The Lutheran Reformation saved the Papacy

The greatest danger of all--secularization--the danger which came from within, from the Popes themselves and their 'nipoti', was adjourned for centuries by the German Reformation. ... This alone had made the expedition against Rome (1527) possible and successful, [and] so did it compel the Papacy to become once more the expression of a world-wide spiritual power, to raise itself from the soulless debasement in which it lay, and to place itself at the head of all the enemies of this reformation. ... In the face of the defection of half Europe, was a new, regenerated hierarchy, which avoided all the great and dangerous scandals of former times, particularly nepotism ... It only existed and is only intelligible in opposition to the seceders. In this sense it can be said with perfect truth that the moral salvation of the Papacy is due to its mortal enemies. ... Without the Reformation ... the whole ecclesiastical State would long ago have passed into secular hands.

-- Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (London: Phaidon, 1945), 79.

America: The most English, the most German, the most Protestant, the most guilt-ridden this Columbus Day

 

... the idea that Britain might celebrate, say, Cecil Rhodes in the way that Spain does Columbus seems almost heretical. The English-speaking peoples evince a peculiar compulsion to apologize for their overseas victories — a compulsion not much shared by Arabs or Portuguese or Russians or Turks or Italians. When it comes to self-criticism, only the Germans give us a run for our money.

Why should that be? Is it some curious manifestation of Protestant guilt? Is it that Anglosphere universities, unusually, remove students from their families and their hometowns, leaving them in each other’s company and making them unusually vulnerable to purity spirals and silly ideas? Or is it simply that everyone loves an underdog and the English-speaking peoples are almost never underdogs?

Whatever the explanation, we have reached a strange cultural moment when the countries that did the most to spread personal freedom and representative government across the globe are also the ones most embarrassed about their achievements.

 

More.

The post-modern academy is the pre-modern academy but more perverse, arguing about how many gay angels can fit on the head of a pin

Seen here, where righteous Lot (2 Peter 2:7) might as well be the inhospitable bad guy and welcoming gay people might as well be the same thing as Abraham welcoming the Trinity at Mamre:

The men of Sodom were not “gay” in even the remotest sense of contemporary LGBT identity if for no other reason than the ancients did not share modern conceptions of sexual orientation. ... as Longman rightly insists, “We should not consider the city of Sodom to be filled with men who have same-sex attraction. Rather, these men want[ed] to humiliate their foreign visitors” through a heinous act of sexual violence. ... The ancient audience of this text would thus have seen the “abominable”/tôʿēbāh sexual acts of the men of Sodom as the culmination of gross inhospitality, not as sexual desire per se, and certainly not as a signifier of any kind of underlying LGBT sexual orientation. ... the sin of Sodom does not pertain to sexual orientation as conceptualized today. The men of Sodom were not sinful for “being gay,” but for attempting to commit an appalling crime—the humiliation of vulnerable foreign guests through an act of sexual violence. Despite the ugly caricature in Jack Chick’s Doom Town, the men of Sodom are emphatically not representative of loving, consensual same-sex couples today.

We're supposed to believe a town full of heterosexual men bent on sodomizing not Lot's daughters but his male guests is a more plausible tale?

Has a greater calumny been invented by the gay mafia against the heterosexual majority than this? Not even the Red Army invading Berlin in 1945 was said to have stooped to such lows, raping every German woman in sight.

The account in Genesis is obviously an etiological tale, invented to explain theologically the historical fact of the destruction of the cities of the plain in approximately 1700 B.C., as a place where predatory "men inflamed with lust for one another" (Romans 1:27) were fried to a crisp by "a Tunguskalike, cosmic airburst event". 

No, no, no, say our experts, defying the ancient theological explanations.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  

-- Jude 1:7

We live in an age of delusion where facts exist merely as fodder to be blown to smithereens to please our perverted whims, including the fact of predatory homosexual promiscuity, which has existed proverbially since time immemorial for a reason, because it's real:

A 1978 study reported that 75 percent of male homosexuals had been with 100 or more partners; 28 percent, the largest subcategory, reported more than 1,000 partners; 79 percent said more than half their partners were strangers; and 79 percent said more than half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once. Another survey 16 years later found that while 67.6 percent of men and 75.5 percent of women had only one sex partner in the previous year, only 2.6 percent of men and 1.2 percent of women engaging in same-sex relationships had thus limited themselves. Supporters of homosexuality, and advocates of gay marriage, rarely acknowledge the many partners gays have -- including those living together as couples.

