Holocaust Causes
It is impossible to pinpoint the reason the Holocaust occurred to such a finite point or single cause. Forces such as economics, political ideologies, and religious tensions are just some of the aspects that led to this great atrocity. While the first two were only problems seen immediately in Germany preceding the war, the third has had traces in Germany for hundreds of years. Hitler only needed to mobilize it and give political force and sanction to it for it to come to fruition.
The economy of Germany, like the rest of the world during the Great Depression, was in collapse as over six million Germans were unemployed in the early thirties.[1] From this poor economy, ideologies such as Nazism and Communism started gaining support because they were believed to be the key to relief.[2] When Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933, he brought with him strains of anti-Semitic and anti-communist thought, as well as anti-capitalist. This allowed him to nationalize many industries by gaining the support of business leaders afraid of losing revenue through competition.[3] It also gained support through the youth of Germany who had lived through hardships and bought into Nazi propaganda that they would no longer suffer.[4] Another factor playing a significant role is that of jealousy by European citizens because Jews not only had a very different and distinctly culture within the larger framework. They also, through many laws throughout the medieval period that prohibited Jews from owning land, had become wealthy through other means such as tradesmen, commercial, and business careers.[5] This had made non-Jews in the community covetous of their wealth. However, it was anti-Semitism that Hitler could harness the most because it tied all of his ideals together and tapped into one of the biggest characteristics that united the German people in the face of economic hardship: Christianity.
One of the biggest theological factors that gave support to the Nazi cause is the later writings of Martin Luther. The two biggest Christian churches in Germany at this time were the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches. Luther held to the idea of “supersessionism” in that Christianity, though beginning as a sect of Judaism, has now become theologically superior to it.[6] Additionally, the fact that Jews have constantly rejected the Christian message was viewed by Christians as either ignorant stupidity at best or wickedness at worst. Hence, this gave Christians throughout time a license to persecute Jews in order to further exalt themselves.[7] The mass migration of Jews into Eastern Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries did not help the situation.[8]
For Germans, Luther was their chief theologian. His later writings, brought to the surface by the Nazis after they had been highly disregarded, prompted Christians to hostile actions against Jews including book confiscation, synagogue destruction, and mass expulsion.[9] Luther also had sentiments that Jews presented a challenge to the truth of Luther’s Christianity which emphasized God’s grace through faith independent of any human attempt to reach God.[10] Judaism, however, puts emphasis on right living according to the Torah as taught by rabbis, which presents a challenge that Luther knew needed to be vehemently defended against.[11] Not only this but Jews had a different interpretation of the Scriptures, which is what Luther drew upon solely for his theology, and he viewed this different reading as demonic and an abomination.[12] Luther supported his view by citing the misfortune Jews had to endure throughout their existence. All of the above characteristics were used by Nazis to gain devout Christian support from believers. It was also used to dissuade anyone from taking a stand against the atrocities committed by the concentration camps because the Nazis only said they were doing God’s work in punishing the Jews for the killing of Jesus and perverting of Luther’s doctrine.
Position Papers
The first position paper I worked on was for The Trial of God by Wiesel. Within this paper, I questioned God’s omni-benevolence, justice, and omniscience. I drew heavily on the biblical view of God’s dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament and the fact that their sufferings were punishments for collective sins committed as a nation. The question then becomes then what sin could the Jews possibly have committed to earn the torture, death, and shame that occurred during the Holocaust. The Holocaust has changed my thinking dealing with this biblical outlook only by forcing me to admit there is no possible sin that I know of that would constitute reason for such a massacre. For the rest of this position paper, I stand my ground in regards to what Mendel said about judgment being useless but not meaningless. To demand justice from God is to engage with God in a whole new way. It is not just passive piety. It is coming as a finite human being to an infinite God. Job, ironically, is the best example of what I am trying to say. He was unjustly punished, but, if he had kept his mouth shut, I would not be surprised if God never answered Him. God cannot possibly expect people not to be outraged when injustice has befallen them. It is a way of growth and reflection from crying out in every wrong situation, even minor ones to faithfully trusting a God who knows all. However, I would never want to try to explain this to any of the characters because that is not what they need to hear.
