Archives For World War two

Macron’s Resist Trump, Call to Arms, Against the United States, During Armistice Day Celebrations, Makes Zero Sense

November 19, 2018 — 2 Comments

The speech delivered by Emmanuel Macron, at the Armistice Centenary this week, was a carefully targeted rejection of Donald Trump and his popular platform.

French President Emmanuel Macron remarked that

“The old demons are rising again, ready to complete their task of chaos and of death. Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. In saying, ‘Our interests first, whatever happens to the others’, you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: its moral values.” [source]

Macron was referring to hyper-nationalist imperialism, regarded as one of the primary causes of WW1. The French leader also alluded to its like minded cousin, which ignited WW2: ethnocentric nationalism and fascist imperialism.

The connection made between the contents of Macron’s speech, and the American leader, are not hard to miss. In October, Donald Trump publicly separated himself from Globalism, and declared himself to be a nationalist.

This also rides on the back of Donald Trump’s speech at the United Nations in September, where he gave a resounding “no” to Globalist Imperialism.

Yet it wasn’t Macron’s remarks about Nationalism, or the inferences behind it that prompted the push back from Trump on Twitter the next day.

The Trump/Macron exchanges are fuelled by the French leader’s claim, made in early November, that Europe needed to protect itself, not just from China and Russia, but also from one of their longest, strongest, and most supportive allies, the United States.

Even German chancellor, Angela Merkel came out in support of Macron, saying

“The times when we could rely on others is past. We have to look at the vision of one day creating a real, true European army.” According to the Guardian, Merkel added that a European Army would be a “compliment to [the largely U.S. tax-payer funded] NATO.”

Via Twitter, Trump gave public criticism of Macron’s claim, stating, that it

‘was very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidises greatly!”

In response to Trump’s tweets, Macron shot back with:

“France was a U.S. ally but not a vassal state…at every moment of our history, we were allies, so between allies, respect is due.”

Instead of answering Trump, Macron threw out a red-herring. Avoiding Trump’s question, Macron decided to cheapen American sacrifice, good-will and support for the maintenance of peace and safety in Europe, by reducing America’s relationship with Europe to the context of a Suzerain vassal treaty, where overlords demand fealty.

Macron’s meaning is clear enough: “Americans see themselves as feudal overlords, and have a fascist dictator who seeks to impose his will on Europeans.”

All of which is false, when presented with the facts. Donald Trump’s call for a fairer funding model of NATO, would allow America to roll back its contributions to NATO. By seeking a fairer share of the financial commitment to peace, America is looking to raise others up, not enforce a conqueror-slave dictatorship.

Trump’s frustration is understandable. Based on figures from NATO, American funding is at 22.2%. This is 33% more than Germany, and twice that of Britain and France.

Macron’s advocacy for a European Army built on his premise that Europe needs to protect itself from America, means that The United States would be funding the protection of Europe, while Europe raises an Army against The United States. Trump was right to call this an insult.  If member nations of NATO view America as someone they needed an army to protect themselves from, why would the United States continue to fund NATO at its current rate? Why even have an alliance?

Macron’s comments about Nationalism, during the Armistice Centenary, was also a red herring. He invoked the “Trump is Hitler” fallacy, and was predictably applauded for doing so.

It’s worth noting that the very fact Emmanuel Macron still speaks French, and is able to be the President of a nation called France, negates some of what he said about nationalism, and all of what he projected onto the President of the United States and his “Make America Great Again” platform.

For example: France acted in its own national interest when it became one of the few European nations to ban the Niqab; an action that the United Nations [wrongly] considers to be a violation of human rights.

Healthy Nationalism [aka responsible borders[1], rejection of ethno-nationalism, empowering fair trade etc] isn’t a betrayal of patriotism. Surrendering the French people to the rule of unelected Globalist overlords, in the European Union or the Middle East is.

If the European Union, and its unelected bureaucratic caste, is aiming to build an Army at America’s expense, no wonder the President of the United States is frustrated. America’s funding of NATO would be illogical and counter-productive.

During the Armistice Centenary Emmanuel Macron presented himself as a political opportunist. He made himself the centre of attention, drawing attention away from the service and sacrifice of ALL allied soldiers. He made a mockery of the sacrifice of ALL United States service men and women, who’ve paid the ultimate price to liberate Europeans, from the dark grasp of real tyrannical overlords, and their oppressive social Darwinian ideologies.

