So if you haven’t heard by now, there has been quite a lot of talk brewing about these Ron Paul “newsletters” that have caused some to question whether or not Ron Paul has a racist past. And all the hub-bub has even caused some bloggers like the Internet Monk to withdraw their support from Dr. Paul because, in his words, the quotes were “ugly and completely at odds with what I believe.”
Well, I respect I-Monk’s right to support whoever he wishes, but I would like to give everyone else a little something to chew on. I couldn’t help but get the feeling that some of this is tainted with a mild case of what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery” (which, as John Piper describes, is “the arrogant notion that the ideas of our own day are better than the ideas of a bygone day just because the ideas are in our day…It’s pure arrogance to think that a thought in my head is better than a thought in the head of Martin Luther just because I live in the twentieth century and he lived in the sixteenth. There is no logical connection between the truth of an insight and the century when God puts it into somebody’s mind.”)
So, here are my thoughts:
1) First of all, Ron Paul didn’t write these things, and he has repudiated them both in word and in deed for his entire public service career.
2) Second, and perhaps more poignant, is the importance of our historical perspective. Before all you pastors, preachers, and teachers go jumping off the Ron Paul bandwagon because you find these comments “ugly”, take a moment and examine yourself…and your theological heritage. It does not take a very in-depth study of historical theology to discover that many great heroes of the faith have had questionable views on race relations. Take Martin Luther for a quick example. In his treatise, “On Jews and Their Lies”, Luther gave an eight-point plan on getting rid of the Jews by either converting or expelling them:
- “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
- “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
- “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
- “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
- “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
- “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. … Such money should now be used in … the following [way]… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]…”
- “Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
- “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” ( Luther, On the Jews, 47:268-288, 292)
And where is the widespread repudiation of Martin Luther? Or what about the countless non-abolistionist pastors of early America? Or great preachers like R.L. Dabney for instance? Where is the hesitation to support the handful of the Founding Fathers that were slave owners? And the many more who allowed the repulsive practice to continue?
Here’s the deal. What we are called to reject are their views on race, not their theological or political heritage. Historical context is paramount. Let us not get so wrapped up in the media-fueled frenzy (which, by the way, is driven by a wholly humanistic worldview) when they try to paint a Christian brother like Ron Paul as some kind of closet racist. Beware that you are not overtaken by a chronological snobbery that allows your conscience to quote men like Martin Luther as a great hero of the faith, and yet refuse to give the same grace to a man like Ron Paul.
If you do so, shame on you, and your inconsistencies…
‘BH
10 Comments
January 15, 2008 at 9:10 am
Ron Paul may be our only hope. He seems more honest than everyone else and Hilary is just evil.
January 15, 2008 at 10:16 am
some very interesting quotes on martin luther king – do you have access to this entire article? id like to see the whole thing rather than just reading the snippets youve posted.
jasper – and why is hillary evil? what do you think makes her evil?
January 15, 2008 at 10:30 am
Ron Paul has proven over a long period of time to be a man of virtue and character which leads me to believe him when he says he does not believe the things which were written. When the tree is good so also will be the fruit.
The Luther quote — wow. That’s enough to humble any proud reformer. I’m reminded of the words of Gandalf when he told Frodo Baggins to be careful in dealing out judgment.
January 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm
arleen-
BH wasn’t quoting Dr. Martin Luther King…he was quoting Martin Luther, a great reformer who lived and ministered during the 1500’s.
January 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hank,
I understand you want to defend Dr. Paul, and his alleged comments.
Though I can’t completely defend Luther’s remarks, I can however set the context , set a few things straight, and provide some further morsels to ponder upon.
Context:
1. Luther wrote extensively in correspondence to a Jewish Rabbis, and they developed somewhat of a friendship. Luther’s hope was that with the Pure Gospel being restored the Jews would convert. They did not convert. Also, the Turks were nipping at Germany’s heel, so keep that in mind.
2. When Luther wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies”, he was in the last stages of his life when he was very unhealthy and continually suffering from depression.
Setting things straight:
1. As most people assume Luther was an Anti-Semite, that is not the case. He never got upset at anyone due to heredity or race, only religion. There is a huge distinction between “Anti-Semite” and “Anti-Judaism”, it would be like taking Luther’s comments concerning Catholicism and surmising somehow that he hates Italians and Irishmen. How is it then, that we laugh and chuckle at his comments about the Turks (which we know he meant Islam), but we act as if Luther was pre-incarnate Hitler when he mentions his disdain for Judaism? Which he rightly saw as a false religion.