Frequent or daily reception of the Eucharist is a complete novelty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As with priestly celibacy from 1139, the Immaculate Conception of Mary from 1854, papal infallibility from 1870, the Assumption of Mary from 1950, frequent reception of the Eucharist is a complete novelty.

Lutheran practice among conservative German-Americans in the United States in the early 20th Century was quarterly, and you had to register in advance AND meet with the pastor beforehand as if going to confession.  

The Roman Catholic Decree on Frequent & Daily Reception of Holy Communion dates merely from 1905.

It was designed to address a recent perceived historical development of religious decline, not some defect or missing element of revealed religion. The Eucharist was being ginned up to gin up flagging faith. And perhaps the decree's most ridiculous claim is that "Give us this day our daily bread" from the Lord's Prayer refers to daily reception of the Eucharist, when everything we know about early Christian practice is that the Eucharist was celebrated when Christians gathered together, at most on the first day of the week, not "often" but "as oft", i.e. "when":

Moreover, we are bidden in the Lord's Prayer to ask for "our daily bread" by which words, the holy Fathers of the Church all but unanimously teach, must be understood not so much that material bread which is the support of the body as the Eucharistic bread which ought to be our daily food. 

What's more, the Catholic conception from 1905 is completely upside down. The point of the Eucharist isn't that it is "pleasing to God", as if human beings do something, but rather that God does something. In the Eucharist, God serves up salvation, as in "Divine Service" or Gottesdienst.

Needless to say, none of this bears any relation to the historical Jesus, who to begin with never imagined a church would come into being, let alone where sacraments would be offered. The history of the church is a farce wherein the players have majored in the minors, or shall we say, in mere trifles and extra-curricular activities which are completely beside the point and often amount to nothing but superstition and idolatry.

. . . so that this practice, so salutary and so pleasing to God, not only might suffer no decrease among the faithful, but rather that it increase and everywhere be promoted, especially in these days when religion and the Catholic faith are attacked on all sides, and the true love of God and piety are so frequently lacking. ...

6. But since it is plain that by the frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is strengthened, the spiritual life more abundantly sustained, the soul more richly endowed with virtues, and the pledge of everlasting happiness more securely bestowed on the recipient, therefore, parish priests, confessors and preachers, according to the approved teaching of the Roman Catechism should exhort the faithful frequently and with great zeal to this devout and salutary practice.

In this culture of death, we sat still for 3,302 abortions every day for 20 years, so the libertarian shoulder-shrug over SARS-CoV-2 isn't surprising

The Germans acquiesced to a murderous Hitler, the Russians to a murderous Stalin, the Chinese to a murderous Mao, the Americans to The Murderous Individual.

Religion is not the cornerstone of the American Republic

Religion is not the cornerstone of the American Republic, but know-nothings keep repeating that it is, such as "the Framers first listed religious liberty for a reason".

No, they did not.

The original First Amendment to the US Constitution involved representation, not religion. The original Second Amendment in its turn addressed representation's remuneration, not religion. Not until the original Third Amendment did religious liberty come up, and guns in turn in the Fourth, and so on through what is now our Tenth Amendment. The original First and Second Amendments were the first two of twelve, but failed of ratification.

The supposed primacy of religion because it was a subject of the First Amendment is a myth, recently repeated again here by one Josh Hammer:

Religious liberty, defined perhaps as the ability of the religious to freely and unobtrusively practice their faiths and worship and obey the Almighty in accordance with the idiosyncratic dictates of one’s own conscience, is the cornerstone of the American republic. Numerically, the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are the first enumerated provisions of the very first ratified constitutional amendment. That is no mere coincident — the Framers first listed religious liberty for a reason.

This is nonsense. The original First Amendment, Article the First below, was about a formula for regularizing representation. That was the matter of first importance at the founding of the country. It is first in all the bills of rights which passed the Congress in 1789. Because it and its companion amendment were not ratifed at the founding, however, the Third Amendment became the First only by accident. While Article the First should have been ratified in view of what the Congress later did because the article wasn't ratified, as we'll see below, Article the Second was at least eventually ratified in the 27th Amendment ... in 1992.