American blood lies mixed with the blood of Europeans, Canadians and Australians[2] on the sands of Normandy, Utah, Juno, Gold and Sword.

Macron’s appeal to globalism is an appeal to imperialism. If the European Union, and its unelected bureaucratic caste, is aiming to build an Army, under Emmanuel Macron’s premise that Europe needs protecting from the United States, it’s no surprise that Poland would ask the United States to build a military base within its border. Not only does Poland have Russia to its East, Poland is geographically centred right in the middle this growing globalist imperial bureaucracy.

In the words of Historian, Veteran and author, Col. Douglas V. Mastriano:

“Even during the ceremony to commemorate the end of World War I, Macron refused to walk back his statement. If such lack of appreciation and disdain continues to grow against the United States, Europe may just wake up one day and find that America has decided to part ways with them.
Should this happen, a generation of rich, spoiled, and prosperous Europeans like Macron will have to learn the hard way what their grandparents endured but a generation ago. Freedom is not free, and the United States of America is the sole reason for the enduring peace the French have enjoyed.”

The real threat to global security isn’t Donald Trump or his Make America Great Again platform. It’s another “Fortress Europe” defended by an army built by unelected bureaucrats and forced allegiance to their lordship.

References & Notes (not otherwise linked:

[1] Nations cannot protect refugees from the evils that they are fleeing, through multiculturalism and open borders.

[2] 3000 Australians took part in the air assault, a small contingent in the Royal Army and 500 served on board Royal Navy Ships. 14 Australians are known to have died. (source: Australian Department of Veterans Affairs)

Also published at The Caldron Pool, 18th November, 2018 under the heading, French President Emmanuel Macron wants to build a European army to oppose the United States:  How Emmanuel Macron used the Armistice Centenary to smear Trump and the memory of dead American soldiers.

Photo credit: Imke van Loon-Martens on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2018

In Political Theology, Politics, Truth, World War two , , , , , , , ,
permalink

The Politics Of Realignment: A House of Slavery Or The House of Freedom

October 11, 2017 — 1 Comment

The general reasoning against any sizeable interest in the suffering and pain of Germans in World War Two might go along these lines:

‘’Well, the fact that some Germans suffered horribly doesn’t equal the unnecessary loss and pain their country caused to the Jewish people or the Allies.’’

For obvious reasons, this response isn’t without justification.

However, any discussion about German suffering is avoided with the vigour of a young theologian. Who once confronted with the task of unpacking Karl Barth’s complex rejection of natural theology, quietly sums it up, then stamps it with a Dante-esk ‘abandon all hope – ye who enter here!’

The conversation moves on and the issue is conveniently ignored.

So it is with some difficult primary documents.

They are politely ignored or misappropriated in haste. Sometimes dangerously decontextualised in an attempt to bring the past into agreement with the present[i]. In this case the intellectual method is betrayed and history is abandoned. Either in favour of an ultra-conservative or progressive party-line. Primary documents are for a time effectively written off, partially discounted, misused or conveniently ignored.

The victim? A warts-and-all linear view of history.

Read and received rightly, primary sources show us exactly where, how and when the past can read and inform the present.

Such an undertaking allows us to carefully acknowledge the past with all the seriousness and respect that it rightly deserves.

If allowed to speak as it is, what a primary source can teach us is invaluable. Their contents will challenge comfortable opinions by dragging us into the context. Sometimes even becoming a contradiction to the self-serving and selective views of history so endemic of our time.

For example: Not all Germans were National Socialists. Some even paid the high price of active resistance.

It’s a rare occurrence for those in the English-speaking world to be granted a first-hand insight into the pain, suffering and thoughts of those few Germans who went against the stream during World War Two. Their voice is smothered by the fog of war and their sacrifice forgotten. So when we get the chance to read about it, it’s worth every penny.

Christian Puritz’s 2013: ‘Christ or Hitler?: Stories from my life and times, by Pastor Wilhelm Busch’ is anexample of such rarities:

WilhelmBusch_Family photo 1943

Pastor Busch and Family, 1943. Just before Wilhelm’s son (centre) left for the Russian front where he died a year later.

