Liberation Theology, a movement that spread from South America to the US during the 1960′s [no surprises there], reinterpreted the Gospels to say that Jesus came to create a just social order [read socialist] and not to reconcile man with God. In liberation theology Jesus was not God’s incarnate word, he was a proto-Marxist. This eventually led to a reassessment of the role the Jewish community in the crucifixion. Now instead being guilty of sending god to the cross, which in any case would not bother a socialist who are themselves committed to a figurative murder of god, but of counter-revolution instead. As you well know the counter-revolution is the most charge that can be levied by a socialist. As the liberation theologists looked around the world they saw the Palestinians as an oppressed by the same counter-revolutionary Zionist (read Jews) that crucified Jesus. As liberation theology spread and corrupted the hierarchy of the mainline denominations, these churches began to turn toward anti-Semitism. The roots of modern Christian anti-Semitism are found not in the gospels but in the works of socialist revolutionaries. Traditionalists, influenced by Vatican II, abandoned the coorupt medieval interpretations of the crucifixion and returned to the original meaning of the gospel story while the so-called liberal Church abandoned the gospel and turned to socialism for inspiration.

But they are gone now.

Catherine:

That was a very disrepectful way for them to treat you and your family. I don’t blame you for being upset about it. No excuse for that.

Thanks for the clarification. When in comes to religions (and even denominations) I’m always interested, sometimes as a “seeker”, somtimes anthropologically.

For an interesting hour or so check out the “tests” at Belief.net. In the “general” test I got rated as “borderline pagan” (!?). In the “Christianity” test I was rated as a “George H W Bush Christian”. It’s pretty interesting and fun, there are some lively–though mutually repectful– discussions.

Link: http://belief.net/

What? Nobody’s invested in Palestine? Nobody’s put investment money in that white-hot spot of entreprenurial productivity? Humm. My bad.

Maybe the Presbys can go first.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you clarify the acronyms? Your exchange is interesting but I became somewhat lost up there at that first mention of “LCMS”…..

“Lutheran Churches of the Main Stream”?

“Lutheran Council of Middle-aged Saints”?

“Let’s Call My Saint”?

Maybe I missed the key.

Carl

I am actually quite new to the Lutheran Church. I was originally an Episcopalian who got fed up with the politics after the 2000 General Convention. So I am new to the LCMS. However, I was always theologically Lutheran. I choose the LCMS because it was a traditional church. I am amused to find that I am in sort of a “where sit is where you stand” situation. In the ECUSA I was definitely on the traditionalist side (I hate to use the word conservative in this context) now I am amused to find myself on what passes for a liberal wing of the LCMS. I haven’t changed my views just the context.

I think Vatican II re-introduced to all Christian denominations the proper understand of the relationship between Christians and Jews. It has taken several generations to even begin clearing out the poisons of the past History. It is ironic that as more traditionalist churches have learned the lesson that the Anglicans, who were the first Christian denomination to understand this relationship, have forgotten. The ECUSA has become one of the primary institutionally Christian anti-Semitic denominations around.

Wow, we have a lot in common. I went to UIUC (’93) and was raised as a member of the LCMS (converted to Catholicism when I married my wife).

The contrast between the LCMS and the PCUSA is interesting. When I attended the LCMS in the 70′s and 80′s, it was still somewhat anti-Semetic. It’s not like the pastors supported the Nazis or made references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their sermons or anything; it’s that Jews were never spoken of in positive terms. It was a soft form of anti-Semitism that was pretty pervasive.

I attended a LCMS school from the first through the eighth grades. Again, it wasn’t overtly anti-semeitc. There was no blood libel, no stories about horns and cloven hoofs, no Holocaust revisionism or “reinterpretation,” , etc. It was just that the Jews were going to burn in hell. Whenever Jews were mentioned, someone would always point out that they would burn in hell. They didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus; therefore they weren’t saved; therefore they would burn in hell. It was almost a Pavlovian assocation — Jew = burn in hell. In its own way, this was a one a devastating form of anti-Semitism. It was effective becuase it didn’t involve crude stereotypes. The crude stereotypes only work until you encounter a Jewish person and learn that they are nothing like the stereotype. But the “burn in hell” concept — that means that God himself has declared that there is something wrong with Jews.

One of the most intellectually enlightening experiences of my life was when one day, my boy’s cathecishm teacher (who doubled as our gym teacher) declared that he did NOT believe that Jews were, in fact, destined to burn in hell.

When he said this, it was as if a bomb had gone off in the room. The kids were shocked. Shocked! No, we protested. Jews will burn in hell! If there was one fact that had been drilled into us, it was that! It was a bedrock principle, a basic assumption. And the fact that a respected teacher and authority figure was questioning this assumption made the whole thing really, really disturbing.

He then went on to argue that one day, we might meet and fall in love with a Jewish girl. If so, we woudln’t want to believe that she was destined to burn in hell. After he made that assertion, you could have heard a pin drop. We all knew that he was right. His logic was irrefutable. My perspective was changed forever.

In his own way, our gym teacher was doing his best to (a) reform the LCMS, and (b) get us to think independently and question authority. But he was the only one who ever said anything like that. At the time (1984 or so), his view was definately the minority one.

Toward the end, I noticed that a few of the more scholarly pastors were also beginning to take a different approach to the Jewish question. One kept emphasizing that “Jesus was a Jew,” in his sermons. Another would occasionally explain Jewish traditions like the Passover seder and circumcision. The majority of pastors were still firm adherents to “burn in hell” position, but some seemed to disagree with it.

The most interesting thing about the disagreement is that it wasn’t a preachy “reform” movement. The pastors who disagreed didn’t try to introduce a new orthodoxy, denounce others as anti-Semetic, beat the congregation over the head with their more enlightened position, etc.. They simply made scholarly arguments and quietly changed the course of the chruch.

For several years after leaving the LCMS, I attended services elsewhere, becuase I was disturbed by the anti-Semitism and with some other things. But now it has gotten to the point that if we weren’t happy with the Catholic chruch and were looking for a new congregation, I would definately return to the LCMS. The church really has reformed itself. I now respect the Church and am totally convinced that the change is for real. If a bunch of very traditional Midwesterners say that they have rejected anti-Semitism, you can bank on it.

It is interesting to contrast this with the course that the PCUSA has taken. I am shocked, personally. The liberal churches always calimed to be tolerant and progressive, and sometimes they were. I can’t imagine that they were particularly anti-Semetic 20 years ago, certainly not like the LCMS was. But today, they are anti-Semetic and the LCMS is tolerant and humane. What in the world has happened? I just don’t understand it.