Ratification of Article the First remains the great unfinished task from the Revolutionary era. If Article the Second could live on and be ratified in 1992, so can Article the First still be ratified today, or something close to it.

If the Revolution was sparked by a central animating outrage, it was taxation without representation. More than anything else it drove the first Americans to revolt against their English countrymen, with whom they otherwise shared the most intimate bonds of religious feeling, language, law, history, blood and custom. But religion or no, a distant parliament across the sea thought it could pick their fellow countrymen's pockets without their input or consent.

Americans today face a similar situation with the US Congress, even if they can't quite put it into words. The US president today may be greatly disapproved, but even he routinely far outscores the 535 men and women of an insular Congress in far away Washington, DC, who do not and cannot represent the 329 million people sprawled across this continent. The members of Congress go on and on wildly spending money which they no longer even collect sufficient taxes to cover but instead just borrow, in the people's name. This has been the default position of both parties in the wake of tax reform since the 1980s: "If you won't let us tax you to pay for it, we'll just borrow it instead", they seem to say. There is no brake on the spending, and in truth many don't want there to be.

We've seen this default behavior before.

Never too terribly bright in the first place, it finally dawned on the Congress back in the 1920s that it could fix the number in the US House at 435 because the founding generation had never settled the issue in Article the First.  With the Senate becoming a "super House" by virtue of the change to popular election, the House found it expedient to protect its own power by stopping itself from growing. Every new member, after all, dilutes the power of those already there and adds a vote for or against something current membership is already for or against. At the same time burgeoning immigration meant there were many new Germans, Irish and Italians in America which a WASPy Congress would rather not sit next to in the Capitol. The time was ripe to end the growth of representation.

The people, no longer reliably connected to the well springs of the founding, were none the wiser. They still aren't. Yet that act was the biggest power grab in the history of the Republic, second only to Abraham Lincoln's violation of the sovereign rights of the States. Each member of Congress since that time has accrued more and more power as a simple consequence of the country growing in population. Each one wields authority over ever larger legions of nameless faces in congressional districts now bloated to an average of 756,000 souls each in 2019. This subversion of the growth of representation with population was as sure a violation of the original intent of the constitution as was the Executive's War On the States. From the point of view of self-government, the one was as much an expression of tyranny as the other.

The results haven't been pretty. We now have a Congress the election of whose members routinely costs $10 million for a representative on average, $20 million for a Senator, none of whom know your name or care what you think. They pay more attention to the 11,586 registered lobbyists in 2018 than they do to us. There are nearly 27 lobbyists per member of the US House, and nearly one lobbyist for every 30,000 Americans, which ironically is the ratio for initial representation which Article the First originally had in mind. We have the best government which special interest money can buy. But just imagine: The founding generation fought bitterly over representation ratios of 1:30,000 vs. 1:50,000 and couldn't agree about them, but we sit idly by and let grifters domineer over ever growing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans. The founding generation would not recognize us as a free people.

As a consequence of this concentration of more and more power in fewer and fewer hands in the US House and Senate, the leaders of Congress such as Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell also loom much larger in importance than they ever should have, as have the political parties they represent. Minority voices get no hearing and gain no traction. A stultifying degeneration to the lowest common denominator prevails, purple in hue, mostly. Mediocrity spreads everywhere. Millions feel disaffected, to the extent that ex-patriation has become a thing in the last refuge for freedom on earth.

A US House today of 6,580 under Article the First, on the other hand, would indeed be more cumbersome and inefficient than the Speaker of the House having to whip just 218 votes to spend us blind, but that's kind of THE WHOLE IDEA. It's much harder to rack up a national debt of $22.829 trillion when you have to herd 3,291 cats to do it instead of 218, but that's exactly what passing the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was designed to forestall. The 1920s was about nothing if not about revolutionizing America in the interests of power concentrated in a large, professional and centralized government controlled by specialists, answering only to an elite of 535 zeroes which has gone on to bequeath to us a debt of $23 with twelve zeroes after it. 