 

Busch’s recount of what resistance was like and what it cost is described by him in his diary:

When my son reached the senior classes in the grammar school he himself wanted to resist the ungodly repression of those days.
He chose his friends from the Bible Circle that I was leading. This work had already been so defamed that only a handful of young people had the courage to swim against the tide and keep coming.
His friends decided one day to disobey the command of the Hitler Youth (to which all young people without exception then had to belong) to assemble on Sundays during the time of the church service. (Church Youth Groups were forbidden by the Gestapo, the Secret State Police)
I never commanded my son to enter my youth work; he just grew into it of his own accord.
My boy decided to do a bicycle tour. He invited his friends. And in the end he said it would be nice if his father came as well…
On one of the tours we made a discovery that shocked us. My boy had a nose bleed which just would not stop. We took him to a hospital and eventually were told: ‘This boy has haemophilia; his blood can’t coagulate.’
And yet later they conscripted him for the war in Russia. I ran to see the army doctor who examined him.
But a pastor who belonged to the ‘Confessing Church’ and who was not ‘standing without reserve behind our beloved Führer’ did not get a hearing.
I can still see the little troop standing on the station. Destination Russia!
They were just children, eighteen years old. I could have screamed when I saw my child marching away, looking so pale. What did this tender artistic soul have to do with an unjust war? He had been caught in a pitiless machine.
Then somewhere in Russia he bled to death. Abandoned and alone! No! Not alone! In his wallet was found a bloodstained scrap of paper with the words:
‘The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want… And though I walk in the dark valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me.[ii]’

It’s true enough that when compared to the suffering of millions under the Nazi reign of terror, this is of little consolation.

However, there is a uniqueness within these first-hand accounts. There is a solidarity of suffering which shows a different side to Germany during World War Two. By their resistance to National Socialist rules, they become an exception to the rule.

Not all  Germans were Nazis. There wasn’t a total alignment of Germans towards the totalitarian Fascist state.

This kind of insight is also reflected through the lives of German men and women, such as: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Theologian), Oskar Schindler (Industrialist), Paul Schneider (Pastor), Claus von Stauffenberg (Soldier), Edith Stein (Feminist/Carmelite Nun), and Sophia Scholl (Student).  {Oskar Schindler being the only one on this list to not be murdered by the Fascist State}

.       Left to Right: Bonhoeffer, Schneider,          .      Stauffenberg, Schindler Scholl & Stein

 

In these cases and the few like them, there is a juxtaposition of those inside the Axis with those outside it.

In their resistance we witness a politics of realignment. The unavoidable and political ”nein”  to any state, political party, ideology or politician who lays claim to being a secondary messiah equal to that of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

We are reminded by them, that in Jesus Christ we are turned back towards freedom. In their struggle we are handed the reminder that we may stand, must stand and therefore ought to stand against any stream, scheme or masked revelation that seeks to ‘tame and control the Gospel by adapting it rather than being adapted by it’. (Karl Barth CD.II/I:163)

In 1969, Billy Graham talking with William F. Buckley Jnr. outlined the finer points of dichotomy between the Christian revolution of the heart and all Marxism revolt.

 

Under Marxist rule the first victim is religious freedom. By their very existence, the genuine Christian, the sinner saved by grace, stands in direct opposition to Communism, because society’s salvation, criticism and hope begins and ends with the freedom and authority of Jesus Christ, not Karl Marx.

The Polish people exemplified this in the early 1980’s, when ‘their hostility towards Communism was demonstrated, not by riots, but by openly showing their allegiance to God…’ [iii]

This pertains to the pursuit of truth vs. political conformity. Where the freedom that gives life to the intellectual method is maintained against any who would seek to enslave it.

Just as

…’the light of eternity shines into the sadness.’ (Pastor Busch) [iv]

insight brings hope.

 ‘It would be wrong not to lay lessons of the past before the future’[v]
– (Winston S. Churchill, 1948)

 

References:

[i] For example: the attempt to synthesise Leftism (White Rose Society) with this, (The Historical White Rose Society).

[ii] Puritz, Christian (Trans/Ed.) Christ or Hitler?: Stories from my life and times, by Pastor Wilhelm Busch (1897-1966) (First) Evangelical Press. Kindle Ed.

[iii] Wojtyla, K. cited by O’Sullivan, J. 2006  The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister: Three Who Changed The World Regnery Publishing, Inc.

[iv] Puritz, Ibid.

[iv] Churchill, W. 1948, The Gathering Storm: The Second World War, Vol.1 Houghton Mifflin Company Kindle Ed.

