A Troubling Revival of Historic Anti-Semitism - A Story of Proliferation and Permutation

https://forward.com/culture/761623/theobro-antisemitism-nazi-christianity-reformed-podcast/

There is so much that could be said about Mahler, Wilson, and Webbon but in this case I was simply saddened by the fact that some of the legitimate discussions and debates surrounding the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (LXX) are now likely to be tainted by this absurd and wicked line of discussion.

A pro-LXX position, which is the stance of Eastern Orthodoxy would only by some strange stretch of imagination be tied to Anti-Semitism - but in this case with the pro-LXX arguments of Mahler, it certainly is. One is left wondering, are their concerns about the Masoretic Text (MT) legitimate and sincere or is this just a wide-ranging application of their racialist Anti-Semitic ideology - which has always been problematic when tied to Christianity, as our faith has deep Jewish roots and of course our Lord Himself sprang from Judah.

Dispensationalism is a Judaizing theology and for decades those who reject their errors have been accused of Anti-Semitism for subordinating the Old Testament to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles - a New Testament teaching that results in the fulfillment of Old Covenant and its passing away. Their charges of Anti-Semitism were and remain bogus. To add to the confusion some contemporary Jewish apologists also attack Christians who understand the Church as the fulfillment of Israel - and by implication that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people. We could go further and state that the Old Testament is no longer legitimately theirs either. They forfeited their claims to it in their rejection of its fulfillment found in the Messiah/Christ Jesus of Nazareth.

There's a long history of Anti-Semitism connected to Roman Catholic Christendom but that stems not from anti-Dispensationalism (or so-called Replacement) but from sacralist conceptions of society. The Anti-Semitism being expressed by Mahler et al. is more in keeping with this pattern but even this doesn't explain the origins of his thought. As a nationalist ideology it really emerges with the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment contexts of the romanticised nation and race-identity. Unfortunately they and their predecessors have woven these twisted narratives (in heretical fashion) with Christian theology.

Some have suggested that Luther's diatribes against the Jews were not racially rooted as it would be by later post-Enlightenment Anti-Semites. They argue that Luther was upset by their refusal to embrace Christ which he believed to be a criterion for Christ's return. Regardless, he was an Anti-Semite. It may be rooted differently and one can speak of type or even nuance - but at the end of the day he was virulently Anti-Semitic and called for their destruction.

Later nationalists - especially those who expressed a kind of 'tribal' view of nation would take up Luther's statements and claim them for their own. Did they manipulate Luther's statements? To some extent, but this in no way exonerates the German Reformer and his detestable views (at least on this topic).

Contemporary Right-wing Anti-Semitism is able to borrow from and blend these different strands.

This is why the Masoretic Text is under attack.

Again, there are legitimate debates to be had about the history of the Old Testament text, but we must reject out of hand the assumptions being made by these people and we need to look askance at men like Doug Wilson who curries favour with them, and allows them to flourish on the periphery of his movement. It reveals something rotten at work within his own heart, his own reasoning and strategizing.

The statements made by Mahler et al. regarding the supposed evil nature of Hebrew flies in the face of Paul's statements in Romans 9. Unlike the Dispensationalists he does not suggest that Old Testament Israel still has standing in terms of God's redemptive-historical plan. Nevertheless he celebrates their glorious heritage and Paul is burdened by their fall - and yet promises there is a remnant among them who are True Israel. How is this demonstrated? Over the course of this present age (the Last Days) the remnant will bit by bit, join the Church and become united to Christ.

The article correctly suggests the 'Post-War Consensus' is a form of revisionist argument also being utilized and growing in popularity among far-right circles. For some it is wed to a narrative about the war and the argument that the Axis powers were actually fighting for Western and Christian civilisation.

It also needs to be pointed out that The Great Replacement conspiracy is usually constructed on a narrative regarding a Jewish Elite that seeks to wipe out Christian civilisation by means of immigrant infiltration. This is a widespread popular theory that seems to be gaining ground. This is in part because it is expressed in degrees or within a spectrum - Charlie Kirk and others like him give one version while Mahler and his ilk adhere to a more extreme version.

While Mahler emerged from Confessional Lutheranism, the article is correct in pointing out that most of these men are operating within the confines of the Reformed theological sphere - with an inordinate number of them cropping up in Calvinistic Baptist circles.

