hundreds, just because of some small infraction of camp rules or because they were no longer useful for work. You can see where the bullets chipped away the masonry as the shooters sometimes missed their target. The target area today is covered by a large wreath that serves as a memorial to the victims. When you enter the small courtyard you stand where the executioners stood with their rifles and you look directly at the wreath and the chipped masonry. It’s a courtyard of death and only the beginning.

The court-yard is just past the gallows where hundreds more were killed as examples because of some infraction. Graphic pictures tell the story as you realize real people were hung right where you are standing. The trip between the buildings can only be described as a house of horrors as you realize what took place. You wonder, how could this happen?

Then you enter some of the buildings which have been turned into a museum. You pass display rooms full of luggage symbolizing the trains that rolled into Auschwitz-Birkenau on a daily basis and the people who would never leave. To this day the wall mural of small children leaving the train haunts me as you realize tiny children were killed in the hundreds of thousands. How could this be you wonder? How could anyone be so cruel to their fellow human beings?

Then you pass rooms full of eye-glasses and rooms full of human hair and tooth fillings. The Nazi’s accumulated numerous items taken from the prisoners to help them in the war effort. To the Nazis their victims were not human, but sub-human, useful only for work or the “products” they could scrounge once their victims were gassed.

And then  you reach the crematorium, the only one left standing. As the Russian Army approached the Nazi’s fled blowing up the crematoriums leaving one furnace only partially destroyed. You walk into the furnace after first walking into the showers where Zyclon B was administered. Millions went to their deaths in this way throughout Germany and Poland. How could this be as you realized over 6,000,000 perished in the death camps.

A crematorium before being blown up. It's where the victims of Cyclon B were taken to be reduced to ash-an ash that sometimes floated over the camp and the surrounding area.

A crematorium before being blown up. It’s where the victims of Cyclon B were taken to be reduced to ash-an ash that sometimes floated over the camp and the surrounding area.

Eventually the tour gets more personal and if you are a thinking, reflective type person you begin to wonder how in the world could this even happen in what was thought to be a Christian Europe?

You wonder about good and evil and you wonder what kind of monsters could perpetrate such horror seemingly with no regrets and no conscience. You wonder how a so-called “Christian” nation could collectively conspire and/or allow a regime so evil to murder over 6,000,000 people. It boggles the mind as you struggle with man’s inhumanity to man.

As an American of primarily German extraction those kinds of questions haunted me. Did I have the same DNA the German Nazi’s did? It’s a horrifying thought.

I was born in the USA 90 years after my paternal great-grandfather came here from Prussian Pomerania. I see that as God’s providence but the flip side is had he not done so my father and mother and grand  parents could have been part of the holocaust in some capacity. This too was a terrifying thought. It is true that not every German was a Nazi but realizing that your family could have been is a sobering thought.

Some people speaking in the comfort of their own American homes and having grown up in an environment quite different from Nazi Germany might say, “oh something like that would never be on my radar, for I am not capable of such evil. I’m not perfect, but the holocaust, no way I’d participate.”

My answer to that as pastor is don’t be so sure, nor so self-righteous as to think you lack the capacity for every kind of evil.

Consider what the Scripture says before you assume that horrendous evil could never be on your radar.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)

When Scripture uses the word “heart” it usually means not the “cardia” but the center of the human will and emotions-the inner man, who we are on the inside.

The unconverted heart (to Christ) is deceitful and crooked, quite bumpy like a very bad road and desperately sick meaning medically incurable. It is not a pretty picture of the human condition and it flies in the face of people who seem to believe that mankind is “basically good.” A trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau should change that impression pretty quickly.

Consider Ephesians 2:1-3 as well:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins  in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV)

Paul is giving us bad news. The unconverted follow the course of a sinful world, following the prince of the air whether they know it or not and whether or not they seem “good” by human standards. Paul says that the converted all once lived like that, in the passions of the flesh and quite willing to carry out those passions; passions that can be and are, quite evil. Paul says, we were children of wrath (the wrath of God) just like the rest of mankind.

We may choose to not believe that; but it is what Scripture says and means. It ought to be sobering to consider our unconverted nature before we seek to judge someone else’s unconverted nature.

I am referring to what’s called the doctrine of total depravity.