Billy Graham, 1969. The Decline of Christianity, Firing Line, William F. Buckley

YouTube: The Decline of Christianity

Stanford Transcript: The Decline of Christianity

In Confessing Church, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, History, Jesus Christ, Natural Theology, Notes & Quotes, World War two , , , , , , ,
permalink

F.D.R. June 6th, 1944: “Let Us Devote Ourselves To A Continuance Of Prayer”

May 24, 2017 — 1 Comment

With the start of the new school year we’ve been engineering the tone of homeschool for the rest of the year. So, my focus has been elsewhere. Which means, as far as blog content goes, posts are short and sweet.

Recently, I came across Franklin Roosevelt’s address to the nation on D-Day. One of THE defining military campaigns of the Second World War. (link to full text)

D-Day did more than symbolise a united stand against totalitarianism, it was a just act against blatant evil.

Hence the value of this document: it is both a humble prayer and political speech. Speculation is a cardinal sin for theologians, (or so I was taught), therefore I find myself holding back (with some difficulty) from thinking about how things would have gone if this act of contrition by the then American President had not happened. Looking at the paradigm of today’s political world, it is hard to imagine a prayer like this being deemed permissible.

For this reason: here is one the most powerful leaders in the free world submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. There is no sentimentalism in it that I can see.This is not cultural Christianity parading the veneer of vaguely remembered Sunday School lessons in order to appeal to popular applause.

Underpinning this prayer is the understanding that the human judgement which rightly involved taking action against Nazi aggression and ideology, is itself under divine judgement.

Excluding the word ‘crusade’, Roosevelt is inadvertently preempting the same considerations made by American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, in 1945:

‘Out of the humility of prayer grows the charity for comrade and foe. The recognition that we all stand under a more ultimate bar of judgement mitigates the fury of our self-righteousness and partly dissolves the wickedness of our dishonest pretensions…
We will therefore not be swollen by pride because others think well of us. We will remember that they do not know the secret of our hearts. Neither will we take their disapproval too seriously. The sense of a more ultimate judgement arms us with the courage to defy the false judgements of the community’ [i]

Both are impressive. Each make a unique contribution to how Jesus Christ, just judgement, Christian love and responsibility are valuable to an evangelical ethic that supports life and reaches out in truth. With the understanding that sometimes “no” is given in order to say “yes”; an ethical framework that every responsible parent knows well and practices daily.

Official & original:

With music and a video montage:

Repost: Originally posted 5th Feb, 2015

Updated 24th May 2017:
.
I’m seeing quite a bit of condemnation being thrown about regarding people offering their prayers for those lost and caught up in the tragedy in Manchester.

I’m in agreement with putting an end to sentimentalism and empty gestures like lightshows and hashtags. Prayer, however, shouldn’t be linked in with this.

There’s nothing wrong with prayer. At the end of the day, it all depends on who they’re directed towards and the motivation behind it. True prayer is preparation for action, not a substitute for it. Prayer is an act of true freedom.

When genuine, it rallies people in shared solidarity against arrogance, towards humility. It is a revolt against complacency, appeasement, disorder and gestures filled only with empty sentiment.

Underpinning F.D.R’s D-Day prayer is the understanding that the human judgement which rightly involved taking action against Nazi aggression and ideology, is itself under divine judgement.

Ditch the sentimentalism and empty gestures, such as hashtags and lightshows. Don’t ditch prayer. For, ‘out of the humility of prayer..we will not be swollen by pride’ [ii] in right response to aggression.

‘Even the ”devils believe and tremble,” and I really believe they are more afraid of the Americans’ prayers than of their swords’
(Abigail Adams, 1775, Letters #55)

References:

[i] Niebuhr, R. 1945 Discerning The Signs of The Times, Niebuhr Press Kindle. Ed.

[ii] ibid, 1945

Image: Mine. I cropped it using the first and last page of the transcript in order to draw attention to it.

In Ideology, Leadership, Political Theology, Prayer, Reinhold Niebuhr, World War two , , ,
permalink

Karl Barth, 1939: “Dear France,” Appeasement, Eschatological Defeatism & Resistance

May 8, 2017 — 1 Comment

Il faut en finir.jpg2Karl Barth never ceases to confound his students or humble our feeble attempts to steer him in a particular political direction. One key example of this is a letter written in December 1939, to ‘The French Protestants’ at the outbreak of World War Two.