For the second paper, I commented on Rabbi Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People. In light of the Holocaust, it is very easy to take Kushner’s position as one’s own and admit God wants to do what is best but is limited. However, I must disagree with this approach even after studying the Holocaust. To say God is not all-powerful yet omni-benevolent is to put God on the side of the oppressed. There is nothing wrong with this approach as I believe it pains God to see others suffer who have committed no wrong. God does want the oppressed to be liberated. However, if God is only on the side of the victims, then what happens when the unrighteous do suffer just penalties for their sins, such as the Nazis did by loosing the war. Should people then automatically assume that God is still exclusively with the losers? How would soldiers from the Allied forces take that news that somehow they fought, bled, and died for what they believed to be right and just only to discover that God never was with them even though it was His principles some of them believed they were fighting for? Also, Kushner’s general position seems to shrink God to the position, not to sound blunt, but that of a good luck charm. This could be derived from Kushner’s argument by saying that God is the source and inspiration for good but wickedness is just randomness. What is to say where God ends and randomness begins? What is to say that good cannot be random as well? Does this shrink God’s position? This argument could almost be used to justify agnosticism in the outlook of “rely on yourself first and then maybe God or maybe not, it does not matter”. Hence, in light of the Holocaust my position has not changed drastically reading Kushner’s piece.
For my third choice, I decided on John K. Roth’s A Theodicy of Protest. With studying the Holocaust, I was inclined to take Roth’s position on certain aspects but disagree with on others. However, the Holocaust has only strengthened my agreement with him on those certain points. On one hand, understanding evil situations may help us put a stop to them from future occurrences. However, if humans rationalize every evil they see, then they will become tempted to act lazy toward it. I agree with Roth’s position, especially in a post-Holocaust world, in that mankind is called to constantly struggle against evil. In contrast, I disagree with his criticism of the Free Will Defense being an opportunity for waste, and the freedom we enjoy does not help us save humanity from certain ailments. My reasoning is that individuals during the Holocaust exercised their free will in protecting potential targets from Nazi death squads. Certainly it can be argued that they went against logic and their German culture to save their own lives so that others would be protected. Finally, I maintain that perhaps God is showing His love in allowing and challenging humanity to reach its full potential by defending goodness and righteousness in the face of all odds.
Finally, I chose Allen’s piece, Natural Evil and the Love of God. As a Christian, I could also appreciate Allen’s response as I agreed with several of its points, even if it focused more on natural evil which we know the Holocaust was not. I supported one of his first points later on in my paper when he says that, in a world full of suffering, nothing would be learned. However, I am also hesitant in my support of this claim because it seeks to answer the question of what it means to be truly human if we need to learn anything at all if there is no suffering? In a post-Holocaust world, I would also be hesitant because, while civilization may have learned a few lessons to prevent such atrocities, it was not worth the lives that the Holocaust destroyed. I would also take Allen’s argument a step further, even in light of the Holocaust. That is, a suffering can bring a person toward God. I know that for people such as Wiesel, it was the Holocaust that destroyed any concept of God. In contrast, it was the Holocaust that brought people toward God because they had nothing left to trust in. Their wealth, status, prestige, family, or anything else could not give them comfort when facing the gas chambers because it was not constant. However, the idea of God could not be taken away from them and, as Levi states, it was those who had faith that seemed to cope better with their situation. Taking it a step further, even those in the Holocaust always had God to turn to for strength to live just one more day. This was their way of protesting the Nazi sinfulness: just to be able to live and to resist.
Contemporary Faith
I do not think that contemporary faith should be altered in light of the Holocaust. Although this event is a tragedy of immeasurable proportion, we should not be trying to change a theological outlook concerning God. Though questions surrounding Him burn within people, all that will be accomplished if we pursue that change is constant debate around which aspect of God they can now dismiss solely because they do not like it rather than having any empirical proof. For instance, those who like the idea of an all-loving God can throw away the idea of omnipotence using the Holocaust as their support. What will then result is a scattering of groups of people each walking away from the discussion with a different idea of God with which they are comfortable. Either they will view Him as a less-than-all-powerful monarch who loves but cannot control or a tyrannical, all-powerful killer who must be protested against.