The doctrine of total depravity means we  do not commit all the sins we are capable of committing. It just means we all have the capacity to be the worst of monsters, like the Nazis who mapped out the holocaust and executed it the best they could before being stopped. That should be sobering if you value the teaching of Scripture.

So, what  happened to the Nazis? How could a so-called Christian nation (most Germans were either baptized Lutherans or Catholics) fall into some of the worst kinds of depravity recorded in history.

A philosopher by the name of Hannah Arendt can give us a little insight.

Hannah Arendt was a political philosopher who lived from 1906-1975. She is most famous for her “banality of evil” comments she made in observing the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was a major architect of the holocaust who had escaped to Argentina after the war. In 1962 the Israeli Mossad grabbed him out that country and brought him back to Israel for trial. The trial was an international sensation and although I was only nine-years old I remember it because even then I was reading my dad’s books like William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Eichmann on trial in Israel, 1962

Eichmann on trial in Israel, 1962

Here are two paragraphs that outline her philosophy coming out of the Eichmann trail.

She controversially uses the phrase “the banality of evil” to characterize Eichmann’s actions as a member of the Nazi regime, in particular his role as chief architect and executioner of Hitler’s genocidal “final solution” (Endlosung) for the “Jewish problem.” Her characterization of these actions, so obscene in their nature and consequences, as “banal” is not meant to position them as workaday. Rather it is meant to contest the prevalent depictions of the Nazi’s inexplicable atrocities as having emanated from a malevolent will to do evil, a delight in murder. As far as Arendt could discern, Eichmann came to his willing involvement with the program of genocide through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. From Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem (where he had been brought after Israeli agents found him in hiding in Argentina), Arendt concluded that far from exhibiting a malevolent hatred of Jews which could have accounted psychologically for his participation in the Holocaust, Eichmann was an utterly innocuous individual. He operated unthinkingly, following orders, efficiently carrying them out, with no consideration of their effects upon those he targeted. The human dimension of these activities were not entertained, so the extermination of the Jews became indistinguishable from any other bureaucratically assigned and discharged responsibility for Eichmann and his cohorts.

Arendt concluded that Eichmann was constitutively incapable of exercising the kind of judgement that would have made his victims’ suffering real or apparent for him. It was not the presence of hatred that enabled Eichmann to perpetrate the genocide, but the absence of the imaginative capacities that would have made the human and moral dimensions of his activities tangible for him. Eichmann failed to exercise his capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself, which would have permitted self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds. This amounted to a failure to use self-reflection as a basis for judgement, the faculty that would have required Eichmann to exercise his imagination so as to contemplate the nature of his deeds from the experiential standpoint of his victims. This connection between the complicity with political evil and the failure of thinking and judgement inspired the last phase of Arendt’s work, which sought to explicate the nature of these faculties and their constitutive role for politically and morally responsible choices.

Much of Arendt’s work revolves around the ideas of thinking and judgment. To apply this to Eichmann she would have concluded he didn’t believe what he was doing was morally wrong and that sort of thinking made his judgment rational to him.

I believe her assessment is biblically accurate. An assessment like that fits the biblical data that the inner man is badly damaged, medically incurable as Jeremiah 17:9 would say. In other words Eichmann’s unredeemed heart became so hardened he was immune to compassion and moral categories seemed irrelevant to him.  Eichmann’s conscience was seared and his heart hardened just as Pharoah’s heart was hardened in Exodus. Some would say that Eichmann was mentally ill but the Bible would say he had a hard heart.

Jesus defines our basic problem as a heart problem, or an inner man problem. He never says we are mentally ill. He says we have a treasure problem:

“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit,  for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:43-45 ESV)

In other words, our actions, attitudes, behaviors, speech and so forth come from the inside out and are dependent on what we treasure.

Eichmann saw himself in terms of wanting of being a well-thought of  bureaucrat. He aimed to please Hitler and his superiors even if that meant supporting genocide and extermination of those the Nazis deemed undesirables. Eichmann did not fear God and so he had a hard heart. His passion was pleasing his superiors. His idol was the affirmation he received from the accolades associated with pleasing them.

I would submit that Eichmann’s example fits the profile of many a Nazi. There wasn’t anything particularly evil about Eichmann or anyone else in being German that enabled the holocaust. A thoroughly hardened heart is capable of every kind of evil. When someone goes on a killing spree in modern America we see the hardened heart in action. It differs only in scope and magnitude to what the Nazi’s did.

