1 PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION

Commentators on the attitude of the Churches in certain lands frequently contradict one another. Some Christians, such as Rev. Niemoeller and Rev. Buskes for instance, pass a severe verdict on the Churches and include themselves also. It seems to me that at least one Jewish commentator gives too positive a picture about the attitude of the population in his country, Greece. He may, consciously or unconsciously, have tried not to embarrass the people amongst whom he still lived when he wrote his book. But also the opinion of a Christian that “the hundreds of thousands of Jews that escaped the doom decreed for them owed their survival more to the rescue activities of individuals and private groups, above all the Churches, than to governmental resistance policy” , seems to me too favourable.

It must be difficult for Jews who know of anti-Semitic actions perpetrated by Church leaders throughout the centuries, and who personally suffered and lost their relatives in the holocaust, to believe that not merely a few “righteous of all Nations” but also Churches publicly and unequivocally spoke out against Hitler’s murderous anti-Semitism. On the other hand, Christians are in danger of trying to whitewash the Church and ignoring the many instances when the Church failed. We all tend to forget our failures and to remember our victories.

Some commentators tend to forget how the actual situation was in those days. Indeed, it is difficult even for people who themselves lived through it, to project themselves back into the time when Hitler seemed all-powerful. Moreover, we now have the benefit of living after the events, and thus we know many facts, which were not generally known in those days.

It seems unbelievable now, but in the summer of 1940, when some people somewhere in the Netherlands formed a resistance group, their leader stated that the British would not liberate us before Christmas 1940, and everybody present felt sorely disappointed. This kind of unwarranted optimism was fostered by many people throughout the war, and thus they underestimated the danger to the Jews and believed that, if German action against them could be delayed by some kind of compromise, much, and perhaps all, would be won. Many people in occupied Europe, in Great Britain and in the United States thought, that the information about the gas-chambers was “atrocity propaganda”. The President of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. stated, on May 1, 1943: “What is happening to the Jews on the Continent of Europe is so horrible that we are in danger of assuming that it is exaggerated” . We quote the following from “Unity in Dispersion”:

“The undertaking was so staggering that, until the revelation about the Maidanek camp, a majority of the people in the United States as well as in England dismissed the facts of extermination as ’atrocity mongering’... It should be conceded, as extenuating circumstances, that never before in history had states descended to such depths of bad faith, deceit, and treachery as did Germany and some of her satellites in their resolve to murder. In 1942, tens of thousands of Polish Jews volunteered for cunningly disguised ‘resettlement’ and agricultural work in the territories recently conquered by the Germans in the East, and thus entered of their own accord on a road at the end of which destruction awaited them.”

The Germans tried to deceive the victims about their aims as well as the people amongst whom these victims lived, and they succeeded in this to a considerable extent. They had, in occupied Europe, all the instruments of mass communication, such as press and radio, at their disposal. All these and other factors are mentioned in “Unity in Dispersion” in order to explain to some extent “the failure of organized Jewry to halt or even to slow down the most terrible catastrophe in Jewish history”. Much of it is, mutatis mutandis, also applicable to “organized Christianity”.

On the other hand, when the true facts became known, there was danger mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury: “It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened... There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about.”

We now are in danger of forgetting that so many other problems burdened people in those days. The British people were fighting their life-and-death struggle against the Third Reich, but were free. In the occupied countries, many young people were sent to Germany for compulsory labour; food was rationed and became more and more scarce. People went out in the night to cut wood illegally as there was hardly any fuel.

One cannot understand what happened in occupied Europe without remembering these things; neither can one understand, without realising the power of human egoism and the will to survive. No one who has never really been hungry, nor has been deprived of his liberty, can understand what it meant in practice to “love one’s neighbour” during the Second World War. The persecution of the Jews was not the only challenge confronting the Churches in those days, though we only now can perceive better that it was the most important one. The list of steps taken by the Churches in the Netherlands shows the type of problems which faced the Churches: intercession in church services for the Queen; arrest of pastors; suppression of the Church press; compulsory labour for youth; requisition of church bells; deportation of labourers to Germany; closing down of the Bible Society; ban on Church conferences; death sentences: plea for mercy; deportation of students, and national-socialist education in Christian schools.