His words here are straight from the front, back towards the left and then on towards the right.

Barth is not advocating that the Church take up a “‘crusade’ against Hitler“. Rather that the Church repent and pray for a ‘just peace’. Choosing the better side of responsible action over against irresponsible action or worse, total inaction. Barth is calling for the Church to awaken; to turn from a politics of appeasement and blind compassion, in order to avoid the problems created when both are infused with good, but naïve intentions.

‘It would be regrettable if the Christian Churches, which in previous wars have so often and so thoughtlessly spoken the language of nationalism and militarism, should just in this war equally thoughtlessly decide to adopt the silence of neutrality and pacifism. The Churches  to-day should pray in all penitence and sobriety for a just peace…to bear witness to all the world that it is necessary and worth while to fight and suffer for this just peace’
(Barth in Loconte, J (Ed.) The End Of Illusions, 2004:157)

According to Joseph Loconte, Barth lamented the ‘Munich Agreement’ writing in his diary: ‘catastrophe of European liberty in Munich’ ibid:153). Adding in a letter to Czech soldiers that ‘resistance to Hitler, was service to Christ’ (ibid).

Also noting that the partial injustice of 1919, The Treaty of Versailles, made England and France ‘chiefly responsible for the  state of affairs which arose in Europe after 1919 – which in turn, as far as Barth sees it, makes them responsible, too, for making Hitler possible’ (ibid:156).

Although Barth prefers the term ‘just peace’, steering away from applying the phrase ‘just war’, he is advocating the latter. For instance: ‘Our generation would be answerable before God and before humanity if the attempt were not made to put an end to the menace of Hitler’. (ibid:156)

Other than reinforcing the important relevance of Barth to contemporary discussions. This letter shows that placing him into an ideological box, in order to serve an understanding of his theology, or using any conclusions drawn from that to advance the defence of utopian illusions or a benevolent ideological master, are deeply flawed. Such as being quick to claim that Barth was a sold-out pacifist.

Since there are parallels between his time and ours.Today’s Church needs to “get this”. It ought not fail to stand against sloppy sentimentalism, popular activism nor fail to act on the warnings which were so powerfully relevant for then, and are just as relevant to us today.

Barth asks:

‘Why have we heard and why do we continue to hear, and that not infrequently, voices of eschatological defeatism, a defeatism which appealing to the truth that “the whole world lies in the evil one,” busies itself almost cynically with asserting that Hitler’s present adversaries for their part are no saints either? The apprehension of the truth that God alone is holy will not excuse us from the duty of putting up resistance to-day.’ (ibid:157)
‘We must be prepared for God, just when we are acting in obedience to His command, to confront us with His own “Il faut en finir,” and again by His command to lead us to something wholly other… Done in this spirit of preparedness, our work of resistance will then be a good work…We are both allowed and obliged to know that God will reign in any case and the He makes no mistakes’ (ibid:161)

Loconte is right: ‘Any serious student of the 1930’s is struck by the familiarity of the debate’. (ibid:3)

Source:

Barth, K. 1939 First Letter to the French Protestants in Loconte, J. (Ed.) 2004 The End of Illusions  Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Image: French roughly translated in English as ‘We must/will end it’ or ‘We shall go on to the end.’

(Originally posted Jan. 2015)

In Karl Barth, Political Theology, World War two , , , ,
permalink

Garden Greatness

February 3, 2015 — 2 Comments

That generation.

A garden will make your rations go further_drop shadow

For the full range of these check out:

Plant a Victory Garden, Google Images

Canada At War

 

In Art, Semiotics, World War two ,
permalink

Peace On Earth: Toyohiko Kagawa

December 9, 2014 — 2 Comments

Kagawa_Columbia Univertisty Library Union Theological SeminarySomething not often heard about is Japanese opposition to war, both during and before World War Two.

I was introduced to Toyohiko Kagawa, a Christian Pastor, poet and theologian, during my study as an undergrad.

Being born in an era still very sensitive to war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial Forces during the war, it intrigued me enough to learn a little more about him.

Kagawa’s faith and work reached into pacifism, economics and international affairs. He was born in 1888 and became an orphan before he was four. Kagawa was raised a Buddhist, yet gave his life to Jesus Christ at the age of fifteen.