I think Du Mez is highly problematic in terms of her Christian standing but not all she says is incorrect. She has some helpful analysis but her conclusions and indeed many of her assumptions must be rejected - some out of hand. This paragraph was both astute and troubling:

“Particularly now, some of the conservative pastors who are looking back to 16th, 17th century writings, I think what they’re finding attractive there is not just an intellectual and theological rigour,” Du Mez said, “but a premodern worldview. One that is not necessarily compatible with liberal democracy — one that is quite hierarchical, and patriarchal.”

First I would say that many theologically-minded men who turn to 16th and 17th century writings are looking for solid meaty doctrine - the theological rigour she speaks of. They're not looking for a pre-modern worldview, at least no one I ever knew was. However, the cultural and political crisis that has emerged over the past couple of generations has bit by bit driven many to go back and revisit foundational ideas and assumptions. In 1923 or 1967 the average Reformed thinker wouldn't have seen the deep problems with liberal democracy because they would have believed there was a social consensus and on a practical level it worked and was beneficial. It was in trouble even then, but still standing. But (according to this reckoning) by the 1990's it was in crisis, and by the 2010's it was in total collapse. As such, many have realized that liberal democracy itself is problematic and its universal claims will not stand up to scrutiny. What might work in the context of a Christian culture becomes wicked in other contexts - or so they reason, and as such they reject the universal claims made by the Classical Liberalism of the American Founders.

This has driven some back into history. Some are revisiting the tortured history of post-Reformation Protestantism and the wars of religion. Some are going further back into history and reconsidering both the Enlightenment and the Magisterial Reformation. Others go back further and find the culprit in Nominalism and the collapse of Medieval Scholasticism.

Few are picking up these older theological works looking for hierarchical paradigms or patriarchy. I find that claim to be without warrant. Those who abandon the Magisterial Reformation and venture into Catholicism start thinking in terms of hierarchy and the rejection of liberal democracy - and once the 'rights' paradigm is abandoned, social relationships take on a different hue. Apart from some of the original and true Theonomists, and admittedly some connected to Wilson, few in the Reformed world are going that far.

For many the problem is the Enlightenment and this is the key to understanding everything from modern nationalism and modern economics. And connected to this, the modern world cannot be understood apart from the Industrial Revolution which is the spawning ground for movements such as feminism, and modern individualist existentialism - which has in turn led to a widespread psychological crisis and much else.

The situation is more complicated than anything I've read from Du Mez - though I have not bothered (or been inclined) to pick up her work. I've read articles and heard interviews. I'm not inclined to invest the time reading her books.

A wider reading of history is needed to understand the context of not only the rise of fascism but its re-emergence within 21st century Right-wing Christianity.

These questions (and answers) are there and they're fairly clear to me as I've been thinking about these things for decades. Looking at my own life I realize I could have easily (apart from God's grace) been pulled down one of these paths when I was a young man.

I remember reading that Tolkien was upset that the Northern Germanic world and its folklore and symbols had been forever polluted by the Nazis. It's interesting as he was a fervent Franco supporter but at the same time detested Hitler and his volkish ideology. He felt that many beautiful things had been ruined or something to that effect.

That's more or less how I feel when I see how Mahler and other twisted thinkers corrupt and destroy all they touch and thanks to men like Wilson, the robust and necessary stand against feminism is also tainted. We end up having to spend as much time explaining and disassociating ourselves from others as we give to explaining what we do believe. I resent that and count it tragic.

There are problems with the Masoretic Text and Jerome but I utterly reject the likes of Mahler and all that motivates him.

And yet, for all the qualifications, clarifications, and stipulations - I often feel that no one is listening. The associations are made and you're written off. Do we not feel the same out in public? A Christian family with women in skirts, homeschooled children - they're Trumpites, right? Sadly it's often true. Just the other day I was in Aldi and I saw what looked to be a nice family, obviously church goers. Then the teenage boy turns toward me as I see his 'Trump' hat. I lost interest in talking to them.

That probably wasn't fair nor is it fair that just because I argue (in almost Patriarchal fashion) against feminism and have problems with the Masoretic Text that I be associated with Mahler and his filth. And yet, more often than not, that will probably be the case. On a final (even despairing note), do you think some 'bot' or AI programme is going to be able to wade through all this? Think again.