Meanwhile religious people today still have their choice of roughly 345,000 congregations in the US where 151 million worship as they please, and the rest don't. We are not suffering under the dim pall of an Established Religion of Rome, Wittenberg, Jerusalem or Mecca. Yet somehow all this religious activity has done absolutely nothing to prevent all this profligacy and debt slavery. Some would even go so far as to say that religion has more than contributed to this sorry state of affairs. 

The inescapable truth is that WE ALL are indeed in servitude. WE ALL are on the hook for those trillions upon trillions of dollars, with no end in sight. Not individually perhaps, but when countries can no longer pay their bills, they tend not to last too long, and the innocent end up paying the same price as the spendthrifts, usually involuntarily through social decay, disease, famine and war.

We really ought to fix this while we still can. Representation is the cornerstone of the Republic, not religion, and it's high time we had some of the former again.     

Article the First:

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

Article the Second:

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

If Hillary can delete 30K emails and wipe her servers after subpoena, German Roman Catholic Church can destroy files involving thousands of sex crimes

Cardinal admits to Vatican summit that Catholic Church destroyed abuse files:

In a frank speech to the 190 cardinals, bishops and heads of religious orders taking part in the four-day summit, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx said the church's administration had left victims' rights "trampled underfoot" and "made it impossible" for the worldwide institution to fulfill its mission. "Files that could have documented the terrible deeds and named those responsible were destroyed, or not even created," said Marx, beginning a list of a number of practices that survivors have documented for years but church officials have long kept under secret. ...

Marx's admission to the church's destruction of files may have special significance in his native Germany, where an exhaustive September 2018 report on abuse in the country detailed cases involving 3,677 children but said files in at least two dioceses had been changed or destroyed. ... At a press briefing after his address Feb. 23, Marx clarified that he was referring in his speech to the September 2018 German report on the destruction of files. "I have absolutely no information as to other cases," said the cardinal.

 

German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller: 80% of cases of sexual assault in the church involved male youths not children

Homosexuality is to blame for sexual abuse, not Catholic church, claims German cardinal:

Cardinal Brandmüller claimed that only a “vanishingly small number” of clergy had committed abuses. He said the real problem was homosexuality and claimed it is “statistically proven” that there is a link between homosexuality and abuse.

Christopher Caldwell thinks Christmas' excess is German-Americans' last stand

Why are Americans so unhinged about Christmas?:

The most obnoxious advert on American television this Christmas season features a thirtyish man telling his wife he ‘got us a little something’ at a holiday sale. ...

[W]e are talking about $135,000 worth of truck and — even if you get it on sale — about a man giving a Christmas gift to himself that is worth more than the annual income of the median American family. ... 

Today there are articles in women’s magazines and on gossipy websites with titles like ‘How Not to Go Bankrupt This Christmas’. ...

Nothing is ever enough. Radio stations, in the age before the internet, used to play Christmas carols now and then. Some would play carols nonstop after 6 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Today, the streaming wireless network Sirius XM Radio has 16 whole channels dedicated to different sub-genres of holiday-season music, and they run all month long. ...

The country gets more Christmassy even as it gets less Christian. That is probably not an accident. Most of America’s Christmas traditions — with trees, stockings, fires, carols — were imported with the German immigration of the 19th century. Germans remain the largest ethnic group in the United States. After the German language and most of its folkways were driven out of American life during the first world war, Christmas became the main avenue through which German-American culture lived on. Its pleasures, as Americans understand them, are hard to distinguish from those of today’s faddish Teutonic concept, hygge: cosiness, family and making the best of bad weather. Christmas now seems like the opposite of the American way of life, as hygge seems a dangerous kind of anti-Americanism. For as long as the season lasts, Christmas supplies what Americans don’t have enough of in their lives. It is a counterculture.

The great American Christmas songs — ‘I’ll Be Home for Christmas’, ‘White Christmas’, ‘Winter Wonderland’ — are about the warmth of family, the solidity of small-town life, the building of human relations on a bedrock of decency, and above all the love of tradition. If Americans are devoted to Christmas more zealously, fanatically, excessively than ever, it may be because the destruction of familiar traditions has ceased to be an unfortunate side-effect of American culture and started being its raison d’être.

 

Michael Savage: Suicide is an anciently outlawed impulse and is wrong because it's self-murder

Of course.