A more practical approach is to have mankind as a collective looking at what it did (as in the case of the Germans), or what it did not do (as in Europe not stopping Germany dominate), or what it could have done better. This is the main course of action to take if we are to analyze our mistakes as human beings in order to stop such atrocities from ever occurring again.
With that being said, the reason I can say what I have is because I believe that a traditional view of God is still valid even though I realize this may seem this may seem arrogant in light of 11 million deaths, but I can pursue no other option. Like the authors we have read, my viewpoint has its source in my faith. Out of all writers we have examined, my outlook closely aligns with Stephen Davis’. Being an evangelical Christian, I believe both he and I, along with others, have the hardest job of all in defending traditional notions of God after the Holocaust and other such losses. Davis holds the belief that Christianity cannot be blamed because those who participated in the Holocaust were not sincere Christians. I would go a step further as to say they were not “true” Christians. “True” Christians are those who take the teachings of Jesus seriously and look at his life and death as examples of how God relates to humanity, as well as how people are to relate to one another. They do not include those who call themselves “Christian” for the sake of group unity or cultural expectations.
This is similar to what happened during the Roman Empire when to be a Roman citizen means you were “Christian” and vice-verse. Likewise, during the Third Reich, you could be Caucasian, German, profess some belief in a god and still be considered “Christian” because it was a cultural norm. However, never did any of these people put into practice the love ethos that Jesus promoted because they bought into the pseudo-Christianity promoted by the state rather than investigate it for themselves. They are like those whom Jesus said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ yet do not do what I say?” Any ideology’s name can be hijacked to promote a sadistic leader’s cause. Hitler also used science to promote torture study and methodology on those within the camps. Should we then, based on the fact that it too has shed innocent blood, abandon science even though it, like Christianity, can be used to achieve good and give hope to people? It is similar to Augustine’s outlook in Confessions in that both Christianity and science, produced by rational minds, are given to man by God and to be used for good. It is the malfunction of these gifts that have led to evil. They are not evil in themselves but have been misused to produce evil.
It is possible to hold on to a traditional view of God being omniscient, omni-benevolent, and omnipotent despite evil occurring in the world. By “traditional” I mean an outlook of God supported by Scripture within the Christian tradition. However, like all attempts at a cohesive theodicy, it will help to define the terms. By saying God is omniscient (1 John 3:20), I mean that God knows all things past, present, and future, and that He acts according to His predetermined plan even if that means allowing suffering for long-term goals of ultimate good rather than miraculously intervening. In the Christian tradition, the best example of this is the crucifixion of Jesus. Christians hold this event as the worst and best thing that ever happened in the history of humanity. It is the worst in that evil seemed to triumph by men, filled with hate at worst and apathy at best, seemed to send/allow a good man to die an atrocious, undeserved death. God also is responsible for not intervening to stop it and, according to biblical tradition, actually planning this to occur. However, God also knew the He would raise Jesus from the dead and, hence, allowed evil actions to triumph so that He could bring the ultimate goodness from it (Acts 2:23, 24). Jesus has been resurrected and humanity has been reconciled with God because the price for its sins has been paid.
This outlook of God ties into his omni-benevolence or God being “all-good” or “all-loving” (Psalm 103:8; 107:1; 1 John 4:8). It does not mean that God is “all-kind.” Being all-kind would mean that God would not allow any pain to come into our lives even if it could be used to accomplish good, such as a person inflicting pain to their own body during physical activity to make it stronger in the long-run. God is all-good because He robs immediate pleasures, which is a cause of suffering, for a strengthening of character and/or faith, a long-term reward. Also a Christian believes that Jesus, being God-in-the-flesh, is the example to which humanity must follow in order to get closer to God. Allen arrives at this conclusion as well by citing that trusting in God allows a person to experience God’s love in the midst of natural suffering that cannot be attributed to human acts. If we hold to believe that Jesus is the fullest expression of God, then God would show His love by wanting to mold all followers of Jesus to be like him in every way (Rom. 8:28, 29). This is what suffering, and the subsequent turning to God in the midst of it, produces. Even though Christians feel Jesus is God, he was also human and suffered. According to the Gospels, he mourned when a friend died (John 11:35), became outraged at impiety toward God (John 2:12-18), and wept at facing his own death (Matt. 26:36-39). To understand what it means to be like Jesus, a person must suffer not only so they can grow closer to God, but also so they can reach out to people who are hurt and confused just like Jesus did. God allows for and uses suffering to reflect His goodness so that we who follow Jesus can understand how to behave more like Jesus did and love others as Jesus loved.