We tend now to underestimate the power of the Hitlerite terror. It has been said that all the Dutch should have blocked the railways with their own bodies, thus preventing the deportation of the Jews, because Hitler could not have murdered the entire Dutch population. I do not doubt that he could have and he would have done precisely that.

It is not surprising then that many lay members of the Church and Church leaders were afraid, and therefore failed to fulfil their duties. Gerstein said, in Rolf Hochhuth’s play: “A Christian in these days cannot survive if he is truly Christian”. Dr. Banning said: “If the Church had fully exercised the obedience of faith, no pastor or priest would have come out alive.

But the greatness of the risks matched the appalling need to help: the Germans committed genocide. Whenever the Church remained silent in view of the holocaust, it was guilty. “Nevertheless a crime of such magnitude falls in no small measure to the responsibility of those witnesses who never cried out against it whatever the reason for their silence.” Therefore, all the considerations mentioned above cannot exempt Churches, Christians or non-Christians, though they can help us to be fairer in our judgment.

One is sometimes in danger of becoming irritated by people who did not stand the test themselves, and yet claim to know exactly what should have been said and done. There recently appeared a book in which the author sharply criticizes much what was done, or was not done, during the German occupation of the Netherlands. He himself took a very active part in the struggle. Perhaps that is the reason why his criticism is not without compassion, and that it is to a large extent self-criticism. In order to understand how difficult it was to risk one’s life or even freedom on behalf of others, one had to have been in it oneself.

I, who am now living in Israel, have sometimes, when lecturing on the subject, invited my audience to imagine for a moment that (God forbid!) some foreign power should occupy the land of Israel, say in the year 1980; and that this foreign power should deport many Jews for compulsory labour abroad, and also ration all food supplies, but that the Jewish part of the population should not risk their lives when complying with the demands of the enemy; that, however, the Christian minority in Israel should be deported and exterminated; that they should be deprived of their ration cards, that their identity cards should be stamped with a C, and that they must wear a yellow badge in the form of a cross, in order to distinguish them as Christians.

I then asked the question: “would you be willing, in such a situation, to hide my wife, one of my children or me, who all look very “Aryan”, though you knew that, as in every community, you were in danger of being betrayed and in even greater danger of being given away by careless talk of other people? Or would you, if you were the Chief Rabbi, be prepared to denounce the anti-Christian measures publicly and unequivocally?”

2 FACTORS LEADING TO PUBLIC PROTESTS

There were many factors that led Churches to protest publicly. One of them is mentioned by the Executive Council of the Federal Council of Churches in the U.S.A. in 1941:

“No true Christian Can be anti-Semitic in thought, word or deed without being untrue to his own Christian heritance.”

But how often true Christians were untrue...

The National Council of the Reformed Church in France made a similar statement, in September, 1942, declaring:

“A Christian Church would lose its soul and the reason for its existence, were it not to maintain... the Divine law above human contingencies.”

The Bible (the Old as well as the New Testament) was frequently cited in the protests. This may appear strange to people who only knew that the New Testament was used as a source of anti-Semitic influence. The same applies, by the way, to the Old Testament. In my opinion, this use is quite indefensible. We list some of the texts cited in the protests:

“Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy. (Proverbs 31, 8-9).

Indirect reference, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, was made to Ezekiel 33, when the Church’s office as Watchman is mentioned.

“When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: if when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head... But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel...” (Ezekiel 33, 2-4, 6-7). “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7, 1). “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25, 40). “We ought to obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5, 29). “...and (God) hath made of one blood all the nations of men...” (Acts 17, 26). “There is neither Jew nor Greek...: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3, 28).

In addition to this, the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10, 30 37) was quoted. It was frequently pointed out, though the wordings differ, that Jesus was born a Jew.

With regard to the Churches in the Netherlands, it has been stated that “the moral implications of Christian doctrine motivated the resistance of the Churches”. Such a statement seems to me to oversimplify matters. I believe that the Christian doctrine (or rather: the teachings of the Bible) demanded the resistance of the Churches, but it is always possible to find convenient excuses to escape a challenge, as for example the opinion that the Church should not interfere in political matters.