In German we call it exactly that: der Selbstmord.

Want of figure, and a small estate

   

 To the world, no bugbear is so great,

As want of figure, and a small estate.

-- Alexander Pope

 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. 

 

-- I Samuel 16:7

O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever.

 

 -- Psalm 136:1, 23

Gaslighting your own son

From The New York Times, January 24, 1999, here:

The bare-bones account of Nietzsche's life begins not so much with his birth in 1844 as with the death of his father five years later. Carl Nietzsche was a Lutheran pastor who died of ''softening of the brain,'' which sounds very like a dementia caused by the syphilitic infection that killed his son. Responding to his mother's urgings, Nietzsche became a child prodigy, and he also began to suffer from the nightmares and headaches that plagued him all his life.

What brought him to the state of ardent discipleship in which he met Wagner in 1868 is obscure. He had known about Wagner from his teens, but had disliked the music even while he admired the mythic themes of operas like ''Tristan und Isolde'' and tried himself to write an opera based on Nordic legends. It is clearer what he admired once he had become intoxicated: Wagner promised to re-create for the Germans the cultural climate in which the classical Greek world had created the tragedies of Aeschylus. It was this that ''The Birth of Tragedy'' spelled out in 1872 to its astonished readers.

The ideology of a terrible simplifier, the Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, would have meant tens of millions more dead in World War Two

Here in "The Use of Nuclear Weapons Is Inherently Evil":

[W]e stand in that stream of Christians who find no justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances would the use of nuclear arms be justified. Our reasons hinge on the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” and the indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons. Simply put, they end up killing a great many more civilians than combatants, and therefore, their use violates one cardinal principle of just war: proportionality. Sadly, every war will entail the death of civilians, but as one summary of just war theory put it, “The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered.” Thus, “innocent civilians must never be the target of war; soldiers always avoid killing civilians.” ...

This is not the place to argue the fine points, but it is the place to reiterate that we stand in that stream of Christians who find no justification for the use of nuclear weapons. This is not a politically radical view. Some of the most conservative of Christians and politicians, including evangelist Billy Graham, have also concluded that nuclear weapons are inherently evil or, to not put too fine a point on it, “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization” (Ronald Reagan).


This is, as the kids say these days, a hot mess.

It begs the question of innocence for one thing, which God has found little of in the world, and cares as little for. Just last week a famous anti-nuclear weapons advocate, a survivor of Hiroshima, admitted she and her classmates were being trained as decoders for the Japanese army, in preparation for the expected American invasion.

The Bible is full of instances of the indiscriminate killing of innocents, civilian populations targeted for destruction by none other than Yahweh himself. The possession of the promised land was predicated on this very idea:

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee. -- Deuteronomy 7:16.

It was murder on a grand scale, mass murder.

Perhaps the most famous of these stories is about how Saul was actually removed from being king, to be replaced by David the ancestor of Jesus, precisely because he disobeyed God by NOT destroying the Amalekites utterly: 

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. ... And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. -- 1 Samuel 15:3, 8f.

Evangelicals often explain away such evidence by appealing to dispensational theology, which provides a convenient way of making self-contradictory evidence from the Bible of null effect. That was a different dispensation they will say, this is now. There is bad relativism, and then there is divine relativism. And yet they insist "He changeth not".

Well, things mundane haven't changed much, either. American Evangelicals are content to imagine God still blesses America despite a slaughter of over 60 million innocents through abortion since 1973, right under their noses. But somehow we're supposed to get exercised over the possibility that Donald Trump might fry up millions of North Koreans. If proportionality mattered, the death of every man, woman and child in North Korea today wouldn't add up to 45% of the slaughter that's occurred right here in the land of the free, the home of the brave.

Many Evangelicals being Democrats over the years voted for this abortion status quo. Are we supposed to believe that was not politically radical, just because that's the way it was? Ronald Reagan said something sweeping about nuclear weapons, so just because he said it it's not radical? The is-is-ought fallacy never had it so good.

Citing Ronald Reagan as an authority for your position isn't always a good idea, but it is telling.

