They Would Just Sing Louder!

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drowned out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies and dissidents that were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps, or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars topped with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments at every opportunity that they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard,

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from.

This quotation stemmed from Niemöller’s lectures during the early postwar period. His point was that Germans and, in particular, the leaders of the Protestant churches had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

Martin Niemöller was one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about the broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book published in English as “Of Guilt and Hope” in January of 1946, Niemöller wrote:

“Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: ‘Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we cannot get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.'”

Lenin_hate_free_speechWhat he would of and could of changed if he himself and all of the Church leaders in Germany took a stand and spoke out against Hitler and the Nazis when it mattered most. Although he did suffer, spending the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, he still recognized his own guilt for not speaking out against tyranny.

In fact, we could rewrite Niemöller’s quote quite well for the modern day church leaders of the day. It would probably go something like this:

First they came for prayer in school, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a student. Nor did I ever look into the fact that the Supreme Court is not above the law (Article 3, Sections 1 of The United States Constitution (Ephesians 6:18)).

Then they came to murder the unborn in their mother’s womb, and I did not speak out— Because I was not an unborn child. After all, I was told that the Supreme Court could sanction the murder of the innocent in the womb by simply calling it a woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17).

Then they came for the legalization of two men or two woman getting “married” to upend America’s sovereignty and I did not speak out (as if to say the Supreme court injustices have a God given right to redefine what God Himself designed)— because I did not want to be called a hater or a bigot (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me, because I never spoke out for anyone else (let alone God) (Ezekiel 3).

It is disgraceful what we are not seeing from the pulpits in America today. Rather than seeing a thunderous barrage of righteous indignation against murder of the unborn, and zeal against tyranny, injustice, immorality, we are hearing virtually nothing from over 300,000 pulpits…silence (Zechariah 1:15).

“To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men.”

We hear Church leaders (1 Corinthians 12:28) say, “Well, I don’t speak out against anything political.” The murder of innocent children, political? Homosexual marriage, political? A corrupt, wicked, and lawless administration that means to destroy your country and religious freedom, political?

Here we see in Niemöller, a man who could not change the destruction that took place in the lives of millions of people. Prevention would have been better than cure. He could not go back in time and right the wrongs, but America still can.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Together, we can turn this destruction around, but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out. And at that point you can rest assured that others may sing loud enough to drown out your cries.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bradlee Dean is talk-show host of The Sons of Liberty Radio, ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer for the international band Junkyard Prophet, and speaks across the country with his ministry reaching both young and old in schools, universities, tea parties, churches, and communities across the nation.
Bradlee Dean
View all articles by Bradlee Dean
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • franklinb23

    Christians are quick to denounce the Third Reich. What I don’t understand is the intentional blindness regarding the anti-Semitism of revered Christian saints and figures that came before.

    Saint John Chrysostom (of the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith) wrote a number of sermons against the Jews, calling them “dogs” and the synagogues filled with “demons” who were “fit for slaughter”. Martin Luther wrote this astonishing passage:

    “First to set fire to their [the Jews] 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. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.”

    It wasn’t until 1964 that the Catholic Church concluded that collective guilt could not be assigned to the entire Jewish race for the crime of “deicide”.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, a number of Christian leaders over the past 2,000 years have had moral failings alongside their great achievements. In fact, since very Christian who has ever lived continues to reside in a fallen, sin-predisposed body, every single one of us experiences regular moral failures. Only Christ has lived a perfect life; that is why he was the only one who could stand in for us in the punishment we all deserve for our sins, and purchase our pardon.

      For all the failures and flaws of a number of Christian leaders over the last 2,000 years, do you know any who systematically and methodically slaughtered 6 million Jews?

      Also, can you think of any significant redeeming qualities or accomplishments of the Third Reich?

      Or is this just an oblique attempt to slander a worldview that condemns all sin (including your own pet sins) by attempting to make it morally equivalent to the Third Reich?

      • franklinb23

        “Or is this just an oblique attempt to slander a worldview that condemns all sin ”

        Nope. Most Christians aren’t anti-Semitic.

        Here’s my point. I’ll hear the following statements implied:

        “Well, sure, Martin Luther recommended burning down the synagogues of Jews, but hey, his theology indicated he was a man of great thought and faith”

        “Certainly, John Calvin was instrumental in the fiery death of another Christian and was a proud man who made life miserable for anyone in Geneva who disagreed with his theology, but hey, he was a great theologian and one of the fathers of the Reformation”

        “So yeah, John Chrysostom wrote almost an entire book denigrating the entire Jewish population and supported their persecution, but he was otherwise a saintly man.”

        But then … we somehow come to this simultaneous conclusion:
        “A GAY Christian? Why, that’s an oxymoron! No matter how devout, charitable, self-restrained and faithful one might be in all other matters, this one facet immediately discredits any claims of faith they might have”.

        I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this at all.

        • DCM7

          It’s because of things like the examples you give that I severely limit the admiration that any man might get from me, and look only to Jesus as my example.

          That said, though, there’s something about sexual immorality, especially when not even acknowledged as sin by the one who commits it while calling himself a Christian, that goes beyond most other forms of hypocrisy.

          • franklinb23

            DCM: To my knowledge, there is no record of King David or Solomon having repented of having multiple wives. King Solomon’s vices were even more egregious, since he didn’t limit his sexual escapades to just his hundreds of wives but with his “concubines” as well.