I once tried to convince a devout Protestant (he was an elder of the Church) that he should hide a Jewish child, by reminding him that one day he would have to give account of his deeds to the Supreme Judge. The man, who certainly could have hidden that child (he had a large farm) flatly refused, not because he denied that he would have to give account of his deeds, but because he was afraid, too afraid to hide the child. I pointed out to him that he should rather fear God and not man, but my words simply had no effect.

Christian teaching did not work in this case, though that does not mean that it did not work in other cases. Chief Rabbi Safran spoke to the Rumanian Patriarch Nicodemus of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge , and in this case it worked, though there were probably other motivations as well.

Everybody’s decisions are also motivated by the principles to which he adheres, and thus a Christian’s decisions are influenced by Christian principles, though it must be admitted that mostly there are many other influences and motivations, probably more than the person who makes a decision, realizes.
The whole matter of the attitude of the Churches during the war was once discussed at a conference, and one of the speakers began by expressing as his opinion that Hitler and Eichmann were Christians, but later on he said that Mr. Johannes Bogaard, one of the “righteous of all Nations” who saved many Jews and whose father, brother and son were murdered by the Germans, was “just a courageous Dutchman”.

I happen to know Mr. Bogaard very well and I am convinced that he acted as he did during the war, primarily because he is a committed Christian. Of course this does not alter the fact that many Christians did not do very much, if anything, on behalf of their neighbours, the Jews; nor should it be denied that many non-Christians did do what they could, out of national, socialist, humanist or communist convictions.

The same applies to the attitudes of a community. A member of a left wing kibbutz stated his views very clearly to me, and I know that many people hold views similar to his:

“Allow me to express my position which is based on dialectical materialism. The Protestant Churches were active everywhere according to the local circumstances, first of all according to the nature of the people amongst whom they lived. The Churches did not act in a vacuum. For instance, in the countries of Western-Europe, such as Holland, Norway and Denmark, where the ‘final solution’ met with the resistance of all sections of the population, the courageous stand of those nations found its vehement expression in the attitude of the different Churches. The non-Roman Catholic Churches merely reflected the opinion and reactions of the people.”

It seems to me that there is more than a grain of truth in such a view and certainly no Church ever acted in a vacuum. Much in the protests issued by Churches in countries such as Bulgaria and Greece, points to nationalist rather than to spiritual-Christian considerations. Reading and analysing the contents of the statements may be of some help when assessing the motivations of Christians and groups of Christians who resisted the persecution of Jews.

If, however, one indeed believes that everything can be explained by the influences of local circumstances etc., one should be consistent and stop holding Churches responsible for acts of anti-Semitism committed by Churches or by people professing to be Christians throughout the ages, for in such a case they were also “merely reflecting the opinion and reactions of the people amongst whom they lived”. In the case of such a rigid determinism, it seems difficult to hold anyone anywhere responsible for his acts and decisions.

In my opinion we are all influenced by the people amongst whom we live, by social circumstances and by many other factors. We are all subject to a kind of mimicry, but that does not necessarily mean that we are just chameleons and nothing else. Churches are certainly influenced, just like any other group of people, by circumstances and surroundings, but they on their part influence these circumstances and surroundings. There is interplay of factors.

Similar to the opinion mentioned above is the viewpoint that Churches always tend to support the Establishment. The United States and Great Britain were at war with Germany, and the Churches participated in the crusade against the enemy. The same applies to Churches in occupied Europe, even when their own Government was in exile. I think that the Old Testament already gives us many examples of organized religion supporting the Establishment, but it also gives us some instances when religious leaders (the prophets!) refused to do so.

It is doubtful whether the British Government was pleased with the Church’s protest against the pogroms of the “Crystal Night”, just after the Munich agreement. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech in the House of Lords and the Bishop of Chichester’s letters to The Times, in 1943, must have embarrassed political leaders who were of the opinion that the main object was to win the war, and that attempts to rescue Jews were of less importance.

The Swiss Churches could hardly be accused of supporting the Establishment, when they protested against the decision of the Swiss Government to return refugees to Nazi Germany who had illegally entered Switzerland. Similar examples can be given regarding the United States, Sweden and other lands. The little that was said by the “Confessing Church” in Germany on behalf of the Jews was certainly not in support of the Establishment. A Church must try to be the conscience of nation and Government, even though this may mean that its leaders have to speak out against the seeming interests of their nation. Churches frequently failed to do so, but we should refrain from generalizing.