So what hope do any of us have. Jeremiah 17:10 gives us a clue.

“I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jeremiah 17:10 ESV)

The passage means that only God  understands the inner recesses of human motives, thinking and decisions (ESV Study Bible). In other words without God we cannot grasp the depth of our own depravity and our desperate need for a Savior to do some heart surgery!

Much of the above has come to my mind again as I read through the story of Pastor Henry Gerecke a Missouri-Synod Lutheran pastor/Army chaplain who was given the job “of saving some” of the Nuremberg defendants-the most evil among the evil.

As far as I know Eichmann never repented but what if he had? Would God have forgiven his sins and judged him with mercy? For some, that is an impossible thought and I certainly understand the emotion but then again I think of the story of Corrie Ten Boom who could and did find forgiveness in your heart when she recognized one of the SS guards at a church where she was giving her story.

To answer our question we must consult the Scriptures.

Stay tuned for Part Two.

For further reading:

The UKs Daily Mail did a major story on the release of the book. I’ve linked it here.

Interesting link titled 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century. The author makes the important point that atrocities are not limited to a particular nationality, a particular religion or a particular type of government. The only difference in the listed atrocities is the scope and scale of each. In other words the capacity to commit atrocity is a universal human problem.





Why Americans Should Thank King George I

1 Comment

There is an interesting article at by Michael Barone titled, Three Hundred Years Later Americans Owe a Debt to King George I.

To most Americans George I would be even more obscure than George III who was King of England during the War for Independence. Yet without a George I there would not have been a George III to turn the world upside down-the song the British Army played as they surrendered at Yorktown.

The Georges were Hanoverian Germans and they secured the British throne through the back door so-to-speak.

As Barone points out the previous monarch was a gal by the name of Queen Anne.

Back in those days government and religion were mixed together in an unsavory soup whereby loyalty to the state was often determined by one’s religion. The union of England, Scotland and Ireland had a rather tumultuous history where religion was a bigger deal than it is now.

Queen Anne was a Protestant, meaning Church of England-Anglican, but her dad King James II was Roman Catholic. James II was driven from the throne in 1688-89 in what was called the Glorious Revolution.

James got into trouble because he appointed fellow Catholics to high positions including the military. James decreed he could suspend Parliament and in particular the law that decreed that military officers had to be members of the Church of England. He also had not called for a Parliament for three years and abolished the colonial legislatures in the American colonies.

Looking back hundreds of years we see the issue through the lens of freedom of religion but at the time there was no such thing and such ideas were in the future.

What really bothered Parliament was the fact that the king believed he could ignore the law and do what he pleased. In other words it was a power struggle between those who made law (Parliament) and the head of state (king) who thought he could ignore it when he chose to do so. In those days the balance of power issues we are familiar with (Congress, President, Supreme Court) were still being worked out and Parliament which had gained the majority vote in the English Civil War was not keen on giving up their new-found power.

Cigarette Card featuring one of Oliver Cromwell's "Ironsides" Heave Cavalry that were instrumental in winning the the war for Parliament over Charles I and the Royalists.

Cigarette Card featuring one of Oliver Cromwell’s “Ironsides” Heavy Cavalry that were instrumental in winning the the war for Parliament over Charles I and the Royalists.

Parliament feared, rightly so, an absolutist type monarchy like that which was in power in France, a country that would eventually have an incredibly bloody revolution that ultimately would result in the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. James II was succeeded by Anne’s sister Mary who was married to William of Orange (both Protestants). William and Mary agreed with Parliament  that monarchs could not simply suspend the law and that’s where the Founding Fathers got the idea the President would have limited power (Remember that the Founding Fathers were all English and they knew their history.) As a footnote William and Mary College in Virginia is named for the famous pair and Thomas Jefferson attended there.

It get s little complicated but stay with me here; it’s important.

Parliament had passed a law in 1701 that barred Catholics and anyone married to a Catholic from being king. Remember, we’re looking back hundreds of years and there is no such thing a state without a state church (a practice that continues today in much of Europe but with far less importance).

The law perpetrated a crisis when Anne died because all her relatives in line for succession were Catholics. Just before Anne died she smelled revolution and fired her pro-Catholic advisers and picked a loyal Protestant who would ensure that succession would go to a Protestant. The Duke of Marlborough (an ancestor of Winston Churchill) would use the military to make sure there was little trouble. There was, but that’s another story.