            Nevertheless, he is credited with having been infallibly inspired to notate three books of Scripture, including Ecclesiastes and the Songs.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              There was no requirement that a person be morally perfect to have written inspired books of Scripture; were that the case, Jesus would have been the only person qualified to do so. There could have been no Genesis account of where we came from and no Mosaic Law because Moses wasn’t perfect either. There couldn’t have been any gospel accounts of Jesus’ ascension, the activities of the early church, as well as the incredible theological expositions of the New Testament because Jesus was already gone by then. One of the great wonders and mysteries is God’s grace to work his incredible plan through the lives of fallen and broken human beings.

              All that is required for a book of Scripture to be acceptable as a message from God is that it actually be inspired by God himself and not the opinion of the writer.

              A parent need not be perfect to raise a child well; they only need to instruct the child in the right thing to do (and admit when they do something wrong so that the child understands that it is the PARENT who failed, not the wisdom of the INSTRUCTION).

              Same with a cop, an attorney, or a judge. They need not be perfect adherents of every law; only that they do their best to honor the law and carry out their official duty to the law correctly.

              With any good leader, we should follow them when they’re right, and not when they’re wrong. When authors of Scripture wrote down what God told them to, they were getting the instruction from the perfect source of moral authority, and we should follow that. As for their personal failings, we should NOT follow those (and David, as seen in the Psalms, was always willing to admit his failings and repent of them).

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Though I am not intimately familiar with all the details involved in the incidents you cited (I’m not a big follower of men; I instead prefer to try to follow the Bible and the teachings of God Himself), some quick research revealed some notable distinctions.

          The disagreements these men had with others dealt with the bad theology of those others. More specifically, Michael Servetus’ anti-Trinitarian views were incorrect and contrary to the Bible. And non-Messianic Jews have refused the teaching of the Messiah that their God sent to them. So the the men you cited are theologically correct in their opposition to un-Biblical teachings. What they were wrong about was the manner in which those errors should be dealt with. You didn’t see Christ or any of his apostles administering capital punishment for various moral and theological error; those in error were verbally condemned (as they should be, for the benefit of others who might not know better), then left to God to deal with regarding punishment.

          Meanwhile, a homosexual Christian (and I’m presuming here that we’re NOT talking about a Christian who struggles with the sin of homosexual behavior while understanding that it is a sin and wrestles to be free of his desire for this sin, but rather someone who calls himself a Christian even as he denies what God has clearly stated multiple times in both Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is an abhorrent sin)-especially one who is vocal in his heresy (and that’s what it is, to make a theological claim that is clearly in complete opposition to what the Bible plainly says) is not merely wrong in how to react to the sin of others, but is actively promoting sin as something morally upright in the eyes of God.

          Put another way, we can laud the correct moral truths taught by a man and at the same time condemn his excesses and errors in how he reacts to the sins of others. Someone who calls themselves Christian while teaching others that something God has said is BAD is GOOD? Isaiah 5:20 addresses that. And you’ll typically find that someone who is so morally upside-down as to teach that something God has clearly condemned is “good’ is usually profoundly wrong in many other areas as well, so there is little of a redeeming nature to praise about such a person.

          So with the men you mentioned, there was right teaching with wrong reaction, where the “homosexual Christian” is teaching something that is not only wrong, but encourages others to do wrong. There is moral error in both camps, but the gravity of the error is much greater in the latter, without much if anything to redeem that error.

          But shifting gears a bit, what is particularly “interesting” here is that not one of the men you mentioned here was lauded or even cited in the article.

          In fact, one of the things Dean is critical of is Christians who won’t condemn sin in the public square because it’s “political.” Ironically, the Left loves to criticize Christians for “imposing their religion on others” (i.e. what was known for over 200 years in America as “being a good citizen”). Yet anti-semitism and other racism (issues the Left loves to try to demagogue) tends to be “political” and in the public square.

          Christians being involved in the public square is what produced the American Revolution in the first place (the American Revolution was often known as the Presbyterian Revolution in Great Britain, because of the large number of Presbyterians who fueled the fires of revolution because the crown’s behavior was contrary to Natural Law and God’s principles)-and the American Revolution was the single greatest step forward in liberty and civil rights in the last 6,000 years. It was Christian abolitionists who strove to rid our nation of slavery. It was Christians who fought for the full rights of black Americans up to and through the “political” involvement of men like Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

          Since the point of this entire article is about condemning the hypocrisy and the disengagement of church people from the evils of society, it seems pretty transparent that Christians just can’t win with you.

          If they get involved or there is a call for them to get involved, you and other liberals condemn them because some Christians in the past have experienced moral failures (and, of course, we know the Left doesn’t want Christians to sully the public square by bringing their values beyond the four walls of the church building). Yet if Christians don’t engage in fighting the evils in society (i.e. slavery, racial discrimination, etc.) you would (rightfully) condemn them as cowards and worthless windbags.

          With liberals, Christians just can’t seem to win. The Left seems to expect Christians to be a light of moral purity for society (which the should), yet when Christians try to do that, they are condemned for (a) “trying to impose their beliefs on others” (something the Left does every single day, but let’s forget about that), and (b) not being 100% morally perfect (which few on the Left even think about trying).

          The hypocrisy and dichotomy is truly amazing.

          • GowithGod

            Well said and spot on, Bob Ellis!