Morsels to Ponder:
1. That same Luther which wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies” is the same Luther which sparked the support and protection of Jews in Germany. Such people as Dietrich Bonhoeffer drew largely from Luther, and in the end lost his life in a concentration camp-strangled by piano wire.
2. Martin Niemoller as well should be included as part of the Lutheran resistance who openly opposed the Nazi regime and spent 8 years in prison.
Besides their Christian faith, what works did they largely draw from? The works of Martin Luther.
Unfortunately, Luther isn’t around to explain himself, or ask forgiveness, but given the history of his life, we know him to be a man of God. We should certainly consider these points I discussed as a means to approach such a text as “On the Jews and Their Lies”.
January 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I want an honest answer Hank, do you think Ron Paul has a good chance of winning the primaries. Think soberly and be honest. Whatever you answer I will believe.
January 18, 2008 at 9:36 am
Hank, applying your analogy from C.S. Lewis, are you really saying that the newsletters in question espoused views that were widespread and/ or accepted in the late eighties and early nineties when they were published? I certainly hope not. That rhetoric was on the wrong side of the debate that was raging in the sixties. You cannot apply Lewis’ analogy of chronological snobbery anachronistically. If the Ron Paul newsletter had been publishing such tripe in the 1890s, that argument might hold water.
Last I knew, the act of “publicly tak[ing] moral responsibility” for something meant admitting fault and accepting the blame. This is something Ron Paul claims to have done. If he is willing to accept the blame, why are you prepared to defend him and scorn those who would criticize him?
Is complete and total oblivion to the dealings of an organization that you have given your sanction and name to one of the attributes of a good President? Yet that is his defense! Ron Paul clinging to his ignorance of his newsletter only accents his ignorance of domestic and foreign affairs. Did you watch the debate in South Carolina? I don’t know who Ron Paul was debating on Iran, because his remarks certainly had nothing to do with what anybody else there was saying.
Shame on me and my inconsistencies for thinking this scandal is yet more evidence that Ron Paul has no business being President? No, sir. Shame on you for defending him, misapplying Lewis’ analogy, and fallaciously bringing Martin Luther and other genuine “heroes of the faith” into your non-sequitur.
January 18, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Brother McDowell,
I think, for the most part, you have missed the point of the post. What I was getting at was the inconsistency of Christians who laud fallible men (such as Martin Luther) for being heroes of the faith, but refuse to give the same grace to modern men like Dr. Paul who are leading the fight to defend the blessing of liberty that we have here in America, and the responsibility to use it wisely. Thus the example of chronological snobbery: Thinking that we are wise/intelligent/informed enough today by the secularly dominated/humanistically driven media sources to criticize a Christian brother such as Paul for not “publicly taking moral responsibility” for comments the he did not write, nor endorse by either his life, or his public service. The contrasts between Luther and Dr. Paul are stark. Luther wrote some very “ugly” things about the Jews and never publicly accepted any blame, nor apologized for it – Ron Paul on the other hand, never wrote anything of the kind, but has still been criticized and ridiculed in a manner that is completely at odds with a consistent application of plain logic, and Christian grace. My point – let’s have a little historical perspective on this, and not get caught up in the attempts to paint Dr. Paul as something that he is not.
Thanks for the comment, hopefully this will clear up any confusion.
‘BH
January 21, 2008 at 8:33 am
[...] In Defense of Ron Paul: Newsletters, and Heroes of the Faith by Hank Balch (Blog Post, January 2008) [...]
February 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Nice job on the article. However, I just wanted to point out that the most, and I emphasize this heavily, THE MOST important thing you can examine a candidate from is their history. Their actions in history are more concrete evidence of their character than just some words someone says they have said before at some point in their life.
For example, Dr. Ron Paul has a history of continuously voting against acts and laws that would inevitably lead to the minorities of society being oppressed.
He also voted and remains against the drug war, for the simple fact that it is unfair and biased. The vast majority of the individuals investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated are either black males or hispanic males. A small percentage is white, and a small percentage is rich.
Overall, Dr. Paul is for the struggling class, and will attempt to unite all classes, races, and groups together as one.
“With cooperation as a nation,
We shall Profit as a nation.”
-Mario Groppi