Eventually the powers that were found a suitable Protestant, a distant cousin of Anne. His name was George Ludwig and a Hanoverian German. He could not speak a word of English.

According to Barone the Hanoverian kings (George I, II and III) were not all that popular and heavily criticized as we begin to see a more obvious freedom of the press and freedom of expression by British citizens. Barone also notes that overall the Hanoverian kings were good for the UK as it enjoyed an economic posterity that rivaled their greatest rival of France.

As for the colonies the George’s practiced a neglect that the colonies rather enjoyed. The colonies tended to rule themselves which they liked and things didn’t come to a head until George III became guilty of over reach but more importantly by refusing to negotiate with those he considered rebels-hence the War of Independence.

Barone does not make the following point but I will.

The US emerged from the War of Independence with strong ideas regarding the balance of power between the various branches of government. The Founders knew what they were doing fearing that an absolutist would once again suspend laws that he or she didn’t like. The Constitution was designed to keep all concerned in their proper place and although it could be messy and time-consuming it has worked pretty well until now.

Now we have a President who uses executive action and statutory neglect to full advantage. He does not enforce laws he does not like and goes around the lawmakers (Congress) every chance he gets. The Senate, one-half of the Congress is complicit in his designs and the other half of Congress (the House of Representatives) is blamed for the executive action run a muck because according to the President “Congress won’t act” yet it cannot because the President’s allies control the Senate.

This may all change in the November elections if both Houses of Congress go conservative and undo much of the damage. If not, we can expect more abuses of power from the Administration and it’s allies in the Senate and in the mainstream press who seem to think an abuse of power will never come back to bite them in the butt.

The US is still rather unique in the way it is set-up. Technically, we are ruled by a document called the Constitution, a document our leaders are supposed to uphold. When our leaders no longer take that seriously what is the Christian to do? The Bible says we are to be loyal to the emperor (1 Pe. 2:13) and every human institution (like our Constitution and civil authority in general). But what if they are in opposition to one another? What if the governors of 26 States uphold the Constitution and the other 24 side with a lawless President. What if Congress remains hopelessly divided and a President, like James II simply decides to do what he pleases? What if?

I do not have all the answers-just the principle that was established so long ago by William and Mary and the English Parliament. We are a nation of laws and the king or President just does not get to do whatever pleases. Limiting the power of the executive branch of government should be a concern to both Democrats and Republicans and the fact that it does appear to concern the Democrats one bit should concern us all.





The Great Martian War

1 Comment

The other day I was flipping channels and stumbled on BBC-America. The title of the program on next immediately grabbed my attention-The Great Martian War.

I still remember as a kid watching the 1953 movie, War of the Worlds with my dad and my dad explaining to me that the concept was based on a 1930’s radio program which in turn was based on H.G. Wells’ classic The War of the Worlds. Later I obtained the Classics Illustrated comic book titled War of the Worlds and read it until it almost fell apart (I still have it.)

I even watched the 2005 version of War of the Worlds starring Tom Cruise (it was okay).

Classics Illustrated-War of the Worlds

Classics Illustrated-War of the Worlds

So when The Great Martian War popped up I immediately knew the BBC was tinkering with a classic story. I spent the next two hours watching the special.

The Great Martian War is an alternate history. The war starts one year before the Great War started (1913) and ends one year before the Great War historically ended (1917).

The twist on the Great War is immediate because the Martians land in Germany destroying a significant part of the Kaiser’s Army. The Germans call for help as the Martians begin to spread out. The result is a type of League of Nations alliance uniting (rather than fighting each other as they historically did) to destroy the Martians.

The Great Martian War is cleverly put together. The producers took period film from the Great War and spliced Martian war machines into it creating a newsreel effect that was convincing.

Still from The Great Martian War featuring the Martian war machines.

Still from The Great Martian War featuring the Martian war machines.

The other device they used to give the alternate history an air of authenticity was the use of interviews. The producers had regular people who had survived the war tell their stories at various times during the special. Two modern-day historians are added to the mix to give their interpretations of  the war. They do not agree.

Most of the regular people are soldiers from Britain, Germany, Canada and the US. At least one is a civilian-an elderly woman who was a ten-year-old girl at the time of the invasion. All the actors did a fine job but her remembrances were particularly striking especially as she describes her emotions as she witnessed the destruction of a Martian war machine and the crowd’s vengeful attitude toward the wounded Martian pilot.