He lived his theology. Becoming known for the ‘conviction that Christian witness must include social service to meet the material needs of people…His desire to express Christ through social concern was first articulated when he moved into Kobe’s Shinkawa slum in 1909 to live among the poor[i]’

In ‘Letters from Kagawa to America’ it clearly shows his belief in the compatibility of the Church with fair economic management:

‘As you know I am much interested in the organization of co-operative societies, because I believe that only through them can the necessary economic foundation of world peace be laid. These co-operatives must be imbued with the ideals of Christian love and service.’[ii]

In 1935, after arriving in San Francisco, he was detained for health reasons. He had contracted trachoma whilst working the slums of Japan. President Franklin Roosevelt was made aware of the issue and requested that ‘appropriate steps be taken to reach a final decision concerning admission of the prominent church leader without delay.’[iii]

Roosevelt, after receiving a letter of thanks for Kagawa’s admission into the United States, responded:

‘My dear Mr. Crane : I write to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated January 31, 1936, enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to you by Miss Helen F. Topping, in regard to Mr. Toyohiko Kagawa. I am glad to have the information concerning Mr. Kagawa’s activities, contained in Miss Topping’s letter, and appreciate your courtesy in sending it to me.’[iv]

Kagawa went on to speak in both the United States and Canada.

In the summer of 1941 he visited America again on a peace mission with the Japanese Christian Fellowship Deputation.[v] In June of that year, Kagawa met with Stanley Jones, a senior pastor in the American Methodist Church, discussing their ‘concerns about a possible conflict between Japan and the United States.’[vi]

Attempts made towards the Japanese embassy in America, to mediate peace and avert any potential conflict were rejected, Kagawa returned to Japan and later that year lamented:

‘I went to the {Japanese} parliament and urged them to be peaceful and not go to war. I told them that I had just come from America. I said I knew that the American people wanted peace – and so did the Japanese people. But it did not do any good. On December 7th, 1941 I felt like all the lights had gone out. My heart was broken.’ [vii]

After writing over 150 books, experiencing a life of achievements and setbacks, Kagawa died in 1960.

In January, 1963, Karl Barth, sympathetic to Kagawa, wrote:

 ‘What needs to take place today in the interests of peace is in the first place…a spiritual Reformation and thus a conversion of Christians and of the Christian churches themselves-a conversion to the truth of their own message. Among other things…a good deal of better theology is needed! And so…we come to the contribution which…I have to make to peace among the nations.’[viii]

Barth’s words and the efforts of Kagawa are highly relevant to advent. It is here that the angelic proclamation, “Peace on earth, good to will to men[ix]”  is again heard.  They form into a kind of challenge to seek first the things of God. Such words also remind us that although waves may rise, God remains capable of calming them[x].

It is no small feat that in Jesus Christ, God steps up, speaks and in his free choice claims us as his. If we hear this good news and act on it. Even in limitation, as Mary did, perhaps we too can hear in the words “Do not be afraid”, the response: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” [xi]

Sources:

[i] Ericksen, P.A Kagawa, Toyohiko in Elwell.A.W, (Ed.) 2007 Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Ed. Baker Academic Grand Rapids, pp.648 & 649

[ii] Friends of Jesus Kagawa in Lincoln’s land Sourced 9th December 2014 from: archive.org

[iii] ibid

[iv] ibid

[v] Kagawa, Toyohiko Papers 1929-1968 Sourced 9th December 2014 from: The Burke Library Archives, Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary, N.Y

[vi] Source: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/56_S4.pdf

[vii] Toyohiko Kagawa working for peace sourced 9th December 2014 from spotlightenglish.com

[viii] Barth, K. 1963 Letters 1961-1968 cited in Gorringe, T.J. 1999 Against Hegemony Oxford University Press pp.217 & 221

[ix]  Luke 2:14

[x] Psalm 89:9

[xi] Luke 1:30-33

Image: Kagawa – Columbia Univertisty Library, Union Theological Seminary.

In Advent, Karl Barth, World War two , , ,
permalink

I Had To Learn …

November 24, 2014 — Leave a comment

*hyperextension: to extend beyond that which is normal; to literally ‘go round the bend.’

*Political correctness: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

*Slippery slope: a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things.

George Wittenstein White Rose

Source:

Definitions via Merriam-Webster.com

In Ideology, Political Theology, World War two , , , , , ,
permalink