The Autumn 2005 issue of the Wilson Quarterly discusses “The Rise and Decline of Christian Militarism in Prussia-Germany from Hegel to Bonhoeffer: The End Effect of the Fallacy of Sacred Violence” by John A. Moses, in War and Society (May 2005):
G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) formulated what became virtually Prussia’s official philosophy. Systematizing Luther’s theology of state power, he portrayed the state as the instrument of God’s will on earth. And in the Hegelian view, observes Moses, a state had to be able “not only to defend itself but to expand at the expense of less powerful neighbors. By the very fact of being weaker, they had no justification to continue to exist and therefore, rightly, ought to be absorbed into the greater power.”
Beginning with Otto von Bismarck’s chancellorship of the Reich he founded under Prussian leadership in 1871, many Germans “came to believe that Germany was the ‘World Historical Nation,’ chosen by Almighty God to exert preeminence in the world.” Not even defeat in World War I disabused them of this notion.
Hegel’s philosophy, giving divine sanction to the state’s power politics and warfare, “underlay not only the discipline of history but also Protestant theology in German universities,” writes Moses. German Protestant theology “endorsed emphatically the notion of a warrior God.”
Curiously, an important basis for the development of ideologies of sacred violence in Christianity are the efforts by early Christian leaders to Christianize the Germanic tribes. No longer able to rely on traditional Roman power for support and protection, Christian leaders hoped to incorporate the Germans into their religious sphere of influence; unfortunately, Germanic culture at the time relied heavily on warrior virtues which were incompatible Christian doctrines.
So, the Christians compromised: they allowed Germans to portray Jesus, God, and the disciples as warriors in the Germanic tradition and Christians thereby gained influence over the German warriors. This ultimately changed Christianity forever, with the consequences till being felt down through today.
Read More:
Interested article. However, you fail to mention that Bonhoeffer opposed what was occurring in Germany at the time. This eventually led him to become part of the plot to assassinate Hitler, which led to his arrest and execution less than a month before Hitler’s suicide and the end of the Third Reich. While I cannot deny that Christianity has done it’s share to perpetuate unChristian behavior and “sacred violence” it should be noted that while condemning the practice is absolutely right, you should also realize that their actions were wrong. Christianity does not endorse violence. Sure, Christians will use examples from the Old Testament, but they are still wrong. Let’s shift focus. Are the Mennonites not Christian because they are pacifists? I suggest that you check out the following website: http://www.plowcreek.org/ and look at the long list of writings about Christian pacifism. I would also suggest “The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred” by James G. Williams. The subtitle is “Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence” One problem that atheists have a rather facile view of God and the Bible. They look at the most extreme adherents of the religions and say that this extremism is the norm – or should be. They are as superficial as religious fundamentalists in this sense. Just because war is described in the Bible, doesn’t mean that it is okay for it to happen today. Williams makes an interesting argument which suggests this. For myself, I do not think it’s the inerrant word of God. Personally, I do not believe in the just war theory, though it seems that some atheists and religious fundamentalists find common ground on this subject. I think some atheists are civil in their opinions and that their opinions should be heeded by those who practice a religion. The atheistic viewpoint of religion is essential for weeding out what is wrong with religion. Belief is a matter of opinion that should be respected. I agree with atheists who feel that they should not be forced to listen to religious people. This is another point of agreement between some atheists and religious fundamentalists. Both have the American tendency to be winers – thinking they are being persecuted by the other. If there was a sense of civility in the dialogue this feeling would not exist. On the topic of science and evolution, there are those like Stephen Gould who find that evolution and religion are not incompatible. I suggest you read books which also deal with the anthropic principle and also the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest, paleontologist and geologist – particularly The Phenomena of Man.
Which just goes to show how deeply ingrained violent imagery and ideas of sacred violence are in Christianity.
Of course their actions were wrong. But you seem to assume that “wrong” means “not Christian,” which is itself wrong. That sort of assumption entails the inference that “right” is the same as “Christian” which ironically is one of the ingredients of religious violence — the assumption that one’s religion is always right.
Of course it does. Don’t fall victim to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Of course they are. The fact that there are endorsements of violence in Christianity doesn’t mean that there aren’t also endorsements of pacifism. It’s not an absolute either/or situation.
You seem to assume that I’m unfamiliar with the history of Christian pacifism. That’s pretty arrogant.
No, that would be the people who assume that there is only one correct way of reading the text instead of multiple ways – including ways that they don’t personally approve of.
Cite someone who says that.
Of course, the same is true of anything described in the Bible – which forces the question of why treat it as authoritative in anything.
Once you start down that road, it’s hard to defend it as any sort of word of any sort of god.
It would be begging the question to assume from the outset that there is anything necessarily right in a religion.
Oh? Why? Is it your position that all opinions should be “respected”? If so, why? If not, then why just religious opinions?
You don’t seem to respect the “facile” view of fundamentalists.
You do know, don’t you, that surveys show that atheists are the most despised and distrusted group in America? Or are you too busy making arrogant assumptions about others to ask questions and do any research?
Once again, you arrogantly assume that I’m unfamiliar with any of this. I suppose this relieves you of the need to make a case for why you think this position is correct.