The Martian War machines are virtually indestructible and come in two sizes. One is the massive tripod called a Heron. Herons are piloted by a Martian and might be compared to a modern tank except for their great towering height. Herons are protected by a force field and are armed with blasters (the heat guns of War of the Worlds). Herons are supported by “Spiders” smaller bipeds with blasters and nasty tentacles the impale people. Spiders are the infantry of the Martians.

Against these war machines the allies marshal the typical equipment of the First World War-heavy artillery, early tanks, massed infantry and bi-planes.

The tactic of "going over-the-top" was used in The Great Martian War just as it was in the Great War with the same results-huge casualty rates with little to nothing to gain.

The tactic of “going over-the-top” was used in The Great Martian War just as it was in the Great War with the same results-huge casualty rates with little to nothing to gain.

The war breaks down into a type of trench warfare with the allies using the tactics of massed infantry attacks to destroy the Martians. The casualties are horrendous thus reflecting the Great War’s butcher bill very well.

The Martians win every time but seem contented with small advances. The US in neutral under President Wilson but is heavily criticized by former President Teddy Roosevelt who recognizes the danger of sitting on the sidelines.

The US is finally pushed into war when the Martians (and some say the British) sink three American ships that were supplying the war effort.

America entered WW1 in April, 1917. In The Great Martian War America also enters the war late but this time under the leadership of President Teddy Roosevelt who takes over after Wilson resigns.

America entered WW1 in April, 1917. In The Great Martian War America also enters the war late but this time under the leadership of President Teddy Roosevelt who takes over after Wilson resigns.

Wilson resigns and Teddy takes over and declares war on the Martians this giving the allies a new source of man power.

It was an interesting segment in the special. The allies are desperate for America’s involvement but Wilson keeps the US out. The three ships are lost with all hands and everyone assumes the Martians did it except for a few that guess maybe the British did it to force the US to declare war.

Another interesting story involves the great-granddaughter of a Canadian-Iroquois soldier who eventually decipher the Martian language.

The allies get a break when they accidentally bring down a Heron with a massive under ground explosion. Seven Spiders surrender in the aftermath and the allies discover the Spiders do not have pilots but are controlled by the Heron pilots. The allies start to understand some of the technology used against them and begin to turn it against the Martians.

The big break occurs when a Heron breaks through the lines and makes it way to London crossing the Channel in the process. Three fighter planes bring the Heron down using the captured technology and the Martian pilot is wounded. The crowd wants to tear the Martian to pieces but the Martian is “saved” by British police mounted on horses.

Spoiler alert here.

The police take the Martian to a nearby hospital in an effort to learn about the enemy but the Martian quickly dies. The autopsy reveals the Martian did not die from its wounds but from a virus carried by the policemen’s horses!

The allies quickly realize that the Martians are vulnerable and mass produce the virus and infect every horse they can find with it. They launch one last ground offensive designed to get the Martians close to the massed horses and the horses do the rest. The Martians are killed by bio warfare in a similar fashion to H.G. Well’s classic except in that it was the common cold that brings the Martians down.

The downside of the horse born virus is that it morphs and kills millions of people just as the post World War One Spanish Flu did (50 million world-wide).

The Canadian Iroquois soldier decipher the Martian language and when it’s uncovered many years later it is discovered that the war is not over yet. And it that lies the message, although a bit ambiguous, it was ominous.

I enjoyed the special. I thought it faithful to The War of the Worlds conceptually and the use of a documentary format made it an interesting alternative history.

The obvious themes were the great nations uniting in the face of a common threat, the blessings and cursings of technology and the not-so-subtle suggestion that humans and Martians are all infected with a parasitical virus at the root of all wars.

The War of the Worlds and it’s spin-offs have always intrigued me. I know that H.G. Wells was a visionary of sorts and his fiction was meant to be thought-provoking as well as entertaining and by and large it is. I also know that Wells was a Darwinian Socialist and that he rejected orthodox Christianity. To what extent his shifting religious views influenced his fiction I am not sure. To what extent the world views of the producers of The Great Martian War and the War of the Worlds movies influenced them I am also not sure.