Whenever Churches were conscious of belonging to a worldwide fellowship, this contributed to their making a stand against anti-Semitism.

Church leaders in the Netherlands followed the struggle of the “Confessing Church” in Germany, and were on the alert when they were challenged themselves. The Church in Sweden was moved to protest by the statement issued by the Church of Norway. Church leaders in Hungary realized, when they did not carry their protest before the Hungarian public, that this course would “incur... the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches” and stated that, if their intervention proved ineffective, they would be obliged “to testify before the congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world that we did not suppress the message of God”. Many of the Church leaders who took a clear stand, knew one another personally. In view of the attempts of the Germans to deceive world opinion as to their ultimate aims concerning the Jews, and in view of the tendency to dismiss reports about what was going on as “atrocity propaganda”, the importance of the information given by the World Council of Churches through its Press Service and by other means can hardly be overestimated. The need to combine efforts and thus break through denominational barriers in order to come to a joint stand, was understood in some countries. In the Netherlands, Protestants and Roman Catholics began a new chapter in their relationship by protesting together. In France and Hungary there was consultation between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but it is to be regretted that they did not achieve a common front.

Sometimes there existed close contact between Christian and Jewish leaders, as for example in the United States, in Great Britain, in Bulgaria and between the leaders of the World Council of Churches and the World Jewish Congress, in Geneva. Thus, again, information about what was going on was communicated and action could be co-ordinated.

The negative implication is also clear: whenever a spirit of particularism, provincialism and isolationism was strong in a Church, it did not fulfil its duty toward the persecuted Jews.

3 RESULTS

In order to ascertain the practical effects that could be expected from steps taken by the Churches, the political and geographical position of the countries concerned, as well as the time factor, must be born in mind. Where there was a national Government, as was the case in Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, protests had a better chance of some success than in countries under direct Nazi control. Yet even then what Jeno Levai stated about Hungary was sometimes true:

“The Church was not in a position to promise or to threaten. Thus, in spite of their very best intentions, they could obtain only very little. Naturally this little meant life to the persons concerned.”

Typical were the differences between the Scandinavian countries: Sweden was neutral; Finland was an ally of the Germans; Denmark was occupied but it had its own King and was officially not even in a state of war with Germany; Norway’s King had fled and the infamous Quisling had become Prime Minister.

Geography also played an important rôle. The Jews in the Netherlands were in a deadly trap; Hungary was, at least for some time, a place of refuge for Jews in the neighbouring countries; Jews in Denmark and Norway had a chance to flee to Sweden and the Jews in France and Italy to Switzerland, in so far as that country was willing to admit them. The time persecution began was a vital factor. The earlier it started, the smaller the chance of saving at least some lives. It should be noted that these three factors were utterly unfavourable in Germany. It is difficult to assess the range of influence of any Church. Figures have been given about membership in Appendix II, but one must remember that many Churches have a high percentage of nominal members who, perhaps since their baptism, never attended a church service. Therefore it can be misleading to read that there were forty-five million Protestants in Germany, or, that 96,2 per cent of the population of Norway are members of the State Church. Only 5 per cent of the members of the Norwegian Church regularly attend Sunday services. In many other countries the situation is similar.

Many people who were not church goers may never even have known about the protests of the Church, and this is especially true of occupied Europe in those days, for there the Church could only speak from the pulpits, not through press and radio. Moreover, many nominal Christians are influenced by other outlooks on life, rather than by the Christian faith. However, when press and radio were silenced and the Church alone could voice an open and public protest, it met with the response of many people who were outside the fold. Church services were better attended than in times of peace. The former editor-in-chief of the Dutch communist daily De Waarheid relates that he went to a church service in those days:

That church meant something to us in those black days, were it only to listen to the prayer of a man, who dared make a public address on behalf of the people tortured in the concentration camps.
I myself belong to the persons who, in those days, found their way back to the fold, attracted as we were by the Church’s spiritual resistance to the Nazis.