Finally it brings us to omnipotence or God being all-powerful and ruling over all creation (Psalm 103:19; 115:3; Eph. 1:11). This means that God can do everything meaningful, everything possible, and everything logical. Holding on to the tradition that God is all-loving, He would then create man with the freedom to love Him, a selfless love, rather than obligatory obedience because this would not be ideal, and humanity would be reduced to mindless robots. With this freedom came the possibility to make choices contrary to God which are, by default, evil. To create a world in which there is freedom but no possibility of sin is a contradiction which God’s omnipotence and perfection cannot allow as it is against His nature. God can however, as primarily in the case of Jesus, exemplify His omnipotence by using power to bring good out of evil as seen by raising Jesus from the dead. This is not merely the explanation that humans are exercising their free will to cause destruction and God’s role was to pick up the pieces. God could have taken that course by using people to comfort those close to Jesus after his death. Rather, God raised Jesus from the dead, showing that the most powerful and unpredictable force humanity has ever seen still cannot conquer God or His plan. This reaffirms God’s position as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This also gives hope to thousands of people because it shows God has not forgotten those who serve Him and will greatly reward them when the time is appropriated, either in this life or beyond. A skeptic will immediately say that you cannot use an afterlife because there is no way to prove it. A Christian will agree that we cannot prove it, but if we hold true that Jesus is God then we assume His words are true when He speaks of the existence of a life to come.
So we are now faced with a dilemma of how God can be all-powerful, while humanity has free will. On the one hand, it seems to be simply a question of emphasis because both are held by a majority of Christians. On the other hand, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. An adequate analogy would be those who see the history of humanity written as a novel by God yet enacted as a play by mankind who does not know the novel-script. Christian theology tries to appreciate both ends of the extreme because it promotes different aspects. God’s providence and predestination emphasizes trust and hope while human free will emphasizes morality and accountability.
My answer as to how to maintain a traditional view of God in light of atrocities such as the Holocaust is the same answer to maintain this view when I turn on the news at night and find other smaller crimes being committed. God mourns because sin is prevalent in the world which causes innocence to seem as if it is defeated and evil has triumphed. God cares about those who are victimized. I would encourage those who face suffering to turn to God for comfort and guidance. I would also say God will not allow those who commit such sins to go unpunished. We may not see the punishment and we may not even see the reasons why God allowed such wickedness of the Holocaust to occur. But when I view the crucifixion of Jesus, the most unjust act in human history in the eyes of a Christian, and the resurrection of Jesus, the most glorious act in human history, I am reassured that God’s wisdom, power, and love have not been undermined. God knew the only way to get His message of salvation to the world was to allow this death and also knew the goodness that would come from it which shows His omniscience. It exemplifies His love for humanity by suffering one of the most painful deaths ever conceptualized so this shows His omni-benevolence. He knew that the unjust death of His Son could not be the end and so God conquered death by Jesus’ resurrection, as well as His power to bring good from evil in any situation if man would just turn and follow Him proves His omnipotence. As an evangelical Christian, I can say nothing less and still have a clear conscience.
[1] Cohn-Sherbok, Dan ed., Holocaust Theology: A Reader. New York. New York University Press. 2002. pp. 26.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Rubenstein, Richard L., and John K. Roth. Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and its legacy. 2 ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. pp. 55
[6] Ibid. pp. 51
[7] Ibid. pp. 52
[8] Ibid. pp. 55
[9] Ibid. pp. 57
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid. 57, 59
[12] Ibid. 58, 59