I guess my biggest take-away from The Great Martian War besides the entertainment value is the notion that mankind is capable of some kind of unity if the threat is substantial enough. We’ve seen this historically on more than one occasion. We’ve also seen that the unity achieved during the threat abates rather quickly when the threat is dissipated and the allies, once friends, now become bitter enemies.

A Darwinian like Wells might think long and hard as to why that is and ponder what the perfect World-State would look like but he would never arrive at the central problem.

As the great scholar Pogo once remarked, “we have met the enemy and it is us”  and the truth is we are the problem. We are the problem because we carry the stain of sin, a virus we cannot get rid of because it is embedded in our spiritual DNA. What we can do is look to the Creator and his solution to the sin problem-a Savior, Jesus Christ who came to earth to redeem and restore a paradise lost. Whatever else might be said about The War of the Worlds it can certainly be connected to the war within us all if take the time to look.


A Heron attacks London and destroys Big Ben before being brought down in The Great Martian War.

The Destruction of Herod’s Temple

1 Comment


The picture of the coin is from a historical\archaeological blog I subscribe too. The coin is called a Bar Kockhba coin.

Bar Kockhba led a Jewish revolt against the Romans (reign of Hadrian) in 132-136 A.D. The Romans won and the result was many Jews were disbursed throughout the Roman Empire to lessen the chances of another revolt. The coin is interesting for its messianic and eschatological symbols that include a Star of David and a rebuilt [third] Temple.

The first Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians and he Second Temple also known as Herod’s temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 A.D. during the first Jewish revolt. Thus, by 132 A.D. the Jews were hoping for a messiah to rescue them from the Romans and rebuild what would have been the Third Temple.

In Matthew 24 Jesus foretells the destruction of the Second Temple:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2 ESV)

Model of the Second Temple from wiki

Model of the Second Temple from wiki

It seems that the disciples were curious and possibly distressed a bit by Jesus’ comment. They approach him privately and ask two questions although the second question is of two parts, “what will be the sign of your coming” and “of the end of the age” suggesting that the disciples were making a connection between all three events.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3 ESV)

Scholars have argued about those connections ever since. D.A. Carson, noted New Testament scholar said this in his commentary about Matthew 24:

“Few chapters of the Bible have called forth more disagreement among interpreters than Matthew 24 and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21. The history of the interpretation of this chapter is immensely complex.” D.A. Carson (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8, page 488).

To render an opinion on all that would require much more space than a blog would allow so I’ll keep my commentary to Jesus’ remarkable prophecy regarding what most scholars do agree on, the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus in 70 A.D.

Herod, also known as Herod the Great because of his architectural achievements began work on the Second Temple in 20 B.C. or so. Work was not totally completed until 64 A.D. Therefore, the temple only stood completed for 6 years before being destroyed by the Romans.

When the disciples asked Jesus about the temple’s destruction it would be approximately 40 years in the future although the main buildings would have been finished when they asked the question.

The occasion for the temple’s destruction was the first major or great Jewish revolt against the Romans (66-73 A.D.). The Bar Kockhba revolt or war was the third major confrontation between Jew and Roman (132-135 A.D.). The second war was known as the Kotis War of 115-117 A.D. although this war has received much less attention than the other two.

Judea was a powder keg prior to the first war. There had always been religious tensions between the occupiers (Seleucid Greeks and the later Romans) and the occupied. These tensions were often exacerbated by the occupiers such as when the Romans hung Caesar’s image in the temple as was attempted by the mad emperor Caligula (37 A.D to 41 A.D.) who really believed he was a god.

Some Romans on the spot knew better than needlessly offend the Jews and the Caligula crisis was averted but the area still simmered in discontent.

Heavy taxation contributed to the grievances against the Romans.  In fact, the writer of Matthew’s gospel was a tax-collector. Jesus was thought of as being the friend of sinners meaning prostitutes and tax-collectors. Matthew would have been one unpopular fellow for collaborating with the Romans!

Attacks on Roman citizens and their Jewish collaborators like tax collectors were made by Jewish zealots called sicarii because of the knife they used. The zealots took every opportunity to fan the flames of revolt. Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ twelve and the one who famously betrayed him was a zealot. His name “Iscariot” is a corruption of the Latin word “sicarius” meaning assassin or murderer.