When attempting to assess the practical results of steps taken by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of the Jews, we distinguish between countries under German occupation, countries under a satellite government, neutral countries, and countries that were at war with Germany. In countries under German occupation, efforts made by the Churches had hardly any direct practical result for the Jews in general. Personal intervention did not help or, at best, could only cause some delay in the déportations. The only step that had some effect on the Germans (as we now know!) was the issuing of a public protest.

Again it was evident, that the German authorities did not fear or have any step taken by the Churches as much as their protests which were read from the pulpits. Letters of protest they could throw in the dustbin or file away. They could listen to oral protests without taking them to heart. But they tried in every way to prevent public protests (in those days the only form of public protest), fearing their effect upon the people."

The most effective protests were those, which clearly encouraged the faithful to help the Jews. Others called for non-cooperation with the Germans, and this had at least some result.

Six Roman Catholic police-agents at Utrecht informed their chief on February 24, 1943, that on the grounds of a pastoral letter read in their church on February 21, they would have to refuse if ordered to arrest Jews. Their chief threatened to dismiss them without pension and said that “those who do not announce their intended refusal and yet have the impudence to carry it out will be considered saboteurs, with all the serious consequences. The Germans immediately tried to arrest these agents but they had gone into hiding. The Germans then arrested their wives and children.”
Generally speaking, the positive indirect effect of public protests was, that it counteracted the attempts of the Germans to separate and isolate the Jews from the non-Jewish population, in order to break their will to resist deportation and annihilation. It is impossible to count the lives saved through the activities of the Churches in the occupied territories. I agree with the opinion of Dr. Visser ’t Hooft:

“So far we have only spoken of public protests. But were these protests implemented by deeds? The answer is that they were, though by no means as generally as ought to have been the case. The full story of Christian assistance to the Jews in their hour of great need will never be fully told, for in many cases individuals acted quietly and behind the scenes.”

In the countries under a satellite government, actions undertaken by the Churches were of some and sometimes even of much avail. Concerning the neutral countries, the steps and protests of the Churches in Switzerland contributed to the relaxation of measures against the refugees , and in Sweden the Lutheran Archbishop encouraged his government to broadcast its willingness to take in the Jews of Denmark. It is difficult to assess how far the protests of the Churches in countries that were at war with Germany had a practical effect. They apparently helped to combat anti-Semitic influences in these countries (the same applies to protests issued in the countries mentioned above) and they contributed towards “breaking the wall of silence.”
“The world wide public, overburdened with the issues and the incidents of a world conflict fraught with the gravest consequences, was not receptive to reports which it was ready to dismiss as propaganda tales; besides, the facts were hidden from it, not withstanding persistent endeavours by the (World Jewish) Congress to keep it informed. A wall of secrecy concealed the terrible tragedy... The main difficulty was how to convince public opinion and induce the Allied Governments to act. The battles of World War II raged fiercely on three continents, the onslaught of barbarity was nowhere decisively checked, the democratic nations feverishly tried to overcome their unprepared ness for a conflict of such dimensions. The Governments in Exile were chiefly concerned with the sufferings of their nations as a whole.”

The pressure exerted by Jewish and Christian leaders on their Governments did not, however, result in effective rescue activities being undertaken by these Governments.

It has been suggested that the protests from the Churches mostly came too late, and thus fell flat. This is partly true. The Protestant leaders in Hungary did speak out very late, and Bishop Wurm of Württemberg sent his letters when there only remained a chance of doing something for the “privileged” Jews.

On the other hand, Churches or Church leaders in Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States began to protest in 1933. The Churches in the Netherlands protested at the very beginning of the German attacks on the Dutch Jews, in 1940. The Church of Denmark had prepared a public protest before the déportations started.

It is, however, necessary to keep the dates of protests in mind, in order to arrive at a fair evaluation of the moral courage which such protests required. After Hitler’s defeat at Stalingrad, at the end of 1942, and the defeat of Rommel at El-Alamein, it became more and more clear that Germany would lose the war. The measure of success is in itself no yardstick for the moral value of a deed. One can hardly say that Church leaders in Rumania behaved better than Church leaders in, for instance, the Netherlands, because the former, contrary to the latter, actually succeeded in saving many lives.

To this it must be added, however, that the seeming absence of any chance of success could not be an excuse for maintaining silence or for doing nothing against the terror of the Nazis. Prince William the Silent is said to have stated that it is not necessary to hope in order to try, nor to succeed in order to persevere.