Ronald Reagan couldn't imagine that signing abortion legislation in California when he was governor would lead to an explosion of abortions from the hundreds to an average of over 100,000 by the time he left office. Just as he couldn't imagine that his defense build up to defeat Soviet communism wouldn't be paid for after all by spending cuts. Instead it was paid for by borrowing, becoming part of the national debt of $20 trillion which we cannot repay. Just as he couldn't imagine his immigration amnesty would act like a magnet for an explosion of illegal immigration into the United States. Just as he couldn't imagine that signing EMTALA requiring hospitals to treat all comers would eventually lead to Obamacare.

Ronald Reagan couldn't imagine a lot of things.

The reason for this is because Ronald Reagan was an ideologue, specifically a libertarian ideologue. Not a dangerous ideologue like Lenin, but an ideologue nonetheless. That's what made Reagan the enemy of communism, because communism is a rival ideology. That was a good thing, because we all agree it's better to have a produce department brimming with variety instead of one which sells everything in theory but has only cucumbers.

But ideologues often get carried away by the primacy of their principles, which come to act like blinders on their eyes, rendering them incapable of seeing things they might need to see. The ideologue becomes like a pack horse which goes down the road, undistracted from pursuing its single, certain purpose. It can see nothing but what lies ahead, forgetting what lies behind, pressing onward toward its simple calling. This is fine, until the driver falls asleep, or the cargo comes loose and falls away.

It shouldn't surprise us that Ronald Reagan's views on nuclear weapons became ideological, or that Christians of a certain sort would be attracted to those views, but those views are blind. The use of the atomic bomb in World War Two not only ended the war, but dramatically lowered the number of expected casualties from a conventional assault on Japan, on both sides. Tens of millions did not die who would have. Not only that, the fact that America developed the bomb before the Germans could meant the US homeland was spared the fate we inflicted on Japan.

Not developing the bomb in order to save America from moral culpability for killing millions might well have destroyed millions in America. We will never know for sure.

But not using the bomb in order to save America from moral culpability definitely would have destroyed much more of America, and all of Japan.

Those millions who did not die would insist that things weren't so simple. And they still aren't.

Rod Dreher gets a DNA test but gets completely distracted from the fact that his family "turned" German

Here:

I’m 99.3 percent European. About 67 percent of that ancestry is Anglo-Irish, with 9 percent “French and German” (they can’t yet distinguish between French and German ancestry, so my ancestors came from that region; it’s got to be German, because the first Dreher to come to the US came from Germany; Dreher is a German name meaning “turner”), and 4 percent Scandinavian. The rest is “broadly Northwestern European”. But here’s the surprising part: 0.6 percent of my ancestry — the thin red slice — is West African. The genetics timeline indicates that five to eight generations ago (the test can’t be more specific), I had an ancestor who was 100 percent West African. That ancestor was likely born between 1700 and 1820.

Well, isn't that instructive?

So far in life Rod Dreher has "turned" personally from Methodism, to Roman Catholicism, to Orthodoxy of some sort or other. How long will it take for him to understand how in keeping this is with his own name, his own character?

Obviously his family got this name "Dreher" because it turned from what it was to German, and the family accepted it. Now Rod Dreher is turning still, which is why he submitted his DNA for analysis in the first place (there's some innate doubt there), only to find out he's got a little "black" in him somewhere along the way, which turns him some more . . . from the main point.

The money on the test was obviously well spent.

Martin Luther wanted to drain the Vatican swamp, using as his Twitter his German translation of the Bible and the Pamphlet

Peter Stanford, here:

The 95 theses – and much of what Luther subsequently said in public as his message spread across the continent, right up to his excommunication in 1521 – were the work of a classic disrupter who, in today’s terms, wanted to drain the “Vatican swamp”.

Fluent in the language of the street, the undeniably charismatic Luther wrote most of his best-known and most inflammatory texts not in church Latin but in German, going on to produce in 1522 the first translation of the New Testament into everyday German, and in 1534 a translation of the whole Bible.

Those in the pews no longer had to rely on the word of priests and bishops instead of the word of God. He realised the force of appealing over the head of “experts” long before Michael Gove hit upon it in the Brexit push.

And in working with the owners of newfangled printing presses, he was among the first to spot the potential of what was the social media of its day as an alternative means of spreading his new anti-establishment gospel. Pamphlets of edited versions of his tracts spread like ripples through Germany, then Europe, Rome and even England. In an age of widespread illiteracy, he made sure he engaged those who could not read by including illustrations, using crude, often satirical woodcuts from the studio of his close friend and fellow Wittenberger, Lucas Cranach the Elder.