By 66 A.D. the Romans were fed up with zealots and assassins and plundered Herod’s Temple in retaliation. In the process they killed over 6000 Jews in typical Roman fashion. That led to full scale rebellion and the Romans had to send a full legion plus auxiliaries from Syria to stamp the revolt out. This force was soundly defeated by an aroused population led by the zealots. The legion’s eagle was lost and thus a major disgrace for the Romans.

Sicarii knife. Sicarri means "dagger men," Jewish zealots or dagger men engaged in the assassination of Roman citizens and Jewish collaborators.

Sicarii knife. Sicarri means “dagger men,” Jewish zealots or dagger men engaged in the assassination of Roman citizens and Jewish collaborators.

The Romans of this time period never accepted defeat and they soon brought in more legions. The new force was  commanded by Roman General Vespasian. Vespasian would become the emperor who would build the famous coliseum partly financed with the treasures taken from the destruction of the temple.

Vespasian fought a thoughtful, costly and slow campaign to subdue the rebels but by 69 A.D. he had been called away from the campaign to fight in yet another Roman Civil War in what became known as the year of four emperors. He would emerge victorious and become emperor. His son Titus was left in command of the legions and he would begin to besiege the center of resistance in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Stone relief celebrating Titus's Triumph in taking Jerusalem. A Menorah can clearly be seen among the treasures looted.

Stone relief celebrating Titus’s Triumph in taking Jerusalem. A Menorah can clearly be seen among the treasures looted.

The siege took a full seven months. The temple was torn down (the stones being thrown down that Jesus referred to) as well as Jerusalem’s walls. Most of the survivors were sold into slavery. The war went on until 73 A.D. when the Fortress of Masada fell, it’s defenders choosing suicide over slavery.

Roman denarius with Titus on one side and the commemoration of his triumph over Jerusalem on the other.

Roman denarius with Titus on one side and the commemoration of his triumph over Jerusalem on the other.

As noted above with the Bar Kockhba coin by 132 A.D. the Jews were expecting yet another political messiah to drive out the Romans and rebuild the temple. Some Christians today believe that a rebuilt temple is necessary before Jesus returns. They believe that modern Israel will accomplish the task even though a Moslem mosque sits on the temple mount. For many Christians a third temple holds much significance just as it would for many religious Jews. The region is no less volatile than it was in the days of Jesus and Titus.

It seems to me from a reading of Matthew 24 that the disciple’s expectations were that all three events would be fulfilled in relatively short order believing that Jesus was the political messiah that everyone thought would throw off the Roman yoke.

Jesus’ answers which are long indicate otherwise. Instead Jesus predicts a near present fulfillment (the destruction of the temple) and a future fulfillment of the end of an age and a reference to his second coming. Jesus’ answer was no doubt confusing to the disciples who maintained preconceived notions like many of their countrymen.

John 2:13-22 sheds some additional light on the issue.

The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:13-22 ESV)

In this rather straight forward account Jesus makes reference to the temple as his Father’s house. He is angry about the money changers and turns over their tables.. His disciples viewing the incident do some remembering that Jesus is consumed by zeal for his Father’s house.

The Jews react to Jesus’ actions and words and ask for a sign (of authority). Jesus answers, “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews misunderstand the “this” and assume he means Herod’s Temple. He does not mean Herod’s Temple.

At the time the disciples don’t understand but in verses 21-22 John says the “this” was Jesus’ body and that when Jesus was raised from the dead they believed the Scripture having remembered what Jesus had said. In other words the disciples do not totally get the prophecy until Jesus rises from the dead. They then remember what he has said about temples and himself being The Temple that would save people from their sins.

Today many professing Christians do not look at the Bible as being reliable or they think it is outdated. Yet, fulfilled prophecy is hard to explain away when taken seriously by an objective person.

Matthew 24 is a fascinating study in fulfilled prophecy and the fulfillment of later prophecies.

Obama Crosses the Rubicon


I believe that the founders of our country had a measure of genius and most of that came from being keen observers of the past. They were educated men with a grasp of history as well as students of government of states long ago that had passed into the dust bin of history. They also seemed to understand human nature quite well which compelled them to create a system of checks and balances to prevent one faction of government becoming too powerful and tyrannical.

I'm Thomas Jefferson and if I could I'd roll over in my grave.

I’m Thomas Jefferson and if I could I’d roll over in my grave.

Perhaps the government they studied most was that of ancient Rome.

Rome was a republic before it became an empire. It wasn’t a republic in the same sense the US is supposed to be a republic but it did have republican ideals in an early development form.

