These same arguments try and suggest the Emergent Church and particularly the Environmental movement are somehow philosophical heirs of Nazism, or at the very least flow from the same source.
While these movements are certainly worthy of critique, these arguments made by some well known figures in Conservative political and ecclesiastical circles are simply false and reveal either a real ignorance of the issues and history or worse, a deliberate attempt to mislead.
We don't need to twist history to advance our causes. Tell the truth.
But unfortunately when the Gospel is politicized, reflection and nuance are not effective tools. The goal isn't knowledge and understanding.
The goal is to win. And if that means crafting a somewhat dubious historical narrative, then there are many who are more than happy to do it.
I'm not sure if it's a deliberate counter-tactic or the result of genuine intellectual investigation but I've noticed a trend in Conservative Christian circles that seeks to link certain Liberal trends with the Fascism of Nazi Germany.
This may be due to the fact that some members of the Left have
marked certain emphases in American Right-Wing ideology as sharing some basic characteristics
with Fascism. Is this a case of the Right trying to deflect the argument, of striking
back?
Basically they try and reach back to some of the philosophical
foundations and influences of Nazism and then tie them in with certain popular intellectual
trends of today.
For example, they will point to modern Relativism in our
society, the rejection of absolute truth and argue this same current was at
work in the philosophical thought of thinkers like Kant and Hegel. They had
some influence on the Nazis, therefore they see a connection.
It is universally acknowledged that German Idealism and some
aspects of the Romantic Movement influenced what would later become Fascism.
This is not to say that Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche were Fascists.
Rather this acknowledgement suggests that their ideas influenced and merged
with other trends that would become the ideology of the Nazi Party.
To amalgamate all these movements and find them collectively
guilty of the Third Reich's sins is to put it simply, a falsehood.
Recently I encountered another piece that seemed to reason
that since Romanticism influenced German Fascism and also (in some sense) was the
philosophical precursor of our modern Green movements... then we had better
watch out, because the Environmentalists of today will in fact become
Totalitarians like the Nazis. This is usually followed by some pretty
incredible leaps of logic regarding elder euthanasia and the gas chambers.
These arguments are flawed on many levels but for those
unfamiliar with the subject matter they may seem plausible or even probable. If
you add in confirmation bias which has become both dominant and morally
justified in Christian circles, then many will be stirred and affected by these
appeals to history.
To put it simply, these arguments are confusing some basic
ideas and are guilty of over-generalization. Often they're just dishonest and I
must wonder if some who are promulgating them actually know this?
For example, was Hegel actually advocating moral relativism?
He was, but the nature of what we might call Hegelian relativism is markedly
different from the relativism that's running rampant in our culture.
Hegel believed that truth was arrived at through a
historical process. He expanded Kant's ideas and believed this was a collective
enterprise. Societies and people groups arrived at the truth and perfect moral
models through the dialectic process. His relativism viewed the truth as being
tied to historical progress.
Morality was rooted in the collective, in the people and it
was a process of enlightenment and growth. This is not to say progressive as in
liberal, but progressive in the sense that collective humanity was discovering
the truth through history, moving toward a universal reality that would open
the mind of humanity etc...
There are perhaps hints of this in our popular dialogue when
we hear people speak of 'being on the wrong side of history'. It's this idea
that certain ideas are being left behind. Although to be honest when that
phrase is being used I doubt they have Hegel in mind. Basically they're saying
that we crossed certain bridges, slavery or Civil Rights and that to go back is
to cross over a bridge that was already burned.
Romanticism sought to find meaning in the cold calculating
world of Enlightenment industrial society and wanted a return to primal
impulses, old ideas, deep feelings and connections with nature that had been
lost and destroyed by modern society. They (thanks in part to Mary Shelley) viewed
modern society as a Frankenstein monster. Were they environmentalists? Perhaps
in a primitive sense. Their ideas approached what we might call
Environmentalism but their road in getting there is totally different.
They weren't approaching this scientifically as our modern
Environmental movement does. For them this was a deep visceral spiritual
exercise. This was rejecting the structures of modern life. They embraced
concepts like the sublime which are not really present in modern Environmental
thinking. They viewed the Middle Ages as containing a beauty and wonder that
had been lost.
There are some similarities but only on a surface level.
Modern environmentalism is concerned with science, it views
the world in a Materialist and often Utilitarian framework. This is actually
the opposite of what the Romantics were about. The Romantics were closer to
Pantheism and mysticism.
Some will say isn't all the Gaia worship essentially
Pantheist? It is for some, but most environmentalists aren't approaching it
that way at all. Mainstream Environmentalism and Green political movements are
avowedly secular and scientific in their worldviews.
With regard to ethical Relativism, our modern society is
probably more influenced by individualistic Existentialism than the currents of
German Idealism that helped influence Nazi ideas about the Volk.
Sure the Nazis built on Hegel's ideas, capitalized on some
of the Romantic currents about the land and the nation. Romanticism in a
political context often led to Nationalism, but love of nation can also spring
from other sources.
The Romantic era was a period of re-capturing the past,
creating national costumes, erecting monuments, and revivals in architecture
and music. Artistically it was a rich period and one of my favourites in terms
of music and art, but within it were seeds that if put to evil use could bring
about violence.
GO TO PART 2
GO TO PART 2