4 HELP TO CHRISTIANS OF JEWISH ORIGIN

Apart from the 500,000 Jews who registered as members of their community in 1933, there were some 50,000 Jews in Germany who no longer belonged to the Jewish community. Though born as Jews, they had been baptized. In addition, some 210,000 people had at least one Jewish parent, and another 80,000 one Jewish grandparent; thus a total of some 340,000 people in Germany were, in addition to the “full Jews”, affected by racial legislation.

Until the end of the year 1938, Christian leaders and Churches tended to stress the necessity of helping Christian refugees of Jewish origin, rather than calling for help for Jews in general. A notable exception to this rule was the Appeal of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, in 1933, to help “Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees”. During the war, Churches in countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary and the Netherlands, instituted steps to protect their members of Jewish origin. It can hardly be denied that it was the right as well as the duty of the Churches to do so, but more than once the Churches were tempted to try and save their own members while neglecting the Jews in general. The announcement read from the pulpits of the Hungarian Protestant churches, on July 16, 1944, is significant:

“The Bishops... wish to inform the congregations that in connection with the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities...”
A comment on the “Confessing Church” in Germany is:

“The Church took up the cudgels for the baptized Jews and that meant to the average churchgoer that the unbaptized Jew, i.e. the Jew as such, was left to the devil.”

Church leaders in the Netherlands regarded the issue as a temptation:

“Great dangers and temptations threatened continually. From the German side came the voice of the tempter: ‘do not protest; only negotiate’. ’Do not speak on behalf of the Jews any more; then we shall be lenient to the Christians of Jewish origin.’... It is a great miracle that, in general, the Church recognized these voices as coming from the tempter, and boldly rejected the temptation.”

That these questions were very difficult indeed, becomes clear from the following comment of Herzberg:

“The baptized Jews [in the Netherlands], who were able to save their lives, owed this exclusively to the resistance of the Churches, a resistance which was especially impressive because of the principles by which it was motivated.”

Quite different, however, is the sharp verdict of Presser:

“And the Churches (in the Netherlands)? With what hesitation did they begin their resistance? How many were there, unfortunately, who were resigned to the fatal decrees of the occupying power, even appealing to texts in the Bible, and actually helping to carry out the decrees. How many times did they stand up only on behalf of baptized Jews and not on behalf of others.”

It makes a difference, whether Churches on their own initiative stressed the importance they attached to the fate of Christians of Jewish origin, or were forced into a compromise by the tactics of the Germans. The latter was the case when the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH failed to read the telegram of protest publicly in the church services. The Protestant Christians of Jewish origin in the Netherlands indeed survived. We should not pass judgment lightly and we must realize that we now have the benefit of being after the events, Church leaders in those days were not always aware of the fact that the Germans, who offered not to deport the Christians of Jewish origin, were not just making a concession, but were also providing themselves with a means of exerting further pressure on the Churches. It is most regrettable that on several occasions certain Churches interpreted the saying “charity begins at home” as they did.

5 “MERCY-BAPTISMS”

Christian clergymen in many lands were prepared to baptize Jews if the ceremony of baptism meant that lives could be saved. The following is related of the Lutheran Church in Slovakia:

“Many Jews who tried to escape persecution sought rescue by giving up their religion and by requesting to be received into the Evangelical Church, for the Catholic Church did not receive them. The Evangelical Church did not refuse them, which was an act of courage in those days, but enabled them to become members of the Church... Here some examples follow: In 1940, 20 persons, most of them adults, became Christians in Bratislava. For the year 1941 the number was 83; for the first half of the year 1942: 47 persons; for the second half: 7.828 persons were admitted in 1943; only 2 in 1944. In Horne Zelenice (near Hlohovec), 169 persons became Christians in 1942; 39 in 1943; in 1945 only one. In Frencin 120 persons; in Kochanovce (near Treucin) 45; in Banska Bystrica, 202 persons became Christians in 1942. This help aroused the anger of the rulers, of the Gestapo and of the Hlinka Guard. They began to arrest Evangelical Christians and pastor pastors were sent to the concentration camps in Germany. Joseph Bucko, minister at Martine, perished in the camp.”