For example, the Roman Legions under the Republic (and later under the Empire) carried an Eagle Standard (Aquila). A small model of an eagle sat on top of the standard pole and right under that eagle was a small flag with the letters SPQR. The letters stood for the Senate and People of Rome.


The Roman Republic was under the rule of a plurality of senators. The Romans had a distrust of kings having tossed out the last Etruscan one prior to the formation of the republic. To prevent the military from abuses the legions were controlled by consuls who had term limits and who had to be elected by the senators. It certainly was not a perfect system but it was unique compared to the despotic regimes to the east and barbarian warlords to the west and north of Rome. The uniqueness of  the system is why our founders found aspects of it quite attractive.

The Roman Republic died a slow death as powerful individuals (Marius, Sulla, Caesar) backed by the powerful Roman Legions hacked away (usually literally) at its ideals. This was the issue that got Julius Caesar killed. The Roman Senate rightly suspected that Caesar would make himself emperor after he had taken care of his last rival (Pompey) and crossed the  Rubicon River essentially daring the Senate to stop him.  We remember what followed as the Ides of March and Brutus’ betrayal but at the root was the distrust of one man becoming too popular and too powerful. Hence, Caesar was assassinated.

What followed was another nasty civil war in which Caesar’s nephew Octavius emerged the victor. Octavius became Augustus and the republic was dead forever. Augustus was followed by Tiberius, the infamous Caligula, Claudius and Nero who was the last of Caesar’s line.

Caligula has gone down in history as the insane tyrant. Scholars debate the degree of insanity. However, even by the loose Roman standards Caligula was a degenerate and that's saying something! One of the stories regarding Caligula and his disdain for the Roman Senate includes making the Senate honor his horse as a fellow senator.

Caligula has gone down in history as the insane tyrant. Scholars debate the degree of insanity. However, even by the loose Roman standards Caligula was a degenerate and that’s saying something! One of the stories regarding Caligula and his disdain for the Roman Senate includes making the Senate honor his horse as a fellow senator.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

While Caesar’s line was extinguished other strong men emerged as the emperor became more and more supreme and the senate less and less important often serving as a mere rubber stamp for the emperor. The emperor had a Praetorian Guard while the Senate did not so to disagree with the emperor was to risk one’s life and property.

The founders of our republic knew all this and much more. They knew the temptation of power and they knew what tyranny looked like. They took great pains to mitigate human nature and lessen the risk of one faction of government dominating all the rest. The chief executive, the President, was to be a President and not a king and his power was to be limited by a congress while a watchful Supreme Court was to make sure the Constitution was the law of the land rather than a edict from a strong man.

While the system was not perfect it worked well enough until fairly recently when an unscrupulous cabal of progressives under President Obama sought to undermine the balance of power by over using executive orders.

The latest outrage is the hiring of John Podesta as counselor to President Obama. Politico puts it this way:

It also signals a more aggressive focus by the White House on using executive authority to circumvent Congress in the final three years of the administration.

The vehicle used to circumvent the check and balance of Congress (House and Senate) is executive authority. In other words, if the President says it, then it will be done. It’s Podesta’s job to counsel Obama and use that power.The rational put out to the American people will be, it will end the grid lock of a do nothing Congress. It’s a knock against the Republican House that wrestled control of the house from the Democrats in 2010 as Obamacare was roundly rejected. Podesta’s focus will be ramming that deeply flawed entitlement down the people’s throats come hell or high water.

In other words, Podesta is the power behind the throne (and the IRS and FBI could very well turn out to be the Praetorian Guard and used as enforcers. We’ve already seen glimpses of that!

It’s a naked power grab on top of any number naked power grabs by this administration. Why there hasn’t been more of an outcry in the House and Senate suggests that the majority are complicit in the undoing of our republic. Harry Reid, strong man in the Senate would be chief among the conspirators.

The people, by and large, seem largely ignorant or indifferent as to how our government is supposed to work. The Founders were not afraid of gridlock. They were afraid of power grabs and gridlock prevented that!

I suppose as long as the Bread and Circuses (entitlements) continue the majority will slumber through it all being more concerned about their free iPhones that their loss of liberty.

Abraham Lincoln in the midst of a bloody civil war said this in the Gettysburg Address: Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It is perishing folks. It’s why I’m Tea Party.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: