Winfried Seibert - The girl that could not be named Esther

We reject the false teaching that the church, which is the source of the word of God and the source of its teaching, can and must recognize other events and powers, figures and truths as God’s revelation...

We reject the false teaching that there are areas of our lives in which not Jesus Christ but other lords are sovereign, areas in which we do not need Him for salvation and healing...

We reject the false teaching that the church should turn over the shape of its mission and its order to the discretion of others, or that it should turn over such definition to the currently ruling world view and political outlook of others...

We reject the false teaching that the church may with human arrogance place the word and the works of the Lord in the service of arbitrary wishes, goals, and plans chosen in some high-handed manner... 24 › Reference

The conflict was now an open one with the authority of the Hitler regime. The way led to the Memorandum of the Confessing Church to the Fuehrer and the German chancellor on May 28, 1936. The memorandum complained about the many forms of dechristianizing being carried on by the state. It criticized the idolatrous reverence for the Fuehrer. About the anti-Semitism in the National Socialist view of the world, the memo had this to say:

If blood, race, national traditions, and honor achieve the status of eternal values, the Evangelical Christian is forced by the First Commandment to reject this mode of thinking. While others glorify the Aryan human, the word of God testifies to the sinfulness of all men.

If Christians are required by the National Socialist world view to adopt anti-Semitism and are required to hate the Jews, this is opposed by the Christian commandment to ‘Love thy neighbor’. 25 › Reference

The closing words of the declaration betray an oppressive taste of the prevailing atmosphere. It was written and submitted to Hitler in 1936, two months before the beginning of the Summer Olympic Games on August 1, which would gather the youth of the world in Berlin and which were supposed to communicate and did communicate to them a spruced-up picture of the new German state. The memo ended with these words:

We ask for the freedom of our people to make their way into the future under the sign of the Cross of Jesus, so that our descendants will not curse their forefathers for having built and left behind a state on this earth while closing off to them the Kingdom of God.

The duty of our office requires us to say to the Fuehrer what we have said in this document.

The church stands in the hands of God. 26 › Reference

So that descendants will not curse their forefathers — Pastor Luncke could have preached that. That was his belief as well. Presumably, that is what determined the choice of a baptis-mal name for his daughter Esther. The external successes of the Third Reich, its widespread international recognition after the Olympics of 1936, the reunification with Austria in March 1938 and the practically unanimous approval of the union by the population — these did not change his negative attitude. The more the state accumulated power and external glory, the more strongly did Friedrich Luncke internalize his beliefs. When he chose his baptismal name for his daughter Esther, he consciously opposed the haughtiness of the state powers with the hymn to Christ from Paul’s letter to the Colossians: 27 › Reference

For in him all things were created,

in heaven and on earth,

visible and invisible,

whether thrones or dominions or

principalities or authorities —

all things were created through him and for him.

This confession of faith and the choice of the name Esther were one for the parents. They had decided on this name, which they found beautiful and appropriate. There was no family tradition to be sustained, either in the family of the pastor or in the family of his wife, of perpetuating the names of uncles or aunts, godparents or ancestors. In the choice of names, they were happily independent of such familiar constraints. They were free. Free to protest as well.

But were they really free?

Esther did not reveal her people or her kindred, for Mordecai had told her not to reveal it.

The Book of Esther, 2:10

Aert des Gelder, Esther and Mordecai, 1685

There could be no unlimited freedom in the choice of a name – that much was clear to the Lunckes as well. The concern for state orderliness took precedence. Names were not strictly a private affair.

Names have always been something special. In the beginning there were only first names; people had no need of anything more to distinguish themselves. In the Bible, which is the beginning of the history of names for us, the first people were named Adam — Hebrew for human being — and Eve (Khava), which can be translated as Mother of Living Beings or Creating Life. Many biblical names are dependent on the circumstances of the birth. Very often they are plays on words, which are lost in translation. In the telling of the story of the twins Jacob and Esau, the Bible ties together a double folk etymology. Jacob (ya-akov), Hebrew for May God protect us, at birth held on to the heel (akev) of his twin brother Esau: And they called him Yaakov, 28 › Referencethat is, one who grabs the heel. Esau, later tricked out of his right of the first-born and of his father’s blessing, complains to his father Isaac, and says, Was he then named Jacob that he might supplant [akav- deceive] me these two times? 29 › ReferenceAkav means deceiver. The two words sounded very similar, something that allowed Esau a bitter play on words with the names. Later, after wrestling with God — I will not let you go unless you bless me — Jacob received the name Israel, which can mean he who struggles with God. 30 › ReferenceThe name Sarah, which cannot be skipped here, stands for princess or mistress. More on that later.

In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary and announces to her that she will bear a son, whom you shall name Jesus. 31 › ReferenceIn Hebrew this name was Yeshua, with the letter “Y” becoming “J” in English. Jeshua, Jehoshua, Joshua, or Josua — all mean God (Yahweh) helps. We will meet this name again as well.

In later periods names were supposed to be good for a healthy or lucky life. Wishes, hopes, magic, incantations – even today parents take all these into consideration when choosing names for their children. For the state, on the other hand, names principally have the function of distinguishing one individual from another. The state is interested in an orderly society. Given the large number of distinguishable family names, there must be order in given names as well.

Up to the middle of 1938 this was administered relatively liberally. According to section 1627 of the Civil Code, the father had parental power and with it the right to determine the given name of his child. There were no legal limitations on the choice of names. The only limitation lay in the old principle that given names should not be offensive to customs and order; they could not be senseless, ridiculous, or offensive. 32 › ReferenceIt was in the interest of the children to put certain reins on any parental naming fantasy that got out of hand.

There were always attempts by some parents to show their political preferences or their patriotic spirit in the choice of names for their children. Bismarck as a given name was acceptable. 33 › ReferenceThere was an amusing story about this. When Bismarck was still alive — he was then 70 years old — a Livonian (now part of Estonia) named Trampeldang had applied to the chancellor with the request to be allowed to name his first-born son Bismarck. Bismarck had approved, adding the personal comment, If heaven should bestow on me at my advanced aged another son, I will not miss the opportunity to let him be baptized with the name Trampeldang. 34 › ReferenceLassaline (after Ferdinand Lassalle, considered the father of German Socialism) was approved as a girl’s name in 1912. 35 › ReferenceInadequate regulations led to remarkable flights of fancy. Quite often such names turned out to be a burden for the children, who subsequently requested a name change.