It is reported that in Bulgaria,

“... Ministers of various Christian denominations engaged in mass ’mercy baptisms’; several of them were removed from office because of this (one of these ministers, with a community of about 200 souls, managed to baptize 200 additional persons between January 1 and September 1, 1940). High dignitaries of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church declared that ’conversion to Christianity’ and ‘formal baptism’ were two different acts, the first of which necessarily preceded the second, sometimes by a considerable period; because the law spoke of conversion and not of baptism having to have taken place before September 1, 1940, Jews baptized later could also be saved if the minister declared that they had expressed their will to adopt Christianity before that date. Many courts accepted this reasoning. In this way, a number of baptized Jews and offspring of mixed marriages escaped the provision of the law.”

The following is quoted from the testimony of Richard Simantov:

“... It must be admitted that, with a few exceptions, all the Christian religious institutions [in Bulgaria], as also their clergy, behaved with sympathy towards the Jewish victims of the anti-Jewish legislation. When issuing the required legal documents to the Christian Jew, the clerk of the court or the judge himself interrogated the priest, whether he had indeed carried out all the religious formalities, and how long the teaching of the catechism had lasted for the person of Jewish origin concerned. The priest would always reply in the affirmative and would declare that the man had received instruction for 3, 4 or 5 months, and that he regularly attended church services etc., although often these documents, which were issued by the Church, were given only in exchange for a payment, without the ceremony having been performed...”

We have the following particulars about Greece :

“Many tried to evade the racial laws through baptism. More than 500 Jews embraced the Orthodox religion; some scores preferred to become Catholics. it was clear that it was not out of conviction that these Jews entered into the Church. It was well-known, that only the desire to escape persecution moved them to seek refuge in the shadow of the cross. Out of compassion, the priests did not hesitate to accept the new converts. They were on friendly terms with them in different ways. Out of noble feelings and not in order to receive a reward, the priests also distributed baptismal certificates to Jews who had never attended a church service...”

The biographer of the Archbishop of Athens, Damaskinos, relates:

“Later on, when the persécutions started affecting the Jews of Athens, the Archbishop decided on the following measures. He summoned the Director General of the Administrative Services of the Community of Athens, Mr. P. Haldezos, and said to him: “I have made the sign of the cross and have spoken to God, and have decided to save as many Jews as I can, even though I run a great risk. I am going to baptize them, and you must give certificates enabling them to obtain the identity cards of Christian Greeks. Mr. Haldezos agreed to this. With the help of a Municipal official, they opened a register wherein they registered 560 Jews as Christians, all of whom were saved. There was no treachery.”

Rev. J.J. Buskes discussed the considerations, which led clergymen in the Netherlands to provide Jews with false certificates of Baptism:

“We are well aware that many pastors had conscientious objections to giving forged baptismal certificates. But, thank God, there were other ministers who had conscientious objections about not doing so. Such a certificate was, of course, false. But the man who wrote it out and gave it to a Jew, did service to the truth and helped his neighbour. The one, however, who would not write it and thus refused help to a Jew, served falsehood and failed the Jew. There is a truth which is like a lie and there is a lie which is like the truth. God commanded us to lie in the service of the truth. Not the end, but the obedience to God’s commandment (to love our neighbour as ourselves) justified the means. Thus the humble and scrupulous Dr. Oorthuis wrote in a pamphlet of the underground movement: even forged passports can be safe-conducts from the Lord, and stolen ration cards be gifts of mercy from God, which we accept with Thanksgiving.”

Many people may feel horrified when reading the views of Rev. Buskes. The same author stated in another publication:

“If I can save a man whose life is threatened by a scoundrel by saying to that scoundrel that two and two make five, I shall say so to him, in obedience to the ninth commandment. In such a case I am even prepared to declare that two and two make ten.”

A personal friend of mine, who is a devout Christian, took the oath declaring that a child in his house was not Jewish but his own child born out of wedlock. He saved the child. People who are horrified at such behaviour, probably never lived under German occupation. At any rate, they should remember St. Paul’s saying: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law”.

In my opinion, it was morally permissible and even laudable to baptize Jews in those days in order to save their lives, as long as it was mutually understood that this was in order to deceive the persecutors and that the baptism in fact was invalid.