So when he stood before the Holy Roman Emperor and the princes and prelates of Germany at the Diet of Worms in 1521, defending his writings on pain of death, Luther had crowds outside on the streets rallying to his defence, stirred up by leaflets and posters saturating the town.

Much as they wanted to be rid of “this petty monk”, as pope Adrian VI labelled him, the establishment could not hand him over to his fate for fear of igniting an uprising. So Luther, unlike those earlier would-be reformers, lived to put his theories into practice.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not a conservative, but someone who thought Christians could in some sense immanentize the eschaton

King, quoted here in WaPo:

“My friends,” Dr. King said in his Detroit sermon, “all I’m trying to say is that if we are to go forward today, we’ve got to go back and rediscover some mighty precious values that we’ve left behind. That’s the only way that we would be able to make of our world a better world, and to make of this world what God wants it to be. . . .”

The sermon is noteworthy for King's utopian inveighing against hate as if it were not ineradicable:

It’s wrong to hate. It always has been wrong and it always will be wrong! It’s wrong in America, it’s wrong in Germany, it’s wrong in Russia, it’s wrong in China! It was wrong in two thousand B.c., and it’s wrong in nineteen fifty-four A.D.! It always has been wrong, and it always will be wrong! 

A stupid delusion I heard over the holiday, attributed by the person to the movie Schindler's List

The delusion: While the Nazis attacked Jews on Kristallnacht the German Christians were in their churches singing Christmas carols, so they couldn't have been genuinely Christian. 

The fact: Kristallnacht occurred in the middle of the night on November 9-10, 1938 while most people were asleep in their beds, and weeks before the beginning of Advent that year. No one was in church singing anything, let alone Christmas carols. The enraged events of that night occurred just hours after the elaborate commemoration in Munich of the 15th anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, and after the news of the death of a German diplomat shot in Paris had reached Hitler.  

The unpleasant truth: Christians in the United States, traditional or otherwise, continue to go about their own merry lives and have since 1973 while tens of millions of the American unborn have been slaughtered in the womb and continue to be until this very day right under their very own noses, but they do nothing about it.

Yet somehow it's the German Christians who are the hypocrites.

Kingship in Israel represented the decay of the post-Mosaic order

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

-- 1 Samuel 8:4ff.

This Lutheran and his Jewish wife and daughter could not escape, and gassed themselves in late 1942

Renate Stein, Jochen Klepper and wife Johanna Stein

Sometime in November 1942 the well known poet Jochen Klepper had received orders to report once again for military service, from which he had previously been dismissed because of his mixed marriage. Then on December 10, 1942 Adolf Eichmann personally denied Renate, aged 20, an exit visa from Germany, exposing her to the requirement to obey a previous deportation order to the camps. The next day they were all found dead on the floor in the kitchen.

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month

1918.

Armistice Day.

My grandfather died two months later, a natural born American citizen and pastor of German descent who tried to introduce English-speaking services into his churches, but not without a lot of resistance, which helped kill him in the end of a massive heart attack, aged 52.

It was front page news. The whole town mourned. My dad, not yet 4 years old, was plunged into poverty after the depression of 1920 and spent the Roaring Twenties that way until something worse happened, the Great Depression. At that point his mother sent him to Iowa to live with his older brother, also a pastor, where he went to high school. He remembered his brother was paid in bushels of potatoes and corn and the like instead of in cash because no one had any.

He graduated in 1933, came back home and eventually married in 1937. He went off to fight in another American war against his ancestors, in 1943. Even that late in the history of German Americans, that raised some eyebrows in the family. He served in the artillery in France and Belgium, survived, and sailed home on the Queen Mary with a Purple Heart.

My mother once said her most vivid memory of his return was the smell of his cigarette smoke in the bathroom in the morning. Years later the bottle of Shalimar he brought home for her from France crashed to the wood floor in the bedroom, leaving a more permanent scent of a different kind. They lived in that house until 2000.

They are gone now.

But I remember, at the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month that "war is the father of everything" (Heraclitus, Diels-Kranz 22B53).